{"collection":"myth-cosmogony","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_27829/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_27829","id":"gutenberg_27829","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/27829","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Religious","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Mythology","Religion -- History","Religions -- History","Rites and ceremonies"],"text":"Produced by Paul Murray, Turgut Dincer and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This\nfile was produced from images generously made available\nby the Biblioth\u00e8que nationale de France (BnF/Gallica) at\nhttp://gallica.bnf.fr)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n                +---------------------------------=\n                | Transcriber's note:             |\n                | Bold characters are surrounded  |\n                | by \"+\" sign.                    |\n                +---------------------------------+\n\n                             HANDBOOKS\n                              ON THE\n                       HISTORY OF RELIGIONS\n\n                             EDITED BY\n\n                     MORRIS JASTROW, JR., PH.D.\n\n            _Late Professor of Semitic Languages in the_\n                   _University of Pennsylvania_\n\n                             VOLUME IV\n\n\n                     LONDON: HUMPHREY MILFORD\n                      OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS\n\n\n               Handbooks on the History of Religions\n\n                        INTRODUCTION TO THE\n                        HISTORY OF RELIGIONS\n\n                                 BY\n                         CRAWFORD HOWELL TOY\n                LATE PROFESSOR IN HARVARD UNIVERSITY\n\n\n                              CAMBRIDGE\n                      HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS\n                                 1924\n\n                           COPYRIGHT, 1913\n\n                        BY CRAWFORD HOWELL TOY\n\n\n                         ALL RIGHTS RESERVED\n\n                         _Third Impression_\n\n\n               PRINTED AT THE HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS\n\n                       CAMBRIDGE, MASS., U.S.A.\n\n\n\n\n                              PREFACE\n\n\nThe object of this volume is to describe the principal customs and ideas\nthat underlie all public religion; the details are selected from a large\nmass of material, which is increasing in bulk year by year. References\nto the higher religions are introduced for the purpose of illustrating\nlines of progress.\n\nThe analytic table of contents and the index are meant to supplement\neach other, the one giving the outline of the discussion, the other\ngiving the more important particulars; the two together will facilitate\nthe consultation of the book. In the selected list of works of reference\nthe titles are arranged, as far as possible, in chronological order, so\nas to indicate in a general way the progress of investigation in the\nsubjects mentioned.\n\nMy thanks are due to the publishers for the care they have taken in the\nprinting of the volume, and to their proofreaders, particularly to the\nchief proofreader, for not a few helpful suggestions.\n\n   C. H. T.\n\n   CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS\n\n\n\n\n                               CONTENTS\n\n  (The Arabic figures in the chapter summaries refer to paragraphs)\n\n                                                                  PAGE\n\n  CHAPTER I. NATURE OF RELIGION                                      1\n\n  Science and religion coeval, 1; Man's sense of dependence on\n  mysterious Powers, 2; Early man's feeling toward them of a\n  mixed nature, 3; mainly selfish, 4; Prominence of fear, 6;\n  Conception of natural law, 7; Sense of an extrahuman\n  Something, 9; Universality of religion, 10; Its development\n  parallel to that of social organization, 12; Unitary\n  character of human life, 14; External religion, 15; Internal\n  religion, 16.\n\n\n  CHAPTER II. THE SOUL                                              10\n\n  NATURE OF THE SOUL. Universal belief in an interior\n  something, 18; its basis, 19; from observation of breath,\n  21; of shadow, 22; of blood, 23; Its form a sublimated\n  double of the corporeal man, 24; or of an animal, 25; The\n  seat of the soul, 26; Localization of qualities, 27;\n  Consequences of the soul's leaving the body, 29; The hidden\n  soul, 31.\n\n  ORIGIN OF THE SOUL. Not investigated by savages, 32;\n  Creation of man, 33; Theories of birth, 34; Divine origin of\n  the soul, 36; Mysteriousness of death, 38.\n\n  POLYPSYCHISM. Early views of the number and functions of\n  souls, 39; Civilized views, 43.\n\n  FUTURE OF THE SOUL. Belief in its death, 46; This belief\n  transient, 51-53; Dwelling-place of the surviving soul in\n  human beings, beasts, plants, or inanimate objects, 55-59;\n  or near its earthly abode, 60-63; or in some remote place in\n  earth, sea, or sky, 64-66; or in an underground world,\n  67-69; Occupations of the dead, 70; Retribution in the\n  Underworld, 71; Nonmoral distinctions, 72-75; Moral\n  retribution, savage, 76-78; Civilized, 79-80; Local\n  separation of the good from the bad, 81; Reward and\n  punishment, Hindu, 82; Egyptian, 83; Greek, 84; Jewish and\n  Christian, 85, 86; Purgatory, 87; Resurrection, 88-90.\n\n  POWERS OF THE SEPARATED SOUL. Prayers for the dead, 95, 96.\n\n  GENESIS OF SPIRITS. Functions of spirits (souls of nonhuman\n  objects), 97-100.\n\n\n  CHAPTER III. EARLY RELIGIOUS CEREMONIES                           48\n\n  Predominance of ceremonies in early religious life, 101,\n  102; They are communal, 103; and sacred, 104.\n\n  EMOTIONAL AND DRAMATIC CEREMONIES. Religious dances and\n  plays, 106-108; Connected with the worship of gods, 109; Are\n  means of religious culture, 110; Processions, 111;\n  Circumambulation, 112; Magical potency, 113.\n\n  DECORATIVE AND CURATIVE CEREMONIES. Decoration of the body,\n  114-118; of houses, 119; of official dress, 120; Symbolism\n  in decoration, 121.\n\n  ECONOMIC CEREMONIES. Propitiation of hunted animals,\n  122-125; Taboos, 126; Rules about eating, 127-128; Magical\n  means of procuring food, 129-131; Use of blood, 132; to\n  fertilize soil, 133; Sacrifice of first-born animals,\n  including children, 134; Raising and housing crops, 135;\n  Rain, 136; Survivals in civilized times, 137.\n\n  APOTROPAIC CEREMONIES. Early methods, 138-139; Expulsion of\n  spirits, 140-141; Transference of evil, 142, 143; Expulsion\n  by sacrifice, 144; The massing of such observances, 145.\n\n  CEREMONIES OF PUBERTY AND INITIATION. Training of the young,\n  146; Tests of endurance, 147; Seclusion of girls, 148;\n  Rearrangement of taboos, 149; Supernatural machinery, 150;\n  Mutilation of the body, 151, 152; Circumcision of males, its\n  wide diffusion, 153; not a test of endurance, 154; nor\n  hygienic, 155; nor to get rid of magical dangers, 156; nor\n  to increase procreative power, 157; not religious in origin:\n  not a form of phallic worship, 158; nor a sacrifice, 159,\n  160; nor a provision for reincarnation, 161; Circumcision of\n  females, 162; Object of circumcision probably increase of\n  sensual enjoyment, 163, 164; The symbolical interpretation,\n  165-168; Ceremonies of initiation to secure union with the\n  clan, 169; Feigned resurrection of the initiate, 170; The\n  lonely vision, 171; Instruction of youth, 172, 173;\n  Initiation into secret societies, 174.\n\n  MARRIAGE CEREMONIES. Simple forms, 176-178; The bride\n  hiding, 179; Prenuptial defloration, 180; Introduction of a\n  supernatural element, 181; View that all marriage-ceremonies\n  are essentially religious, 182.\n\n  CEREMONIES AT BIRTH. Parental care, 184; The couvade, 185;\n  Child regarded as a reincarnation, 186; Ablutions and\n  naming, 187; Child regarded as child of God, 188.\n\n  BURIAL CEREMONIES. Natural grief, 189; Propitiation of the\n  dead by offerings at grave, 190; Ban of silence, 191; The\n  dead regarded as powerful, 192; Social value of these\n  ceremonies, 193.\n\n  CEREMONIES OF PURIFICATION AND CONSECRATION. Occasions of\n  purification, 194-196; Methods: by water, sand, etc.,\n  197-199; by sacrifice, 200; Purification of a whole\n  community, 201; Consecration of private and official\n  persons, 202, 203; Fasting, 204; its origin, 205-207; its\n  religious effects, 208; Result of massing these ceremonies,\n  209.\n\n  CEREMONIES CONNECTED WITH SEASONS AND PERIODS. Calendars,\n  210, 211; Lunar festivals, 212-214; Solar festivals, 215;\n  Solstitial and stellar festivals, 216; Importance of\n  agricultural festivals, 217; Joyous, 218; Licentious, 219;\n  Offering of first fruits, 220; Sadness, 221; The eating of\n  sacred food, 222; Long periods, 223; Social value of these\n  ceremonies, 224.\n\n\n  CHAPTER IV. EARLY CULTS                                           99\n\n  Savage treatment of superhuman Powers discriminating,\n  225-228; Charms and fetish objects, 229, 230; Life-force\n  (mana), 231-233; not an object of worship, but enters into\n  alliance with religion, 234, 235; Nature of sacredness, 236,\n  237; Luck, 238; The various objects of worship, 239, 240.\n\n  ANIMALS. Their social relations with men, 241, 242;\n  Transformation and transmigration, 243; Two attitudes of men\n  toward animals, 244-248; What animals are revered, 249, 250;\n  Regarded as incarnations of gods or of spirits, 251; Those\n  sacred to gods generally represent old beast-cults, 252,\n  253; Survivals of reverence for animals, 254; Beasts as\n  creators, 255, 256; Worship rarely offered them, 257, 258;\n  Coalescence of beast-cults with other religious observances,\n  259; Whether animals ever became anthropomorphic deities,\n  260; Historical significance of beast-cults, 261.\n\n  PLANTS. Their economic 'r\u00f4le', 262-264; Held to possess souls,\n  265; Their relations with men friendly and unfriendly, 266,\n  267; Sacred trees, 268, 269; Deification of soma, 270;\n  Whether corn-spirits have been deified, 271; Sacred trees by\n  shrines, 272; Their connection with totem posts, 273;\n  Blood-kinship between men and trees, 274, 275; The cosmic\n  tree, 276; Divinatory function of trees, 277; Relation of\n  tree-spirits to gods, 278-285.\n\n  STONES AND MOUNTAINS. Stones alive and sacred, 286-288; have\n  magical powers, 289, 290; Relation between divine stones and\n  gods, 291-295; Magna Mater, 291; Massebas, 293; Bethels,\n  294; Stones cast on graves, and boundary stones, 296; Stones\n  as altars: natural forms, 297; artificial forms, 298; High\n  pillars by temples, 299; Images of gods, 300, 301;\n  Folk-stories and myths connected with stones, 302; Sacred\n  mountains, 303-305.\n\n  WATERS. Why waters are regarded as sacred, 306-308; Ritual\n  use of water, 309; Water-spirits, 310, 311; Water-gods,\n  312-314; Rain-giving gods, 315; Water-myths, 316; Gods of\n  ocean, 317.\n\n  FIRE. Its sacredness, 318, 319; Persian fire-cult, 320;\n  Ritual use of fire, 321-323; Its symbolic significance, 334;\n  Light as sacred, 325.\n\n  WINDS. Their relation to gods, 327.\n\n  HEAVENLY BODIES. Anthropomorphized, 328; Cosmogonic myths\n  connected with them, 329, 330; Sex of sun and moon, 331;\n  Whether they ever became gods, 332, 333; Thunder and\n  lightning not worshiped, 334.\n\n  WORSHIP OF HUMAN BEINGS. Their worship widespread, with\n  distinction between the living and the dead, 335.\n\n  THE CULT OF THE LIVING. Worship to be distinguished from\n  reverence, 336; Worship of the living by savages, 337; by\n  civilised peoples, 338; in Egypt, 339, 340; in Babylonia,\n  341; but there probably not Semitic, 342; not by Hebrews and\n  Arabs, 343, 344; in China, 345; in Japan, 346; Whether by\n  Greeks and Romans, 347; Not in India and Persia, 348; Cults\n  of the living rarely important, 349.\n\n  THE CULT OF THE DEAD. Of historical persons: noncivilized,\n  351; civilized: in Egypt, 352; in Greece and Rome, 353; in\n  China, 354; of the Calif Ali, 355; Greek and Roman worship\n  of mythical ancestors, 356, 357; Dedivinization of gods,\n  358; Euhemerism, 359; Worship of the dead kin, 360, 361;\n  Ghosts friendly and unfriendly, 362; Savage customs:\n  mourning, 363; funeral feasts, 364; fear and kindly feeling,\n  365, 366; Definite cult of ghosts: savage, 367-370;\n  civilised, 371-373; Greek and Roman state cults, 374;\n  Chinese, 375; Divine functions of the venerated dead,\n  376-378; Ethical power of ancestor-worship, 379-383.\n\n  CULTS OF GENERATIVE POWERS. Nature's productivity, 384-386;\n  Not all customs connected with generation are religious,\n  387; Cult of generative organs, 388-406; widespread, 388;\n  Nonreligious usages, 389, 390; Phallic cults hardly to be\n  found among the lowest peoples, 391, 392; Well developed in\n  West Africa, 393; in modern India, 394; in Japan, 395; Most\n  definite in some ancient civilized religions, 396; In Egypt,\n  397; Whether in Semitic communities, 398; Hierapolis, 399;\n  Babylonia and Palestine, 400; Extensively practiced in Asia\n  Minor, Ionia, and Greece, 401; Priapos, 402, 403; The Roman\n  Mutunus Tutunus, 404; Phalli as amulets, 405; The female\n  organ, 406; Androgynous deities, 407-418; Supposed Semitic\n  figures: Ishtar, 408; Ashtart, 409; Tanit, 410; The Cyprian\n  goddess, 411, 412; The Phrygian Agdistis, 413;\n  Hermaphroditos, 415, 416; Androgynous deities not\n  religiously important, 417; Origin of the conception, 418;\n  Animals associated with phallic deities, 419; Christian\n  phallic cults, 420.\n\n\n  CHAPTER V. TOTEMISM AND TABOO                                    176\n\n  The contrasted r\u00f4les of the two, 431.\n\n  TOTEMISM. Social protective clan customs, 422; Control of\n  marriage by exogamic organization, 423-428; Theories of the\n  origin of exogamy (scarcity of women, primitive promiscuity,\n  absence of sexual attraction between persons brought up\n  together, patriarch's jealousy, horror of incest, migration\n  of young men) and criticism of them, 429-435; Diffusion and\n  function of exogamy, 436-440; Definition of totemism, 441;\n  Customs and beliefs associated with it, 442: exogamy, 443;\n  names and badges, 444-448; descent from the totem, 449-451;\n  refusal to kill or eat it, 452-459; magical ceremonies for\n  increasing supply of food, 460, 461; Stricter definition of\n  totemism, 462-465; Geographical distribution of totemic\n  usages, 466-513; Australia, 468-473; Torres Straits Islands,\n  474, 475; British New Guinea, 476; Melanesia, 477-483;\n  Micronesia and Polynesia, 484, 485; Indonesia, 486; India,\n  487; North America, 488-506; Africa, 507-513; Supposed\n  traces in civilized peoples, 514-519; The permanent element\n  in totemism, 520, 521; Conditions favorable and unfavorable\n  to totemistic organization, 522; economic, 523-528;\n  individualistic institutions (secret societies, guardian\n  spirits), 529-537; political, 538; religious, 539, 540; The\n  lines of progress to which totemism succumbs, 541.\n\n  THEORIES OF THE ORIGIN OF TOTEMISM, 542-559:\n\n  INDIVIDUALISTIC THEORIES. Confusion between names and\n  things, 544; Animal or plant held to be the incarnation of a\n  dead man, 545; Body of an animal as magical apparatus, 546;\n  Animals as places of deposit of souls, 547; An object that\n  influences a mother at conception, of which the child may\n  not eat, 548; Animals and plants as incarnations of the\n  souls of the dead, 549; Criticism, 550-552.\n\n  THEORIES BASED ON CLAN ACTION. A clan chooses an animal or\n  plant as friend, 553, 554; The totem a clan badge, 555-557;\n  Co\u00f6peration of groups to supply particular foods, 558; The\n  totem a god incarnate in every member of a clan, 559;\n  Summing-up on origin of totemism, 560-562; Social function\n  of totemism, 563; Whether it produced the domestication of\n  animals and plants, 564-569; Its relation to religion,\n  570-580; The totem as helper, 570-575; Whether a totem is\n  ever worshiped, 576; or ever becomes a god, 577-580.\n\n  TABOO. Its relation to ethics, 581-584; It has to do with\n  dangerous objects and acts, 585, 586; Classes of taboo\n  things, 587: those connected with the conception of life\n  (parents and children), 588, 589; with death, 590, 591; with\n  women and the relation between the sexes, 592-594; with\n  great personages, 595-597; with industrial pursuits,\n  598-600; with other important social events (expulsion of\n  spirits, sacred seasons, war, etc.), 601-604; with the moon:\n  fear of celestial phenomena, 605; observation of lunations,\n  606; new moon and full moon, 607; Whether the Hebrew sabbath\n  was originally a full-moon day, 608, 609; The seven-day\n  week, 610; Prohibitions connected with lucky and unlucky\n  days, 611-613; Punishment of violation of taboo, 614, 615;\n  Removal of taboos, 616, 617; Taboo and magic, 618, 619;\n  Modification of taboo by civil law, 620; Despotism of taboo,\n  621; Duration of taboo periods, 622; Diffusion of taboo\n  customs, 623, 624; Traces in ancient civilized communities,\n  625; Indications of former general prevalence, 626, 627;\n  Causes of disappearance, 628, 629; R\u00f4le of taboo in the\n  history of religion, 630-634.\n\n\n  CHAPTER VI. GODS                                                 265\n\n  How gods differ from other supernatural beings, 635, 636;\n  Early mythical founders of culture, 637-643.\n\n  CLAN GODS (including divinized men). In lower tribes,\n  644-647; In civilized nations, 648-651; One class of Greek\n  \"heroes,\" 652, 653; Historical importance of clan gods, 654.\n\n  DEPARTMENTAL GODS. In half-civilised communities, 658-662;\n  In Maya, Mexican, and Peruvian religions, 663-665; Among\n  Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans, 666-670; Supposed Semitic\n  instances, 671; Tutelary deities of individuals, cities, and\n  nations, 672, 673; Classes of departmental gods, 674:\n  Creators, 675-679; Gods of the other world, 680-682: Good\n  and bad Powers, 683-694; Conflict and adjustment, 684-688;\n  Ethical dualism, 689; Man's attitude toward demons, 690-694;\n  Gods of abstractions, 695-697: Semitic, 698-700; Egyptian,\n  701; Roman and Greek, 702; Aryan, 703; Absorption of\n  specialized deities by great gods, 704-706.\n\n  NATURE GODS. Their characteristics, 707, 708; Cult of the\n  sun, 709-713; of the moon, 714; of stars, 715-718.\n\n  THE GREAT GODS. Their genesis, 719, 720; Divine dynasties,\n  721-723; The supremacy of a particular god determined by\n  social conditions, 724; Origin of composite figures, 725.\n\n  Illustrations of the growth of gods, 725 ff.:\n\n  EGYPTIANS. Horus, 726; Ra, 727; Osiris, 728; Hathor, Neith,\n  Isis, 729.\n\n  HINDU. Varuna, 730; Indra, 731; Soma, 732; Vishnu and \u00c7iva,\n  733; Dyaus and Prithivi, 734; Ushas (and \u00c7aktism), 734;\n  Yama, 735, 736.\n\n  PERSIAN. Ahura Mazda and Angro Mainyu, 737, 738; Mithra and\n  Anahita, 739; Character of the Zoroastrian reform, 740-745.\n\n  CHINESE. Feeble theistic development, 746; Confucianism and\n  Taoism, 747-749.\n\n  JAPANESE. No great god, 750.\n\n  Nature of Semitic theistic constructions, 751-755.\n\n  BABYLONIAN AND ASSYRIAN. Ea, 756; Enlil (Bel), 757; Marduk,\n  758; Ashur, 759; Female deities, 760; Bau, 761; Ishtar, 762,\n  763.\n\n  PHOENICIAN AND ARABIAN. Melkart, Eshmun, Dusares, Al-L\u00e2t,\n  Al-Uzza, 764.\n\n  HEBREW. Yahweh, 765; The titles Ilu (El), Elohim, 766.\n\n  GREEK. The pantheon, 767; Zeus, 768, 769; Apollo, 770;\n  Poseidon, 771; Hermes, 772; Pan, 773, 774; Ares, 775;\n  Dionysus, 776-778; Hades, 779, 780; Female deities, 781:\n  Hera, 782, 783; Demeter, 784; Maiden goddesses, 785: the\n  Kore, 786; Hestia, 787; Artemis, 788, 789; Hekate, 790;\n  Athene, 791, 792; Aphrodite, 793, 794; Breadth of the Greek\n  theistic scheme, 795.\n\n  ROMAN. Nature gods, 796, 797; Jupiter, 798; Janus, 799;\n  Mars, 800; Saturn, 801; Deities of obscure origin, 802;\n  Female deities, 803; Juno, 804; Vesta, 805; Diana, 806;\n  Minerva, 807; Venus, 808, 809.\n\n  Characteristics of the great ancient national religions,\n  810-818.\n\n\n  CHAPTER VII. MYTHS                                               359\n\n  Their historical value, 819, 820; Duration of the\n  mythopoeic age, 821; Period of origination of myths, 832;\n  Similarity of myths throughout the world, 823-826; Classes\n  of myths, 827:\n\n  _Cosmogonic._ Creation of the world, 838-831; of man, 832,\n  833; Man originally not mortal, 834; Macrobiotes, 835;\n  Primeval paradise, 835; Final destruction of the world,\n  etc., 836-838.\n\n  _Ethnogonic_, 839-841.\n\n  _Sociogonic_, 842: Arts and ceremonies, 843-845; Relation\n  between myth and ritual, 846; Social reforms, 847; Sacred\n  places, 848.\n\n  _Astronomical, procellar, vegetation_: astrological, 849,\n  850; Storm myths, 851; Certain heroes, 852, 853; Decay and\n  revival of vegetation, 854, 855; Literary mythical\n  histories, 856; Antagonism between light and darkness, 857,\n  858.\n\n  Mingling of myth and legend, 859, 860; Original nature of a\n  god given in popular observances, 861; Interpretation of\n  myths, 862; Ancient, 863; Recent, 864-879; Influence of\n  myths on dogmas and ceremonies, 880; Fairy lore, 881.\n\n\n  CHAPTER VIII. MAGIC AND DIVINATION                               392\n\n  Difference between their functions, 882.\n\n  MAGIC. Science of magic, 883-885; Its methods, 886, 887;\n  Relation between magic and religion, 888-890; Magic a social\n  product, 891; Magicians, 893-894; Families, 895; Women, 895,\n  896; Tribes, 897; Power of the magician, 898; His methods,\n  899, 900; Attitude of civilised religions toward magic, 901,\n  902; Its persistent hold on men, 903; Its historical r\u00f4le,\n  904.\n\n  DIVINATION. Its nature and organization, 905, 906; Prophetic\n  ecstasy, 907; Relations between magician, diviner, and\n  priest, 908.\n\n  Divinatory signs, 909, 910; Signs without human initiation:\n  omens, 911, 912; Prodigies, 913: Astrology, 914, 915; Words\n  and acts of men, 916; Parts of the human body, 917; Signs\n  arranged for by men: lots, 918; Haruspication, etc., 919,\n  920; Oneiromancy, 921-923; Ordeals, 924-926; Oracles and\n  necromancy, 927; Development of the office of diviner,\n  928-932; Sibyls and Sibylline books, 933-940; Religious and\n  ethical influence of divination, 941, 942.\n\n\n  CHAPTER IX. THE HIGHER THEISTIC DEVELOPMENT                      440\n\n  Groups into which the great religions fall, 943, 944.\n\n  POLYTHEISM. Differences between the polytheistic schemes of\n  various peoples: Egyptian, Semitic, Indo-European, Mexican,\n  Peruvian, 945-950; Extent of anthropomorphization of gods\n  measured by richness of mythology: in savage and\n  half-civilized communities, 952-954; Gradations of\n  anthropomorphization in civilized peoples, 955-964;\n  Religious r\u00f4le of polytheism, 965, 966; Dissatisfaction with\n  its discordances, and demand for simplification of the\n  conception of the divine government of the world, 967.\n\n  DUALISM. Belief of lower tribes in two mutually antagonistic\n  sets of Powers, 968-972; Of the great ancient religions it\n  is only Zoroastrianism that has constructed a dualistic\n  system, 973-976; Whether a strictly dualistic scheme has\n  ever existed, 977; Manich\u00e6ism, 978; Problems raised by\n  dualism, 979.\n\n  MONOTHEISM. The general movement toward it, 980, 981; Two\n  theories of its origin: that it is the natural primitive\n  form of religion, that it is the result of a primitive\n  divine revelation, 982; The facts in the case: it is not now\n  found in low tribes, 983-985; it is not visible in the\n  popular cults of the great nations of antiquity, 986; But\n  tendency toward a unitary conception of the divine\n  government of the world, 987; Disposition to ascribe\n  absoluteness to some one deity in Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria,\n  India, 988-991; Chinese headship of Heaven, 992; Peruvian\n  cult of the sun, 993; Hebrew monolatry, 994, 995; Demand for\n  unity by Greek poets and philosophers, 996-1001; Judaism,\n  Christianity, and Islam, 1002; Cults of Isis and\n  Mithra--Modern reforms: Brahma-Samaj, Parsi, Babist, Shinto,\n  1003.\n\n  PANTHEISTIC AND NONTHEISTIC SYSTEMS. Pantheism is a revolt\n  against the separation of God and the world, 1004;\n  Perplexing ethical and religious questions make it\n  unacceptable to the mass of men, 1005; Nontheistic systems\n  attempt to secure unity by taking the world to be\n  self-sufficient, or by regarding the gods as otiose, 1006;\n  The Sankhya philosophy dispenses with extrahuman Powers, but\n  recognizes the soul--Buddhism ignores both, 1007; Greek\n  materialism, 1008.\n\n  GENERAL SURVEY OF THE THEISTIC DEVELOPMENT, 1009 ff.\n  Intervention of gods fixed by appeal to natural law, 1010;\n  Persistence of belief in miracles, 1011; Constitution of the\n  deity constructed by philosophy, 1012; His moral character\n  determined by that of his worshipers, 1013.\n\n\n  CHAPTER X. SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF RELIGION 481\n\n  The external history of religion a history of social growth,\n  1014-1016.\n\n  EXTERNAL WORSHIP. Establishment of relations with Powers,\n  1017, 1018; by processes, 1019-1021; by gifts, 1022, 1023;\n  by messengers, 1024, 1025; Blood is placatory as a gift of\n  food, 1026; Human sacrifice, 1027-1031; Dances and\n  processions, 1032; Preponderant importance of ordinary\n  sacrifices--the various kinds, 1033-1035; Elaboration of the\n  sacrificial ritual, 1036.\n\n  THEORIES OF THE ORIGIN OF SACRIFICE. Their formulation late,\n  1037; Bloody and unbloody offerings equal in expiatory\n  virtue, 1038; Two groups of theories of origin, 1039: the\n  offering as gift, 1040, 1041; as effecting union between\n  deity and worshiper, 1042: by sharing the flesh of a sacred\n  animal (Smith and Frazer), 1043-1047; Self-sacrifice of a\n  god, 1048; Union through a sanctified victim (Hubert and\n  Mauss), 1049, 1050; Union with the Infinite effected by all\n  religious acts (Tiele), 1051, 1052; Persistence of these\n  conceptions of sacrifice 1053, 1054.\n\n  RITUAL. Its growth in elaborateness along with the growth of\n  social forms, 1055-1061.\n\n  PRIESTS. Regulation of the life, physical and moral, of\n  priests and priestesses, 1062-1065; Origin of religious\n  prostitution; secular and religious explanations, 1066;\n  Organization and influence of the priesthood: Egyptian,\n  1067; Babylonian and Assyrian, 1068; Palestinian, 1069;\n  Hindu, 1070; Persian, 1071; Greek, 1073; Roman, 1073;\n  Chinese, 1074; Peruvian and Mexican, 1075; Influence for\n  good and for evil, 1076-1079; No priesthood in Islam or in\n  Judaism after 70 A.D., 1080; Its function in some Christian\n  churches, 1080.\n\n  WORSHIP. Early places of worship, 1081-1082; Development of\n  temples, 1083-1086; Forms of worship: offerings, hymns,\n  music, 1087, 1088; Festivals, 1089; Vows, blessings, curses,\n  1090; Idols: their formal development, 1091, 1092;\n  Conception of their personality, 1093; Religious function of\n  idolatry, 1094.\n\n  CHURCHES. Individualism called forth voluntary associations,\n  1095; Savage secret societies, 1096; Greek mysteries,\n  1097-1099; Whether the Semites produced mysteries, 1100;\n  Rise of the idea of the church in the Gr\u00e6co-Roman world,\n  1101: Philosophy produced no church, 1102-1105; True\n  churches produced by Buddhism and Jainism, 1106, 1107; not\n  by Judaism and Mazdaism, 1108, 1109; Development of the\n  Christian idea of the church, 1110-1112; A church called\n  forth by the cult of Mithra, 1113; not by that of Isis or\n  that of Sarapis, 1114; The Manich\u00e6an church, 1115; As to\n  Islam and certain associations that have arisen within it\n  (Mahdism, Drusism, etc.), 1116; Ecclesiastical power of the\n  Peruvian Inca, 1117; Hindu and Persian movements, 1118-1120.\n\n  MONACHISM. Its dualistic root, 1121; India its birthplace,\n  1122; Trace in Egypt (the Sarapeum), 1123; Therapeutae,\n  1124; Essenes, 1125; Christian monachism, 1126; Religious\n  influence of monachism, 1127.\n\n  SACRED BOOKS. Their origin and collection, 1128; Canons:\n  Buddhist, 1129; Jewish, 1130; Christian, 1131; Mazdean,\n  1132; Islamic, 1133; Religious influence of sacred books,\n  1134-1136; General influence of churches, 1137-1140.\n\n  UNIVERSAL RELIGIONS. Actual diffusion the test of\n  universality, 1141; As to Buddhism, 1142; Judaism, 1143;\n  Christianity, 1144; Zoroastrianism, 1145; Islam, 1146; So\n  tested no existing religion is universal, 1147.\n\n  CLASSIFICATION OF RELIGIONS. Their resemblances and\n  differences, 1148; Points in common, 1149; Proposed systems\n  of classification, and objections to them: according to\n  grade of general culture, 1150; division into national\n  religions and those founded each by a single person, 1151;\n  religions of redemption, 1151; Religious unity, savage and\n  civilized, 1152; Disadvantages of tabulated classifications\n  of religions, 1153.\n\n\n  CHAPTER XI. SCIENTIFIC AND ETHICAL ELEMENTS IN RELIGIOUS\n    SYSTEMS                                                        573\n\n  Spheres of religion, science and constructive ethics\n  distinct, but tend to coalesce, 1154.\n\n  THE SCIENTIFIC ELEMENT. When science clashes with religion,\n  1155: Phases in the relation between the two: when there is\n  no knowledge of natural law--a crude conception of unity--no\n  place for the miraculous, 1156; Rise of highly personalized\n  deities who stand outside the world: age of miracles, 1157;\n  Recognition of the domination of natural law--separation\n  between science and religion, 1158; Higher conception of the\n  unity of God and the world, 1159; Scientific theories held\n  to be not a part of the content of religion, 1160.\n\n  THE ETHICAL ELEMENT. Religion adopts current ethical customs\n  and codes, 1161; Both good, 1162; and bad, 1163; Mutual\n  influence of religion and ethics, 1164, 1165; Religion\n  infuses nobility and tenderness into ethics, 1166; Religious\n  personalities; martyr, saint, 1167, 1168; Evil influence of\n  religion on ethics, 1169; Contribution of religion to the\n  sense of obligation to do right, 1170; Answers of religion\n  to questions concerning the existence of moral evil, 1171;\n  concerning man's moral capacity, 1172; concerning the\n  essential goodness or badness of the world, 1173.\n\n  BIBLIOGRAPHY                                                     585\n\n  INDEX                                                            625\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION TO THE HISTORY OF RELIGIONS\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I\n\nNATURE OF RELIGION\n\n\n+1+. It appears probable that primitive men endowed with their own\nqualities every seemingly active object in the world. Experience forced\nthem to take note of the relations of all objects to themselves and to\none another. The knowledge of the sequences of phenomena, so far as the\nlatter are not regarded as acting intentionally on him, constitutes\nman's science and philosophy; so far as they are held to act on him\nintentionally, the knowledge of them constitutes his theory of religion,\nand his sense of relation with them is his religious sentiment. Science\nand religion are coeval in man's history, and both are independently\ncontinuous and progressive. At first science is in the background\nbecause most objects, since they are believed to be alive and active,\nare naturally supposed by man to affect him purposely; it grows slowly,\nkeeping pace with observation, and constantly abstracting phenomena from\nthe domain of religion.[1] Religion is man's attitude toward the\nuniverse regarded as a social and ethical force; it is the sense of\nsocial solidarity with objects regarded as Powers, and the institution\nof social relations with them.\n\n+2+. These Powers are thought of in general as mysterious, and as\nmightier than ordinary living men.[2] Ordinarily the feeling toward them\non man's part is one of dependence--he is conscious of his inferiority.\nIn some forms of philosophic thought the man regards himself as part of\nthe one universal personal Power, or as part of the impersonal Whole,\nand his attitude toward the Power or the Whole is like that of a member\nof a composite political body toward the whole body; such a position is\npossible, however, only in a period of very advanced culture.\n\n+3+. There being no records of initial humanity, it is hardly possible\nfor us to know certainly what the earliest men's feeling was toward the\nanimate and inanimate forces around them. Not improbably it was simply\nfear, the result of ignorance of their nature and absence of social\nrelations with them. But in the human communities known to us, even the\nlowest, the relations with extrahuman beings appear to be in general of\na mixed nature, sometimes friendly, sometimes unfriendly, but neither\npure love nor pure hatred. So refined a feeling as love for a deity is\nnot found among savages. As religion springs from the human demand for\nsafety and happiness as the gift of the extrahuman Powers, hostility to\nthem has been generally felt to be opposed to common sense.[3] Coercion\nthere has been, as in magical procedures, or to bring a stubborn deity\nto terms; and occasional antagonism (for example, toward foreign gods);\nbut not hatred proper as a dogma, except in the great ethical religions\ntoward evil spirits, and in certain elaborate philosophic systems--as,\nfor example, in the Gnostic conception of an imperfect Demiurge, or in\nthe assumption of an original blind Chance or blind Will whose products\nand laws are regarded as not entitled to respect and obedience.\n\n+4+. Instead of complete friendliness and unfriendliness in early tribes\nwe find more commonly between the two a middle ground of self-regarding\nequipoise. The savage, the half-civilized man, and the peasant often\ndeal with superhuman Powers in a purely selfish commercial spirit,\ncourting or neglecting them as they seem likely to be useful or not.\nThe Central Australian (who may be credited with a dim sense of the\nsuperhuman) conducts his ceremonies, intended to insure a supply of\nfood, apparently without the slightest emotion of any sort except the\ndesire for gain.[4] The Italian peasant, who has vowed a wax candle to a\nsaint in return for a favor to be shown, does not scruple to cheat the\nsaint, after the latter has performed his part of the agreement, by\noffering tallow instead of wax, if he thinks he can do so with impunity.\nA recusant deity is sometimes neglected or even kicked by way of\npunishment or to force him to give the desired aid, and a god or a saint\nis valued and sought after in proportion to his supposed ability to be\nuseful.\n\n+5+. And this na\u00efvely utilitarian point of view is by no means confined\nto the lowest forms of religion; in the Old Testament, for example, the\nappeal to Yahveh is generally based on his assumed power to bestow\ntemporal blessings,[5] and this is a widespread attitude at the present\nday in religious communities, where salvation is commonly the end had in\nview by the worshiper. Love toward the deity simply on account of his\npersonal moral character, without regard to the benefit (namely\nhappiness) to be got from him, is found, if found at all, only in highly\ncultivated natures, and is rare in these. And, in truth, it is difficult\nif not impossible to justify religion except on the ground that it\nbrings satisfaction (that is, happiness through and in perfection of\nnature) in the broadest and highest sense of that term, for otherwise it\ncould not be regarded as a good thing.\n\n+6+. On the other hand, fear of the superhuman Power is a common\nfeeling, recognizable everywhere, at all times, and in all stages of\nsocial and intellectual development. By many it is regarded as the\noriginal and essential attitude of the religious mind.[6] To this view\nit is sometimes objected that religion could never have arisen from\nfear--that religion, as a cult, of necessity involves amicable relations\nbetween man and the deity. The objection, however, is based on an\narbitrary and incorrect definition of religion; it is quite conceivable\nthat man might cultivate the deity through fear of the latter's\ndispleasure, and that an elaborate system of ceremonies and beliefs\nmight arise from the desire to avert his anger. Such a conception--which\nis certainly not a lofty one--is not unnatural in the presence of a\ngreat Power whose dispositions and purposes are not well understood;\nnumerous examples of such an attitude might be cited from various\nreligions, savage and civilized.\n\n+7+. But, on historical grounds, as in the examples given above, it\nseems better to say that the earliest known attitude of man toward the\nsuperhuman Power is one of interested observation and fluid emotion--the\nfeeling is determined by experience of phenomena. The man is pleased,\ndispleased and afraid, suspicious or careless, according as he sees\nthings to be helpful, harmful, doubtful, or resultless. In process of\ntime, by observation and reflection, he succeeds in tabulating\nphenomena, and more or less definitely fixing his emotional attitude\ntoward their assumed cause. A tradition is gradually established, and\nmen are trained from infancy to welcome certain things, to fear others,\nand to accept certain others as meaningless; from time to time strange\nthings will appear, and these will be treated according to established\nprinciples or will remain mysterious. A germinal conception of natural\nlaw will arise from the observation of periodically occurring phenomena\n(such as the rising and setting of the sun, periodic rains, tides) and\nfamiliar facts of everyday life, as, for example, the habits of men and\nother animals. Everything outside this sphere will be ascribed to\nextrahuman agency--so sickness, death, and sometimes birth.[7]\n\n+8+. The history of religion, which is a part of the history of thought,\nnecessarily shows, as is observed above, a constant enlargement of the\ndomain of natural law, and a consequent contraction of the direct action\nof the supernatural, though this does not always or generally lessen the\nconviction that the Supernatural Power, acting through natural law,\ncontrols all things. In this process, also, the conception of the\nattitude of the Supernatural Power is more or less definitely fixed; a\nformulation of signs is accomplished, whereby it is known whether the\ndeity, at particular moments, is pleased or displeased, and whether a\ngiven deity is generally friendly or hostile. This method of determining\nthe attitude of the deity continued into late stages of social life, and\nstill exists even in professedly Christian communities.[8]\n\n+9+. As the basis of the religious feeling we must suppose a sense and\nconception of an extrahuman Something, the cause of things not otherwise\nunderstood. All things were supposed to have life, and therefore to be\nloci of force; man's sense of social relation with this force\nconstituted his religion. This sense was at first doubtless vague,\nill-defined, or undefined, and in this form it is now found in certain\ntribes.[9] Gradually, as the processes of human life and of the external\nworld become better known, and the vastness of the extrahuman control\nbecomes evident, the Something is conceived of as great, then as\nindefinitely great, and finally, under the guidance of philosophic\nthought, as infinite. Thus the sense of the infinite may be said to be\npresent in man's mind in germinal form at the beginning of truly human\nlife, though it does not attain full shape, is not formulated, and is\nnot effective, till the period of philosophic culture is reached.[10]\n\n+10+. As far as our present knowledge goes, religion appears to be\nuniversal among men. There is no community of which we can say with\ncertainty that it is without religion. There are some doubtful\ncases--for example, certain Australian tribes reported on by Spencer and\nGillen, among whom it is difficult to discover any definite religious\nfeeling: they offer no sacrifices or petitions, and appear to recognize\nno personal relations with any supernatural Power, beyond the belief\nthat the spirits of the dead are active in their midst, causing\nsickness, death, and birth; nor is there any sign that they have lost\nearlier more definite beliefs.[11] Yet they have solemn ceremonies in\nwhich human blood plays a great part, and these may have reference to\nthe intervention of supernatural beings, the term \"supernatural\" being\ntaken as expressing any mysterious fact lying outside of the common\ncourse of things. A mysterious being called Twan is spoken of in\ninitiation ceremonies, chiefly, it seems, to frighten or train the boys.\nIs there an indication that the tribal leaders have risen above the\npopular belief in such a being? Experience shows that it is difficult\nfor civilized men to get at the religious ideas of savages; and it is\npossible, in spite of the careful investigations thus far made, that the\nlast word on Central Australian beliefs has not yet been spoken. A\nsimilar reserve must be exercised in regard to reports of certain other\ntribes, whose ceremonies and institutions have appeared to some European\nand American observers to be without a religious element.[12]\n\n+11+. There is at present no satisfactory historical evidence (whatever\npsychological ground there may be, or whatever deduction from the theory\nof evolution may seem necessary) of the existence of a subreligious\nstage of human life--a stage in which there is only a vague sense of\nsome extrahuman power affecting man's interests, without definition of\nthe power, and without attempt to enter into social relations with\nit.[13]\n\n+12+. True, in the great mass of existing savage humanity we find social\nand religious customs so definite that we are forced to suppose a long\npreceding period of development. It has even been held that traces of\nreligious conceptions are discernible in the first surviving records of\n\"prehistoric\" man, the contemporary of the cave bear--a period separated\nfrom the earliest clear historical records by many millenniums;[14] but,\nthough the existence of such conceptions is by no means improbable, the\nalleged traces are too dim to build a theory on. The supposition of a\ncontinuous religious development from the earliest times is in accord\nwith all that we know of human history, but, until more facts come to\nlight, it will be prudent to reserve opinion as to the character of\nprehistoric religion.[15]\n\n+13+. In general, religious development goes hand in hand with social\norganization. Those groups which, like the Rock Veddas of Ceylon\n(described by Sarasin) and the Yahgans of Tierra del Fuego (described by\nHyades and Deniker), have scarcely any clan organization, have also\nscarcely any religion. In most of the lowest communities known to us we\nfind well-constituted clans and tribes, with strict (and usually\ncomplicated) laws of relationship and marriage, and a somewhat developed\nform of religion.[16] Here again it is evident that we see in the world\nonly the later stages of a long social process; the antecedent history\nof this process belongs to sociological science, and does not concern us\nhere;[17] its later history is inseparably connected with the\ndevelopment of religion.\n\n+14+. It is in this social process that science, philosophy, art, and\nethics are constructed, and these, though distinct from the religious\nsentiment, always blend with it into a unity of life. Religion proper is\nsimply an attitude toward a Power; the nature and activity of the Power\nand the mode of approaching it are constructed by man's observation and\nreflection. The analysis of the external world and of man's body and\nmind, the discovery of natural laws, the history of the internal and\nexternal careers of the human race--this is the affair of science and\nphilosophy; rules of conduct, individual and communal, grow up through\nmen's association with one another in society, their basis being certain\nprimary instincts of self-assertion and sympathy; art is the product of\nthe universal sense of beauty. All these lines of growth stand side by\nside and coalesce in unitary human life.\n\n+15+. The external history of religion is the history of the process by\nwhich the religious sentiment has attached itself to the various\nconceptions formed by man's experience: ritual is the religious\napplication of the code of social manners; the gods reflect human\ncharacter; churches follow the methods of social organization;\nmonotheism springs from the sense of the physical and moral unity of the\nworld. Ideas concerning the nature and functions of the deity, the\nnature of the soul and of conscience, and future life are all products\nof scientific thought and might exist if religion did not exist, that\nis, if men did not recognize any practical relations between themselves\nand the deity. But, as a matter of fact, the religious sentiment,\ncoexisting with these ideas, has always entered into alliance with them,\ncreating nothing, but appropriating everything. Supernatural sanctions\nand emotional coloring are products of general experience and feeling.\nThe intellectual and ethical content of religion varies with the\nintellectual and ethical culture of its adherents; we may speak properly\nof the philosophy and morals, not of a religion, but of the people who\nprofess it.\n\n+16+. The internal history of religion is the history of individual\nreligious emotional experience (a phenomenon that hardly appears at all\nin the records of early life), and becomes especially interesting only\nin periods of advanced culture. It is true that this experience is\nbased on the whole reflective life of man, whose beginnings go back to\nthe earliest times. Aspirations and ideals, connected especially with\nman's religious life, spring from the long line of experiences with\nwhich men have always been struggling. The central fact of the higher\nreligious experience is communion and union with the deity, and the\nroots of this conception are found in all the religious ideas and usages\nthat have been formulated and practiced in human history. The study of\nsuch ideas and practices is thus important for the understanding of the\nlater more refined spiritual life, as in turn this latter throws light\non its crude predecessors. It is no disparagement to the higher forms of\nthought that they have grown from feeble beginnings, and it does not\ndetract from the historical value of primitive life that we must decline\nto credit it with depth and refinement. Every phase and every stadium of\nhuman experience has its value, and the higher stages must be estimated\nby what they are in themselves. In the history of religion the outward\nand the inward elements have stood side by side in a unitary experience.\nBut, though the deeper feeling is necessarily more or less closely\nconnected with the external history, it is an independent fact requiring\na separate treatment, and will be only occasionally referred to in the\npresent volume.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II\n\nTHE SOUL\n\n\n+17+. The doctrine of the soul is so interwoven with the history of\nreligious beliefs that a brief statement of its early forms will be\nappropriate before we enter on the consideration of religious\ninstitutions and ideas.[18]\n\n\n1. NATURE OF THE SOUL\n\n+18+. The belief in an interior something in man, different from the\nbody, appears to be practically universal in early human history; the\nideas concerning the nature of the soul have changed from time to time,\nbut no tribe of men has yet been found in which it is certain that there\nis no belief in its existence. The Central Australians, religiously one\nof the least-developed communities known, believe in ghosts, and a ghost\npresupposes some sort of substance different from the ordinary body. Of\nsome tribes, as the Pygmies of Central Africa and the Fuegians, we have\nno exact information on this point. But in all cases in which there is\ninformation traces of a belief in a soul are found. We are not concerned\nhere with philosophic views, like that of Buddhism and many modern\npsychologists, that do not admit the existence of the soul as a separate\nentity. The proofs of the universality of the belief in a soul are\nscattered through all books that deal with man's religious constitution\nand history.[19]\n\n+19+. For the basis of a universal fact of human experience we naturally\nseek a universal or essential element of human thought. In this case we\nmust assume a natural or instinctive conviction of the existence of an\ninternal life or being--a consciousness (at first doubtless dim and\nvague) of something diverse and separate from the visible physical\nbeing, a sense of mental activity in thought, feeling, and will.\n\n+20+. It is not surprising that we do not meet with the expression of\nsuch a consciousness among savages: partly, as is well known, they are\nlike children, intellectually incapable of formulating their instinctive\nbeliefs (and they have, consequently, no word to express such a\nformulation); partly, they are not disposed to speak frankly on subjects\nthat they regard as sacred or mysterious. Attempts at formulation follow\nthe lines of culture, and it is not till a comparatively late stage that\nthey reach definite shape.\n\n+21+. The interior being, whose existence was vaguely felt, was\nrecognized by early man in many common experiences. Certain phenomena\nwere observed that seemed to be universal accompaniments of life, and\nthese, by a strictly scientific method of procedure, were referred to an\ninward living thing. It was hardly possible for early observers not to\nnotice that when the breath ceased the life ceased; hence many peoples\nhave regarded the breath as the life, and as the form of the interior\nbeing, and in many languages the words for 'soul' and 'spirit' are\nderived from the word for 'breath'.[20] The breath and therefore the\nsoul of a dying man might be received (inhaled) by any person present;\nit was sometimes obligatory on a son to receive his father's last\nbreath--he thereby acquired the father's qualities.[21]\n\n+22+. Another accompaniment of the body that attracted the attention of\nearly men was the shadow, for which the science of that day,\nunacquainted with optical laws, could account only on the supposition\nthat it was a double of the man, another self, a something belonging in\nthe same general category with the breath-soul, though usually\ndistinguished from it.[22] The shadow was regarded as a sort of\nindependent objective being, which might be seized and destroyed, for\nexample, by a crocodile, as the man passed along a river bank; yet, as\nit was the man, its destruction involved the man's death.[23] The soul,\nregarded as a shadow, could not cast a shadow. Similarly one's\nreflection in water was regarded as a double of him.[24]\n\n+23+. Blood was known by observation in very early times to be\nintimately connected with life, acquired the mystery and sacredness that\nattached to life, and has played a great part in religious\nceremonies.[25] As soul is life, a close relation between blood and soul\nappears in the thought of lower and higher peoples, though the relation\nis not always the same as that described above. The blood is sometimes\nsaid to be the soul,[26] sometimes the soul is supposed to be in the\nblood as it is in the hair or any other part of the body. Blood could\nnot be regarded as the soul in the same sense in which the breath, for\nexample, was the soul--if the breath departed the man's life departed,\nbut one could lose much blood without injury to vital power. It is not\nto be expected that the relation between the two should be precisely\ndefined in the early stages of society. If Homer at one time speaks of\nthe soul passing away through a wound and at another time of the blood\nso passing (death being the result),[27] this variation must not be\npressed into a statement of the exact identity of blood and soul. By the\nCalifornian Maidu the soul is spoken of as a 'heart', apparently by\nreason of the connection of the heart with the blood and the life.[28]\nThere is to be recognized, then, a vague identification of 'soul' and\n'blood'; but in common usage the two terms are somewhat differently\nemployed--'soul' is the vital entity, the man's personality, 'blood' is\nthe representative of life, especially on its social side (kinsmen are\nof \"one blood,\" but not of \"one soul\")[29] and in offerings to the\ndeity. Early man seems, in fact, to have distinguished between life and\nsoul.[30]\n\n+24+. As the soul was conceived of as an independent being, it was\nnatural that it should be held to have a form like that of the external\nbody--it could not be thought of otherwise.[31] This opinion was\ndoubtless confirmed in the savage mind by such experiences as dreams,\nvisions, hallucinations, and illusions, and by such phenomena as shadows\nand reflections. The dreamer believed that he had been far away during\nthe night, hunting or fighting, and yet the testimony of his comrades\nconvinced him that his body had not left its place; the logical\nconclusion was that his inner self had been wandering, and this self, as\nit seemed to him, had walked, eaten, hurled the spear, done all that the\nordinary corporeal man would do. In dreams he saw and conversed with his\nfriends or his enemies, all in corporeal form, yet all of them asleep in\ntheir several places; their souls also, he concluded, were wandering.\nEven in his waking hours, in the gloom of evening or on some wide\ngleaming plain, he saw, as he thought, shadowy shapes of persons who\nwere dead or far away, and heard mysterious voices and other sounds,\nwhich he would naturally refer to the inner self of the absent living or\nthe dead. Reproductions of himself and others appeared on land and in\nwater. All such experiences would go to convince him that there were\ndoubles of himself and of others, and that these were corporeal--only\ndim, ethereal, with powers greater than those of the ordinary external\nbody.\n\n+25+. While the soul of the living man was most commonly conceived of as\na sublimated replica of the ordinary body, it was also supposed in some\ncases to take the form of some animal--an opinion that may have arisen\nas regards any particular animal from its appearance at a time when the\nsoul was supposed to be absent from the body,[32] and is to be referred\nultimately to the belief in the identity of nature of animals and man.\nThe souls of the dead also were sometimes supposed to take the shape of\nanimals, or to take up their abode in animals[33] or in trees (as in\nEgypt): such animals (tigers, for example) were commonly dangerous, and\nthis theory of incarnation is an expression of the widely diffused\nbelief in the dangerous character of the souls of the dead. In later,\ncultivated times the bird became a favorite symbol of the soul--perhaps\nfrom its swift and easy flight through the air.[34]\n\n+26+. Savage science, though it generally identified the soul with the\nbreath, and regarded it as a separate interior form, seems not to have\nattempted to define its precise locus, posture, and extension within the\nbody--the early man was content to regard it as a vague homunculus. The\nwhole body was looked on as the seat of life, and was sometimes eaten in\norder to acquire its qualities, especially the quality of courage.[35]\nLife was supposed to reside in the bones as the solid part of the body,\nand these were preserved as the basis of a future life.[36] But even in\nearly stages of culture we find a tendency to specialize--courage, for\nexample, was assigned particularly to the head and the heart, which were\naccounted the most desirable parts of a dead enemy.[37] These organs\nwere selected probably on account of their prominence--the heart also\nbecause it was the receptacle of the blood. The soul was located by the\nIndians of Guiana in the pupil of the eye.[38]\n\n+27+. Gradually a more precise localization of qualities was made by the\nSemites, Greeks, Romans, and other peoples. These, for reasons not\nclearly known to us, assigned the principal emotional faculties to the\nmost prominent organs of the trunk of the body. The Semites placed\nthought and courage in the heart and the liver, anger in the liver (the\nbile), love and grief in the bowels, voluntary power in the kidneys.[39]\nThe Greeks and Romans were less definite: to the heart, the diaphragm,\nand the liver (the upper half of the trunk); the Greeks assigned\nthought, courage, emotion;[40] the Romans placed thought and courage in\nthe heart, and the affections in the liver. Among these organs special\nprominence came to be given to the heart and the liver as seats of\nmental faculties.[41]\n\n+28+. It is not clear how early the brain was supposed to be connected\nwith the mind. Alcm\u00e6on of Crotona (5th cent. B.C.), who, according to\nDiogenes Laertius, wrote chiefly on medical subjects, is credited with\nthe view that the brain was the constructor of thought.[42] Plato\nsuggests that the brain may be the seat of perception and then of memory\nand reflection, and calls the head the most divine part of man.[43]\nCicero reports that some persons looked on some part of the cerebrum as\nthe chief seat of the mind.[44] In the Semitic languages the first\noccurrence of a term for 'brain' is in the Arabic.[45] Some American\ntribes are said to regard the brain as the seat of the mind.[46] The\nscientific Greek view appears to have been connected with medical\nresearch, but the process by which it was reached has not been recorded.\nThe Arabic conception of the brain was probably borrowed from the\nGreeks.\n\n+29+. The soul as an independent personality was supposed to leave the\nbody at times, and its departure entailed various consequences--in\ngeneral the result was the withdrawal of the man's ordinary powers to a\ngreater or less extent, according to the duration of the soul's absence.\nThe consequences might be sleep, trance, swoon, coma, death; the precise\nnature of the effect was determined by the man's subsequent\ncondition--he would wake from sleep, or return to his ordinary state\nfrom a trance, or come to himself from a swoon, or lie permanently\nmotionless in death. When he seemed to be dead there was often doubt as\nto his real condition--the escaped soul might seek its old abode (as in\nthe case of the vampire, for instance), and means were sometimes taken\nto prevent its return.[47]\n\n+30+. The obvious difference in serious results between sleep and other\ncessations of the ordinary consciousness and activity led among some\ntribes to the supposition of a special dream-soul that could leave the\nbody without injury to the man. It was believed by certain\nGreenlanders[48] that a man going on a journey might leave his soul\nbehind. It was a not uncommon opinion that souls might be taken out for\na while, with friendly intent, to guard them during a period of danger\n(so in Celebes when a family moves into a new house). In Greenland,\naccording to Cranz, a damaged soul might be repaired. Or the soul might\nbe removed with evil intent by magic art--the result would be sickness\nor swoon; it was then incumbent on the sufferer or his friends to\ndiscover the hostile magician and counteract his work by stronger magic,\nor force him to restore the soul.[49] On the other hand, the soul of a\ndead man might be so recalled that the man would live again, the usual\nagency being a god, a magician, or a prophet.\n\n+31+. It has been and is a widespread opinion in low tribes that the\nlife of a person is bound up with that of an animal or plant, or with\nthe preservation of something closely connected with the person. This\nopinion springs from the conviction of the intimate vital relation\nbetween men and their surroundings. From the combination of these\nbeliefs with the view referred to above[50] that a man's soul might\ndwell in a beast or a plant, the idea of the hidden soul, common in\nfolk-lore, may have arisen[51]--the idea that one might conceal his soul\nin some unsuspected place and then would be free from fear of death so\nlong as his soul remained undisturbed.[52] These folk-tales are products\nof the popular imagination based on materials such as those described\nabove. From the early point of view there was no reason why the vital\nsoul, an independent entity, should not lead a locally separate life.\n\n\n2. ORIGIN OF THE SOUL\n\n+32+. Theories of a special origination of the soul belong only to the\nmore advanced cults. In early stages of culture the soul is taken as a\nnatural part of the human constitution, and though it is regarded as in\na sort an independent entity, the analysis of the man is not carried so\nfar as to raise the question of separate beginnings of the two\nconstituents of the personality, except as this is partially involved in\nthe hypothesis of reincarnation. The child is born into the world\nequipped with all the capacities of man, and further investigation as to\nhow these capacities originally came is not made.\n\n+33+. It was, however, thought necessary to account for the appearance\nof man (a clan or tribe) on earth, and his creation was generally\nascribed to a supernatural being. Every tribe has its history of man's\ncreation--the variety in the anthropogonic myths is endless, the\ndiversities depending on the differences of general culture and of\nsurroundings; but the essential point is the same in all; some god or\nother supernatural Power fashioned human creatures of different sex,\nwhether with well-considered aim or by caprice is not said.\n\n+34+. The first pair is thus accounted for in a simple and generally\nsatisfactory manner. But the fact of the perpetuation of the tribe or\nthe race appears to have offered serious difficulties to the savage\nmind. Some tribes are reported to be ignorant of the natural cause of\nbirth. Some Melanesian women believe that the origin or beginning of a\nchild is a plant (coconut or other), and that the child will be the\n_nunu_ (something like an echo) of that thing or of a dead person (this\nis not the transition of a soul--the child takes the place of the dead\nperson). In Mota there is a similar belief.[53] The Central Australians,\nit is said, think that the birth of a child is due to the entrance of a\nspirit into the body of a woman[54]--every child is thus the\nreincarnation of some ancient person (an \"ancestor\"), and the particular\nperson is identified by the sacred object (stone or tree, or other\nobject) near which the woman is when she first becomes aware of the\nchild within her; every such object (and there are many of them near any\nvillage) represents some spirit whose name is known to the old men of\nthe tribe, and this name is given the child.[55]\n\n+35+. Similar theories of birth are found among the Eskimo[56] and the\nKhonds,[57] in Melanesia,[58] in West Africa,[59] and elsewhere.[60]\nSuch views thus appear to have been widely diffused, and are in fact a\nnatural product of early biological science. They embody the earliest\nknown form of the doctrine of reincarnation, which is so important in\nthe Buddhistic dogma.[61] With it must be connected the fact that among\nmany peoples (savage, half-civilized, and civilized) birth was\nintimately connected with supernatural beings, whence the origin of\nnumerous usages: the precautions taken to guard the woman before\ndelivery, the lustrations after the birth, the couvade, the dread of\nmenstrual and seminal discharges, and further, customs relating to the\narrival of boys and girls at the age of puberty.\n\n+36+. At a later stage of culture the creation of the soul was\ndistinguished from that of the body, and was generally regarded as a\nspecial act of the deity: the Hebrews conceived that the body was\nfashioned out of dust, and that the breath of life was breathed into it\nby God, so that man became a \"living soul\"[62]; Plato at one time[63]\nthought that the soul of the world was created by God, out of certain\nelements, before the body, and was made prior to it in origin and\nexcellence so that it should be its ruler, and that afterwards he placed\nseparate souls in the various separate bodies; the immortal gods, says\nCicero, have placed souls (_animos_) in human bodies, and the human soul\nhas been plucked (_decerptus_) from the divine mind.[64]\n\n+37+. In the early Christian centuries the question of how the soul came\ninto the body was an intensely practical one--it was closely connected\nwith the question of man's inherent sinfulness and his capacity for\nredemption. Tertullian's theory of the natural propagation of souls\n(traducianism), which involved the inheritance of a sinful nature, was\nsucceeded on the one hand by the theory of pre\u00ebxistence (adopted by\nOrigen from Plato), and on the other hand by the view that every soul\nwas an immediate creation of God (creationism, held by Jerome and\nothers), these both assuming the natural goodness or untainted character\nof the soul at the birth of the human being.\n\n+38+. The mysterious character of death, the final departure of the soul\nfrom the body, called forth in savage communities feelings of awe and\ndread. As death, in the savage view, was due to the intervention of a\nsupernatural agency, the dead body and everything connected with it\npartook of the sacredness that attached to the supernatural.[65] Hence,\nprobably, many of the customs relating to the treatment of\ncorpses--taboos that survived into comparatively late times.[66] The Old\nTestament ritual term 'unclean' is used of corpses and other things that\nit was unlawful to touch, things taboo, and in this sense is equivalent\nto 'sacred.'[67]\n\n\n3. POLYPSYCHISM\n\n+39+. In the preceding section only the general fact of the existence of\nthe soul is considered. We find, however, a widespread belief among\nsavage and half-civilized peoples that every human body is inhabited by\nseveral souls (two or more).[68] Thus, the Fijians, the Algonkins, and\nthe Karens recognize two souls; the Malagasy, the Dahomi, and the\nAshanti three; the Congoans three or four, the Chinese three, the\nDakotas four, the Malays (of the peninsula) seven; and this list is not\nexhaustive.[69] To these various souls different procedures and\nfunctions are assigned.\n\n+40+. In general, as to place and function during the man's life, the\nfollowing classes of souls are distinguished: the vital soul, or the\nprinciple of life, whose departure leaves the man insensible or dead\n(Malagasy _aina_, Karen _kalah_, E[\u00b4w]e 'ghost-soul'); the dream-soul,\nwhich wanders while the man is asleep (probably a universal conception\nin early stages of culture); the shadow-soul, which accompanies him by\nday (also, probably, universal); the reflection-soul (similar to the\npreceding); the beast-soul, or bush-soul, incarnate in a beast (among\nthe Congoans, the E[\u00b4w]e, the Tshi, the Khonds), with which may be\ncompared the Egyptian view that revenant souls and Underworld shadows\nmay assume the form of animals, and the Hindu metempsychosis. A\nparticular responsible moral soul is also reported (among the\nKarens),[70] but it is doubtful whether this is native; and still more\ndoubtful are the Karen 'reason' (_ts[=o]_) and the Khond beatified\nsoul.[71]\n\n+41+. In regard to procedure after the man's death, it is generally held\nin early stages of culture that one soul stays with the body, or at the\ntomb, or in the village, or becomes air, while another departs to the\nland of the dead (Fijians, Algonkins, and others), or is reborn\n(Khonds), and in some cases a soul is said to vanish.[72]\n\n+42+. It is obvious that there was great flexibility and indefiniteness\nin early theories of the soul. The savage mind, feeling its way among\nits varied experiences, was disposed to imagine a separate interior\nsubstance to account for anything that seemed to be a separate and\nvaluable manifestation of the man's personality. The number of souls\nvaries with the number of phenomena that it was thought necessary to\nrecognize as peculiar, and the lines of demarcation between different\nsouls are not always strictly drawn. As to the manner of the souls'\nindwelling in the body, and as to their relations one to another,\nsavages have nothing definite to say, or, at least, have said nothing.\nIn general our information regarding savage psychical theories is\nmeager; it is not unlikely that with fuller acquaintance the details\ngiven above would have to be modified, though the general fact of\npolypsychism would doubtless remain.\n\n+43+. In the higher ancient religions there are only more or less\nobscure indications of an earlier polypsychic system. The Egyptian\ndistinction between soul (_bai_), shadow (_haibet_), and double (_ka_)\nappears to involve such a system; but the Egyptologists of the present\nday are not agreed as to the precise interpretation of these terms.[73]\nThe Semitic terms _nafs_ and _ru[h.]_ (commonly rendered 'soul' and\n'spirit' respectively) are of similar origin, both meaning 'wind,'\n'breath'; in the literature they are sometimes used in the same sense,\nsometimes differentiated. The 'soul' is the seat of life, appetite,\nfeeling, thought--when it leaves the body the man swoons or dies; it\nalone is used as a synonym of personality (a 'soul' often means simply a\n'person'). 'Spirit,' while it sometimes signifies the whole nature, is\nalso employed (like English 'spirit') to express the tone of mind,\nespecially courage, vigor. But, so far as the conception of an interior\nbeing is concerned, the two terms are substantially identical in the\nSemitic languages as known to us.[74] And though, as is noted above,\n'spirit' is not used for the human personality, it alone is the term in\nHebrew for a class of subordinate supernatural beings standing in close\nrelations with the deity.[75] Greek literature seems to know only one\npersonal soul (_psyche_, with which _pneuma_ is often identical in\nmeaning); a quality of nature (as in Semitic _ru[h.]_) is sometimes\nexpressed by _pneuma_ ('spirit').[76] The _thymos_ appears in Homer to\nbe merely a function of the _psyche_,[77] in any case it does not\nrepresent a separate personality alongside of the _psyche_, and the same\nthing is true of the _daimon_. Similarly, in Latin, _animus_ and\n_anima_ are substantially synonyms[78]--_animus_ sometimes expressing\ntone of mind--and _spiritus_ is equivalent to _ru[h.]_ and _pneuma_; the\nindividual _genius_, with its feminine representative the _juno_, is a\ncomplicated and obscure figure, but it cannot be regarded as a separate\nsoul.[79]\n\n+44+. This variety of terms in the more advanced religions may point to\nan early polypsychic conception. The tendency was, with the progress of\nculture, to modify or efface this sort of conception.[80] From a belief\nin a number of entities in the human interior being men passed to a\nrecognition of different sides or aspects of the inward life, and\nfinally to the distinct conception of the oneness of the soul. The\nmovement toward psychic unity may be compared with the movement toward\nmonotheism by the unification of the phenomena of the external world.\n\n\n4. FUTURE OF THE SOUL\n\n+45+. Savage philosophy, recognizing the dual nature of man, regarded\ndeath as due to the departure of the soul from the body. The cessation\nof breathing at death was matter of common observation, and the obvious\ninference was that the breath, the vital soul, had left the body.\nReflection on this fact naturally led to the question, Whither has the\nsoul gone?\n\n+46+. _Death of the soul._ The general belief has always been that the\nsoul survived the man's death.[81] There are, however, exceptions; the\ncontinued existence of the soul was not an absolutely established\narticle in the savage creed. According to the reports of travelers, it\nwould seem that among some tribes there was disbelief or doubt on this\npoint. A West African native expressed his belief in the form of the\ngeneral proposition, \"The dead must die\"; that is, apparently, the dead\nman must submit to the universal law to which the living are\nsubject.[82] In another African community some held and others denied\nthat a spirit could be killed, and one man was certain that spirits\nlived long, but was not certain whether they ever died.[83] Differences\nof opinion in regard to the fact of immortality are said to exist in\nBanks Islands.[84] The Eskimos are reported as holding that the soul may\nbe destroyed, and then, however, repaired.[85]\n\n+47+. It thus appears that even among low tribes there is speculation on\nthe question of the continuance of existence after earthly death; there\nis admission of ignorance. We have, however, examples of a definite\nbelief in annihilation. In some cases, when the theory of several souls\nis held,[86] one of these souls is supposed to become extinct at death:\nthis is the case with the Malagasy _saina_, and the 'beast-soul' among\nthe E[\u00b4w]e, Tshi, and Congoans; but such a soul represents only a part\nof the man, and its disappearance does not signify the extinction of the\nman's personality.\n\n+48+. Complete extinction of the soul and the personality, in the case\nof certain persons, is found among the Fijians: in the long and\ndifficult way to the Underworld, bachelors (as a rule), untattooed\nwomen, false boasters, and those men who failed to overcome in combat\nthe \"slayer of souls\" (the god Sama) are killed and eaten.[87] Something\nlike this is reported of the Hervey Islands,[88] New Zealand,[89] the\nHawaiians,[90] and other tribes. Among the wild tribes of India, the\nKhonds and the Oraons, or Dhangars, hold to annihilation of the soul in\ncertain cases.[91] Miss Kingsley reports a specially interesting view in\nCongo to the effect that souls die when the family dies out.[92] The\nground of this sense of the solidarity of the living and the dead is\nnot clear; the most obvious explanation is that the latter get their\nsustenance from the offerings of the former, and perhaps from their\nprayers; such prayers, according to W. Ellis,[93] are made in Polynesia.\nThis belief appears also in some advanced peoples: so the Egyptians,[94]\nand apparently the Hindus.[95]\n\n+49+. In these cases no explanation is offered of how a soul can die.\nEarthly death is the separation of the soul from the body, and by\nanalogy the death of a soul should involve a disruption of constituents,\nbut the savage imagination appears to have passed lightly over this\npoint: when a soul is eaten, it is destroyed as the human body is\ndestroyed when it is eaten; if it is drowned or clubbed, it dies as a\nman does under similar treatment. The soul is conceived of as an\nindependent personality, with a corporeal form and mental powers; the\npsychic body, it would seem, is endowed with power of thought.[96]\n\n+50+. This vagueness of conception enables us to understand how savage\nlogic reaches the conclusion that the soul may be mortal: all the\npossibilities of the earthly person are transferred to it. In regard to\nthe occasion of its death, it is sometimes represented as punishment for\nviolation of tribal customs (as in Fiji), sometimes as the natural fate\nof inferior classes of persons (as among the Tongans, who are said to\nbelieve that only chiefs live after death),[97] sometimes as a simple\ndestruction by human agency.\n\n+51+. In the popular faith of the Semitic, Egyptian, Chinese, and\nIndo-European peoples there is no sign of an extinction of the\npersonality after earthly death. The Babylonian dead all go to the vast\nand gloomy Underworld (Aralu), where their food is dust, and whence\nthere is no return.[98] The Old-Hebrew 'soul' (_nephesh_) continues to\nexist in Sheol. True, its life is a colorless one, without achievement,\nwithout hope, and without religious worship; yet it has the marks of\npersonality.[99] The fortunes of the spirit (_ru[h.]_), when it denotes\nnot merely a quality of character but an entity, are identical with\nthose of the 'soul.'[100] In India, belief in life after death has\nalways been held by the masses, and philosophic systems conceive of\nabsorption, not of extinction proper. Zoroastrianism had, and has, a\nwell-developed doctrine of immortality, and the Egyptian conception of\nthe future was equally elaborate. In China the cult of ancestors does\nnot admit belief in annihilation.[101] No theory of annihilation is\nfound in connection with the Greek and Latin 'soul' and 'spirit'\n(_psyche, pneuma; animus, anima, spiritus_); the _thymos_ is not a\nseparate entity, but only an expression of the 'soul';[102] and the\nGreek _daimon_ and the Latin _genius_ are too vague to come into\nconsideration in this connection.[103]\n\n+52+. Omitting the purely philosophical views of the nature and destiny\nof the soul (absorption into the Supreme God, or the Universal Force, is\nto be distinguished from annihilation), and the belief of certain\nChristian sects in the future annihilation of the wicked (based probably\non a misunderstanding of certain Biblical passages[104]), it may be said\nthat the r\u00f4le of the theory of extinction of the soul in the general\ndevelopment of religion has been an insignificant one. Beginning among\nthe lowest tribes as an expression of belief in the universality of\nmortality, it assumed a punitive character in the higher savage creed,\nand was gradually abandoned by the religions of civilized peoples.\n\n+53+. The belief in the continued existence of the soul, on the other\nhand, has maintained itself from the earliest known times to the\npresent. The inquiry into the grounds of this survival belongs to the\nhistory of the doctrine of immortality, and will not be pursued here in\ndetail.[105] Doubtless it has been the increasing sense of the dignity\nof human nature, the conviction of the close connection of human life\nwith the divine, and the demand for a compensation for the sufferings of\nthe present (together with the instinctive desire for continued\nexistence) that has led men to retain faith in the continued life of the\nsoul. Modern beliefs in ghosts and in spiritualistic phenomena testify\nto the persistence of this article of faith.\n\n+54+. _Abode of the surviving soul._[106] Opinions regarding the destiny\nof the surviving soul have changed from time to time in accordance with\ntopographical conditions and with changes in intellectual and moral\nculture. There is no place or thing on or under or above the ground that\nhas not been regarded, at some time and by some communities, as its\nabode. The selection of the particular thing or place has been\ndetermined by local conditions--by what was supposed to be observation\nof facts, or by what was conceived to be appropriate. The obscurity of\nthe subject has allowed free play to savage imagination. The paucity of\ndata makes it impossible to give a complete statement of the views that\nhave been held, or to arrange such as are known in accurate\nchronological order; but the principal opinions may be mentioned,\nfollowing in a general way the order of refinement.[107]\n\n+55+. 1. One of the earliest (and also one of the most persistent) views\nof the future of souls is that they are reborn or reincarnated as human\nbeings, or as beasts or plants or inanimate things. It was not unnatural\nthat, when a new human being came into the world, it should be regarded\nas the reproduction of a former human being, especially if the\nphysiological conditions of birth were not understood;[108] the basis of\nthe belief may have been the general similarity between human forms,\nand, in some cases, the special similarity between the infant or the\nadult and some deceased person. An extension of the sphere of\nreincarnation would also naturally arise from the recognized kinship\nbetween man and other things, animate or inanimate.\n\n+56+. Examples of these views are found in many parts of the world.\nTylor[109] and Marillier[110] have collected instances of such beliefs\namong savage tribes in the Americas, Africa, Asia, and Oceania, as well\nas in higher religions (Brahmanism, Buddhism, Plato, Mani, the Jewish\nKabbala, Swedenborg).[111] Other instances of belief in rebirth in human\nbeings or in animals are found among the ancient Germans,[112] the\npeople of Calabar,[113] the Torres Straits islanders,[114] the Central\nAustralians,[115] and the Yorubans.[116]\n\n+57+. There is an obvious relation between the belief in reincarnation\nin animal form and the worship of animals;[117] both rest on the\nassumption of substantial identity of nature between man and other\nbeings, an assumption which seems to be universal in early stages of\nculture, and is not without support in modern philosophic thought.[118]\nAncient belief included gods in this circle of kinship--a view that\nappears in Brahmanism and the later Buddhism.\n\n+58+. The higher forms of the theory introduced a moral element into the\nprocess of reincarnation--the soul ascends or descends in the scale of\nbeing according to the moral character or illumination of its life on\nearth.[119] Thus it is given a practical bearing on everyday life--a\nresult that is in accordance with all religious history, in which we\nfind that religious faith always appropriates and utilizes the ethical\nideas of its time.\n\n+59+. At the present day the interest in the hypothesis of reincarnation\nsprings from its supposed connection with the doctrine of immortality.\nBrahmanists and Buddhists maintain that it is the only sure basis for\nthis doctrine; but this view appears not to have met with wide\nacceptance.\n\n+60+. 2. An all but universal belief among lower tribes is that departed\nsouls remain near their earthly abodes, haunting the neighborhood of the\nbody or the grave or the village.[120] It is apparently assumed that a\nsoul is more at home in places which it knew in its previous life, and\nthis assumption is confirmed by sights and sounds, chiefly during the\nnight, that are interpreted as the forms and utterances of wandering\nsouls.\n\n+61+. Generally no occupation is assigned to these ghosts, except that\nit is sometimes supposed that they seek food and warmth:[121] scraps of\nfood are left on the ground for them, and persons sitting around a fire\nat night are afraid to venture into the dark places beyond lest they\nmeet them.[122] For it is a common belief that such souls are dangerous,\nhaving both the power and the will to inflict injury.[123] It is easy to\nsee why they should be supposed to possess extraordinary powers.[124]\nThe belief in their maliciousness may have come naturally from the\nsocial conditions of the place and time: in savage communities a man who\nis stronger than his fellows is likely to treat them as his savage\ninstincts prompt, to seize their property or kill them; and departed\nsouls would naturally be credited with similar dispositions.\n\n+62+. It is also true that the mysterious is often dreadful; even now in\ncivilized lands there is a general fear of a 'ghost.' Precautions are\ntaken by savages to drive or keep the soul away: the doors of houses\nare closed, and noises are made. On the other hand, ghosts, as members\nof the family or the clan, are often regarded as friendly.[125] Even\nduring a man's lifetime his soul may be a sort of guide and\nprotector--may attain, in fact, the rank of a deity;[126] and after\ndeath it may become, as ancestor, the object of a regular cult.\n\n+63+. Fear of ghosts has, perhaps, suggested certain methods of\ndisposing of the dead body, as by interring or exposing it at a distance\nfrom the village, or burning it or throwing it into the water; other\nconsiderations, however, as is suggested above,[127] may determine, in\nwhole or in part, these methods of dealing with the body.\n\n+64+. 3. It may be considered an advance in the organization of the\nfuture life when the soul is supposed to go to some distant place on the\nearth or in the sea or in the sky.[128] This is an attempt to separate\nthe spheres of the living and the dead, and thus at once to define the\nfunctions of the dead and relieve the living from the fear of them. The\nland of the dead is sometimes vaguely spoken of as lying on earth, far\noff in some direction not precisely defined--east, west, north, or\nsouth--in accordance with traditions whose origin is lost in the\nobscurity of the past.\n\n+65+. Possibly in some cases it is the traditional original home of the\ntribe;[129] more often, it would seem, some local or astronomical fact\nhas given the suggestion of the place; one Egyptian view was that the\nwestern desert (a wide mysterious region) was the abode of the departed;\nit was a widespread belief that the dead went to where the sun\ndisappeared beneath the horizon.[130] Tribes living near the sea or a\nriver often place the other world beyond the sea or the river,[131] and\na ferryman is sometimes imagined who sets souls over the water.[132]\nMountains also are regarded as abodes of the dead.[133] It is not\nunnatural that the abodes of departed souls should be placed in the sky,\nwhose height and brightness, with its crowd of luminous bodies, made it\nan object of wonder and awe, and caused it to be regarded as the\ndwelling place of the happy gods, with whom deserving men would\nnaturally be. Sometimes the expanse of the upper air was regarded as the\nhome of souls (as in Samoa), sometimes a heavenly body--the sun (in\nIndia), or the moon (in the Bowditch Islands), or the stars.[134] The\nschemes being vague, several of these conceptions may exist side by side\nat the same place and time.\n\n+66+. The occupations of the dead in these regions are held usually to\nbe the same as those of the living; no other view is possible in early\nstages of social life. Generally all the apparatus of earthly life\n(food, utensils, weapons) is placed on the grave or with the body, and\nwives and slaves are slain to be the companions of the deceased.\n\n+67+. 4. A more decided separation between the living and the dead is\nmade in the conception of the underground world as the abode of the\nlatter. It was, however, only at a late period that this conception was\ncarried far enough to make the separation effective. Among the Central\nAustralians there were folk-stories of early men who traveled under the\nground, but this is represented as merely an extraordinary way of\ngetting from one place to another on the surface of the earth. Some\nNorth American tribes tell of an underground world inhabited by the ants\nand by beings similar to man, but those who live up on the earth are\nseen there only by accident, as when some hero dares the descent.[135]\nThe conception of a real subterranean or submarine hades is found,\nhowever, among many savage and barbarous peoples, as the Samoans, the\ninhabitants of New Guinea, the Zulus, the Navahos, the Eskimo, the\nKafirs of the Hindu Kush, and others.[136]\n\n+68+. These pictures of the future world are crude, and usually stand\nside by side with others; they are experiments in eschatology. But the\nconstructive imagination moved more and more toward an organized\nunderground hades as the sole abode of the dead--the place to which all\nthe dead go. Such a hades is found among the civilized peoples of\nantiquity, Egyptians, Semites, Hindus, Greeks, and Romans, and, in more\nrecent times, among the Teutons (Scandinavians). The suggestion for this\nposition may have come from the grave (though it does not appear that\nthe grave was regarded as the permanent abode of the dead), and from\ncaverns that seemed to lead down into the bowels of the earth. The\ndescent of souls into a subterranean world offered no difficulties to\nearly imagination: ghosts, like the Australian ancestors, could move\nfreely where living men could not go; where there was no cavern like\nthat by which \u00c6neas passed below,[137] they could pass through the\nground.\n\n+69+. A lower region offered a wide land for the departed, with the\npossibility of organization of its denizens. Ghosts gradually lost their\nimportance as a factor in everyday life; sights and sounds that had been\nreferred to wandering souls came to be explained by natural laws. Wider\ngeographical knowledge made it difficult to assign the ghosts a mundane\nhome, and led to their relegation to the sub-mundane region. Further,\nthe establishment of great nations familiarized men with the idea that\nevery large community should have its own domain. The gods were\ngradually massed, first in the sky, the ocean, and hades, and then in\nheaven. For the dead the first organization (if that term may be\nallowed) was in hades; the separation into heaven and hell came later. A\nspecific divine head of the Underworld is found in Egypt, Babylonia and\nAssyria, India, Greece, Rome, but not in Israel. Such a definite system\nof government could exist only when something approaching a pantheon had\nbeen established; the Babylonians, for example, whose pantheon was\nvague, had also a vague god of hades.\n\n+70+. Theories of the occupations of the dead varied in the early\ncivilized stage, before the rise of the idea of ethical retribution in\nthe other life. In the absence of earthly relations, imagination could\nconceive of nothing for them to do, and hence an ardent desire for the\ncontinuance of earthly life.[138] For the Hebrews the Underworld was\nwithout pursuits; the shades sat motionless, in the dress and according\nto the rank of the upper world, without emotions or aims (except a\nsparkle of malicious satisfaction when some great man came down from\nearth), and without religious worship.[139] A similar view was held by\nthe Greeks and the Romans. Certain Egyptian documents speak of mundane\noccupations for the dead, but these documents belong to a comparatively\nlate stage of culture, and what the earlier view was we do not\nknow.[140] Of Hindu ideas, also, on this point we have only relatively\nlate notices.\n\n+71+. 5. A radical transformation in the conception of the state of the\ndead was effected by the introduction of the idea of moral retribution\ninto the life of the Underworld.[141] The basis of the movement was the\nnatural conception of life as determined by ethical considerations, but\nthe process of transformation has extended over thousands of years and\nhas hardly yet reached its completion. In the lowest eschatological\nsystems known to us there is no marked difference in the status of\ndeparted souls; so among the Central Australians, the tribes of New\nGuinea and the Torres Straits islands, the Zulus, the Malagasy, the West\nAfrican peoples, and some North American tribes.[142]\n\n+72+. The earliest grounds of distinction are ritualistic and social;\nthese occur among the higher savages and survive in some civilized\npeoples. The Fijians assign punishment in the other world to bachelors,\nmen unaccompanied by their wives and children, cowards, and untattooed\nwomen.[143] Where circumcision was a tribal mark, the uncircumcised, as\nhaving no social status, were consigned to inferior places in hades: so\namong the Hebrews.[144] The omission of proper funeral ceremonies was\nheld in like manner to entail deprivation of privilege in hades: the\nshade had an undesirable place below, as among the Babylonians and the\nHebrews,[145] or was unable to enter the abode of the dead, and wandered\nforlorn on the earth or on the border of the Underworld, as was the\nGreek belief.[146] Exposure of the corpse to beasts and birds, making\nfuneral ceremonies impossible, was regarded as a terrible misfortune for\nthe dead.[147]\n\n+73+. Such of these beliefs as relate to violations of ritual appear to\nspring from the view that the tribal customs are sacred, and from the\nconsequent distinction between tribesmen and foreigners. All persons\nwithout the tribal mark were shut out from the privileges of the tribe,\nwere outlaws in this world and the next; and those whose bodies were not\nproperly disposed of lost the support of the tribal deities or of the\nsubterranean Powers.[148] It was also held that the body retained the\nform in which it went down to hades;[149] hence the widespread dread of\nmutilation, as among the Chinese still. On the other hand the brave were\nrewarded.[150]\n\n+74+. Sometimes earthly rank determines future conditions--a natural\ncorollary to what is stated above (\u00a772 f.). A distinction is made\nbetween nobles and common people in the Bowditch Islands.[151] The\nmembers of the Fijian Areoi Society are held to enjoy special privileges\nin the other world.[152] The belief in the Marquesas Islands is that the\nsky is for high gods and nobles.[153] According to John Smith, in\nsavage Virginia only nobles and priests were supposed to survive after\ndeath.[154] The North American Mandans (of Dakota), according to one\nview, assign to the brave in the hereafter the delightful villages of\nthe gods.[155] When souls are supposed to enter into animals different\nanimals are assigned to nobles and common men.[156] Kings and nobles\nretain their superiority of position and are sometimes attended by their\nslaves and officers.[157]\n\n+75+. The manner of death is sometimes significant. The Karens hold that\npersons killed by elephants, famine, or sword, do not enter the abode of\nthe dead, but wander on the earth and take possession of the souls of\nmen.[158] In Borneo it is supposed that those who are killed in war\nbecome specters.[159] The belief in the Marquesas Islands is that\nwarriors dying in battle, women dying in childbirth, and suicides go up\nto the sky.[160] In regard to certain modes of death opposite opinions\nare held in the Ladrone (Marianne) Islands and the Hervey group: in the\nformer those who die by violence are supposed to be tortured by demons,\nthose who die a natural death are believed to be happy; according to the\nview in the latter group these last are devoured by the goddess of\ndeath, and the others are happy. In the one case violent death, it would\nseem, is supposed to be due to the anger of the gods, and to be a sign\nof something bad in the man; in the other case happiness is compensation\nfor the misfortune of a violent death, and natural death, being the fate\nof ordinary people, leaves one at the mercy of the mistress of the other\nworld.\n\n+76+. The advance to the conception of moral retribution hereafter could\ntake place only in communities in which earthly life was organized on a\nmoral basis. The beginning of the movement is seen in certain savage\ntribes. Savages have their codes, which generally recognize some ethical\nvirtues among the tribal obligations. Stealing, lying, failure in\nhospitality, cowardice, violation of marital rights--in general, all the\nacts that affect injuriously the communal life--are, as a rule,\ncondemned by the common sense of the lowest peoples, and the moral\ncharacter of the gods reflects that of their worshipers. By reason of\nthe sense of solidarity the faults of individuals affect not only\nthemselves but also their communities, and the gods care for communities\nas well as for individuals. Whenever, then, there is an inquest in the\nother world, these faults, it is likely, will be punished. On account of\nthe paucity of our information, it is not possible to make a general\nstatement on this point, but examples of future moral control occur in\nmany savage creeds.[161] In such systems the nature of the life beyond\nthe grave is variously conceived: sometimes as cheerless and gloomy (as\nin Finland), sometimes as pleasant (as in Samoa, New Guinea, New\nCaledonia, Bowditch Islands, some North American tribes, Brazil).[162]\n\n+77+. In tracing the growth of the conception of distinctions in the\nother world,[163] we find first a vague opinion that those who do badly\nin this life are left to shift for themselves hereafter;[164] that is,\nthere is no authority controlling the lives of men below. In the\nmajority of cases, however, distinctions are made, but these, as is\nremarked above, are based on various nonmoral considerations, and have\nsmall cultural value.[165]\n\n+78+. In the published reports of savage beliefs there is not always\nmention of a formal examination of the character of the dead, and\nprobably nothing of the sort was imagined by the lowest tribes. It\nappears, however, in such relatively advanced peoples as the\nFijians[166] and the Khonds.[167]\n\n+79+. Moral retribution proper is found only in great civilized nations\nand not in all of them; the early Semites appear to have retained the\nold conception of punishment for ritual faults or failures, and for\noffenses against the national welfare. For the Hebrews the proof is\nfound in the Old Testament passim; in the Babylonian and Assyrian\nliterature, as far as published, there is one sign of departure from the\nscheme sketched in the _Descent of Ishtar_: Hammurabi (ca. 2000 B.C.)\ninvokes the curses of the gods on any one who shall destroy the tablet\nof his penal code, and wishes that such a one may be deprived of pure\nwater after death. In regard to the South Arabians, the pre-Mohammedan\nNorth Arabians, and the Aram\u00e6ans, we have no information; and for the\nPhoenicians there is only the suggestion involved in the curse invoked\non those who violate a tomb, and in the funeral ceremonies.[168] But the\nsame general religious ideas prevailed throughout the ancient Semitic\narea, and we may probably assume that the Hebrew conception was the\nuniversal one.\n\n+80+. In Egypt, India, China, Persia, Greece, Rome, however, and among\nthe Jews in the Greek period,[169] higher ethical conceptions were\ncarried over to the Underworld; judgment, it was held, was pronounced on\nthe dead, and rewards and punishments dealt out to them according to\ntheir moral character. The Jews and the Persians went a step further,\nand conceived of a final general judgment, a final winding-up of human\nhistory, and a permanent reconstruction of the world on a basis largely\nmoral, though tinged with local religious elements--a grandiose idea\nthat has maintained itself up to the present time, embodying the\nconviction that the outcome of life depends on character, and that\nethical retribution is the essence of the world.\n\n+81+. This ethical constitution of the life hereafter led to the local\nseparation of the good from the bad. Such a separation was imagined by\ncomparatively undeveloped peoples whose ethical principle was chiefly\nritualistic, as, for example, the Fijians, the American Indians, and by\ncivilized peoples in their early stages, the Vedic Hindus[170] (Yama's\nabode in the sky, and a pit) and the Greeks (the Homeric Elysian Fields,\nand Tartarus).[171]\n\n+82+. In fact, a recognition of a place of happiness and a place of\npunishment in the other life accompanies sooner or later a certain stage\nof ethical culture in all communities. In India it appears in the late\nVedic and post-Vedic periods, together with the ethical doctrine of\nmetempsychosis, and though, as is natural in such a stage of\ndevelopment, various ideas are held respecting the destinies of the good\nand the bad, the ethical distinction between these classes of persons,\nwith a systematic awarding of rewards and punishments, becomes firmly\nestablished: Yama becomes an ethical judge. In the Brahmanas, Manu, and\nthe Mahabharata, we find a sort of heaven for the virtuous and a hell\nfor the vicious. While the academic thought of Brahmanism and the\naltruistic systems of Jainism and Buddhism looked to the absorption of\nthe departed into the All, the popular Hindu faith held fast to the\nscheme of happiness and wretchedness in the future.[172] As in Dante's\n_Divina Commedia_, the heaven was somewhat colorless, the hell more\ndistinct and picturesque; pain is acute and varied, happiness is calm\nand uniform.\n\n+83+. The later Egyptian eschatological development was not unlike the\nlater Hindu. The good were rewarded with delightful habitations in the\nWest or with the Sun; the bad were tortured in a gloomy place.[173]\n\n+84+. As regards the early Greek eschatological scheme, it is suggested\nby S. Reinach[174] that the descriptions of punishments in Tartarus (as\nin the cases of Tantalus and others) arose from misunderstood\nrepresentations of the condition of the dead in the other world, they\nbeing represented either as engaged in the occupations of this life, or\nas they were at the moment of death. The great punishments, in fact, are\nassigned only to heroic mythical offenders, but there seems to be no\nreason why the idea of retribution should not be supposed to enter into\nsuch descriptions. Separation of the good from the bad on ethical\ngrounds appears in Greece in the time of Plato. In various passages he\ndescribes the savage places (Tartarus and others) to which criminals go\nafter death, and the happy abodes of the virtuous.[175] These abodes\nwere not with the gods; the occasional translations to heaven (Heracles,\nGanymede) are exceptional honors paid to heroes and favorites.\n\n+85+. The Jewish conception of a punitive future belongs to the Greek\nperiod of Jewish history, and was probably developed on Hebrew lines\nunder Greek and Egyptian influence. A combination of the Old Testament\nview of future retribution on earth with the conception of torture in\nthe other world is given in Enoch.[176] In some circles Sheol was placed\nin the West and divided into two regions, one of happiness, the other of\npunishment,[177] or the good dwell with the angels in heaven, the bad in\nhell.[178] By others the abodes of the dead were placed in the heavenly\nregions: of the seven heavens, the second was assigned to the bad and\nthe third to the good.[179] With all the variation of locality, the\nseparation of the bad from the good is made permanent, and this\ndistinction is maintained in the New Testament, which throughout assigns\nthe wicked to hell (Gehenna or Tartarus), while the righteous dwell\nsometimes on the renovated earth, sometimes in the heavenly\nregions.[180]\n\n+86+. The Jewish and Christian books mentioned above content themselves\nwith the general statement that the punishment of the wicked will be\ntorture by fire and cold. Succeeding Christian books elaborated the\npicture of torture with great ingenuity; the _Apocalypse of Peter_,\nfollowing and expanding the description of Plato and Enoch, has an\nelaborate barbarous apparatus of punishment, and this scheme, continued\nthrough a series of works,[181] has its culmination in Dante's Inferno,\nwhere, however, the ethical element is pronounced, though colored by the\npoet's likes and dislikes.\n\n+87+. _Purgatory._ The wicked dead were not always left hopeless in\ntheir place of punishment. Kindly human feeling (shown in early stages\nby pious care for the well-being of the dead) and the analogy of earthly\nprocedures, civil and religious, led to the view that, after the\nexpiation of faults by suffering, the evildoer might be freed from his\nprison and gain a place of happiness. Pardon and purification were\neffected on earth by punishments (scourging, imprisonment, etc.) or by\nritual processes (ablution, fastings, etc.)--why not in the other life?\nIn some systems of transmigration the man, forced after death to assume\na lower form, may rise by good conduct to a higher form. In Plato's\nimaginative construction of the Underworld[182] those who have lived\nneither well nor ill are purified in the Acherusian lake and then\nreceive rewards according to their deserts; and those who have committed\ngreat but not unpardonable crimes may come to the lake (after having\nsuffered the pains of Tartarus) and be freed from trouble if they obtain\npardon from those they have wronged. But as here, so hereafter, certain\noffenses were regarded as unpardonable. The purgatorial conception\npassed into patristic and Roman and Eastern Christianity and Talmudic\nand Medieval Judaism.[183]\n\n+88+. _Resurrection._ The doctrine of the resurrection of the dead,\nwhich has been fully developed only by the Persians and the Jews (and\nfrom them taken by Christianity and Islam), appears to have grown from\nsimple beginnings. It is the expression of the conviction that the\nperfect man is made up of soul and body, and its full form is found only\nin periods of high ethical culture. But in very early times the belief\nin the intimate connection between body and soul appears in the care\ntaken among certain peoples to preserve the bones or the whole body of\nthe deceased as a possible future abode for the soul;[184] and, on the\nother hand, as the soul, it was held, might return to the body and be\ndangerous to the living, means were sometimes employed to frighten it\noff. It seems to have been believed in some cases that the destruction\nof the body involved the destruction of the soul (New Zealand). An\nactual entrance of a departed soul into a human body is involved in some\nearly forms of the doctrine of reincarnation,[185] but this is not the\nrestoration of the dead man's own body. It was held in Egypt (and not\nimprobably elsewhere) that the soul after death might desire to take\npossession of its own body, and provision was made for such an\nemergency; but this belief seems not to have had serious results for\nreligious life. A temporary reunion of soul and body appears in the\nfigure of the vampire, which, however, is a part of a popular belief and\nreligiously not important. But these passing beliefs indicate a general\ntendency, and may have paved the way for the more definite conception of\nbodily restoration.\n\n+89+. The more developed Hindu doctrine (Brahmanic, Jainistic,\nBuddhistic) recognized a great variety of possible forms of\nreincarnation (human and nonhuman), and made a step forward by including\nthe continuity or re\u00ebstablishment of moral life and responsibility (the\ndoctrine of karma).[186] It, however, never reached the form of a\nuniversal or partial resurrection.\n\n+90+. The birthplace of this latter doctrine appears to have been the\nregion in which Mazdaism arose, the country south of the Caspian Sea.\nWindischmann infers from Herodotus, iii, 62, that it appears as a\nMazdean belief as early as the sixth century B.C.[187] This is doubtful,\nbut it is reported as a current belief by Theopompus.[188] Its\nstarting-point was doubtless the theory of reincarnation, which, we may\nsuppose, the Iranian Aryans shared with their Indian brethren. Precisely\nwhat determined the Iranian movement toward this specific form of\nreincarnation we have no means of knowing. It may be due to the same\ngenius for simple organization that led the Zoroastrians to discard the\nmass of the old gods and elevate Ahura Mazda to the chief place in the\npantheon; their genius for practical social religious organization may\nhave induced them to select human reincarnation as the most natural and\nthe most effective morally, and to discard other forms as unworthy.[189]\nThe dead man's own body would then be the natural dwelling place of his\nsoul; but a refined body (as in 1 Cor. xv) might be regarded as better\nsuited to the finer life of the future. Whatever the cause, they adopted\nthis conception, and probably through their influence it passed to, or\nwas formulated by, the Jews, among whom it appears in the second century\nB.C. (in the Book of Daniel).[190] In Daniel and 2 Maccabees\nresurrection is confined to the Jews; in Enoch it is sometimes similarly\nconfined, sometimes apparently universal.[191] In the New Testament also\nthe same diversity of statement appears; resurrection seems to be\nconfined to believers in some passages[192] and to be universal in\nothers.[193] In the former case it is regarded as a reward of piety and\nas a consequence of the intimate relation between the man and God or\nChrist; unbelievers then remain in hades, where they are punished. But\nuniversal resurrection was probably thought of as involved in the\ngrandiose conceptions of a final judgment and a final moral\nrestoration.[194]\n\n\n5. POWERS OF THE SOUL\n\n+91+. Savage lore takes account of the powers of the separated soul\nonly; the qualities and functions of the earthly incorporate soul are\naccepted as a part of the existing familiar order, and are not analyzed\nor discussed. It was different with the departed soul, which, because of\nits strangeness and mystery, was credited with extraordinary powers, and\nthis part of savage science was gradually developed, through observation\nand inference, into an important system. In the search for causes, the\nShade, its independent existence once established, came to be regarded\nas the agent in many procedures of which no probable account could\notherwise be given.\n\n+92+. The greatest activity of the departed soul is found in the\nearliest known period of culture, when it was not yet relegated to hades\nor to the sky, but dwelt on earth, either near its former habitation or\nin a distant region from which it might return. Its powers of movement\nand action are then held to be all that imagination can suggest. Such\nsouls move through the air or under the ground, enter houses through\nobstacles impenetrable to the earthly man, pass into the human body,\nassume such shapes as pleases them. Divested of gross earthly bodies,\nthey are regarded as raised above all ordinary limitations of humanity.\nOf these conceptions, that of the ghost's superhuman power of movement\nremains in the popular faith to the present day.\n\n+93+. The practical question for the early man is the determination of\nthe relation of departed souls to earthly life. Among savage tribes\ntheir attitude is sometimes friendly, sometimes unfriendly, more often\nthe latter.[195] To fear the unknown is a human instinct. Shades are\nlooked on as aliens, and aliens are generally enemies. In particular,\nghosts are conceived of as sometimes wandering about in search of food\nor warmth, or as cherishing enmity toward persons who had wronged them\nin their earthly life. They are supposed to be capable of inflicting\ndisease or pain, and precautions are taken against them. Cases are\nreported of persons who killed themselves in order that, as ghosts, they\nmight wreak vengeance on enemies.[196] On the other hand, to the members\nof its own family the departed soul is sometimes held to be friendly, or\nnot unfriendly, but among savages it is not thought of as a potent and\nvaluable friend.\n\n+94+. In the more advanced cults the functions of the departed souls\nbecome larger and more important. They are regarded as having the power\nof foretelling the future, and are consulted.[197] They become guardian\nspirits, and a cult of souls arises.[198] In some higher forms of\nreligion (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) they are regarded as mediators\nbetween man and the deity, or as advocates for man in the heavenly\ncourt.\n\n+95+. _Prayer for the dead._ Before the ethical stage of religion the\nmoral condition and needs of the dead did not come into consideration;\ntheir physical wants were met by performance of funeral rites and by\nsupplying them with food and other necessities of life,[199] and they\nlater came to be looked on as helpers rather than as needing help; but\nwhen this old view passed away, and the conceptions of judgment and\nethical retribution after death were reached, the moral status of the\ndead became a source of anxiety to the living. It was held that the\ndivine judge might be reached--by intercession or by petitions, or by\nthe performance of certain ceremonies--and his attitude toward the dead\nmodified.\n\n+96+. A trace of such care for the deceased may be found in the\nBrahmanic ceremonies intended to secure complete immortality to\nfathers.[200] In Egypt, in the later times, there was an arrangement for\nsecuring for the deceased immunity from punishment for moral offenses: a\nsacred beetle of stone, inscribed with a charm beginning \"O my heart,\nrise not up against me as a witness,\" laid on the breast of the mummy,\nsilences the heart in the presence of Osiris, and the man, even though\nguilty, goes free. Forms of charms were prepared by the priests, and the\nname of any one who could pay was inserted in blanks left for this\npurpose.[201] This sort of corrupting procedure was reproduced in some\nperiods of Christianity. In the early Church a custom existed of\nreceiving baptism on behalf of such as died unbaptized;[202] here,\napparently, a magical efficacy was ascribed to the act. The first\nmention of prayer for the dead occurs in a history of the Maccabean\nwars, where a sin-offering, accompanied by prayer, effects\nreconciliation for certain soldiers who died in a state of sin (idol\nsymbols were found on their persons).[203] Prayer for the dead has been\nlargely developed in Christianity and Islam.[204]\n\n\n6. GENESIS OF SPIRITS\n\n+97+. As early science identified life with the soul, it logically\nattributed a soul to everything that was regarded as living. This\ncategory seems to have embraced all the objects of the world--human\nbeings, beasts, plants, weapons, rocks, waters, heavenly bodies. Savages\nrarely formulate their ideas on such a subject, but the belief in the\nfuture existence of nonhuman as well as human things is fairly\nestablished by the widespread practice of slaying animals at the tomb\nand burying with the dead the objects they are supposed to need in the\nother world. This custom exists among many tribes at the present day,\nand the contents of ancient tombs prove its existence in former times.\nThe dead are provided with clothing, implements of labor, weapons,\nornaments, food, and as these objects remain in their mundane form by or\nin the grave, it is held that their souls pass with the souls of their\npossessors into the world beyond. Further, the belief in transformation\nfrom human to nonhuman forms and vice versa involves the supposition of\nlife in all such things. That the heavenly bodies, similarly, are\nsupposed to be animated by souls appears from the fact that they are\nregarded as manlike in form, thought, and manner of life: the sun is\nfrequently represented as a venerable man who traverses the sky--the\nmoon being his wife, and the stars their children; and sun and moon\nsometimes figure as totems. This general conception has been expanded\nand modified in a great variety of ways among different peoples, but the\nbelief in the anthropomorphic nature of the astral bodies has been an\nelement of all religions except the highest.\n\n+98+. The apparent incongruities in the savage theory--that all things\nare endowed with life--need occasion us no difficulty. Complete\nconsistency and tenability in such theories is not to be expected. Early\nmen, like the lower animals, were doubtless capable of distinguishing\nbetween things living and things dead: a dog quickly discovers whether a\nmoving object is alive. Man and beasts have in such questions canons of\ncriticism derived from long experience.[205]\n\n+99+. But man differs from the beast in that he feels the necessity of\naccounting for life by the hypothesis of a soul, and as he seems to\nhimself to find evidence of life in plants and minerals (movement,\ngrowth, decay), he is justified in attributing souls to all things. He\nis interested, however, only in movements that affect his welfare.\nWhatever his general theory about rocks, a particular rock, as long as\nit does not affect his life, is for him an inert and worthless mass,\npractically dead; but if he discovers that it has power to harm him, it\nbecomes instinct with life, and is treated as a rational being. Man has\nshown himself practical in all stages of religion; he is always the\ncenter of his world, and treats objects and theories with sole regard to\nhis own well-being.\n\n+100+. The world of the savage was thus peopled with souls, and these\ncame to have an independent existence. That this was the case with human\nsouls is pointed out above,[206] and by analogy the separateness was\nextended to all souls. Thus there arose tree-spirits, river-spirits, and\nother similar extrahuman beings. It is convenient to employ the term\n'spirit' as the designation of the soul in a nonhuman object, isolated\nand independent, and regarded as a Power to be treated with respect. The\nterm is sometimes used of a disembodied human soul, and sometimes of a\ndeity resident in an object of nature. It is better to distinguish, as\nfar as possible, between these different senses of the word. The\nfunctions of a spirit are sometimes practically identical with those of\na god. The difference between these two classes of extrahuman agents is\none of general culture; it is especially determined in any community by\nthe extent of the organization of such agents that has been effected by\nthe community. The cult of spirits is considered below in connection\nwith the description of divine beings.[207]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III\n\nEARLY RELIGIOUS CEREMONIES\n\n\n+101+. The earliest known forms of social life are characterized by the\nperformance of public ceremonies, which are almost always religious.\nReligion in some form enters into all the details of early life--there\nis no event that is not supposed to be caused or affected by a\nsupernatural Power or influence. A vaguely conceived force (_mana_), an\nattribute of life, is believed to reside in all things, and under\ncertain circumstances has to be reckoned with. Mysterious potencies in\nthe shape of souls, spirits, gods, or mana are held to preside over and\ncontrol all affairs--birth, sickness, death, hate and love, hunting and\nwar, sowing and reaping. There is no dogma except belief in this\nextrahuman influence--no conception of moral effort as based on and\nsanctioned by a definite moral ideal, no struggle of the sort that we\ncall spiritual. Religion consists of a body of practices whose authority\nrests on precedent; as it is supposed they have existed from time\nimmemorial, they are held to be necessary to secure the well-being of\nthe tribe (a sufficient supply of food, or victory over enemies); to the\nquestion why such and such things are done, the common reply of the\nsavage is that without them the thing desired could not be got.\n\n+102+. In the earliest stages known to us these procedures are already\nelaborate and distinct; they are generally conducted by the tribal\nleaders (old men, chiefs, magicians), by whom they are handed down from\ngeneration to generation.[208] Their precise origin is lost in the\ndepths of antiquity. Doubtless they arose from social needs, and their\nprecise forms were suggested by crude observation and reasoning.\nReflection on processes of nature, guided sometimes by fortunate or\nunfortunate accidents, may have led to the establishment of methods of\nprocedure for gaining social and individual ends; and, as at this\nformative period the whole life of the community was permeated by\nreligious conceptions, the procedures either were originally religious\nor speedily took on a religious coloring.\n\n+103+. Two characteristics belong to early ceremonies: they are\ncommunal, and they are generally sacred mysteries. Whatever be the\norigin of the tribal and clan institutions of society, these are\npractically universal in the world as it is now known. Even in the few\ncases where men live in the comparative isolation of individual family\ngroups (as the Eskimo, Fuegians, and others are said to do[209]), there\nis a communal feeling that is shown in the identity of customs and ideas\namong the isolated groups. In early man there is little individuality of\nthought or of religious experience,[210] and there is no observable\ndifference between public and private religious worship. Ceremonies,\nlike language, are the product of social thought, and are themselves\nessentially social. When a man performs an individual religious act (as\nwhen he recognizes an omen in an animal or bird, or chooses a guardian\nanimal or spirit, or wards off a sickness or a noxious influence), he is\naware that his act is in accordance with general usage, that it has the\napproval of the community, and that its potency rests on the authority\nof the community. It is true that such communal character belongs, in\nsome degree, to all religious life--no person's religion is wholly\nindependent of the thought of his community; but in the lower strata the\nacceptance of the common customs is unreflective and complete. When\ndefinite individualism sets in, ceremonies begin to lose their old\nsignificance, though they may be retained as mere forms or with a new\ninterpretation.\n\n+104+. That the ceremonial observances are usually sacred is obvious\nfrom all the descriptions we have of them. Their power is not always\nattributed to the action of external personal, supernatural agencies\n(though such agencies may have been assumed originally); in many cases,\nit is held to reside in themselves.[211] They are sacred in the sense\nthat they are mysterious, acting in a way that is beyond human\ncomprehension and with a power that is beyond human control.[212] They\nare efficacious only when performed by persons designated or recognized\nby the community. Here there is undoubtedly a dim sense of law and unity\nin the world, based on an interpretation of experiences. This is a mode\nof thought that runs through the whole history of religion--only, in the\nearliest stages of human life, it is superficial and narrow. The earlier\nceremonial customs contain the germs and the essential features of the\nlater more refined procedures.\n\n+105+. Without attempting to give an exhaustive list, the principal\nearly ceremonies may be divided into classes as follows:\n\n\nEMOTIONAL AND DRAMATIC CEREMONIES\n\n+106+. The dances that are so common among savage tribes are in many\ninstances now (and doubtless this has always been the case) simply the\nexpression of animal joyousness.[213] They are like the caperings of\nyoung animals--only, the human feeling of rhythm asserts itself, the\nmovements are often measured and graceful. There is naturally an\naccompaniment of noise--shouting and beating on pieces of wood, bone, or\nmetal, with songs or chants, the beginnings of vocal and instrumental\nmusic.\n\nWords and melodies are simple and rude; they are the productions of\nindividual singers, often, of course, made from a stock of material\ncommon to all members of the clan or the tribe. In Australia songs are\nthought to be obtained by bards during sleep from the souls of the dead\n(sometimes from Bunjil), or the bard is possessed by the soul of a\nbeast; chants are employed in magical ceremonies, and there are\nlullabies and other children's songs.[214] The Muscogee \"Song of the\nSabbea\" is very sacred.[215] In West Africa minstrels recite\nsong-stories, every story being attached to an object (bone, feather,\netc.).[216] Songs are chanted at festivals in Guiana (and at night men\ntell endless stories).[217]\n\n+107+. The movements of the dance are sometimes in imitation of those of\nanimals,[218] sometimes spontaneous, and sometimes from our point of\nview indecent. The indecency and obscenity originated and has continued\nin a period when no moral element entered into such performances--they\nsimply follow animal instincts and impulses, are controlled by them, and\nappear usually not to affect the customs relating to marriage and\nchastity (so in the Areoi festivities of Tahiti, and among the Central\nAustralians[219]).\n\n+108+. In accordance with the law by which religion appropriates social\ncustoms, the dance is devoted to religious purposes and acquires a\nsacred character.[220] It is a common ceremony as a preparation for war:\nthe warriors of the tribe jump about with violent gesticulations and\nshouts, brandishing weapons and mimicking the acts of attacking and\nslaying enemies.[221] Here, doubtless, the object is partly to excite\nthe men to fury and thus prepare them for combat, but there is also the\nconviction that the ceremony itself has a sacred potency.[222] A similar\noccult power is attached to dancing in Timorlaut, where, when a ship is\nat sea, the girls sing and dance on the beach daily to bring the men\nback.[223] There are dances in commemoration of the\ndead[224]--apparently a combination of affection and homage, with the\ngeneral purpose of conciliating the departed and procuring their aid;\nthe belief being, apparently, that the dead see these demonstrations and\nare pleased with them. A Ghost Dance formerly performed in California\nhad for its object bringing back the dead.[225]\n\n+109+. At a later time such ceremonies were connected with the worship\nof gods: sometimes they were of the nature of offerings of homage to the\nsupernatural Powers, as in the Young Dog Dance;[226] sometimes they took\non a symbolic and representative or dramatic character. Among the Redmen\nthe dramatic dances are elaborate, often representing the histories of\ndivine persons, these latter frequently appearing in the form of\nanimals.[227] The accompanying songs or chants relate stories that are\nintended to explain, wholly or in part, the details of the rite.[228]\n\n+110+. Thus combined with other ceremonies, dances become important\nmeans of religious culture. In Greece dances were connected with many\ncults, among others with the Dionysiac ceremonies, out of which grew the\nGreek drama. Among the Hebrews the ancient ceremonial dance appears as\nlate as the time of David,[229] though it was then, perhaps, falling\ninto desuetude, since his wife, Michal, is disgusted at his procedures.\nThe violent movement of the dance excites not only warlike rage but also\nreligious ecstasy, and has been used abundantly for this purpose by\nmagicians, prophets, and mystics; the performer is regarded as a\nvehicle of divine revelation, all abnormal excitement being ascribed to\npossession by a spirit.[230]\n\n+111+. With dances may be classed processions, in which usually a god is\ninvoked or praised. In Ashantiland, in time of war, when the men are\nwith the army, processions of women, wives of the warriors, march\nthrough the streets, invoking the gods on behalf of the absent men.[231]\nOften the performers bear a sacred object, as a stone (sometimes\ninclosed in a box[232]), a boat, or an image; in early times such\nobjects not only represent the gods but actually embody them, or are\nthemselves superhuman Powers.\n\n+112+. A peculiar form of procession is that in which the worshipers\nmove round a sacred object, perhaps the adoption of a natural form of\nplay. The original design in such movements may have been simply to show\nrespect to the object in question and secure its favor, the circular\nmovement being a natural way of keeping in touch with it. In certain\ncases the circumambulation is connected with the movement of the sun in\nthe sky--probably a later interpretation of the ceremony. Examples are\nfound in Hindu, Greek, and Roman practices, and in some modern Christian\nusages (in the Greek and Roman churches). As a magical efficiency was\nheld to attach to the ceremony, its effect was sometimes held to depend\non the direction of the movement; if it was to the right--passing from\neast through south to west (the worshiper facing the east)--it was good,\nbut bad if in the opposite direction. Though traces of solemn\ncircumambulation are found in some lower tribes, it has been, and is,\npracticed chiefly in the higher cults.[233]\n\n+113+. Sacred dances and processions are natural human expressions of\nemotions that have been adopted by religious sentiment, and are often\nsupposed to have potency in themselves. They tend to disappear with the\nprogress of general refinement and of ethical conceptions of life and of\ndeity. They continue, however, far into the civilized period, in which\nwe find dramatic representations (as the Eleusinian rites and the\nmedieval Mystery Plays), processions of priests bearing or conducting\nsacred objects, processions of devotees with music, and pilgrimages to\nshrines. Such ceremonies, while they are regarded by educated persons\nsimply as expressions of reverence and accompaniments of prayer, are\nstill believed by many to have an innate or magic potency, insuring\nprosperity to the participants.\n\n\nDECORATIVE AND CURATIVE CEREMONIES\n\n+114+. Love of ornament is found among all savage peoples; the value\nthey attach to beads and all colored things is well known to travelers\nand traders. It has been plausibly argued that the origin of clothing is\nto be found in the desire of each sex to make itself beautiful in the\neyes of the other.[234] However that may be, the employment of leaves\nfor headdresses and waistbands is general among lower tribes.[235]\n\n+115+. Equally popular is the adornment of the body by colored marks\nmade with red ocher, pipe-clay, turmeric, charcoal, and such like things\nas are furnished by nature. Elaborate designs, of straight and curved\nlines, are traced on the skin, and these are gradually differentiated\nand become marks of rank and function. The war paint of the American\nIndians is governed by fixed rules, the object being to make the warrior\nterrible to enemies.[236] Rings, quills, sticks, and stones, worn in\nholes made in ears, nose, lips, and cheeks, are all originally\ndecorative; and so also prickings and gashes in the body, often in\nregular outlines.[237]\n\n+116+. These latter, made according to tribal custom and law, become\ntribal marks (tattoo), and are then essential to one's standing in the\ncommunity. This custom is general in Polynesia and in parts of North\nAmerica.[238] The use of oil and other unguents early established itself\nas a custom of savage society. They were probably useful in a variety of\nways. For the hair they made up for the absence of comb and brush; in\ncombat they enabled the warrior to slip from the grasp of his enemy;\nthey defended the naked body from rain, and from soiling and injury\nproduced by contact with the earth and hard bodies; and in sickness they\nwere regarded as curative.[239] Oil was abundantly used as an article of\nfood.\n\n+117+. All these materials of decoration are transferred to the service\nof religion. The headdress becomes a mask to represent an animal in a\nsacred ceremony,[240] or a priestly tiara. In such ceremonies\n(especially in those of initiation) the painting of the body plays an\nimportant part, the traceries varying according to the thing represented\nand the symbolism of the action.[241] It is often difficult to see the\nprecise significance of the paintings, but in certain cases they are\ntotemic marks, and represent whatever is sacred in totemic belief.[242]\n\n+118+. It is possible to construe the development in two ways: the\npaintings may be regarded as originally totemic or other clan marks, and\nas afterwards employed as ornaments, or the order of movement may be\ntaken to be in the reverse direction; but when we consider the primitive\ncharacter of decoration, the second suggestion seems the more probable.\nThe same remark applies to the practice of pricking, scarring, and\ntattooing.[243] For the body-markings blood is sometimes employed,\nperhaps in part on account of its decorative color, but also probably\nwith a religious significance.[244]\n\n+119+. Decoration has been and is largely employed in structures and\ndress connected with religious life. Posts and beams of houses, totem\nposts and masts of vessels are covered with figures in which artistic\nfeeling is discernible;[245] and in late periods all the resources of\nart are devoted to the form and adornments of temples, altars, and\nimages. The designs are taken from familiar objects, mostly from plants\nand animals. The ultimate motive is love of ornament, which, while it\nfinds abundant expression in ordinary social life, has its greatest\ndevelopment in religion--a natural result of the fact that in a large\npart of human history religion has been the chief organizing factor of\nsociety.\n\n+120+. The tendency has been to make the dress of ministers of religion\nornate.[246] This tendency has arisen partly from love of ornament, and\npartly, doubtless, it is the transference of court customs to religious\nceremonial.[247]\n\n+121+. Symbolism has entered largely into religious decoration. In very\nearly times figures of animals, plants, and human beings were used as\nrecords of current events, and were sometimes supposed to have magical\npower, the picture being identified with the thing represented. In a\nmore advanced stage of culture the transition was easy to the conception\nof the figures as representing ideas, but the older conception is often\nfound alongside of the later--a symbolical signification is attached to\npictures of historical things. These then have a spiritual meaning for\nhigher minds, while for the masses they may be of the nature of\nfetishes.[248] In both cases they may serve a good purpose in worship by\nfixing the mind on sacred things.\n\n\nECONOMIC CEREMONIES\n\n+122+. The first necessity of savages is a sufficient supply of food,\nand this, they hold, is to be procured either by the application of what\nthey conceive to be natural laws, or by appeal to superhuman Powers.\nAmong economic ceremonies, therefore, we may distinguish those which may\nbe loosely described as natural, those in which a supernatural element\nenters, and those in which the two orders of procedure appear to be\ncombined.\n\n+123+. Savages are generally skillful hunters. They know how to track\ngame, to prepare nets and pits, and to make destructive weapons. The\nAfrican pygmies have poisoned arrows, with which they are able to kill\nthe largest animals.[249] The people of British New Guinea organize\nhunts on a large scale.[250] In Australia, Polynesia, and America there\nis no tribe that is not able to secure food by the use of natural means.\n\n+124+. But such means are often supplemented by ceremonies that involve\nsome sort of supernatural influence. These ceremonies appear to assume a\nsocial relation between man and beasts and plants; in some cases there\nis assumed a recognition by animals of the necessities of the case and a\nspirit of friendly co\u00f6peration; in other cases a magical power is called\ninto play.\n\n+125+. Desire to propitiate the hunted animal, in order not only to\navert the anger of its kin but also to obtain its aid, appears in the\nnumerous cases in which excuses are made for the killing, and the animal\nis implored to make a friendly report of the man to its friends and to\nreturn in order that it may be killed.[251] Formal prayer is sometimes\nmade to the animal in important tribal ceremonies, as in British\nColumbia a boy is ordered by the chief to pray to the first salmon\nsighted for a good catch;[252] here the good will of the salmon tribe\nand the quasi-human intelligence of the fish are assumed.\n\n+126+. Precautions are taken to guard against antagonistic extrahuman\ninfluences; there are taboos and rules of purification in preparation\nfor hunting. In New Guinea hunters are required to abstain from certain\nsorts of food and to perform purificatory ceremonies.[253] Among the\nNandi some men are forbidden to hunt, make traps, or dig pits for\ngame;[254] these men, it would seem, are supposed to be, for ceremonial\nreasons, antipathetic to the animals to be hunted, as, on the other\nhand, there are men who attract game.[255] The taboos of food and other\nthings imposed are doubtless intended to guard against malefic spirits\nor mana. The particular rules are determined by local conditions.\n\n+127+. Certain rules about eating the food secured by hunting appear to\nhave come from the desire to act in an orderly manner and with due\nrespect to the animal. When it is prescribed that a bone shall not be\nbroken this may be for fear of giving offense to the animal kin and thus\ninsuring failure in further hunting.[256] The provision that each man\nshall gather of a fruit or vegetable only so much as will suffice for a\nsingle day may have had an economic ground, the desire to avoid waste;\nor it may have been made also partly in the interest of orderliness, and\nso have had originally no reference to any superhuman being.[257]\nNaturally it was taken up into religion and given a religious sanction.\n\n+128+. In Central Australia, where every clan is charged with the duty\nof procuring a particular food (its totem) for the tribe, the custom is\nthat when the product of hunting or gathering is brought in to be thrown\ninto the tribal store, the principal men of the hunting group begin by\neating a little of the food, after which the food is licit for the rest\nof the tribe but illicit for the hunters.[258] This custom has been held\nto have a sacramental significance; it has been suggested that the food\nis sanctified by the touch of the elders and thus made lawful for the\ntribe, or that, as naturally sacred, it secures, when eaten, union\nbetween the eater and a superhuman Power. But there is no hint of such a\nconception in the Australian ceremony or elsewhere. The procedure is\nobligatory and solemn--to omit it would be, in the feeling of the\npeople, to imperil the life of the tribe; but all such usages are\nsanctified by time. We should rather seek for the origin of the custom\nin some simple early idea. It is not unusual, in parts of Australia and\nin other lands, that a man, though he may not eat his totem, may kill it\nfor others; the eating in this case is the important thing--there is\nmagical power in it--and the economic obligation to provide food\noverbears the sense of reverence for the totem. The only obscure point\nin the ceremony under consideration is the obligation on the killer or\ngatherer to taste the food before he gives it to his fellows. This may\nbe a survival of the rule, known to exist among some tribes, that in a\nhunting party he who kills an animal has the first right to it. The\nAustralian hunter cannot eat his totem, but he may hold to his\ntraditional right; the result will be the custom as it now exists. With\nour present knowledge no quite satisfactory explanation of the origin of\nthis particular rule can be given.\n\n+129+. The employment of magical means for procuring food appears in the\nperformance of ceremonial dances, in the use of charms, the imitation of\nanimals, and other procedures. In California the supply of acorns and\nanimals is supposed to be increased by dances.[259] The New Guinea Koita\ngive their hunting dogs decoctions of sago and other food into which are\nput pieces of odoriferous bark;[260] these charms are said to have been\ngot from the Papuans, the lowest race of the region. A Pawnee folk-story\n(which doubtless reflects a current idea) tells how a boy by his songs\n(that is, magic songs or charms) brought the buffalo within reach of\nhis people.[261] Among the Melanesians of New Guinea the hunting expert\nplays a great r\u00f4le--his presence is necessary for the success of an\nexpedition.[262] He fixes the date of the hunt, prepares himself by a\nseries of abstinences,[263] and at the appointed time assembles the men,\nrecites spells addressed to ancestors, and passing along the lines of\nthe hunters imitates the movements of the animal sought.[264]\n\n+130+. Very elaborate ceremonies including imitations of animals\n(imitative or sympathetic magic) are found in Central Australia.[265]\nWhen any animal is to be hunted the old men of the appropriate totemic\ngroup, dressed to imitate the totem and accompanied by some of the young\nmen, repair to a spot regarded as sacred, and, along with other\nceremonies, trace on the sacred rock, with blood drawn from the young\nmen, a picture of the animal, or figures representing its growth--in\ngeneral, something that sets forth its personality. These ceremonies,\nvery numerous and extending over a long space of time, constitute the\nmain business of the elders, as, in fact, the procuring of food is the\nchief concern of the people.\n\n+131+. There is no perceptible religious element in these Australian\nceremonies--no utterance of charms or prayers, no mention of any\nsupernatural being. The acts appear to be simply procedures of imitative\nmagic, customs sanctified by long usage. They relate to the life of the\ntribe; this life, like all life, is mysterious and therefore\nsacred.[266] The belief in the potency of the ceremonies appears to come\nfrom belief in the vital identity of the two groups, human and\nnonhuman--the latter is supposed to respond, in some occult way, to the\nexpression of kinship involved in the official proceedings.\n\n+132+. The employment of blood (considered as the locus of life) may\nindicate more definitely a sense of the unity of life-force; the human\nblood is, perhaps, supposed to stimulate life in the kindred animal\ngroup, and so to produce a large supply of individuals. In the\npublished accounts there is no hint that the blood is supposed to have\natoning power. There is no sense of wrongdoing or unworthiness on the\npart of the performers, or of any relation to a deity. The theology of\nCentral Australia is still obscure--the general religious situation in\nthat region has much that is enigmatical.\n\n+133+. A more advanced ritual occurs among certain agricultural tribes,\namong whom is found a more elaborate use of blood and a definite\nrecognition of superhuman beings. In these communities it is regarded as\nnecessary to profitable tilling to fertilize the soil with the blood of\na slain victim, sometimes human (as among the Khonds of Orissa, the\nPawnees, and others[267]), sometimes bestial (as in Southern\nIndia[268]); parts of the victim's flesh are buried, or blood is\nsprinkled on the seed, and homage is paid to a sacred stone or some\nsimilar object.\n\n+134+. In more civilized agricultural communities these ceremonies\npersist in attenuated form. There is a sacrifice of first-born animals\nto a deity and an offering of the first fruits of the field; and as\nchildren, no less than crops, are the gift of the gods, whose bounty\nmust be recognized, it is not surprising to find that, along with the\nfirst fruits of the field, first-born children are sometimes sacrificed\nto the deity. Such a custom is reported as existing or having existed in\nNew South Wales, Florida, East Africa, heathen Russia, the Fiji Islands,\nand Northern India.[269] A trace of the custom among the early Hebrews\nis, probably, to be recognized in the provision of the Old Testament\ncode that the first-born children are to be redeemed by an animal\nsacrifice.[270]\n\n+135+. In the course of time many ceremonies grew up in connection with\nthe procuring and housing of crops and other supplies. In Australia the\nmen of the clan charged with assuring any sort of food were unarmed and\nfasted during their ceremony.[271] Among the Kondyan plowing and sowing\nare solemn seasons, an auspicious day is chosen, and there are\nreligious songs and choruses.[272] For the Hos of Northeastern India the\nharvest home is a great festival, held with sacrifice and prayer (though\nalso with great license of manners).[273] A dim conception of law\nunderlies all these procedures. The law is sometimes natural, as in\nimitative processes, sometimes religious, as when blood is employed or\nthe agency of religious official persons is called in.\n\n+136+. The economical importance of rain has led to various\nquasi-scientific and magical devices for securing it, and to the rise of\nprofessional rain makers. The methods commonly employed are mimic\nrepresentations of rainfall or of a storm.[274] The Australian Arunta\nhave a rain clan whose function is to bring the desired supply by\nnonsacred dancing festivals and sacred ceremonies. A more advanced\nmethod is to dip a stone, as rain-god, into a stream.[275] Certain\nAmerican tribes assign the duty of rain making to secret societies or to\npriests.\n\n+137+. All such economical ceremonies disappear with the progress of\nknowledge, though traces of them linger long in civilized communities.\nMessrs. Spencer and Gillen note the gradual disappearance of the\neconomical and magical aspect of ceremonies in parts of Australia, and a\nsimilar process is to be observed elsewhere.[276]\n\n\nAPOTROPAIC CEREMONIES\n\n+138+. The savage and half-civilized belief (a belief that has survived\nto some extent in civilized communities) is that the ills that afflict\nor threaten a community (such as epidemics and shortage of crops) are\ndue not to natural causes but to supernatural agencies. But man, it is\nheld, may control the hostile supernatural agents--they are subject to\nfear and other emotions, and though powerful are not omnipotent; they\nmay be expelled or otherwise got rid of--violence may be used against\nthem, or the aid of stronger supernatural Powers may be called in. In\npursuance of these ends ceremonies have been devised in many parts of\nthe world; though differing in details they are alike in principle; the\nquestion is how man may become the master of the demons. The ceremonies\nare sometimes performed on the occasion of particular afflictions,\nsometimes are massed at stated seasons, as at the beginning of the year\nor in connection with some agricultural festival.\n\n+139+. Man's defensive attitude toward the supernatural world appears in\nmany usages connected with ordinary life. Fear of the hostility of\nghosts has led surviving friends to take precautions against their\nreturn--their own houses are closed to them and they are driven away\nwith blows.[277] They are too near akin to be trusted, and they are\nbelieved to be able and willing to do harm.[278] At the other extreme of\nlife, when the child comes into the world, mother and child must be\nguarded against hostile demonic influences.[279] When a demon is known\nto have entered into a human being, producing sickness or madness,\nexorcism must be resorted to; magicians, prophets, and saints are able\nby ceremonies or by prayer to expel the intruder and restore the\nafflicted to health. Ritual taint (which is supernatural), incurred, for\nexample, by touching a dead body, is removed by sprinkling with sacred\nwater.[280]\n\n+140+. But the term \"apotropaic\" is generally used of expulsive\nceremonies in which a whole community takes part. In the simplest forms\nof procedure the hostile spirits are driven out of the village by shouts\nand blows; crowds of men rush through the streets, searching houses,\nexpelling spirits at every possible point of ingress, and finally\nforcing them outside the limits of the community. Examples of such a\ncustom are found in the Pacific Islands, Australia, Japan, Indonesia,\nWest Africa, Cambodia, India, North America (Eskimo), South America\n(Peru),[281] and there are survivals in modern Europe. In China this\nwholesale expulsion is still practiced in a very elaborate form.[282]\nAmong the Ainu, it is said, on the occasion of any accident the \"spirit\nof accidents\" (a useful generalization) is driven away by the\ncommunity.[283] In these cases the spirits are thought of as being in a\nsort corporeal, sensitive to blows, and also as afraid of noise. There\nis sometimes a combination of natural and supernatural conceptions:\nwhile the violent expulsive process is going on the household utensils\nare vigorously washed by the women; washing, known to cleanse from mere\nphysical dirt, here also takes on, from its association with the men's\nceremony of expulsion, a supernatural potency--it removes the injurious\nmana of the hostile spirits.\n\n+141+. Less violent methods of riddance may be employed. Evil, being a\nphysical thing, may be embodied in some object, nonhuman or human, which\nis then carried forth or sent away to some distant point, or destroyed.\nWith this principle of transference may be compared the conception of\nsolidarity of persons and things in a tribe or other community: what one\nunit does or suffers affects all--the presence of an accursed thing with\none person brings a curse on his nation,[284] and conversely, the\nremoval of the evil thing or person removes the curse, which may, under\ncertain circumstances, be shifted to some other place or person.\n\n+142+. The particular method of expulsion or transference is\nimmaterial.[285] The troublesome evil may be carted or boated away\naccording to local convenience, or it may depart in the person of an\nanimal. Leprous taint is transferred to a bird, which, having been\ndipped in the blood of a sacred animal, is allowed to fly away carrying\nthe taint off from the community.[286] Even moral evils (sin) may thus\nbe got rid of. In the great Hebrew annual ceremony of atonement not only\nthe ritual impurity of the sanctuary and the altar, but also the sin of\nthe nation, is laid on a goat and sent away to the wilderness demon,\nAzazel.[287]\n\n+143+. Examples of human apotropaic vehicles occur in the ancient\ncivilized world. In the Athenian Thargelia the Pharmakos was supposed to\nbear in his person crimes and evils, and was driven forth from the\ncity.[288] The same conception is found, perhaps, in the Roman Mamuralia\nand Lupercalia. In the first of these Mamertius is driven forth from the\ncity and consigned to the keeping of hostile persons;[289] in the\nsecond, young men ran about the streets beating the women with strips of\ngoatskin, the skin being that of a sacred animal--a proceeding that was\nregarded as purificatory, and seems to be naturally explicable as an\nexpulsion of evil spirits or injurious mana.[290]\n\n+144+. In another direction expulsion of evil, or protection against it,\nis effected by the blood of a sacrificed (and therefore sacred) animal.\nA well-known example of this sort of ceremony is the Hebrew _pesah_ (the\nold lamb ceremony, later combined with the agricultural festival of\nunleavened bread, at the time of the first harvest, the two together\nthen constituting the passover); here the doorposts and lintel of every\nhouse were sprinkled with the blood of a slain lamb by the master of the\nhouse,[291] and the hostile spirits hovering in the air were thus\nprevented from entering. The sacred blood seems to have been conceived\nof as carrying with it the power of the family god (who was also the\nclan god), which overbore that of the demons (in the earliest period,\nhowever, the efficacy was doubtless held to reside simply in the blood\nitself). The ceremony belonged to each family, but it belonged also to\nthe clan since it was performed by every family, and ultimately it\nbecame a national usage.\n\n+145+. Apotropaic ceremonies appear to have been performed originally\nat various times during the year as occasions arose; the increasing\npressure of occupations,[292] the necessity of consulting people's\nconvenience, and the demand for order and precision led here (as in\nother cases) to the massing of the observances. When so massed they\nbegin to lose their original significance, to yield to the knowledge of\nnatural law, to be reinterpreted from time to time, and finally to\nbecome mere social events or to be dropped altogether. Apotropaism has\nhardly survived at all in the higher religions.[293] In popular customs\nit appears in the reliance placed on horseshoes and other objects as\nmeans of keeping witches and similar demonic things out of houses.[294]\n\n\nCEREMONIES OF PUBERTY AND INITIATION\n\n+146+. Ceremonies in connection with the arrival of young persons, male\nand female, at the age of maturity appear to be universal, and they\nyield in importance to no other class of social procedures. The basis of\nmost of these is civil; their object is to prepare young persons for\nentering on the active duties of what may be called citizenship. They\ninvolve a distinct idea of the importance of the clan, the necessity of\nmaintaining its life unimpaired, and, to that end, preparing with the\nutmost care the younger portion of the community to take up the duties\nof the older. The boys are to be trained to be the hunters and rulers of\nthe clan, the girls are to be fitted to become the wives and mothers of\nthe next generation. But while the ceremonies in question have their\nfoundation in the needs of civil life, they inevitably receive a\nreligious coloring, since religion is intimately connected with all the\ndetails of early life.\n\n+147+. Among the details of the initiation of boys, tests of endurance\noccupy a prominent place. In various ways the capacity of the lad to\nendure physical pain or to face apparent dangers is tested,[295] and in\nsome cases one who fails to stand such tests is refused admission into\nthe clan and forever after occupies an inferior and despised position.\nSuch persons are sometimes treated as women; they are required to wear\nwomen's dress and to do menial work.[296]\n\n+148+. The seclusion of girls on arriving at the age of puberty, with\nimposition of various taboos (of food, etc.), is a widespread custom.\nThe mysterious change in the girl is supposed to be produced by some\nsupernatural and dangerous Power, and she is therefore to be shielded\nfrom contact with all injurious things. The details of the procedure\ndepend on local ideas, but the principle is the same everywhere. The\nobject is the preparation of the girl for civic life, and the ceremony\ninevitably becomes connected with tribal cults of the supernatural\nPowers.[297]\n\n+149+. A rearrangement of taboos is a frequent feature in ceremonies of\npuberty and initiation. Certain taboos, no longer needed, are removed\nand others are imposed; these latter refer, in the case of boys, to\nintercourse with the men and women of the clan or tribe--they are\ninstructed not to speak to certain persons, and in general they are made\nacquainted with the somewhat elaborate social system that prevails in\nmany early tribes. These taboos are intended to prepare the boys to\nunderstand their position as members of the tribe, responsible for the\nmaintenance of its customs. The taboos relating to food have arisen from\nconditions whose origins belong to a remote and unrecorded past, and\nremain obscure.[298]\n\n+150+. When the ceremony of initiation is elaborate and secret, it\nbecomes mysterious to boys, is looked forward to by them with\napprehension, and appeals to their imagination. Supernatural terrors are\nprovided by the leaders--noises are heard (made by the bull-roarer or\nsome similar device), and the report is circulated that the initiate is\nin danger of death at the hands of a supernatural being. These methods\ntestify to the importance attached by early societies to the\nintroduction of the young into social and political life, and they\nfurnish an early example of the employment of the supernatural for the\ngovernment of the masses. The old men do not believe in their\nsupernatural machinery, and the boys, after initiation, are let into the\nsecret.\n\n+151+. _Mutilation_ of the body is a widespread custom in connection\nwith initiation and arrival at the age of puberty.[299] In most cases\nthe origin of mutilating customs is obscure. Imitation of the form or\nappearance of a sacred animal, embellishment of the initiate, or\nconsecration of a part of the body to a deity have been suggested as\nmotives; but there is no clear evidence of such designs. The knocking\nout of a tooth may be for convenience in taking food; it seems not to\nhave religious significance except in so far as all tribal marks become\nreligiously important.[300] Boring through the septum of the nose is\nperhaps for decorative purposes. The cutting of the hair is possibly for\nconvenience, possibly for dedication to a deity.[301]\n\n+152+. Among the most important of the customs of initiation are those\nconnected with the organs of generation, excluding, as is remarked\nabove, complete excision, which belongs to conceptions of religious\nasceticism (consecration to a deity, preservation against temptation) in\nthe higher cults, and is not found among savages.[302] Partial excision\noccurs in circumcision, for males, and in similar operations for\nfemales.\n\n+153+. _Circumcision of males._[303] The most widely diffused of such\ncustoms of initiation is the gashing or the complete removal of the\nprepuce. It existed in ancient times among the Egyptians, the\nCanaanites, and the Hebrews (for the Arabs, the Syrians, and the\nBabylonians and Assyrians we have no information), not, so far as the\nrecords go, among the Greeks, Romans, and Hindus. At the present time it\nis found among all Moslems and most Jewish communities, throughout\nAfrica, Australia, Polynesia and Melanesia, and, it is said, in Eastern\nMexico. It is hardly possible to say what its original distribution was,\nand whether or not there was a single center of distribution. As to its\norigin many theories have been advanced. Its character as initiatory is\nnot an explanation--all customs of initiation need to have their origins\nexplained. It may be said at the outset that a usage prevalent in low\ntribes and clearly beginning under savage conditions of life must,\nprobably, have sprung from some simple physical need, not from advanced\nscientific or religious conceptions. We may briefly examine the\nprincipal explanations of its origin that have been offered.\n\n+154+. It cannot be regarded as a test of endurance, for it involves no\ngreat suffering, and neither it nor the severer operation of\nsubincision[304] (practiced in Australia) is ever spoken of as an\nofficial test.\n\n+155+. A hygienic ground is out of the question for early society. The\nrequisite medical observation is then lacking, and there is no hint of\nsuch a motive in the material bearing on the subject. Circumcision is\nemployed in modern surgery for certain diseases and as a generally\nhelpful operation, but such employment appears to be modern and of\nlimited extent. The exact meaning of Herodotus's statement that the\nEgyptians were circumcised for the sake of cleanliness, preferring it to\nbeauty,[305] is not clear; but in any case so late an idea throws no\nlight on the beginnings.\n\n+156+. Somewhat more to the point is Crawley's view that the object of\nthe removal of the prepuce is to get rid of the dangerous emanation from\nthe physical secretion therewith connected.[306] Such an object would\nissue from savage ideas of magic, the secretions of the human body (as\nurine and dung) being often supposed to contain the power resident in\nall life. But this view, though conceivably correct, is without support\nfrom known facts. There is no trace of fear of the secretion in\nquestion, and the belief in power, when such a belief appears, attaches\nrather to the oblated prepuce (which is sometimes preserved as a sort of\ncharm, or hidden, or swallowed by the boy or by some other person) than\nto the secretion. Nor does this theory account for the custom of\nsubincision.\n\n+157+. As circumcision is often performed shortly before marriage it has\nbeen suggested that its object is to increase procreative power by\npreventing phimosis.[307] The opinion that such is its effect, though it\nhas no scientific support, has been and is held by not a few persons.\nSuch an object, however, is improbable for low stages of society--it\nimplies an extent of observation that is not to be assumed for savages;\nand there is, besides, the fact that certain tribes (in Australia and\nelsewhere) that practice circumcision do not connect the birth of\nchildren with sexual intercourse. In general it is not to be supposed\nthat savages make well-considered physical preparation for marriage in\nthe interests of procreation. The choice of mates is determined by\ntribal law, but in other respects the individual is generally left free\nbefore marriage to satisfy his appetite--it is instinct that controls\nthe relations between the sexes.\n\n+158+. There is no clear evidence that the origin of circumcision is to\nbe traced to religious conceptions. It has been held that it is\nconnected with the cult of the generative organs (phallic worship).[308]\nIt is true that a certain sacredness often attached to these organs;\nthis appears, for example, in the oath taken by laying the hands upon or\nunder the thigh, as in the story of Abraham.[309] In some parts of\nAfrica circumcision is directly connected or combined with the worship\nof the phallus.[310] But, on the other hand, each of these customs is\nfound frequently without the other: in India we have phallic worship\nwithout circumcision, in Australia circumcision without phallic worship;\nand this separateness of the two may be said to be the rule. The cult of\nthe phallus seems not to exist among the lowest peoples.\n\n+159+. The view that circumcision is of the nature of a sacrifice or\ndedication to a deity, particularly to a deity of fertility, appears to\nbe derived from late usages in times when more refined ideas have been\nattached to early customs. The Phrygian practice of excision was\nregarded, probably, as a sacrifice. But elsewhere, in Egypt, Babylonia,\nSyria, and Canaan, where the worship of gods and goddesses of fertility\nwas prominent, we do not find circumcision connected therewith. In the\nwritings of the Old Testament prophets it is treated as a symbol of\nmoral purification. Among the lower peoples there is no trace of the\nconception of it as a sacrifice. It is not circumcision that makes the\nphallus sacred--it is sacred in itself, and all procedures of savage\nveneration for the prepuce assume its inherent potency.\n\n+160+. Nor can circumcision be explained as an attenuated survival of\nhuman sacrifice. The practice (in Peru and elsewhere) of drawing blood\nfrom the heads or hands of children on solemn occasions may be a\nsoftening of an old savage custom, and the blood of circumcision is\nsacred. But this quality attaches to all blood, and the essential thing\nin circumcision is not the blood but the removal of the prepuce.\n\n+161+. The suggestion that the object of detaching and preserving the\nforeskin (a vital part of one's self) is to lay up a stock of vital\nenergy, and thus secure reincarnation for the disembodied spirit,[311]\nis putting an afterthought for origin. The existence of the practice in\nquestion is doubtful, and it must have arisen, if it existed, after\ncircumcision had become an established custom. Savages and other\npeoples, when they feel the need of providing for reincarnation,\ncommonly preserve the bones or the whole body of the deceased.\n\n+162+. _Circumcision and other operations performed on females._\nCircumcision of girls is practiced by many African savage tribes (Nandi,\nMasai, Mandingos, and others), by Malays and Arabs, Gallas and\nAbessinians and others. Introcision appears to be confined to Australia.\nInfibulation is practiced in Northeastern Africa and by the Mohammedan\nMalays.[312] The effect, and doubtless the purpose, of the first and\nsecond of these operations is to facilitate coition; the object of the\nthird is to prevent coition until the proper time for it arrives. They\nare all connected more or less with initiation or with arrival at the\nage of puberty, and they are, naturally, sometimes associated with other\nceremonies.\n\n+163+. _Origin of circumcision._ The preceding review may be taken to\nmake it probable that the origin of circumcision is not to be referred\nto reflection or to religious ideas. We must look for a cruder motive,\nand several considerations point to the desire to facilitate coition as\nthe starting-point of the custom (so also R. F. Burton). Reports from\nall over the savage world testify to the prominence of sexual\nintercourse in the lower forms of human life. Folk-stories are full of\ncoarse details of the practice. Popular festivals are often\ncharacterized by gross license. To lend a wife to a guest is in many\nplaces a recognized rule of hospitality.[313] In all this there is\nnothing immoral--it is permitted by the existing law and is in accord\nwith the current ideas of propriety. Early man seems in this regard to\nhave obeyed his animal appetite without reflection. This form of\npleasure occupied (and occupies) a great part of his life, and it was\nnot unnatural that he should seek to remove all hindrances from it. It\nis quite conceivable that early observation led him to regard the\nprepuce as a hindrance.\n\n+164+. About the motives of early man in the adoption of these customs\nof excision we have, of course, no direct information; but some later\nusages favor the explanation suggested above. The operations performed\non females are obviously dictated by considerations of convenience or\npropriety in coition. Various means are adopted of increasing the\npleasure of sexual intercourse (in Indonesia and elsewhere).[314] These\nprocedures are purely animal, nonmoral, and without ulterior design;\nthere is no thought of progeny or, in general, of preparation for\nmarriage--the frame of mind is appropriate to the lowest grade of life.\n\n+165+. In the course of time, however, all such customs tend to become\nsanctified and to take on new meanings. When the importance of\ncircumcision was generally felt, it was natural that it should be\nperformed at puberty and at initiation.[315] It would thus come to be\nregarded as an introduction to the tribal life--not as preparation, but\nas a custom established by unwritten law. Its origination would be put\nfar back in the past and sometimes ascribed to supernatural\npersonages--the Central Australians refer it to the mythical ancestors,\nthe later Jews to the command of the national deity issued to the\nlegendary or mythical ancestor Abram.[316] Under certain circumstances\nit might become a tribal mark; the Hebrews thus distinguished themselves\nfrom their neighbors the Philistines, and \"uncircumcised\" was a term of\nreproach.[317]\n\n+166+. Apart from its use in initiation the cultic r\u00f4le of circumcision\nhas been small. It does not appear as an element in the worship of any\ndeity, neither in that of such gods as Osiris, Tammuz, Adonis, Attis,\nnor in that of any other. It is not represented in ancient records as a\ndevotion of one's self or an assimilation of one's self or of a child to\nthe tribal or national god. Its performance is generally a religious\nduty, as is true of every established custom, but this fact throws no\nlight on its origin. The prepuce is sometimes treated as an amulet or in\ngeneral as a magically powerful or sacred thing; but many other parts of\nthe body (hair, finger nails, etc.) are so treated.\n\n+167+. In the higher religions circumcision is generally viewed as an\nact of physical purification or as a symbol of moral purification. The\nformer view, perhaps, prevailed in Egypt, though on this point the\nrecords appear to be silent.[318] The latter view is that of the Old\nTestament prophets and the New Testament.[319] It has now ceased to\nhave any effective religious significance, and is retained in some\ncommunities merely as a national social tradition or as an ancient\ndivine ordinance.\n\n+168+. The origin of circumcision suggested above seems to account\nsufficiently for all usages and ideas connected with it; the possibility\nof several different origins need not be denied, but the practical\nidentity of the customs in all parts of the world in which the\ninstitution exists, makes the simpler hypothesis the more probable.\n\n+169+. Certain features of ceremonies of initiation appear to be\ndesigned to secure _union_ between the initiate and the clan. Such, for\nexample, is the custom found in New South Wales of the initiate's\ndrinking the blood of his companions. In other cases there is a union\nwith other parts of the body. Such usages arise from the idea that\nphysical union is essential to social union--a conception which\nelsewhere takes the form of blood-brotherhood.[320] This is a scientific\nrather than a religious idea, depending on the belief that the body is\nan essential part of the personality.[321]\n\n+170+. Another noteworthy custom is the feigned _resurrection_ of the\ninitiate. In Australia the women are informed that the youth during the\nprocess of initiation is slain by a supernatural being and brought to\nlife again. Elsewhere the initiate is supposed to forget his former life\ncompletely and to be obliged, on emerging from the ceremony, to recover\nslowly his knowledge of things.[322] The origin of this custom is\nobscure, but it appears to express the idea that the youth now enters on\nan entirely new life, and having come into new relations and\nresponsibilities, is to forget what he was and what he did before--a\nprofound conception which has been taken up into some of the most\nadvanced religions (as, for example, in baptism and confirmation).\n\n+171+. In certain half-civilized tribes a higher type of initiatory\nceremonies is found. The youth must perform a lonely vigil, going into\nthe forest or some other solitary place, and there wait for the vision\nor revelation of a supernatural protector.[323] This procedure is\nconnected with the advance of individualism, the old totemic or other\nrelation being superseded by an individual relation to a guardian\nspirit. The development of this higher religious conception will be\ndiscussed below.[324]\n\n+172+. Finally, instruction forms a part of most initiation ceremonies.\nThe youth is told the secrets of the tribe, and is thus inducted into\nits higher and more intimate life.[325] This confiding of tribal secrets\n(the tradition and the knowledge of sacred things) to the young man\nabout to enter on public life is a political necessity, but in the\nnature of the case connects itself with religious conceptions.\nGenerally, also, moral instruction is given.[326] The ethical code is\nusually good so far as intratribal relations are concerned (foreigners\nare not considered): the youth is told that he must obey his elders,\nrespect the rights of his fellow clansmen, and especially be careful in\nhis attitude toward women. In some cases a supernatural sanction for\nsuch instructions is added; it is impressed on the youth that some\nsupernatural being will punish him if he disobeys these instructions.\nThe moral code in question is one which springs naturally and\nnecessarily from the relations of men in society, and the supernatural\nsanction affixed to it is a consequence of the belief that the tribal\ndeity is the lord of the tribe and the natural and most effective\nguardian of its rights.\n\n+173+. From this brief statement of initiation ceremonies it appears\nthat they rest substantially on social ideas and necessities. Religion\nenters into them, as is pointed out above, when a superhuman being is\nrepresented as the patron of the clan and the protector of its\nceremonies, or when the moral teaching is referred to such a being, or\nwhen the initiate seeks a supernatural patron with whom to enter into\nrelations, or when, as in some North Australian tribes, the\nsupernatural being is believed to be angry at the omission of the\nceremonies. This last case might recall the displeasure of the Greek\ngods when sacrifices to them were withheld or diminished; but more\nprobably it involves simply the belief that all important ceremonies and\naffairs are under the control of the being in question, who demands\nobedience to him as lord.\n\n+174+. In later stages of savage or semicivilized life the clan\nconstitution as a rule has been succeeded by the formation of secret\nsocieties, and then initiation into a society takes the place of the old\ninitiation into the clan.[327] Initiation into such a society is often\nelaborate and solemn--it is carried out in great detail in many\nPolynesian, African, and North American tribes--but its general features\nare the same as those of the earlier procedure. Savage societies and\ncivilized mysteries all have their secrets and their moral instruction,\nand they all represent an advance in individualism. Still later the\nchurch takes the place of the mysteries, and here the process of\ninitiation, though more refined, is still in essence identical with the\nearlier forms.[328] Naturally in the increasing refinement of the\nceremonies there is an increasing prominence of the supernatural\nelement, for the reason that the special care of religion recedes more\nand more from general society (which tends to occupy itself with civil\nand political questions solely), and is intrusted to special voluntary\norganizations.\n\n\nMARRIAGE CEREMONIES\n\n+175+. Marriage is so important a fact for the communal life that it has\nalways been regulated to a greater or less extent by the community,\nwhich defines its methods, rights, and obligations.[329]\n\n+176+. In the lowest known tribes the ceremony of marriage is simple:\nthe woman is given to the man by the constituted authorities--that is,\nthe relatives of the parties and the elders of the clan or tribe--and by\nthat act the two become husband and wife. At this stage of social growth\nthe stress is laid on preparation for marriage in the ceremonies of\npuberty and initiation. The members of the tribe being thus prepared for\nunion, marriage is merely the assignment of a given woman to a given\nman. The wife is selected according to established custom; that is, in\naccordance with customary law, which in most cases defines precisely\nfrom what group of the tribe the woman proper to a given man shall be\ntaken.\n\n+177+. Though the origin of this law goes back to a remote antiquity and\nis involved in obscurity, it seems to have been originally simply a\nmatter of social agreement. It came to be, however, connected with\nsystems of totemism and taboo, and thus to have acquired a certain\nreligious character; and, as being important for the tribal life, it\nwould come under the control of the tribal god when there is such a god.\nA similar remark may be made in regard to exogamy. Why marriage between\nmembers of the same tribe, clan, or phratry should be prohibited is not\nclear.[330] The rule arose, doubtless, from some social feature of\nancient society, and only later was involved in the general religious\natmosphere.[331]\n\n+178+. Gradually greater freedom of choice was allowed men and women,\nand the ceremonies of marriage became more elaborate. Certain of these\nseem intended to secure the complete union of husband and wife; such,\nfor example, are the customs of eating together, of the inoculation of\neach party with the blood of the other or with some bodily part of the\nother, and the giving of presents by each to the other. All these rest\non the conception that union between two persons is effected by each\ntaking something that belongs to the other; each thus acquires something\nof the other's personality. This is a scientific biological idea; and\nthough it had its origin doubtless in some very crude notion of life, it\nhas maintained itself in one form or another up to the present time.\n\n+179+. Among many communities the custom is for the bride to hide\nherself and to be pursued and taken by the bridegroom. This custom,\nagain, is in its origin obscure. Almost certainly it does not point to\noriginal marriage by capture, for of such a customary method of\nacquiring wives there is no trace in savage communities (though in\nparticular cases women may have been captured and married). Possibly it\nreflects merely the coyness of the woman; or it may be simply a festive\nprocedure, an occasion of fun for the young people, as indeed a wedding\nnow commonly is. In many cases, however, it appears to represent the\ntransference of the woman from her own tribe to that of her husband.\nThough she was thus transferred bodily and brought into civic relations\nwith the latter, certain taboos, arising from her original tribal\nposition, often clung to her. The right to dwell in her own house in her\nown tribe, and to receive there her foreign husband, belongs to a\nrelatively late social stage.[332]\n\n+180+. The defloration of the woman before marriage is rather a\npreparation for marriage than a marriage ceremony; or it may represent\nthe social right of the elders of the tribe and the relatives of the\nbride to the possession of her, perhaps symbolizing her entrance into a\nfamily.[333] The hypothesis that such a custom points to primitive\npromiscuity is ably combated by Westermarck, and is involved in great\ndifficulties; it is, however, maintained by Messrs. Spencer and Gillen\nin their two works on Australian tribes, whose customs seem to them to\nbe inexplicable except on the supposition of primitive promiscuity, in\nspite of Westermarck's arguments; and in support of this view the sexual\nlicense granted in many tribes to unmarried girls may be adduced.\nHowever this may be, the custom in question appears to be civil and not\nreligious. The same thing is true of the ceremonies in which bridegroom\nand bride are hailed as king and queen--a very natural form of\nmerrymaking.[334] The purchase of wives is probably a simple commercial\nact.\n\n+181+. The marriage ceremonies mentioned above appear to be all social\nin their nature. Into them the supernatural is introduced in proportion\nas the conception of a divine control of society obtains.[335] On the\nother hand, those customs which are intended to ward off evil spirits or\ngeneral evil influences from the married pair are religious or magical.\n\n+182+. Mr. Crawley[336] holds that all marriage ceremonies are\nessentially religious, as involving the conception of something strange\nand dangerous in the contact of men and women; they are intended, he\nthinks, to neutralize dangers by reversing taboos and by assimilating\nthe two persons each to the other, the dangers in question being not\nmerely distinctly sexual but those of contact in general. Though he\ncarries his application of the principle of taboo too far, he has\ncollected a large number of examples which illustrate the separation\nbetween the sexes in early society, and the taboos which hold in their\nsocial intercourse. The separation of the sexes in early times seems to\nhave resulted largely from the difference in their occupations and the\nconsequent isolation of each from the other. Possibly one result of this\nisolation was that each saw something strange and wonderful in the\nother; but it must be remembered that the taboo laws were made by men\nand are therefore directed particularly against women. The belief in the\nsacredness of life would act more particularly on the ideas concerning\nbirth.\n\n+183+. Among many half-civilized peoples and generally in Christian\ncommunities marriage is regarded both as a religious ceremony and as a\ncivil contract, and is controlled in the one case by the religious\nauthorities, in the other case by the civil authorities. In Mohammedan\ncommunities marriage is simply a civil contract, but religious\nceremonies are often connected with it.[337]\n\n\nCEREMONIES AT BIRTH\n\n+184+. It is possible that early man was so impressed by the fact of\nlife and the wonderfulness of the birth of a human being that he\nincluded this latter fact in the sphere of the supernatural, and that\nthe taboos connected with it arose from his dread of supernatural,\ndangerous influence.[338] Many of the ceremonies connected with the\nbirth of a child may be explained easily as resulting from the natural\ncare for mother and child. Both of these are, in the modern sense of the\nterm, sacred; and even in very early times ordinary humane feeling would\nseek to protect them from injury.[339]\n\n+185+. Thus the curious custom of the couvade,[340] in which the\nhusband, and not the wife, goes to bed on the birth of the child, may be\nan effort on the man's part to share in the labor of the occasion, since\nhe has to take care of the child; or it may be primarily an economical\nprocedure--the woman must go out to work and the man must therefore stay\nat home to take care of the house and the child. But probably something\nmore than this is involved--there seems to be fear of supernatural\ndanger. It is not necessary to suppose that the man takes the woman's\nplace in order to attract to himself the malevolent spirits that figure\non such occasions; but the belief in the intimate vital connection\nbetween father and child may induce the desire to guard the former\nagainst injury. Similar precautions are taken in regard to the\nmother;[341] some of these have a natural basis in her physical\ncondition which necessitates a certain carefulness. Where such customs\nconnected with birth prevail, departure from them is thought to be\ndangerous or fatal; but such a feeling exists in regard to all social\ncustoms.\n\n+186+. The belief that the newborn child is the reincarnation of an\nancestor is scientific rather than religious. In Central Australia every\nchild is held to be the reincarnation of a spirit ancestor; a similar\nidea is found in North America, in Western Africa, and in Orissa.[342]\nIn searching for the cause of birth it is not unnatural that it should\nbe ascribed to a pre\u00ebxistent being who desires to enter again into human\nlife.[343]\n\n+187+. The ablutions or sprinklings of water practiced in some places\nappear to be merely the expression of welcome into the community.[344]\nThe choice of a name for the child is frequently connected with\nreligious ideas. Among many tribes the custom is to seek for some hint\nfrom the child itself, as by repeating a number of names and observing\nwhich of them the child seems to recognize or accept. The help of a\ndeity is sometimes invoked, as in Borneo, where a pig is killed and its\nspirit thus sent as messenger to a particular god, who is asked to\napprove.[345] In Samoa a tutelary spirit is sometimes chosen for the\ninfant;[346] during childhood the child bears the name of a god, who\nseems to be regarded as its protector. The identification of person and\nname, common among savages, is also scientific rather than religious. At\nthe entrance into a secret society the novitiate may receive a new\nname.[347] The adoption of a child's name by the father (teknonymy) may\nbe simply the expression of paternal pride, or possibly it is the\nexpression of the father's protection or of his identification with the\nchild. The adoption of a secret name that involves the man's personality\nand is therefore to be withheld from enemies belongs to adult life.\n\n+188+. The taboos imposed on the mother during pregnancy and after the\nbirth of the child, often numerous and oppressive, are derived from\nlocal conditions, and are generally regulated by religion. With the\ngrowth of refinement they tend to disappear, while the attendant\nceremonies take on a moral and spiritual character, culminating, in the\ngreat religions, in the conception that the babe, as a child of God, is\nto be taken into the religious fellowship of the community and trained\nfor a good life.\n\n\nBURIAL CEREMONIES[348]\n\n+189+. Among savage peoples grief for the dead expresses itself in a\nvariety of violent ceremonies of mourning, such as wailing, and cutting\nand gashing the body. These are partly expressions of natural\nsorrow,[349] but may be intended in part to propitiate the dead, who\nthus sees that honor is paid him.\n\n+190+. The belief that the dead person is powerful expresses itself in\nthe care with which the grave is guarded, it being held that injury to\nthe grave is an injury to the dead, and likely, therefore, to excite his\nanger. Further, savage science as a rule does not recognize natural\ncauses of death. It regards death as murder, and there is accordingly\nsearch for the murderer, often by protracted ceremonies with the aid of\na magician. The well-being of the dead man is provided for by placing\nfood and drink, utensils and weapons in his grave, that he may have the\nmeans of enjoyment in the other world.[350] To assure him proper service\nhis wives and slaves are sometimes slain, that their souls may accompany\nhis; but this custom is not found among the lowest tribes--it belongs\nto a relatively advanced conception of the other life.[351] In many\ncases blood is sprinkled on the ground near the grave of the corpse, as\nin Borneo (the blood of a fowl);[352] the blood may be meant to be food\nfor the dead, or its supernatural power may be supposed to guard against\ninjury from him to the living.\n\n+191+. A ban of silence is often imposed--the name of the dead person is\nnot to be mentioned except by certain privileged men;[353] among certain\nNorth American tribes on the death of a child there is a ban of silence\non the father.[354] The reason for this prohibition of the dead person's\nname is not certain. It may be respect for him, or it may be merely an\nexpression of sorrow at his loss. More probably, however, it comes from\nthe belief that the dead man is powerful and may be hurtful, and that\ntherefore his name, which is identical with himself, is dangerous.[355]\n\n+192+. In the cases mentioned above, the dead person is generally\nregarded as dangerous--to be feared and appeased. Among some tribes,\nindeed, precautions are taken to prevent his coming back to his house.\nVery generally the presence of the corpse is held to cause a certain\npollution.[356] There is, however, another side to the attitude toward\nthe dead. As he is regarded as powerful, parts of his body are preserved\nas amulets; wives wear parts of the bones of the dead husband, and the\nskulls of the deceased are supposed to be especially powerful, in some\ncases to give oracular responses.[357]\n\n+193+. In general, early burial ceremonies appear to be designed to\nassure the comfort of the deceased in the other world with a view to\nsecuring his friendship and aid for the members of his family and clan\nin this life. As he is of the nature of a divine person, the ceremonies\nin question are naturally religious. Socially they are effective in\nbinding the members of a community together--a large sense of solidarity\nis produced by the communal recognition of kinship with the dead.\nSpecial stress is laid on this conception in China.[358]\n\n\nCEREMONIES OF PURIFICATION AND CONSECRATION[359]\n\n+194+. The essence of religion is a helpful relation to the\nsupernatural, but in early stages of culture man frequently finds\nhimself exposed to conditions, either resident in himself or induced\nfrom without, that destroy this relation and disqualify him for the\nperformance of sacred acts. The result is a state of ritual impurity or\nuncleanness, conceived of at first as purely physical, but tending to\nbecome gradually moralized. The removal of the disqualification\nconstitutes purification; the positive preparation for the performance\nof a sacred act constitutes consecration; the two procedures represent\ntwo sides of the same idea, and they are related in a general way to\nceremonies of initiation and atonement.\n\n+195+. The occasions for purification are numerous, including all\ncontacts or possibilities of contact with dangerous (sacred) things, and\nthus often coinciding with taboo conceptions.[360] All acts connected\nwith procreation and birth; contact with a corpse, or with a sacred\nperson or thing, or with an object belonging to a sacred person; return\nfrom a journey (in the course of which the traveler may have been\nexposed to some injurious supernatural influence)[361]--such things as\nthese call for cleansing. Inanimate objects also, especially such as are\nconnected with religious worship (altars, vessels, and instruments),\nrequire purification; these are thought of originally as having souls,\nand as incurring defilement by the transmission of neighboring\nimpurities. A moral conception may seem to be involved in the\nrequirement of purification after the committal of a murder; certainly,\nin the more advanced stages of society, the feeling in this case is\nmoral, but it is doubtful whether in earlier stages anything more is\ninvolved than the recognition of ritual defilement by contact with\nblood; homicide, as a social crime, is dealt with by the civil law, and\nis generally excluded from the benefits of acts of ritual\natonement,[362] and so also all violations of tribal law.\n\n+196+. The religious preparation for the performance of a sacred act\nusually concerns official persons (see below, under _consecration_,\n\u00a7 202), but sometimes involves the purification of others. The largest\nact of purification is that which includes a whole community or\npeople;[363] the social mass is then regarded as a unit, and there is no\nreason, according to early thought, why such a mass should not, by a\nceremony, be freed from all ritual disabilities, the idea of moral\npurification being, of course, absent or latent. Finally, ritual\npurification is sometimes a preliminary to pleasing and influencing the\ndeity, who, as the most sacred and most dangerous object, must be\napproached with the greatest precautions.[364]\n\n+197+. The various methods of purification may be included under a few\nheads, the principal of which are: the application of water (bathing,\nsprinkling); the application of sand, dung, bark, and similar things;\nexposure to fire; incantation and sacrifice; and fasting. In all these\ncases the virtue lies either in a sacred thing or act that has the\nquality of dissipating the mysterious defilement present, or in the\nremoval or avoidance of the defiling thing; it is frequently required\nthat the application of the cleansing substance be made by a sacred\nperson, whose character adds potency to the act. The use of water for\nceremonial purification has been, and is, practiced all over the world,\nalike by savages and by civilized peoples:[365] the newborn child,\nritually impure by reason of the mystery of birth, is bathed or\nsprinkled; before the performance of a sacred act the officiator must\nbathe;[366] numerous ablutions are prescribed in the Old Testament;\nsimilar usages obtained among the Egyptians, the Hindus and the\nPersians, the Greeks and the Romans, the Chinese and the Japanese, the\nMexicans and the Peruvians, and other peoples.\n\n+198+. These usages have arisen doubtless from observation of the\nnatural cleansing power of water and other things in conjunction with\nthe belief in their sacred character. Adopted by the higher religions\nthey have been more or less spiritualized by the infusion into them of\nideas of penitence, forgiveness of sin, and regeneration--so in India,\nPersia, and Peru. Christian baptism seems to have come from Jewish\nproselyte baptism:[367] the proselyte was by immersion in water\nsymbolically cleansed from sin and introduced into a new religious life,\nand such was the significance of the rite practiced by John, though his\nsurname \"the Baptizer\" probably indicates that he gave it a broader and\ndeeper meaning; he overstepped national bounds, receiving Jews as well\nas non-Jews.[368] Moslem ritual requires ablutions before the stated\nprayers and at certain other times; every mosque has its tank of water\nfor the convenience of worshipers.\n\n+199+. Where water cannot be had, usage in Islam and in some forms of\nChristianity permits the substitution of sand or dust--both thought to\nhave cleansing power. Similar power is ascribed to urine and dung of\ndomestic animals.[369] Such usages may originate in a belief in the\nphysical cleansing efficacy of those substances (the Toda women employ\ndried buffalo's dung in household cleaning), or they may be supposed to\nderive their efficacy from the sacredness of the animals. The Todas also\nmake much use of a certain bark for purification.[370] The origin of\nthese customs is obscure; they go back to times and conditions for a\nknowledge of which data are lacking--possibly to the early conception of\nthe sacredness of all natural objects.[371] It is less difficult to\nexplain the belief in the purifying power of fire. Its splendor and\nutility caused it to be regarded as a god in India and Persia, and if it\nwas also destructive, it often consumed hurtful things. It was sacred,\nand might, therefore, be a remover of impurity. Its employment for this\npurpose is, however, not frequent;[372] it is oftener used to consume\ncorpses and other unclean things.\n\n+200+. In the more developed religious rituals, sacrifice is a common\naccompaniment of purifying ceremonies, the object being to procure the\nforgiveness of the deity for the offense held to be involved in the\nimpurity; the conception of sin in such cases is sometimes physical,\nsometimes moral, and the ceremony is always nearly allied to one of\natonement. In the Hebrew ritual a human bodily impurity and the\napparatus of the temple alike require a sin-offering.[373] In India the\nbath of purification stood in close relation with a sacrifice.[374] In\nGreece the two were associated in the cults of Apollo and Dionysos and\nin ordinary worship in general.[375] Thus, men and gods take part in the\nprocess of freeing the worshiper from the impure elements of life: the\nman obeys the law of the ritual, and the god receives him into\nassociation with the divine.\n\n+201+. Ancient examples of the purification of a whole community are the\nHebrew ceremony on the annual day of atonement[376] (which is called in\nthe text a purification), and the Roman Lupercalia.[377] An elaborate\nfestival of this sort was observed every year by the Creeks;[378] it\nlasted eight days, included various cathartic observances, and ended in\na physical and moral reconstruction of the nation. Among the Todas a\nsimilar ceremony for the purification of a village exists.[379]\n\n+202+. Ceremonies of _consecration_ are similar to those of\npurification, only usually more formal and solemn. Entrance on a sacred\nfunction, which involves special direct contact with a deity, requires\nspecial preparation. Even before a simple act of prayer it was felt to\nbe proper to cleanse one's person;[380] how much more important was\nbodily cleansing and other preparation for one who was chosen by the\ncommunity to represent it in its relations with the supernatural Powers!\nThe preparation for such an office is in earlier times ritual and\nexternal, and becomes gradually moralized. Magicians must submit to\npurificatory restrictions, and prove their fitness by various\ndeeds.[381] Initiation into secret societies (whose members had a\ncertain official character) was, and is, often elaborate.[382] Priests\nin Egypt, Babylonia and Assyria, Canaan, India, Greece and Rome, were\nsubject to conditions of purity, always physical and sometimes moral,\nthat secured a daily consecration.\n\n+203+. Methods of initial consecration were, probably, of the general\ncharacter of those prescribed in the Hebrew ritual law.[383] Authority\nis often conferred by a high official, whose consecrating act is then\ngenerally regarded as essential.[384] The priest becomes invested with a\nquasi-divine authority. The consecration of kings follows the same\ngeneral lines as that of priests. In both cases the desire is to have\nsome visible form of the deity whose relations with men may be felt to\nbe direct.\n\n+204+. No purificatory and consecrative usage has been more widespread\nthan fasting.[385] It is found throughout religious history in the\nlowest tribes and in the most highly civilized peoples, has been\npracticed in a great variety of circumstances, and has been invested\nwith a special sanctity and efficacy. It has been regarded as necessary\nbefore partaking of sacred food, before the performance of a sacred\nceremony, after a death, in the presence of a great occurrence (as an\neclipse or a thunderstorm, regarded as supernatural), as a part of the\ntraining of magicians, as a preparation for the search after a guardian\nspirit, as a part of ceremonies in honor of gods, as an act of\nabstinence in connection with a calamity (or in general as a self-denial\nproper to sinful man and pleasing to the deity as an act of humility),\nand, finally, as a retirement from fleshly conditions in preparation for\nspiritual exercises.\n\n+205+. A great number of explanations of the origin of the custom have\nbeen proposed, and it is obvious that the particular usages come from\nsomewhat different conceptions. Apparently, however, all these usages of\npurification by fasting go back to the idea that the body, which is\nidentified with the human personality, is in its ordinary state\nnonsacred[386] and therefore unfit for the performance of a sacred act,\nand that it is rendered especially unfit by contact with a ritually\nunclean thing. Ordinary food, nourishing the body and becoming a part of\nit, thus maintains it in its nonsacred character. This point of view\nappears in the practice of administering a purge as a means of\nceremonial purification; the Nandi, for example, give a purge to a girl\nbefore her circumcision, and in some cases to any one who has touched a\ntaboo object.[387]\n\n+206+. The essence of fasting is the avoiding of defiling food; this\nconception may be traced in all instances of the practice, though it may\nbe in some cases re\u00ebnforced by other considerations, and is sometimes\nspiritualized. The efficacy of sacred food would be destroyed if it\ncame in contact with common food, or it might itself become\ndestructive.[388] A sacred ceremony demands a sacred performer, one who\nhas not taken a defiling substance into his being. Death diffuses\ndefilement, and makes the food in the house of the deceased dangerous.\n\n+207+. Other ideas may here come in: abstinence may be a sign or a\nresult of grief, though this does not seem likely except in refined\ncommunities; or its ground may be fear of eating the ghost, which is\nbelieved to be hovering about the dead body;[389] it is hardly the\nresult of \"making excessive provision for the dead.\"[390] Special\ncommunion with supernatural Powers, by magicians and others (including\nconditions of ecstasy), requires ritual purity, and similar preparation\nof the body is proper when it is desired to avert the anger of a deity\nor to do him honor.\n\n+208+. Once established, the custom has maintained itself in the higher\nreligions[391] in connection with more or less definite spiritual aims\nand with other exercises, particularly prayer. The dominant feeling is\nthen self-denial, at the bottom of which the conviction appears to be\nthat the deity demands complete subordination in the worshiper and is\ndispleased when he asserts himself. This conviction, which is a\nfundamental element in all religious thought, pertains properly only to\ninward experience, but naturally tends to annex nonspiritual acts of\nself-abnegation like fasting. As a moral discipline, a training in the\ngovernment of self and a preparation for enduring times of real\nprivation, fasting is regarded by many persons as valuable. Its power to\nisolate the man from the world and thus minister to religious communion\ndiffers in different persons. The Islamic fast of Ramadan is said to\nproduce irritability and lead to quarrels. In general, fasting tends to\ninduce a nonnatural condition of body and mind, favorable to ecstatic\nexperiences, and favorable or not, as the case may be, to a genuine\nreligious life.[392]\n\n+209+. As with other religious observances, so with purificatory\nceremonies the tendency is to mass and organize them--they are made to\noccur at regular times and under fixed conditions, as in the Christian\nLent, the Moslem Ramadan, and the Creek Busk. Such arrangements give\norderliness to outward religious life, but are likely to diminish or\ndestroy spontaneity in observances. Ceremonies of this sort have great\nvitality--they are handed on from age to age, the later religion\nadopting and modifying and reinterpreting the forms of the earlier. In\nsuch cases the lower conceptions survive in the minds of the masses, and\nare moralized by the more spiritual natures, and their influence on\nsociety is therefore of a mixed character.\n\n\nCEREMONIES CONNECTED WITH SEASONS AND PERIODS\n\n+210+. Some of these have already been mentioned under \"Economic\nCeremonies.\" We may here take a general survey of festivals the times of\nwhose celebration are determined by the divisions of the year, and thus\nconstitute calendars.[393] The earliest calendars appear to have been\nfixed by observation of the times when it was proper to gather the\nvarious sorts of food--to hunt animals and gather grubs and plants (as\nin Central Australia), or this or that species of fish (as in Hawaii).\nThe year was thus divided according to the necessities of life--seasons\nwere fixed by experience.\n\n+211+. At a comparatively early period, however, the phases of the moon\nattracted attention, and became the basis of calendars. Lunar calendars\nare found among savage and half-civilized tribes of various grades of\nculture in Polynesia, Africa, Asia, and the Americas, and were retained\nfor a time by most ancient civilized peoples. Later observation included\nthe movements of the sun; it is only among advanced peoples that\nfestivals are connected with equinoxes and solstices. The more\nscientific calendars gradually absorbed the earlier, and it is probable\nthat simple ceremonies that were originally neither agricultural nor\nastral were taken up into the later systems and reinterpreted.[394]\n\n+212+. When, from observation of climatic conditions and lunar changes,\na general division of the year came to be made into spring, summer,\nautumn, and winter, or several similar seasons (sometimes with\nintermediate points), festivals gradually arranged themselves in the\nvarious periods. The terms designating the four seasons are, however,\nsomewhat indefinite in regard to position in the year and duration,\nvarying in these points in different places, and it is better, in\nconsidering agricultural ceremonies, to make a general division into\ntimes of planting and times of harvesting. It is not certain whether\nlunar or agricultural festivals came first in the development of public\nreligious life, but as (omitting the lowest tribes) the former are found\nwhere there is no well-organized agricultural system, we may begin with\nthem.\n\n+213+. The new moon, as marking the beginning of the month, and other\nphases of the moon are frequently accompanied by observances of a more\nor less definitely religious character, with great variety of detail in\ndifferent places. The Nandi[395] have two seasons (the wet and the dry)\nand twelve months named from meteorological phenomena, and each day in\nthe month receives a name from the attendant phase of the moon. The\ngreat ceremonies are conducted in the period of the waxing of the moon,\nand its waning is an occasion of mourning. The new moon is greeted with\na prayer that it may bring blessing. A similar custom exists among the\nMasai.[396] On the other hand the Todas, though the times of their\nfestivals are all regulated by the moon, appear to have no lunar\nceremony;[397] if there was ever any such ceremony, it has been absorbed\nby the buffalo cult. The South American Arawaks have six ceremonies in\nthe year that seem to be fixed by the appearance of the new moon.[398]\nThe Hebrew first day of the (lunar) month was observed with special\nreligious ceremonies.[399] The full moon, the last phase of growth, is\nless prominent; where it marks a festival day it is generally in\nconnection with an agricultural event, as among the non-Aryan Bhils of\nIndia[400] and in the later Hebrew calendar;[401] in both these cases\nthe observance occurs only once in the year.\n\n+214+. The new moon of the first month marks the beginning of the year,\nand new year's day is celebrated, particularly in the more advanced\ncommunities, with special observances. The Hindu _pongol_ and similar\nfestivals are seasons of merriment, with giving of presents, and\nreligious exercises.[402] Though these occasions now include\nagricultural epochs, we may recognize in them an interest in the\nbeginning of a new era in life. A like character attaches to the\ncelebration of the Japanese new year's day.[403] Of Assyrian observances\nof the day little is known, but at Babylon it was celebrated with great\npomp, and with it was connected the conception of the determination of\nhuman fortunes for the year by Marduk, the chief deity of the city.[404]\nThe late Old Testament ritual makes it a taboo day (first day of the\nseventh month, September-October); no servile work is to be done,\ntrumpets are to be blown (apparently to mark its solemnity), and a\nspecial sacrifice is to be offered;[405] in post-Biblical times the\nfeature of the divine assignment of fates (probably adopted from the\nBabylonians) appears. The old Roman religious year began with the\nkalends of March, when the sacred fire of Vesta was renewed, a procedure\nobviously intended to introduce a new era; on the later civil new year's\nday (kalends of January) presents were exchanged,[406] a custom\neverywhere relatively late, a feature in the gradual secularization of\nceremonies.\n\n+215+. Solar festivals, as such, are less prominent than the lunar in\nreligious ritual. Though the sun was a great god widely worshiped, it\nwas little used in the construction of early calendars. Primitive\nastronomy knew hardly anything of solstices and equinoxes, and where\nthese are noted in the more advanced rituals, they appear to be\nattachments to observances founded on other considerations--so the Roman\nSaturnalia, celebrated near the winter solstice, and apparently the\nplebeian festival of the summer solstice attached to the worship of\nFortuna; and the same thing is probably true of the Semitic and Greek\nfestivals that occurred near the equinoxes and solstices.[407]\n\n+216+. Elaborate solstitial ceremonies are practiced by the North\nAmerican Pueblos.[408] A well-developed solar system of festivals\nexisted in Peru, where the sun was the central object of worship;\nequinoxes and solstices were observed with great ceremonies, and\nespecially at the summer solstice the rising of the sun was hailed with\npopular rejoicing as a sign that the favor of the deity would be\nextended to the nation.[409] Similar ceremonies may have existed in\nMexico and elsewhere, but in general, as is remarked above, the\nastronomical feature at solar epochs yielded to other associations.\nOccasional festivals occur in connection with the worship of stars\n(especially the morning star);[410] the Pleiades are objects of\nobservation among some low tribes, and in some cases (Society Islands,\nTahiti, Hawaii, New Zealand) the year began with the rising of these\nstars, but apparently no festivals are dedicated to them.[411] In the\nlater theistic development various deities are brought into connection\nwith heavenly bodies, and their cults absorb earlier observances.[412]\n\n+217+. Socially the agricultural festivals are the most important of the\nearly festival ceremonies;[413] they unite the people in public\nobservances, thus furthering the communal life, and they satisfy the\npopular demand for amusement. Doubtless under any social conditions\ngatherings for merrymaking would have arisen, but, by reason of the\nconstitution of early society, they necessarily assume a religious\ncharacter. Whether for planting or for reaping, the local god must be\nconsidered; it is he whose aid must be invoked for coming crops, and he\nmust be thanked for successful seasons. The festivals occur at various\ntimes in the year among various peoples, but the tone of merriment is\nthe predominant one--it is only in a few cases that a touch of\nseriousness or sadness is found. Early festal calendars are largely\nagricultural. In Greece, Rome, and Peru there was a succession of\nfestivals, connected with planting and reaping, running substantially\nthrough the year; other ceremonies, of course, stood side by side with\nthem, but these were relatively few.\n\n+218+. Joyous festivals occur especially at the time of the ripening of\ncrops and harvest. The old Canaanite autumn feasts, adopted by the\nHebrews, were seasons of good cheer.[414] In Greece the Panathen\u00e6a fell\nin July-August, the Thesmophoria in October, and the Anthesteria in\nFebruary,--all agricultural, with joyous features;[415] of the similar\nRoman festivals the Feri\u00e6 Latin\u00e6 fell in April, the Feri\u00e6 Jovi in\nAugust, the Saturnalia in December, and with these should perhaps be\nincluded the Ambarvalia (in May) and the festival of the horse sacrifice\n(in October).[416] Other ceremonies of this nature occur in India, New\nZealand, Torres Straits islands, and in the old Peruvian cult.\n\n+219+. Popular festivities easily pass into license; examples are the\nRoman Saturnalia and the Hindu Holi[417]; the harvest festival of the\nHos of Northeastern India is a debauch,[418] and with it is connected\nthe expulsion of evil spirits--an example of the coalescence of\nfestivals. A peculiar feature in certain of these ceremonies is the\nexchange of places between masters and servants; this abandonment of\nordinary social distinctions is an expression of the desire for freedom\nfrom all restraints, and is found in carnivals generally (in the\nSaturnalia and elsewhere).[419]\n\n+220+. Ceremonies of a serious character occur in connection with the\neating of the first fruits of the year. In developed cults (as in the\nHebrew) the deity is recognized as the giver by the presentation of a\nportion of the new crop.[420] In very early cults there are other\nprocedures, the origin and significance of which are not always clear.\nSo far as the ceremonial eating, a preliminary to general use, is\nconcerned, this may be understood as a recognition, more or less\ndistinct, of some supernatural Power to whom (or to which) the supply of\nfood is due. The obscurest form of such recognition is found among the\nAustralian Arunta.[421] The Nandi practice is clearer--the god is\ninvoked to bless the grain.[422] In the Creek Puskita (Busk) there is\nperhaps a worship of the sun as the source of fertility.[423] Probably\nthe element of recognition of extrahuman power (the object being to\nsecure its favor) is to be found in all first-fruits ceremonies. A\nnatural result of this recognition is that it is unlawful (that is,\ndangerous) to partake of the new food till it has been properly offered\nto the deity. The ceremonial features (such as the choice of the persons\nto make the offering) are simply the carrying over of general social\narrangements into religious observances--the ministrant is the father of\nthe family, or the chief of the tribe, or the priest or other elected\nperson, according to the particular local customs.\n\n+221+. The sadness or gloom that sometimes attaches to these ceremonies\nhas been variously explained, and is due doubtless to various orders of\nideas; it comes probably from the coalescence of other cults with the\nagricultural cults proper. The remembrance of ancestors is not unnatural\nat such a time, and sorrow may be expressed for their death; such is\nperhaps the case in the Nandi usage mentioned above--the women\nsorrowfully take home baskets of elusine grain, and the bits that drop\nin the house are left to the souls of the deceased. Sorrow appears also\nin other agricultural seasons, as in the Roman Vestalia (in June) and\nthe Greek Thesmophoria (in the autumn), in which cases more likely it is\nconnected with the fear of evil influences.[424] So the great tribal\npurification of the Creeks, at the beginning of a new year, naturally\ncoincides with the gathering of the new crop.\n\n+222+. A further extension of the conception of the sacredness of food\n(whether or not of the first eating) appears in the Mexican custom (in\nMay and December) of making dough images of gods, the eating of which\nsanctifies the worshiper;[425] here the god dwells in the bread of which\nhe is the giver.\n\n+223+. In addition to the astral and agricultural festivals above\ndescribed there has been the observance of long periods to which a\nreligious significance was sometimes attached. The Egyptian Sothis\nperiod[426] (of 1461 years), the Greek period of eight years\n(oktaeteris), and the Mexican period of fifty-two years were\ncalendary--attempts to harmonize the lunar and solar years; in Mexico\nthe new cycle introduced a new religious era--a great ceremony was held\nin which domestic fires were rekindled from the sacred fires. The Hebrew\njubilee period (of fifty years), apparently a late development from the\nsabbatical year, was intended, among other things, to maintain the\ndivision of landed property among the people--all alienated land was to\nreturn finally to its original owner--participation in the blessings\nbestowed by the national deity being conditioned on having a share in\nthe land, of which he was held to be the proprietor; the proposed\narrangement turned out, however, owing to changed social conditions, to\nbe impracticable.\n\n+224+. It thus appears that ceremonies of various sorts have played a\nvery important part in religious life. They have been the most popularly\neffective presentation of religious ideas, and they have preserved for\nus religious conceptions that without them would have remained unknown.\nTheir social character has insured their persistence[427]--ceremonies of\nto-day contain features that go back to the earliest known stratum of\norganized religious life. While the motives that underlie them (desire\nto propitiate supernatural Powers, demand for an objective presentation\nof ideas, and love of amusement) are the same throughout the world,\ntheir forms reflect the various climatic, economic, and general cultural\nconditions of clans, tribes, and nations. They acquire consistency with\nthe organization of society; they tend to become more and more\nelaborate, just as in other points social intercourse tends to produce\nformal definiteness; they grow decrepit and have to be artificially\nstrengthened and revived; they lose their original meanings and must be\nconstantly reinterpreted to bring them into accord with new ideas,\nsocial, moral, and religious. Their history, in a word, is the history\nof the development of human ideas, and it sets forth the religious unity\nof the race. The selections given above are only a small part of the\nknown material, a full treatment of which would require a separate\nvolume.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV\n\nEARLY CULTS\n\n\n+225+. The lowest tribes known to us regard the whole world of nature\nand the human dead as things to be feared and usually as things to be\npropitiated. In most cases they conceive of some anthropomorphic being\nas the creator or arranger of the world. But in all cases they regard\nanimals, plants, and inanimate objects as capable of doing extraordinary\nthings. All these beings they think of as akin to men; transformations\nfrom human to nonhuman and from nonhuman to human are believed to be\npossible and frequent.\n\n+226+. From the point of view of the savage mind this theory of the\nworld is inevitable. Ignorant of what we call natural law, they can see\nno reason why the phenomena of life should not be under the control of\nany of the powers known to them; and for sources of power they look to\nthe things around them. All objects of nature are mysterious to the\nsavage--stones, hills, waters, the sky, the heavenly bodies, trees,\nplants, fishes, birds, beasts, are full of movement, and seemingly\ndisplay capacities that induce the savage to see in them the causes of\nthings. Since their procedures seem to him to be in general similar to\nhis own, he credits them with a nature like his own. As they are\nmysterious and powerful, he fears them and tries to make allies of them\nor to ward off their injurious influences.\n\n+227+. But while he excludes nothing from his list of possible powers,\nhe is vitally interested only in those objects with which he comes into\ncontact, and he learns their powers by his own experience or through the\nwisdom inherited from his forefathers. His procedure is strictly\nscientific; he adopts only what observation has shown him and others to\nbe true. Different tribes are interested in different things--some are\nindifferent to one thing, others to another, according to the\ntopographical and economic milieu. The savage is not without\ndiscrimination. He is quite capable of distinguishing between the\nliving and the dead. Not all stones are held by him to be alive in any\nimportant sense, and not all beasts to be powerful. He is a practical\nthinker and deals with each phenomenon as it presents itself, and\nparticularly as it shows itself to be connected with his interests. He\nis constantly on the alert to distinguish between the profitable and the\nunprofitable, the helpful and the injurious. He himself is the center of\nhis whole scientific and religious system, and the categories into which\nhe divides all things are determined by his own sense of\nself-interest.[428]\n\n+228+. It is often by accident that one object or another displays\nitself as helpful or harmful, just as, in a later and higher form of\nreligious belief, a theophany is often, as to time and place, a matter\nof accident. Indeed, most manifestations of extrahuman power in the\nearliest times may be said to come to man incidentally, since he does\nnot generally demand them from the gods or make experiments in order to\ndiscover them. But in the nature of the case many things meet him as to\nwhich he is obliged to use judgment, and of these a certain number\nappear to him to be powerful.\n\n+229+. These objects are held by him to be in some sort akin to man.\nThis seems to be his view of certain dead things in which a mysterious\npower is held to reside. When such objects are parts of animals (bones,\nfeathers, claws, tails, feet, fat, etc.), or of vegetables that are used\nas charms, it may be supposed that they simply retain the power resident\nin the objects of which they are parts--objects originally living and\nsacred. In other cases an indwelling supernatural being is assumed, as,\nfor example, in minerals whose shape and color are remarkable.\n\n+230+. Fetish objects in West Africa are believed to be inhabited by\nspirits.[429] The Australian sacred object called _churinga_--a thing\nof mysterious potency--is believed to be the abode of the soul of an\nancestor endowed with extraordinary power. Many such fetish objects are\nfound all over the world.\n\n+231+. Further, the conception of a life-force, existing in many things\n(perhaps in all things), appears to have been prominent in savage\nreligious systems. Life implies power; but while it is held to reside in\nall things, its manifestations vary according to the relations between\nthings and human needs. The life-force in its higher manifestations has\nbeen isolated in thought by some more advanced savages, especially in\nNorth America and Polynesia, and has been given a definite name; in\nPolynesia and Melanesia it is called _mana_, and other names for it\noccur elsewhere.[430]\n\n+232+. It shows itself in any object, nonhuman or human, that produces\nextraordinary effects. In the Pacific islands all great achievements of\nmen are attributed to it--all great chiefs possess it in an eminent\ndegree;[431] it is then nearly equivalent to what we call capacity or\ngenius. When it resides in an inanimate thing it may produce a physical\neffect: it comes up in the steam of the American sacred sweat lodge, and\ngives health to the body (and thus buoyancy to the mind);[432] here it\nis identical with the soothing and stimulating power of the steam. It\nis, in a word, a term for the force residing in any object.[433] Like\nsickness and other evils, blessings, and curses, it is conceived of as\nhaving physical form and may be transmitted from its possessor to\nanother person or object. In some cases its name is given to the thing\nto which it is attached.[434]\n\n+233+. How widely the conception exists is uncertain; further research\nmay discover it in regions where up to now it has not been recognized.\nScarcely a trace of it exists in the higher ancient religions. The Latin\n_genius_, the indwelling power of the man, bears a resemblance to it.\nThe Old Testament \"spirit of God\" is said to \"come on\" a man or to be\n\"poured out on\" him, as if it were a physical thing--it gives courage\nand strength to the warrior and knowledge to the worshiper;[435] the\npower or energy is here (in the earlier Hebrew writings) identified with\nthe spirit or animus of the deity, which appears to be thought of as\nphysical.\n\n+234+. Mana is conceived of by the peoples mentioned above not as a\nvague influence diffused through the world, but as a power resident in\ncertain definite persons or things. It is impersonal in the sense in\nwhich any quality, as courage, is impersonal, but it is not itself an\nobject of worship; worship is directed toward the thing that possesses\nor imparts mana. It may reside in a natural object or in a supernatural\nbeing--the object will be used to secure it, the supernatural being will\nbe asked to bestow it. In both cases the act will be religious.\n\n+235+. Mana is itself, strictly speaking, a scientific biological\nconception, but it necessarily enters into alliance with religion.\nBelief in it exists along with belief in ghosts, spirits, and gods--it\nis not a rival of these, but an attachment to them. As a thing\ndesirable, it is one of the good gifts that the great Powers can bestow,\nand it thus leads to worship. It is found in distinct form, as is\npointed out above, only in superior tribes--it has not been discovered\nin very low communities, and appears not to belong to the earliest\nstratum of religious beliefs. But it rests on the view that all things\nare endowed with life, and this view may be taken to be universal. The\ndoctrine of mana gradually vanishes before a better knowledge of the\nhuman constitution,[436] a larger conception of the gods, and a greater\ntrust in them.[437]\n\n+236+. Things and persons endowed with peculiar power, whether as seats\nof mana or as abodes of spirits, are set apart by themselves, are\nregarded with feelings of awe, and thus become \"sacred.\" In process of\ntime the accumulated experience of generations builds up a mass of\nsacred objects which become a part of the religious possessions of the\ncommunity. The quality of sacredness is sometimes attached to objects\nand customs when these are regarded as necessary to the well-being of\nthe community, or highly convenient. A house, for example, represents\nthe life of the family, and is therefore a thing to be revered; and in\nmany tribes the walls, which guard the house against intrusion, and the\ndoor and the threshold, which offer entrance into it, are considered\nsacred; the hearth especially, the social center of the dwelling,\nbecomes a sacred place.\n\n+237+. The savage communities with which we are acquainted all possess\ntheir stock of such things--the beliefs concerning sacred objects are\nheld by all the members of the tribe. The development of the idea of\n'sacred' is a social communal one, but it is impossible for us to say\nprecisely how all the individual sacred objects were selected, or what\nwas the exact attitude of primeval man toward all the things that are\nnow regarded as sacred.\n\n+238+. The conception of power resident in certain things to control\nhuman life is represented by our term \"luck.\" The formulation of \"luck\"\nsystems goes on in savage and half-civilized communities up to a certain\npoint, and is then checked by the rise of higher religious ideas and by\nthe growth of the conception of natural law. But long after the grounds\nof belief in luck have ceased to be accepted by the advanced part of the\ncommunity, many individual forms of good luck and bad luck maintain\nthemselves in popular belief.[438] Some of these beliefs may be traced\nback to their savage sources, especially those that are connected with\nanimals; the origin of most of them is obscure. They coalesce to some\nextent with conceptions derived from magic, divination, and taboo. The\npersistence of such savage dogma into civilized times enables us to\nunderstand how natural this dogma was for early forms of society.\n\n+239+. In the practices mentioned above there is no worship proper. Mana\nis not thought of as being in itself a personal power, and worship is\npaid only to objects regarded as having personality. The fetish derives\nits value from the spirit supposed to be resident in the fetish objects;\nthese are commonly worn as charms, and the attitude of the man to such a\ncharm, though he regards it as powerful, seems to be not exactly that of\nworship--he keeps it as a protection so long as it appears to be useful,\nbut, as is remarked above, he acts as if he were its master. He believes\nthat the efficient factor is the indwelling spirit, but he commonly\ndistinguishes between this spirit and a god proper. When, however, the\nfetish is regarded as a tutelary divinity, it loses its lower character\nand takes its place among the gods.\n\n+240+. We turn now to man's attitude toward other objects, similarly\nregarded as sacred, but invested with distinct personality, and supposed\nto act consciously on human life. These are all such things as men's\nexperiences bring them into intimate relations with, this relationship\nforming the basis of the high regard in which they are held. They are\nanimals, plants, mountains, rivers, heavenly bodies, living men, and\nghosts. These are objects of cults, many of them in some cases being\nworshiped at the same time in a single community. A chronological order\nin the adoption of such cults it is not possible to determine. All\nobjects stand together in man's consciousness in early cultural strata,\nand the data now at command do not enable us to say which of them first\nassumed for him a religious character; the chronological order of cults\nmay have differed in different communities when the general social\nconditions were different. We may begin with the cult of animals without\nthereby assuming that it came first in order of time.\n\n\nANIMALS\n\n+241+. Of all nonhuman natural objects it would seem to have been the\nanimal that most deeply impressed early man.[439] All objects were\npotentially divine for him, and all received worship, but none entered\nso intimately into his life as animals. He was doubtless struck, perhaps\nawed, by the brightness of the heavenly bodies, but they were far off,\nintangible; mountains were grand and mighty, but motionless; stones lay\nin his path, but did not approach him; rivers ran, but in an unchanging\nway, rarely displaying emotion; plants grew, and furnished food, but\nshowed little sign of intelligence. Animals, on the other hand, dwelt\nwith him in his home, met him at every turn, and did things that seemed\nto him to exhibit qualities identical with his own, not only physical\nbut also mental--they showed swiftness, courage, ferocity, and also\nskill and cunning. In certain regards they appeared to be his superiors,\nand thus became standards of power and objects of reverence.\n\n+242+. At a very early period the belief in social relations between men\nand animals appears. The latter were supposed to have souls, to continue\ntheir existence after death, sometimes to come to life on earth after\ndeath. Their social life was supposed to be similar to that of men;[440]\nin Samoa the various species form social units,[441] the Ainu see tattoo\nmarks on frogs and sparrows,[442] the Arabs recognize a clan\norganization in beasts.[443]\n\n+243+. From identity of nature comes the possibility of transformation\nand transmigration.[444] An Australian of the Kangaroo clan explained\nthat he might be called either kangaroo or man--it was all the same,\nman-kangaroo or kangaroo-man, and the Australian legends constantly\nassume change from human to animal and from animal to human.[445] The\nsame belief appears in Africa and North America, and may be assumed to\nbe universal among savages. It survives in the Greek transformation\nstories and in the werwolf and swan maiden of the European popular\ncreed. It is the basis of a part of the theory of the transmigration of\nsouls.[446]\n\n+244+. The relations of early man with animals are partly friendly,\npartly hostile. A friendly attitude is induced by admiration of their\npowers and desire for their aid. Such an attitude is presupposed in the\nmyths of intermarriage between beasts and men. It is perhaps visible\nalso in the custom of giving or assuming names of animals as personal\nnames of men, though this custom may arise from the opinion that animals\nare the best expressions of certain qualities, or from some conception\nunderlying totemistic organization; the general history of savage proper\nnames has not yet been written. Beast tales, likewise, bear witness to\nman's opinion of the cleverness or folly of his nonhuman brethren, and\nperhaps originally to nothing more. The distinctest expression of\nfriendliness is seen in certain religious customs spoken of below.\n\n+245+. On the other hand, early man necessarily comes into conflict with\nanimals. Against some of them he is obliged to protect himself by force\nor by skillful contrivance; others must be slain for food. With all of\nthem he deals in such a way as to secure his own well-being, and thus\ncomes to regard them as things subservient to him, to be used in such\nway as he may find profitable. Those that he cannot use he gradually\nexterminates, or, at a later stage, these, banished to thickets,\nmountains, deserts, caves, and other inhospitable places, are excluded\nfrom human society and identified with demons.[447]\n\n+246+. The two attitudes, of friendliness and of hostility, coexist\nthroughout the savage period, and, in softened form, even in\nhalf-civilized life. They represent two points of view, both of which\nissue from man's social needs. Early man is logical, but he comprehends\nthe necessity of not pushing logic too far--he is capable of holding at\nthe same time two mutually contradictory views, and of acting on each as\nmay suit his convenience; he makes his dogma yield to the facts of life\n(a saving principle not confined to savages, but acted on to a greater\nor less extent by all societies). He slays sacred animals for divinatory\nand other religious purposes, for food, or in self-defense; he fears\ntheir anger, but his fear is overcome by hunger; he offers profuse\napologies, explains that he acts without ill will and that the bones of\nthe animal will be preserved and honored, or he declares that it is not\nhe but some one else that is the slayer--but he does not hesitate to\nkill.[448]\n\n+247+. This fact--the existence of different points of view--enables us\nto understand in part the disrespectful treatment of sacred animals in\nfolk-tales. Such tales are the product of popular fancy, standing apart\nfrom the serious and solemn conceptions of the tribal religion. The\nreciter, who will not fail at the proper time to pay homage to his\ntribal patron, does not hesitate at other times to put him into\nridiculous and disgraceful situations.[449]\n\n+248+. Man's social contact with the lower animals is doubtless as old\nas man himself, but there are no records of his earliest life, and it is\nnot possible to say exactly when and how his religious relations with\nthem began. His attitude toward them; as is remarked above, was a mixed\none; in general, however, it may be assumed that constant intercourse\nwith them revealed their great qualities and impressed on him the\nnecessity of securing their good will. This was especially true of those\nof them that stood nearest to him and were of greatest importance for\nhis safety and convenience. These, invested with mystery by reason of\ntheir power and their strangeness, were held in great respect as\nquasi-gods, were approached with caution, and thus acquired the\ncharacter of sacredness. Gradually, as human society was better and\nbetter organized, as conceptions of government became clearer, and as\nthe natures of the various animals were more closely studied, means were\ndevised of guarding against their anger and securing their friendship\nand aid. Our earliest information of savage life reveals in every tribe\nan inchoate pantheon of beasts. All the essential apparatus of public\nreligion is present in these communities in embryonic form--later\nmovements have had for their object merely to clarify ideas and refine\nprocedures.\n\n+249+. The animals revered by a tribe are those of its vicinage, the\ninhabitants of its hunting grounds. Some of these man uses as food, some\nhe fears. His relation to plains, mountains, forests, lakes, rivers, and\nseas, influences his choice of sacred beasts. Usually there are many of\nthem, and the natural inference is that originally all animals are\nsacred, and that gradually those most important for man are singled out\nas objects of special regard.\n\n+250+. Thus, to mention the principal of them: in Africa we find lion,\nleopard, hyena, hippopotamus, crocodile, bull, ram, dog, cat, ape,\ngrasshopper; in Oceania, kangaroo, emu, pig, heron, owl, rail, eel,\ncuttlefish; in Asia, lion, elephant, bear, horse, bull, dog, pig, eagle,\ntiger, water wagtail, whale; in Europe, bear, wolf, horse, bull, goat,\nswan; in America, whale, bear, wolf, fox, coyote, hare, opossum, deer,\nmonkey, tiger, beaver, turtle, eagle, raven, various fishes. The snake\nseems to have been generally revered, though it was sometimes regarded\nas hostile.[450] Since animals are largely valued as food, changes in\nthe animals specially honored follow on changes in economic organization\n(hunting, pastoral, and agricultural stages).\n\n+251+. Often animals are looked on as the abodes or incarnations of gods\nor spirits: so various birds, fishes, and beasts in Polynesia (in Samoa\nevery man has a tutelary deity, which appears in the form of an\nanimal[451]), Siberia, Mexico, and elsewhere. In other cases they are\nrevered as incarnations of deceased men.[452] Where a species of animal\nis supposed to represent a god, this view is probably to be regarded not\nas a generalization from an individualistic to a specific conception (a\nprocess too refined for savages), but as an attempt to carry over to the\nanimal world the idea of descent from a common ancestor combined with\nthe idea of a special creator for every family of animals.[453]\n\n+252+. In the course of religious growth the beast-god may be replaced\nor succeeded by an anthropomorphic god, and then the former is regarded\nas sacred to the latter--the recollection of the beast form still\nremains after the more refined conception has been reached, and the two,\nclosely connected in popular feeling, can be brought into harmony only\nby making one subordinate to the other.[454] A certain element or flavor\nof divinity clings to the beast a long time, but finally vanishes under\nthe light of better knowledge.\n\n+253+. While the cases, very numerous, in which animals are associated\nin worship with gods--in composite forms (as in Egypt, Babylonia, and\nAssyria) or as symbols of deities or sacred to them--point probably to\nearly beast-cults, Egypt alone of the ancient civilized nations\nmaintained the worship of the living animal.[455] For the better\nthinkers of Egypt beasts doubtless were incarnations or symbols of\ndeities; but the mass of the people appear to have regarded them as gods\nin their own persons.\n\n+254+. Reverence for animals persists in attenuated form in civilized\nnations in various superstitions connected with them. Their appearances\nand their cries are believed to portend success or disaster. The great\nnumber of \"signs\" recognized and relied on by uneducated and educated\npersons at the present day bear witness to the strong hold that the cult\nof animals had on early man.[456]\n\n+255+. It is in keeping with early ideas that savages often, perhaps\ngenerally, ascribe the creation or construction of the world (so far as\nthey know it) to animals. The creation (whether by beasts or by other\nbeings) is not conceived of as produced out of nothing; there is always\npre\u00ebxisting material, the origin of which is not explained; primitive\nthought seems not to have considered the possibility of a situation in\nwhich nothing existed. The \"creation\" conceived of is the arrangement of\nexisting material into the forms familiar to man--every tribe accounting\nthus for its own environment. The origin of the land, of mountains,\ndefiles, lakes, rivers, trees, rocks, sun, moon, and stars, wind and\nrain, human beings and lower animals, and sometimes of social\norganizations and ceremonies, is explained in some way natural to the\nthought of the time and place. Not all these details occur in the\ncosmogony of every tribe or clan, but the purpose of every cosmogony is\nto account for everything in the origin of which the people are\ninterested.\n\n+256+. The creator in the cosmogonies known to us is not always an\nanimal--he is sometimes a man, sometimes a god; it is possible, however,\nthat human and divine creators are the successors of original animal\ncreators. In Central Australia the production of certain natural\nfeatures of the country and the establishment of certain customs are\nascribed to ancestors, mythical beings of the remote past, creatures\nboth animal and human, or rather, either animal or human--possibly\nanimals moving toward the anthropomorphic stage.[457] However this may\nbe, there are instances in which the creator is an animal pure and\nsimple, though, of course, endowed with extraordinary powers. The beast\nto which the demiurgic function is assigned is selected, it would seem,\non the ground of some peculiar skill or other power it is supposed to\npossess; naturally the reason for the choice is not always apparent. For\nthe Ainu the demiurge is the water wagtail;[458] for the Navahos and in\nCalifornia,[459] the coyote or prairie wolf; among the Lenni-Len\u00e2p\u00e9, the\nwolf.[460] Various animals--as elephants, boars, turtles, snakes--are\nsupposed to bear the world on their backs. The grounds of such opinions,\nresting on remote social conditions, are obscure.\n\n+257+. Though, in early stadia of culture, animals are universally\nrevered as in a sort divine, there are few recorded instances of actual\nworship offered them.[461] Whether the Bushmen and the Hottentots\nworship the mantis (the Bushman god Cagn) as animal is not quite\nclear.[462] The bear, when it is ceremonially slain, is treated by the\nAinu as divine--it is approached with food and prayer, but only for the\nspecific purpose of asking that it will speak well of them to its divine\nkin and will return to earth to be slain. The Zu\u00f1i cult of the turtle\nand the Californian worship of the bird called _panes_[463] present\nsimilar features. The non-Aryan Santhals of Bengal are said to offer\ndivine worship to the tiger.[464] Such worship appears to be paid to the\nsnake by the Naga tribes and the Gonds of India, and by the Hopi of\nNorth America.[465]\n\n+258+. In these and similar cases it is sometimes difficult to say\nwhether the animal is worshiped in its own person merely, or as the\nembodiment or representative of a god or of ancestors. The usages in\nquestion are almost entirety confined to low tribes, and disappear with\nthe advance of civilization; wild animals are banished from society and\ncease to be sacred, and the recollection of their early character\nsurvives only in their mythological attachment to deities proper. For a\ndifferent reason domesticated animals lose their sacredness--they become\nmerely servants of men. The Egyptian cult of the bull is the\nbest-attested instance of actual worship of a domestic animal, and\nparallels to this it is hard to find; the Todas, for example, for whom\nthe buffalo is the central sacred object, do not now pay worship to the\nanimal--they may have done so in former times.\n\n+259+. The sacredness of animals, and the fact that they are regarded\nas embodying the souls of things and human beings, have led to a\ncoalescence of their cults with other religious observances. They are\nabundantly employed in magical procedures and in sacrifices; they are\noften identified with spirits of vegetation, any locally revered animal\nbeing chosen for this purpose; they are brought into connection with\nastral objects and their forms are fancifully seen in sun, moon, and\nconstellations; they play a great r\u00f4le in apotropaic and purificatory\nceremonies; and they appear in myths of all sorts,[466] especially in\nthe histories of gods.\n\n+260+. But, though they are in many cases regarded as tutelary beings,\nit is doubtful whether they ever develop into anthropomorphic\ndeities.[467] The creation of such deities followed a different\nline[468] and dispensed with the lower quasi-divine forms. Such manlike\nattributes as beasts were supposed to have were taken up into the\ndistincter and nobler conceptions of tribal gods to whom beasts were\nmore and more subordinated. The latter were allegorized and\nspiritualized, and came to serve merely as material for poetry.\n\n+261+. Yet beast worship, such as it was and is, has played an important\npart in religious development. It has furnished a point of\ncrystallization for early ideas, and has supplied interesting objects in\nwhich man's demand for superhuman companionship could find\nsatisfaction.[469] It has disappeared when it has been no longer needed.\n\n\nPLANTS\n\n+262+. The cult of plants has been as widespread as that of animals,\nand, if its r\u00f4le in the history of religion has been less important than\nthat of the latter, this is because plants show less definite signs of\nlife than animals and enter less intimately than they into the social\ninterests of man. But, like all other things, they are regarded by\nearly man as living, as possessing a nature similar to that of man, and\nas having power to work good or ill. Trees are represented as thinking,\nspeaking, entering into marriage relations, and in general doing\nwhatever intelligent beings can do. Through thousands of years in the\nperiod before the dawn of written history man was brought into constant\ncontact with the vegetable world, and learned by experience to\ndistinguish between plants that were beneficial and those that were\nharmful. His observation created an embryonic science of medicine, and\nhis imagination an embryonic religious cult.\n\n+263+. The value of certain vegetable products (fruits, nuts, wild\nplants) as food must have become known at a very early time, and these\nwould naturally be offered to the extrahuman Powers. At a later time,\nwhen cereals were cultivated, they formed an important part of\nsacrificial offerings, and were held--as, for example, among the Greeks\nand the Hebrews--to have piacular efficacy.\n\n+264+. Among the discoveries of the early period was that of the\nintoxicating quality of certain plants--a quality that came to play a\nprominent r\u00f4le in religious life. Valued at first, probably, for the\nagreeable sensations they produced, such plants were later supposed to\npossess magical power, to exert a mysterious influence on the mind, and\nto be the source or medium of superhuman communications. Thus employed\nby magicians they were connected with the beginnings of religious\necstasy and prophecy. Their magical power belongs to them primarily as\nliving things, but came to be attributed to extrahuman beings.\n\n+265+. Plants as living things were supposed to possess souls.[470]\nProbably the soul was conceived of at first as simply the vital\nprinciple, and the power of the plant was thought of as similar to the\npower of an animal or any other living thing. In the course of time this\nsoul, the active principle, was distinguished from the vital principle,\nwas isolated and regarded as an independent being dwelling in the plant.\nTo it all the powers of the latter were ascribed, and it became a friend\nor an enemy, an object of worship or of dread.[471]\n\n+266+. This difference of attitude on man's part toward different plants\nprobably showed itself at an early period. Those that were found to be\nnoxious he would avoid; the useful he would enter into relations with,\nthough on this point for very early times there is in the nature of the\ncase little information.[472] Unfriendly or demonic spirits of plants\nare recognized by savage man in certain forests whose awe-inspiring\ngloom, disease-breeding vapors, and wild beasts repel and frighten him.\nDemons identified with plants or dwelling in them are of the same nature\nas animal demons, and have been dealt with in the same way as\nthese.[473]\n\n+267+. The progress of society brought men into association with useful\nplants, such as medicinal and edible herbs, and fruit-bearing and\nshade-giving trees; these, conceived of as inhabited by anthropomorphic\nspirits, fulfilled all the functions that attach to friendly animals.\nThey became guardians and allies, totems and ancestors.[474] Several of\nthe Central Australian totems are plants, and form part of the mythical\nancestral population constructed by the imagination or ethnographic\nscience of the people.[475] In Samoa a plant is often the incarnation of\na spirit friendly to a particular family[476]--a conception that is not\nimprobably a development from an earlier view that a certain plant had a\nspecial relation to a certain clan.[477] In general, a plant important\nin a given region (as, for example, the tobacco plant in North America)\nis likely to be invested with a sacred character.\n\n+268+. Trees, by reason of their greater dignity (size, beauty,\nprotective character), have generally been singled out as special cultic\ncenters.[478] A great tree sometimes served as a boundary mark or\nsignpost; under trees chiefs of clans sat to decide disputes. Thus\ninvested with importance as a sort of political center as well as the\nabode of a spirit, a tree naturally became a shrine and an asylum.[479]\nIn India and Greece, and among the ancient Celts and Germans, the gods\nwere worshiped in groves, by the Canaanites and Hebrews \"under every\ngreen tree.\" To cut down a sacred tree was a sacrilege, and the spirit\nof the tree was believed to avenge the crime.[480]\n\n+269+. As might be expected, there is hardly a species of tree that has\nnot been held sacred by some group of men. The Nagas and other tribes of\nNortheast India regard all plants as sacred,[481] and every village has\nits sacred tree. In Babylonia and Assyria, it is said, there were\nhundreds of trees looked on as invested with more or less sanctity. The\noak was revered in some parts of Greece, and among the Romans and the\nCelts. The cult of particular species, as the pipal (_Ficus religiosa_),\nthe vata or banyan (_Ficus Indica_), the karam and others, has been\ngreatly systematized in India.[482]\n\n+270+. Vegetable spirits in some cases have developed into real gods. A\nnotable example of such growth is furnished by the history of the\nintoxicating soma plant, which in the Rig-Veda is represented not only\nas the inspiring drink of the gods but as itself a deity, doing things\nthat are elsewhere ascribed to Indra, Pushan, and other\nwell-established deities.[483] The spirit, coming to be regarded as an\nanthropomorphic person, under peculiar circumstances assumes the\ncharacter of a god. A similar development appears in the Iranian haoma,\nand the cultic identity of soma and haoma shows that the deification of\nthe plant took place in the early Aryan period.[484]\n\n+271+. Another example has been supposed to be furnished by\ncorn-spirits. The importance of cereal crops for human life gave them a\nprominent position in the cult of agricultural communities. The decay\nand revival of the corn was an event of prime significance, and appears\nto have been interpreted as the death and resurrection of the spirit\nthat was the life of the crop. Such is the idea in the modern popular\ncustoms collected by Mannhardt and Frazer.[485] The similarity between\nthese ceremonies and those connected with the Phoenician Tammuz\n(Adonis) and the Phrygian Attis makes it probable that the two are based\non the same ideas; that is, that Adonis and Attis (and so also Osiris\nand Ishtar) were deities of vegetation. This, however, does not prove\nthat they were developed out of spirits of vegetation; they may have\nbeen deities charged with the care of crops.[486] The Phoenician name\nAdon is merely a title ('lord') that might be given to any god; he whom\nthe Greeks called Adonis was a Syrian local deity, identical in origin\nwith the Babylonian Tammuz, and associated in worship with Astarte, whom\nthe Greeks identified with their Aphrodite.\n\n+272+. A sacred tree often stood by a shrine; that is, probably, the\nshrine was put in the spot made sacred by a tree, and a ritual\nconnection between the two was thus established. Later, when a shrine\nfor any reason (in consequence of a theophany, for example) was built\nwhere there was no tree, its place was supplied by a wooden post, which\ninherited the cultic value of a sacred tree. In the Canaanite cult,\nwhich was adopted by the Hebrews, the sacred post (called \"ashera\")\nstood by the side of every shrine, and was denounced by the prophets as\nan accompaniment of foreign (that is, non-Yahwistic) worship.[487] The\ntransition from tree to post is illustrated, perhaps, by the\nconventionalized form of trees frequent on Babylonian seal\ncylinders.[488] How far the sacred post was an object of worship by the\npeople we have no means of knowing; but by the more intelligent,\ndoubtless, it came to be regarded simply as a symbol, a sign of the\npresence of a deity, and was, in so far, in the same category with\nimages.[489]\n\n+273+. It is not impossible that totem posts may be connected with\noriginal totem trees or other sacred trees. A tree as totem would\nnaturally be the object of some sort of cult, and when it took the form\nof a post or pole, would have totemic symbols carved on it. Oftener,\nprobably, it was the sacred pole of a village (itself descended from a\nsacred tree) that would be adorned with totemic figures, as among the\nIndians of Northwestern America.[490] In all such cases there is a\ncoalescence of totemism and tree worship.\n\n+274+. It was natural in early times, when most men lived in forests,\nwhich supplied all their needs, that trees should be looked on as\nintimately connected with human life. A tree might be regarded as in\nitself an independent personality, having, of course, a body and a soul,\nbut not as dependent on an isolated spirit. A group of men might think\nitself descended from a tree--a conception that may have been\nwidespread, though there is little direct evidence of its\nexistence.[491] Indirect evidence of such a view is found in the custom\nof marrying girls to trees,[492] and in the belief in \"trees of life,\"\nwhich are sometimes connected with individual men in such a way that\nwhen the tree or a part of it is destroyed the man dies, as in the case\nof Meleager whose life depended on the preservation of a piece of\nwood,[493] the representative, probably, of a tree, and the priest of\nNemi whose life was bound up in the \"golden bough\"[494]; sometimes the\ntree has a magical power of conferring life on whoever eats of its\nfruit, as in the case of the tree of Eden.[495]\n\n+275+. These stories involve the conception of blood-kinship between man\nand tree. Closely related to the \"tree of life\" is the \"tree of\nknowledge\"--life is knowledge and knowledge is life. In the original\nform of the story in Genesis there was only one tree--the tree of the\nknowledge of good and evil[496]--whose fruit, if eaten, made one the\nequal of the gods;[497] that is, the tree (in the original form of the\nconception, in remote times) was allied in nature (that is, in blood) to\ngods and to men, so that whoever partook of its substance shared its\nattribute of knowledge in sharing its life, and the command not to eat\nof it was due apparently to Yahweh's unwillingness that man should equal\nthe gods in knowledge. The serpent-god, who belongs to the inner divine\ncircle, but for some unexplained reason is hostile to the god of the\ngarden,[498] reveals the secret.\n\n+276+. Probably, also, it is from this general order of ideas that the\nconception of the cosmic tree has sprung. The Scandinavian Yggdrasil is\nthe source of life to all things and represents also wisdom; though the\ndetails may contain Christian elements, the general conception of the\nworld as a tree or as nourished by a tree is probably old.[499] The same\nconception appears in the cosmic tree of India.[500] Such\nquasi-philosophical ideas of the unity of the life of the world suppose,\ndoubtless, a relatively advanced stage of culture, but they go back to\nthe simple belief that the tree is endowed with life and is a source of\nlife for men. The transition to the cosmic conception may be found in\nthose quasi-divine trees that grant wishes and endow their friends with\nwisdom and life.\n\n+277+. The divinatory function of trees follows as a matter of course\nfrom their divine nature (whether this was regarded as innate or as due\nto an indwelling spirit). Their counsel was supposed to be expressed by\nthe rustling of their leaves,[501] or in some way that was interpreted\nby priests or priestesses (as at Dodona and elsewhere) or by diviners\n(so, perhaps, the Canaanite \"terebinth of the diviners\").[502] The\npredictions of the Cum\u00e6an sibyl were said to be written on leaves that\nwere whirled away by the wind and had to be gathered and interpreted. To\nwhat method of divination this points is not clear--possibly to supposed\nindications in the markings of the leaves; it may, however, be merely an\nimaginative statement of the difficulty of discovering the sibyl's\nmeaning.[503]\n\n+278+. The passage from the conception of the tree as a divine thing or\nperson (necessarily anthropomorphic) to the view that it was the abode\nof a spirit was gradual, and it is not always easy to distinguish the\ntwo stages one from the other. The tree-spirits, in the nature of the\ncase very numerous, were not distinguished by individual names, as the\ntrees were not so distinguished.[504] The spirits resident in the divine\ntrees invoked in the Vedas are powerful, but have not definite\npersonality, and it is hard to say whether it is the tree or the spirit\nthat is worshiped. The Indian tree-spirits called Nagas appear to be\nalways nameless, and are not mentioned in the list of deities that pay\nreverence to the Buddha (in the Maha Samaya).[505] The large number of\ntrees accounted sacred in Babylonia were doubtless believed to be\ninhabited by spirits, but to no one of these is a name given.\n\n+279+. Thus the divine tree with its nameless spirit stands in a class\napart from that of the gods proper. A particular tree, it is true, may\nbe connected with a particular god, but such a connection is generally,\nif not always, to be traced (as in the parallel case of animals[506]) to\nan accidental collocation of cults. When a deity has become the numen of\na tribe, his worship will naturally coalesce with the veneration felt\nby the tribe for some tree, which will then be conceived of as sacred to\nthe god. Such, doubtless, was the history of the oak of Dodona, sacred\nto Zeus; when Zeus was established as deity of the place, the revered\ntree had to be brought into relation with him, and this relation could\nonly be one of subordination--the tree became the medium by which the\ngod communicated his will. There was then no need of the spirit of the\ntree, which accordingly soon passed away; the tree had lost its\nspiritual divine independence. The god who is said to have appeared to\nMoses in a burning bush, and is described as dwelling in the bush, is a\nlocal deity, the _numen loci_ later identified with Yahweh, or called an\nangel.[507] That a tree is sacred to a god means only that it has a\nclaim to respect based on its being the property or instrument of a god.\n\n+280+. While the tree-spirit has undoubtedly played a great r\u00f4le in\nearly religious history, there is not decisive evidence of its ever\nhaving developed into a true god, with name, distinct personality, and\ndistinct functions.[508] There are many Greek and Roman titles that\nconnect gods with trees,[509] but these may be explained in the way\nsuggested above: Zeus Endendros is a god dwelling in a tree, but the\ntree is only an abode, not a god, and the god Zeus does not come from\nthe tree--rather two distinct sacred things have been brought together\nand fused into a unity, or the tree is a rude, incipient image. The\nDionysos Hermes-figures may be explained in the same way.[510]\n\n+281+. It appears to be the aloofness of trees that prevents their\nbecoming gods; they are revered and worshiped, but without becoming\npersonalities. Babylonian seal engravings and wall pictures often\nrepresent a tree before which men or higher beings stand in adoration;\naccording to Maspero[511] there was actual worship of trees in Egypt,\nand similar cults are found among the wild tribes of India.[512]\nAdoration, however, does not necessarily imply a god; the Buddhist's\nworship under the bo-tree is not directed to any being; it is only the\nrecognition of something that he thinks worthy of reverence.[513]\n\n+282+. The cult of the corn-spirit is referred to above,[514] and doubt\nis there expressed as to whether such a spirit has grown into a true\ngod. The question is confessedly a difficult one on account of the\nabsence of full data for the period involved. The chief ground for the\ndoubt as to the development in question lies in what we know of early\ngods. The term 'Adon,' as is remarked above, is the Phoenician title\nof the local deity. The origin of such deities is involved in the\nobscurity of the remote past, but they are, each in his community,\nuniversal powers; their functions embrace all that their communities\ndesire, and they represent each the total life of a people. It is the\ngeneral rule that any popular custom may be introduced into the cult of\nthe local god; of such sort of procedure there are many examples. In the\ncase under consideration the god may have become the hero of a ceremony\nwith which he had originally nothing to do, as the Hebrews when they\nentered Canaan connected Canaanite festivals with their national god,\nYahweh, and later a cult of the wilderness deity Azazel[515] was adopted\nand modified by the Yahwist leaders. Various cults attached themselves\nto the worship of Zeus, Apollo, Dionysos, and other Greek deities.[516]\n\n+283+. A similar explanation may be given of the ceremonies of death and\nresurrection connected with Attis and Osiris. Of Attis we have only late\naccounts, and do not know his early history. Osiris is an old\nunderground deity (later the judge of the Underworld), with functions\nthat included more than the vivification of vegetation, and the\nabsorption of the corn-spirit into his cult would be natural. The\ncollocation of a male with a female deity, common to the three cults,\nmay be merely the elaboration of the myth in accordance with human\nsocial usage (the dead deity is mourned by his consort).[517] The\ndescent of Ishtar has been interpreted of the weakening of the sun's\nheat in winter; but as she is obviously a deity of fertility and, in her\ndescent, disappears entirely from among men, while the sun does not\ndisappear entirely, she rather, in this story, represents or is\nconnected with the decay and rebirth of vegetation.\n\n+284+. It is thus possible that, though many ancient ceremonies stand in\nrelation to the corn-spirit and also to a god, the explanation of this\nfact is not that the spirit has grown into a god, but that it has\ncoalesced with a god. In all such explanations, however, our ignorance\nof the exact processes of ancient thought must be borne in mind.\n\n+285+. Trees have been widely credited with the power of bestowing\nblessings of all sorts. But, like animals, they rarely receive formal\nworship;[518] the reason for this is similar to that suggested\nabove[519] in the case of animals. The coalescence, spoken of above, of\ntree ceremonies with cults of fully developed gods is not uncommon, and\ntrees figure largely in mythical divine histories.\n\n\nSTONES AND MOUNTAINS\n\n+286+. Like all other objects stones have been regarded, in all parts of\nthe world, as living, as psychologically anthropomorphic (that is, as\nhaving soul, emotion, will), and, in some cases, as possessing\nsuperhuman powers.[520] The term 'sacred,' as applied to them, may mean\neither that they are in themselves endowed with peculiar powers, or that\nthey have special relations with divine beings; the first meaning is the\nearlier, the second belongs to a period when the lesser revered objects\nhave been subordinated to the greater.\n\n+287+. The basis of the special belief in their sacredness was,\nprobably, the mystery of their forms and qualities, their hardness,\nbrilliancy, solidity. They seem to have been accepted, in the earliest\nknown stages of human life, as ultimate facts. When explanations of\ntheir presence were sought, they were supposed to have been deposited by\nancestors or other beings, sometimes as depositories of their\nsouls.[521] Meteorites, having fallen from the sky, needed no other\nexplanation. Popular science (that is, popular imagination), perhaps\nfrom fancied resemblances to the human form, assumed of some stones that\nthey were human beings turned to stone, and stories grew up to account\nfor the metamorphoses. In many different ways, according to differences\nof physical surroundings and of social conceptions, men accounted for\nsuch of these objects as interested them particularly.\n\n+288+. That stones were believed to be alive and akin to men is shown by\nthe stories of the birth of men and gods from stones,[522] the turning\nof human beings to stone (Niobe, Lot's wife), the accounts of their\nmovements (rocks in Brittany).[523]\n\n+289+. Small stones, especially such as are of peculiar shape, are in\nmany parts of the world regarded as having magic power; the peculiarity\nof shape seems mysterious and therefore connected with power. Doubtless\naccidental circumstances, such as the occurrence of a piece of good\nfortune, have often endowed a particular stone with a reputation for\npower. Certain forms, especially flat disks with a hole in the center,\nhave preserved this reputation down to the present day. The Roman lapis\nmanalis is said by Festus to have been employed to get rain.[524]\n\n+290+. Magical stones were, doubtless, believed to possess souls. In\naccordance with the general law such stones and others were regarded\nlater as the abodes of independent movable spirits.[525] When the power\nof a fetish seems to be exhausted, and a new object is chosen and by\nappropriate ceremonies a spirit is induced to take up its abode in it,\nthere seems to be no theory as to whether the incoming spirit is the old\none or a new one, or, if it be a new one, what becomes of the old one,\nabout which little or no interest is felt.[526] The pneumatology is\nvague; the general view is that the air is full of spirits, whose\nmovements may be controlled by magical means: spirits, that is, are\nsubject to laws, and these laws are known to properly trained men.\n\n+291+. Reverence for divine stones continues into the period of the rise\nof the true gods. When god and stone stand together in a community, both\nrevered, they may be and generally are combined into a cultic unity: the\nstone becomes the symbol or the abode or the person of the god.[527] It\nwas, doubtless, in some such way as this that a stone came to be\nidentified with the Magna Mater of Pessinus. When this stone was brought\nto Rome toward the end of the Second Punic War, the Roman leaders may\nhave regarded it simply as a symbol of the goddess, but the people\nprobably looked on it as itself a divine defense against Hannibal.[528]\nThe Israelite ark, carried out to the battle against the\nPhilistines,[529] appears to have contained a stone, possibly a\nmeteorite, possibly a piece taken from the sacred mountain Sinai, itself\ndivine, but in the Old Testament narrative regarded as the abode of\nYahweh (a Sinaitic god), though it was probably of independent origin\nand only gradually brought into association with the local god of the\nmountain.\n\n+292+. Similar interpretations may be given of other stones identified\nor connected with deities, as that of Zeus at Seleucia,[530] that of\nAphrodite at Paphos,[531] that of Jupiter Lapis,[532] and the black\nstone that represented the Syrian Elagabalos at Emesa.[533] The remark\nof Pausanias, after he has described the thirty sacred stones of Pher\u00e6,\nthat the early Greeks paid divine honors to unhewn stones, doubtless\nexpresses the traditions and beliefs of his time;[534] and it is\nprobable that in antiquity there were many divine stones, and that these\nwere frequently in later times identified with local gods. In many\ncases, however, there was no identification, only a collocation and\nsubordination: the stone became the symbol of the deity, or a sacred\nobject associated with the deity.[535]\n\n+293+. This seems to be the later conception of the character of the\nsacred stones mentioned in the Old Testament, as the one that Jacob is\nsaid to have set up as a masseba and anointed.[536] The Canaanite\nmassebas, adopted as cultic objects by the Israelites,[537] were stone\npillars standing by shrines and regarded as a normal if not a necessary\nelement of worship; originally divine in themselves (as may be inferred\nfrom the general history of such objects), they came to be regarded as\nmere accessories; there is no indication in the Old Testament that they\nwere looked on as gods, though they may have been so regarded by the\npeople[538]--their presence at the Canaanite shrines, as a part of\nforeign, non-Yahwistic worship, sufficiently explains the denunciation\nof them by the prophets.[539]\n\n+294+. In the story of Jacob he is said to have given the name Bethel to\nthe place where he anointed the stone. It does not appear that he so\ncalled the stone itself; Bethel (in Hebrew, \"house of God\"[540]) seems\nto have been an old sacred place, and terms compounded with 'beth' in\nHebrew are names of shrines. The relation between this name and the\nSemitic word whence, probably, comes Greek _baitulos_[541] (Latin\n_baetulus_) is not clear; this last is the designation of a sacred stone\nheld to have fallen from heaven (meteoric). Such an one is called by\nPhilo of Byblos \"empsuchos,\" 'endowed with life or with soul.'[542]\nPliny describes the baetulus as a species of ceraunia\n(thunderstone).[543] The Greek word is now commonly derived from _betel_\n('bethel')--a derivation possible so far as the form of the word is\nconcerned.[544] According to this view the stone is the abode of a\ndeity--a conception common in early religion. Such an object would be\nrevered, and would ultimately be brought into connection with a local\ngod.[545] If Hebrew bethel was originally a stone considered as the\nabode of a deity, then in the Old Testament the earlier form of the\nconception has been effaced by the later thought--the word 'bethel' has\nbecome the name of a place, a shrine, the dwelling place of God.[546]\n\n+295+. The origin of the black stone of the Kaaba at Mecca is\nunknown--it was doubtless either a meteorite or in some way connected\nwith a sacred place; it was, and is, regarded as in itself sacred, but\nwhether it represented originally a deity, and if so what deity, is not\nknown.[547]\n\n+296+. The belief in the sacred character of stones may account, at\nleast in part, for the custom of casting stones on the grave of a\nchieftain (as in Northern Arabia), though this may be merely intended to\npreserve the grave. So also the stones thrown at the foot of a Hermes\npillar may have been meant as a waymark, yet with the feeling that the\nstone heap had a sacred character of its own.[548] The stone circles at\nStonehenge and Avebury may have had a religious significance, but their\nfunction is not clear. Boundary stones seem to have had at first simply\na political function, but were naturally dedicated to the deities who\nwere guardians of tribal boundaries (Roman Terminus, various Babylonian\ngods, etc.).\n\n+297+. It is by virtue of their divine character that stones came to be\nused as altars.[549] As things divine in themselves or as representing a\ndeity they receive the blood of the sacred (that is, divine) sacrificial\nanimal, which is the food of the god. Originally a part of the blood is\napplied to the stone, and the rest poured out or eaten (as sacred food)\nby the worshiper. In process of time, when the god has been divorced\nfrom the stone, the latter becomes a table on which the victim is\noffered;[550] the old conception survives in the custom of slaying the\nvictim by the side of the altar, and applying the blood to the horns of\nthe altar as a representative part of the sacred structure. In the late\nJewish ritual this application of blood is interpreted as a purification\nof the altar from ceremonial defilements.[551]\n\n+298+. Originally, it seems, it was only natural stones that were sacred\nor divine and were employed as representatives of deities; but by a\nnatural process of thought the custom arose of using artificial stones\nin the same way. By means of certain ceremonies, it was held, the deity\ncould be induced to accept an altar or a house, or to take up his abode\nin an image, as a spirit is introduced by the savage into a fetish\nobject.[552] The basis of this sort of procedure is first the belief in\nthe amenableness of the deity to magical laws, and, later, the belief in\nhis friendly disposition, his willingness to accede to the wishes of his\nworshipers provided they offer the proper tribute; but even in very late\nceremonies a trace of the magical element remains.\n\n+299+. The significance of the high pillars, of stone or of metal, that\nstood at the entrance of certain Semitic temples, is not clear. Examples\nare: in Tyre, the temple of the local Baal (Melkart);[553] Solomon's\ntemple of Yahweh in Jerusalem, and the temple planned by Ezekiel in\nimitation of that of Solomon;[554] compare the temple of the\nCarthaginian Tanit-Artemis, a form of Ashtart, the votive stela from the\ntemple of Aphrodite in Idalium (in Cyprus), and similar figures on\nCyprian coins.[555] Of the various explanations offered of these pillars\nthat which regards them as phallic symbols may be set aside as lacking\nproof.[556] It is not probable that they were merely decorative; the\ndetails of ancient temples, as a rule, were connected with worship. It\nhas been suggested that they were fire altars,[557] in support of which\nview may be cited the figures on Cyprian coins (mentioned above), and\nthe fact that sailors sacrificed at Gades at a place where there were\ntwo high pillars;[558] but such a custom does not prove that the\nsacrifices were offered on the pillars, and these latter are generally\ntoo high to serve such a purpose; they are too high also to be\nconvenient candelabra.[559] It seems more probable that they were\ndevelopments from sacred stones (such as the Canaanite massebas), which\noriginally represented the deity, came to be conventional attachments to\ntemples, and then were treated in accordance with architectural\nprinciples. They would be placed in pairs, one pillar on each side of\nthe temple door, for the sake of symmetry, and dignity would be sought\nby giving them a considerable height.[560] They might also be utilized,\nwhen they were not too high, as stands for lamps or cressets, but this\nwould be a secondary use. The obelisks that stood in front of Egyptian\ntemples, likewise, were probably sacred monuments reared in honor of\ndeities.[561]\n\n+300+. Images of gods and other extrahuman beings arise through the\nnatural human impulse to represent familiar objects of thought. Very\nrude tribes have stone or wood carvings of spirits and gods, good and\nbad. These images are generally in human shape, because all Powers are\nthought of as anthropomorphic. Sometimes, as R\u00e9ville suggests, a root,\nor branch of a tree, bearing some resemblance to the human face or\nfigure, may have led to the making of an image; but the general natural\nartistic tendency is sufficient to account for the fact.[562]\n\n+301+. The character assigned to images varies with stages of culture.\nIn low communities they are themselves divine--the gods have entered\ninto them and they are not thought of as different from their divine\nindwellers. In such cases they are sometimes chained to prevent their\ngetting away; if they are obstinate, not listening to prayers, they are\ncuffed, scourged, or reviled.[563] This conception lingers still among\nthe peasants of Southern Europe, who treat a saint (a rechristened old\ngod) as if he were a man to be won by threats or cajolements. In a more\nrefined age the image becomes simply a symbol, a visible representation\nserving to fix the attention and recall divine things. Different races\nalso differ in the extent of their demand for such representations of\ndeity.\n\n+302+. Stones and rocks, like other natural objects, are starting-points\nfor folk-stories and myths. All over the world they lie on the ground or\nrise in the shape of hills, and, being mysterious, require explanation.\nThe explanations given, and handed down from generation to generation,\nare always connected with superhuman or with extraordinary persons,\nancestors, heroes, spirits. To each stone or rock a story is attached, a\ncreation of the fancy suggested by the surroundings and by the popular\ntraditions; and each story forms an episode in the history of the hero\nor spirit. The stones and rocks thus come to constitute a book\nchronicling the history of the tribe and the deeds of its great men--a\nbook quite legible to the man who has been taught the stories. These\ngrow with every generation, receiving such additions as fancy and\nreflection dictate, and gradually taking on literary form. In the\nterritory of the Australian Arunta every stone is connected with some\nincident in the careers of the mythical ancestors, and the stories taken\ntogether form the legendary history of the origin of customs.[564] In\nSamoa and New Guinea many stones are pointed out as having been set in\nplace by local heroes. In North America innumerable rocks and stones are\nconnected with the mythical ancestors and creators of the tribes.\n\n+303+. Mountains have everywhere been regarded as abodes of spirits or\ndeities, and therefore sacred. Their height and massiveness invested\nthem with dignity (even as now they appeal mightily to the imagination),\nand their lofty summits and rugged sides were full of danger and\nmystery. Sacred mountains are found in North America, Bengal, Africa,\nand elsewhere. Naturally they are often abodes of gods of rain; they are\nfeared on account of the spirits inhabiting them, but they are also\nresorted to as places where divine revelations may be obtained.[565] The\nSemitic, Hindu, and Greek examples are familiar: the Hebrew and\nCanaanite Sinai (or Horeb), Nebo, Carmel, Hermon; the Arabian Arafat,\nnear Mecca; the Babylonian Ekur; in India, Meru, Mandara, Himavat, and\nother mountains; in Greece, Olympus and Parnassus.\n\n+304+. Mountains are also worshiped as being themselves divine.[566] The\ncult, however, has not been important; the physical mass is too solid,\nlacking in movement, and human interest naturally centered in the spirit\nor deity who dwelt therein.[567]\n\n+305+. Mythological fancy has made them the abodes and places of\nassembly of gods and glorified saints, usually in the north. The\nmythical Ekur was the dwelling place of Babylonian deities.[568] In\nIndia various peaks in the Himalayas, inaccessible to men, were assigned\nto groups of deities, and the mythical world-mountain Meru was the\nspecial abode of great gods, who there lived lives of delight.[569] On\nthe highest peak of the Thessalian Olympus Zeus sat, surrounded by the\ninferior gods; here he held councils and announced his decrees.[570] The\ntwo conceptions of the home of the gods--on mountains and in the\nsky--existed for a time side by side, having in common the feature of\nremoteness and secrecy; gradually the earthly abode was ignored, and the\ngods were assigned to the more dignified heavenly home.\n\n\nWATERS\n\n+306+. To early man waters, fire, winds, are interesting because of\ntheir relation to his life, and sacred because of their power and\nmysteriousness.[571] They are regarded by him not as \"elements\" of the\nworld, but as individual phenomena that affect well-being. His\nconception of them is not cosmogonic or analytic, but personal; they are\nentities with which he has to deal.\n\n+307+. The mobility of masses of water, seeming to be a sign of life,\nnaturally procured them a definite place among sacred things. Any\nspring, pond, lake, or river with which a tribe was brought into\nintimate relations was regarded as a source of life or of healing, and\nof divination. Dwellers by the sea regarded it with awe; its depths were\nmysterious and its storms terrible.\n\n+308+. As in the case of animals, plants, and stones, so here: the\nearliest conception of water masses is that they are divine in\nthemselves (every one, of course, having its own soul), and are potent\nfor bodily help or harm, and for divination. The waters of the Nile,\nthe Ganges, the Jordan, were held to heal the diseased and purify the\nunclean; and a similar power is now ascribed to the water of the well\nZamzam in the Kaaba at Mecca. Hannibal swore, among other things, by the\nwaters,[572] and the oath by the river Styx was the most binding of\noaths, having power to control even the gods; the thing by which an oath\nis taken is always originally divine. In the Hebrew ordeal of jealousy\nthe sacred water decides whether the accused woman is guilty or\nnot.[573] The sea is treated as a living thing, whose anger may be\nappeased by gifts; it is a monster, a dragon.[574] The Spartan\nCleomenes, about to start on a voyage, sacrifices a bull to the\nsea.[575] Offerings to the sea are made in the Maldive Islands.[576]\n\n+309+. Water is abundantly employed in religious ritual as a means of\npurification from ceremonial defilement, and in services of initiation.\nA bathing-place often stood by a shrine (as in pre-Islamic Arabia and in\nIslam now), and immersions came to play a prominent part in highly\ndeveloped systems (Jewish, Christian, Mithraic). The purification was\ngenerally symbolic, but in some forms of Christian belief the water of\nbaptism is held to have regenerating power[577]--a survival of the\nancient conception of the divinity of water.\n\n+310+. It is often hard to say whether a body of water is regarded\nsimply as itself a living thing, or is conceived of as the dwelling\nplace of an isolated or independent spirit. In savage systems the\ndetails on this point are hardly ever recorded or obtainable; but the\nbeliefs involved in later folk-lore make it probable that this latter\nstage of the construction of creeds is passed through in savage life.\nThe water maidens of Greek mythology and the Germanic nixies and water\nkelpies are developed forms of spirits. Sacred springs and wells are\nstill believed to be inhabited by beings that are not gods, but possess\nsuperhuman power.\n\n+311+. While wells and streams of a domestic character (such as are\nfreely used by human beings) are generally friendly, they have their\nunfriendly side. The spirits that dwell in them are sometimes regarded\nas being hostile to man. They drag the incautious wanderer into their\ndepths, and then nothing can save him from drowning. Fear of these\nmalignant beings sometimes prevents attempts to rescue a drowning\nperson; such attempts are held to bring down the vengeance of the\nwater-demon on the would-be rescuer.[578]\n\n+312+. In the course of time true water-gods appear. In Greece every\nriver had its deity, and in India such deities are found in the\nMahabharata.[579] When in the Iliad the river Xanthos rises to seize and\ndrown Achilles, it may be a question whether the stream or the god of\nthe stream is the actor. Nor is it always possible to say whether the\nextrahuman Power inhabiting a water mass is a true god or a spirit; the\nlatter form may pass by invisible gradations into the former.\n\n+313+. Waters originally divine tend to become the abodes of the deity\nof the place, or sacred to him, and healing or other power is ascribed\nto his presence or agency.[580] Sacred water, being unwilling to retain\nanything impure, thus becomes a means of detecting witches and other\ncriminals, who, when thrown in, cannot sink, but are rejected by the\ndivine Power.\n\n+314+. Deities of streams and springs do not play an important part in\nworship or in mythology; their physical functions are not definite\nenough, and their activities are naturally merged in or subsumed under\nthose of the greater or more definite local gods. If, for example, the\nCanaanite Baals are gods or lords of underground irrigation,[581] this\nis because they, as divine lords of the particular regions, control all\nphenomena; they are, in fact, also gods of rain and thunderstorms,\nharvests and war. So rain-gods in general are to be regarded as local\ndeities, among whose functions that of bestowing rain was regarded as\nspecially important. In the lowest systems the rain-giver may be a\nsacred stone, dipped in a stream,[582] or a royal or priestly magician\nwho is held responsible and is punished if the expected result is not\nattained.[583] In such cases the procedure is often one of imitative\nmagic.[584]\n\n+315+. If there be, in the next higher stratum of belief, a local or\ntribal god, it is he who is looked to for the rain supply; so the early\nHebrews looked to Yahweh,[585] and the Canaanites, doubtless, to the\nBaals. The economic importance of rain led, even in low tribes, to the\nconception of a special deity charged with its bestowal.[586] In more\nelaborate mythologies various deities are credited with rain-making\npower. In India, for example, Dyaus, the Maruts, Parjanya, Brihaspati,\nIndra, Agni,[587] all concerned with rain, have, all except Agni,\nevidently grown from local figures with general functions; this appears\nfrom the great variety of parts they play. The same thing is true,\nperhaps, of Zeus and Jupiter in their character of rain-gods--as\nall-sufficient divine patrons they would be dispensers of all blessings,\nincluding rain; they seem, however, to have been originally gods of the\nsky, and thus naturally the special guardians of rain.[588]\n\n+316+. Great masses of water have given rise to myths, mostly\ncosmogonic. The conception of a watery mass as the primeval material of\nthe world (in Egypt, Babylonia, India, Greece, Rome) belongs not to\nreligion but to science; in a relatively advanced period, however, this\nmass was represented as a monster, the antagonist of the gods of light\nand order, and from this representation has come a whole literature of\nmyths. In Babylonia a great cosmogonic poem grew up in which the dragon\nfigures of the water chaos (Tiamat, Mummu, Kingu) play a great\npart,[589] and echoes of this myth appear in the later Old Testament\nbooks.\n\n+317+. In the more elaborate pantheons the local deities of streams and\nsprings tend to disappear, and gods of ocean appear: in Babylonia, Ea;\nin Greece, Okeanos and Poseidon; in Rome, Neptune; and along with these\nare numerous subordinate figures--attendants on the great gods, and\nintrusted with various particular duties.\n\n\nFIRE\n\n+318+. There was, doubtless, a time when man had not learned to produce\nfire, and there may now be tribes unacquainted with its domestic uses.\nBut such ignorance, if it exists, is rare; savages generally know how to\nmake fire, and to use it for warmth and for the preparation of food.\nWhen men began to reflect on the origin of things, fire seemed to them\nso wonderful that they supposed it must have been discovered or\ninvented, and the knowledge of it bestowed on men by higher beings, gods\nor demigods; such benefactors are Hastsezini (of the Navahos), Lightning\n(of the Pawnees), the Beaver and the Eagle (of the Thompson River\nIndians of British Columbia), Maui (of the Maoris), Agni,\nPrometheus.[590]\n\n+319+. Though, like other mysterious things, it has been regarded\ngenerally (perhaps universally) as sacred, there is no clear proof that\nit has been worshiped as divine. What may have been the case in remote\nages we cannot tell, but, according to the information we possess, it\nhas been, and is, merely revered as in itself mysterious or sacred,[591]\nor as the abode or production of a spirit or a deity. Possibly in the\nearly stages of culture known to us there is a fusion of the element\nwith the indwelling or controlling god or spirit.[592] The divine\npatrons of fire are found in all parts of the world, varying in form\nand function according to the degrees of advancement of the various\ncommunities, from the beast-gods of the Redmen to the departmental\ndeities of the Maoris, Babylonians, Mexicans, and others, and to the\nmore complicated gods of Hindus, Greeks, and Romans.[593]\n\n+320+. The most elaborate and most interesting of all fire-cults is the\nPersian. The ritual of the Avesta appears at times to describe a worship\nof the element itself: in Fargard xviii the fire implores the\nhouseholder to rise, wash his hands, and put pure wood on the flame;\nYa\u00e7na lxi is a hymn of homage and petition addressed to the fire, which\nis called the son of Ahura Mazda--the householder asks that all the\nblessings of life may be his as a reward for his sacrifice. The numerous\ntemples devoted to the fire-cult, mentioned by later writers,[594] might\nseem to look in the same direction. But a comparison of other parts of\nthe Avesta makes it doubtful whether in the passages just cited anything\nmore is meant than that the fire, as a creation of Ahura Mazda and\nsacred to him, is for his sake worthy of reverence and through him a\nsource of blessing. Thus Ya\u00e7na xvii is a hymn in honor of Ahura Mazda\nand all his creatures, among which are mentioned the law of Zarathustra,\nthe fire (and five different fires are named), the soul of the ox, and\npure deeds, along with the Amesha-Spentas, the heavenly bodies, and good\nmen. This collection shows vagueness in the conception of the divine and\nthe sacred, and, to say the least, leaves it uncertain whether the\nsinger does not think of the fire simply as a symbol of the Supreme God.\n\n+321+. The relation of fire to the gods, and especially its use in\nsacrifice, have led to a number of religious ceremonies in which it\nplays a principal part.[595] Certain fires must be kindled by specially\nappointed sacred persons: among the Todas of Southern India, when a new\ndairy is visited or an old dairy is reconsecrated;[596] among the\nLacandones of Central America, on the occasion of the renewal of the\nincense-bowls;[597] in the Peruvian temple at the feast of Raymi, when\nthe flame was intrusted to the care of the Virgins of the Sun, and was\nto be kept up during the year;[598] in the temples of Hestia and Vesta;\nthroughout Greece, when the fires had been polluted by the presence of\nthe Persians, it was ordered that they should be put out and rekindled\nfrom the sacred fire at Delphi.[599]\n\n+322+. The purificatory power of fire was, doubtless, a fact of early\nobservation.\n\n+323+. As the physical means of sacrifice, fire acquired a certain\nsymbolic significance; in the Hebrew ritual \"fire-offerings\" are\nregarded as specially important. By Carthaginians, Moabites, and Hebrews\nchildren were devoted to the deity by fire.[600]\n\n+324+. By reason of its brightness fire connects itself in religious\nimagery with the sun, with lightning, and with light in general, and so\nappears frequently as a representation of the glory of the deity.[601]\n\n+325+. Light is sometimes regarded as an independent thing, and as\nsacred.[602]\n\n\nWINDS\n\n+326+. Traces of an early cult of the physical wind may be found,\nperhaps, in certain customs that survive in modern communities; as, for\nexample, in the offering of food to the wind that it may be placated and\ndo no harm.[603] The belief of sailors that wind may be called up by\nwhistling rests on a process of imitative magic that may be connected\nwith an early cult. Wind is said to be regarded as a divine being in\nsome American tribes.[604] But generally it is the spirit or god of a wind\n(and usually of a definite wind) that is invoked. Examples of wind-gods\nare found in all parts of the world.[605] A wind may be the vehicle or\nthe messenger of a deity.[606]\n\n+327+. As in the cases of other elements, referred to above, it is often\nhard to say whether it is the thing or the deity that is invoked:\nAchilles's appeal, for instance, seems to be to the physical winds, but\nIris, who goes to summon them, finds them carousing like men, and they\nact like gods.[607] It must be borne in mind, however, that in early\nthought all active things are conceived of as being anthropomorphic, and\nthere is the difficulty, just mentioned, of determining where the\nanthropomorphic object stops and the spirit or god begins.\n\n\nHEAVENLY BODIES\n\n+328+. The heavenly bodies seem to have been regarded at first merely as\nobjects somehow thrown up into the sky or in some other way fixed there\nby gods or men.[608] Later, under the general anthropomorphizing\ntendency, they are conceived of as manlike beings, and their characters\nand histories are worked out in accordance with local ideas. Their\norigin is ascribed at first to such creative beings as appear in the\nvarious early communities; for example, among the Navahos to the First\nMan, the First Woman, and the coyote.[609]\n\n+329+. In half-civilized peoples elaborate cosmogonies arise, in which\nthe sky is introduced along with sun, moon, and stars. The most\nnoteworthy of these representations of the origin of the sky is one that\noccurs in almost identical forms in Egypt and New Zealand, among the\nMasai of Central East Africa, and elsewhere: two beings lie in marriage\nembrace--one is lifted up and stretches from horizon to horizon as the\nsky, the other remains as the earth.[610] The sun is commonly male but\nsometimes female,[611] and there is also diversity of views as to the\nsex of the moon. The stars are often called the children of the sun and\nmoon.\n\n+330+. Savage fancy sees in the groups of stars resemblances to human\npersons and objects.[612] Such resemblances are worked out by civilized\npeoples, a descriptive science of constellations arises, and stories are\ninvented to explain the origin of their names. These stellar myths,\nbrought into connection with others, play a great part in developed\nmythologies.\n\n+331+. Among higher communities there are diverse conceptions of the sex\nof the great luminaries. The word for 'sun' is feminine in Sanskrit,\nAnglo-Saxon, German, and often in Hebrew; masculine in Babylonian,\nAssyrian, Greek, and Latin. 'Moon' is masculine in Anglo-Saxon and\nGerman, and generally in Sanskrit and the Semitic languages; feminine in\nGreek and Latin. The reasons for these differences are to be sought in\nthe economic relations of the communities to sun and moon, and in the\nplay of imagination, but the history of the variations is not clear. One\nproposed explanation is that to those who traveled by night on land or\non sea the moon was the strong guide and patron, and by day the sun\nappeared as a splendidly beautiful woman. Other explanations have been\noffered, but no general determining principle can be stated.[613]\n\n+332+. The early anthropomorphic figures of sun and moon appear to be on\nthe verge of becoming true gods. It is, however, often difficult to\ndecide whether in the widespread veneration of the sun it is to be\nregarded as a living thing (it is frequently represented as a man, a\ngreat chief,[614] dwelling in the sky), or a physical object inhabited\nby a spirit, or a fully developed god.[615] The transition to the higher\nconception is gradual, and will be discussed below,[616] along with the\nrepresentations of the moon and the stars.\n\n+333+. The view that the sky and the earth are the original progenitors\nof things appears among many peoples, low and high (notably among the\nChinese); the two are sometimes taken for granted, but it is probable\nthat there were always stories accounting for their origin. The sky is\nsometimes female, usually in the older myths (Maori, Egyptian),\nsometimes male (Greek, Roman).[617]\n\n+334+. Thunder and lightning are regarded in early systems of thought as\nindependent things, only locally or accidentally combined. They are\nawful and terrible to savage feeling,[618] but they have never received\nreligious worship. A quasi-scientific explanation of thunder found among\ncertain peoples (North American, Brazilian, Bakuana, Karen, and others)\nis that it is produced by the flapping of the wings of a mighty\nbird.[619] More commonly thunder is the voice of a deity, and lightning\nis his arrow,[620] or these are said simply to be sent by a god.[621]\n\n\nWORSHIP OF HUMAN BEINGS[622]\n\n+335+. We might naturally suppose that human beings, as well as animals,\nplants, and inanimate things, would be objects of religious reverence to\nundeveloped communities; men, it might seem, would be thought worthier\nobjects of worship than beasts, plants, and stones. In fact, the cult of\nhuman beings has been and is widespread, but in this cult the savage\nmind makes a sharp distinction between the living and the dead. Living\nmen are tangible and intelligible, affected with human frailties, and\ntherefore offer less food for the imagination than beasts; the souls of\ndead men are remote, intangible, mysterious, and it is they that have\nmost inspired religious emotion. The history of these cults is in some\npoints obscure; though many facts have been collected, the data are not\nfull and exact enough to furnish a complete explanation of the details\nof usage, diffusion, origin, and development.\n\n\nTHE CULT OF THE LIVING\n\n+336+. Savages appear to put no limit to the possible powers of men. In\nthe absence of any exact knowledge of natural law there is no reason why\na man should not be thought capable of inflicting sickness and death,\nbringing rain, securing food, and doing all that relates to human life.\nMagicians, prophets, ascetics, and saints are credited with such powers\nin early and later times. Polynesian chiefs are supposed to be imbued\nwith a sacredness that makes contact with them dangerous, and everything\nthat they touch becomes thereby taboo to the ordinary man; the same sort\nof sacredness clung to the Roman flamen dialis, to the emperor of Japan,\nand to many other high officials. This reverence, however, is simply\nfear of the mysterious, and does not, in itself, reach the height of\nworship, though it prepares the way for it and may sometimes be scarcely\ndistinguishable from worship proper. The magician is the mouthpiece of a\ngod, and in popular belief is often invested with power that is\npractically divine.\n\n+337+. Many cases, in fact, are reported in which living men are\nworshiped as gods; but such reports are often open to doubt and need\nconfirmation. Travelers and other observers are not always in position\nto state the facts precisely; particularly they do not always\ndistinguish between awe and religious worship, and the statements of\nsavages on this point are often vague. Frazer has collected a\nconsiderable number of examples of alleged worship of living men.[623]\nOne of these, that of the dairyman (_palol_) of the Todas of Southern\nIndia, is not supported by the latest observer, who says that the palol\nis highly respected but not worshiped.[624] An apparently clear case of\nworship is the Panjab god Nikkal Sen, said to be General Nicholson;[625]\nand it is not improbable that in other cases mentioned by Frazer\n(Marquesas Islands, Raiatea, Samoa, Fiji) actual deification takes\nplace.\n\n+338+. Among many more-advanced communities divinity has been ascribed\nto living monarchs: to the kings of ancient Egypt; to many early\nBabylonian kings; to the emperor of China; to some of the Ptolemies and\nSeleucids; to certain Roman emperors; to the kings of Mexico and Peru;\nand in more modern times to the emperor of Japan. Whether such titles\ninvolve a real ascription of divinity, or are only an assertion of\nkinship with the gods, or express nothing more than the adulation of\ncourtiers, it may not be easy always to determine; probably all these\nconceptions have existed at various times. The conception that men are\nakin to gods, that there is no difference of nature between the two\nclasses, is an old one, and the ascription of divinity to a king might\ninvolve, in earlier stages of civilization or even in relatively\nadvanced stages, no break in the order of things. The custom once\nestablished, it might continue to be observed, long accepted seriously\nby the mass of the people, but coming gradually to be regarded by the\neducated classes as a mere form.\n\n+339+. The development of the custom appears most plainly in\n_Egypt_.[626] The identification of the king with Horus (apparently the\nancient patron deity of Egypt) runs through the history down to the\nPersian conquest: he is called \"Horus\" or \"Golden Horus,\" and sometimes\n(as, for example, Mentuhotep IV) \"heir of Horus,\" or is said to sit on\nthe throne of Horus, and has a \"Horus name,\" the affirmation of his\ndivine character; even the monotheistic reformer Amenhotep IV is called\n\"Golden Horus.\" At the same time he is styled the \"son\" of this or that\ndeity--Re, Min, Amon, Amon-Re, Osiris--according to the particular\npatron adopted by him; the liberal interpretation of such filial\nrelation is illustrated by the title \"son of the gods of the Northland\"\ngiven to one monarch. The king is \"the good god\"; at death he flies to\nheaven (so, for instance, Totmose III, of the eighteenth dynasty).\n\n+340+. The official honorific character of divine titles appears as\nearly as the fifteenth century, when Queen Hatshepsut is officially\ndeclared to be the daughter of Amon. By such an official procedure\nAlexander, though not akin to any Egyptian royal house, was declared to\nbe the son of Amon; Ptolemy Philadelphus became the son of the sun-god,\nand his wife Arsino\u00eb was made a goddess by a solemn ceremony. Possibly\nthe recognition of the divine title, in educated Egyptian circles, as a\nconventional form began at a relatively early time--the easy way in\nwhich a man was made a god may have been felt in such circles to be\nincompatible with real divinity. Nevertheless the cult of the divinized\nking was practiced seriously. In some cases the living monarch had his\ntemple and retinue of priests, and divine honors were paid him.[627]\n\n+341+. The case was different in the _Semitic treatment of kings_ styled\ndivine. The custom of so regarding them is found only in early\nBabylonia. The evidence that they were held to be divine consists in the\nfact that the determinative for divinity (Sumerian _dingir_, Semitic\n_an_) is prefixed to their names in the inscriptions.[628] It appears\nthat the determinative occurs at times during a period of about a\nthousand years (ca. 3000-2000 B.C.--the chronology is uncertain), and is\nthen dropped. The data do not explain the reasons for this change of\ncustom; a natural suggestion is that there came a time when the\nconception of the deity forbade an ascription of divinity to human\nbeings. However this may be, the nominal divinization of kings seems not\nto have had any effect on the cultus. As far as the known evidence goes,\nthe king seems never to have been approached with divine worship.[629]\n\n+342+. It may be doubted whether the Babylonian usage can properly be\ncalled Semitic. As such a custom is found nowhere else in the Semitic\narea, and as the early Babylonian Semites borrowed much from the\nnon-Semitic Sumerians (they borrowed their system of writing and some\nliterary material), it is conceivable that they adopted this practice\nfrom them. There is, to be sure, no proof, except from the inscriptions,\nthat the practice was Sumerian; but, as it is found in some Asiatic\nnon-Semitic lands,[630] there is the possibility that it existed among\nthe Sumerians, of whose history, however, we unfortunately know little.\nIt is to be noted that the cessation of the practice appears to be\nsynchronous with the establishment of the first great Semitic dynasty at\nBabylon.\n\n+343+. No ascription of divinity to men is found among the _Hebrews_.\nThe Elohim-beings (called \"sons of God\" in the English translation of\nthe Bible) are gods. The code forbids men to curse God (not\n\"judges\")[631]--judges are not called \"gods.\" There is nothing going to\nshow that the old Hebrew kings were looked on as divine. Frazer's\nhypothesis that the king was identified with the God Adonis[632] is not\nsupported by the statements of the Old Testament; the title 'my lord'\n(_adoni_) given him is simply the ordinary expression of respect and\ncourtesy. He is \"the anointed of Yahweh,\" as many ancient official\npersons (kings and priests) were inducted into office by the pouring of\noil on their heads, but, as a mouthpiece and representative of the\ndeity, he is inferior to the prophet; at best, flattery, such as that of\nthe woman of Tekoa, might liken him to an angel.[633] The epithet _el\ngibbor_ (English Bible, \"mighty God\"), applied to a Jewish prince, must\nprobably be rendered 'mighty hero.'[634] The title 'gods' has been\nsupposed to be given to men (judges) a couple of times in the\nPsalter,[635] but the reference there seems to be to Greek deities\nregarded as acting as judges.\n\n+344+. The ascription of divinity to human beings is lacking in\n_Arabia_ also and among Semitic Moslems generally. The Ismailic and\nBabist dogmas of the incarnation of God in certain men are of Aryan\n(Indian) origin.\n\n+345+. The _Chinese_ conception of the all-pervading and absolute power\nof the Universe naturally invests the emperor with divinity.[636] All\nhuman beings are supposed to possess some portion of the divine essence,\nbut he alone, as head and representative of the nation, possesses it in\nfull measure. He is theoretically perfect in thought, word, and deed,\nand is entitled not only to the reverence and obedience of his subjects,\nbut also to their religious homage. Larger acquaintance with other\npeoples has doubtless led educated Chinese to regard him as only one\namong several great kings in the world, but for the people at large he\nis still practically a god. Other living men also are worshiped as\ndivine.\n\n+346+. The _Japanese_ formal divinization of the emperor appears to have\nbegun with the establishment of the monarchy (in the sixth or seventh\ncentury of our era), but, like the Chinese, goes back to the crude\nconception of early times. It has been generally accepted seriously by\nthe people, but has not received philosophical formulation. It is now\npractically given up by the educated classes, and will probably soon\nvanish completely.[637]\n\n+347+. Among the _Greeks_ and the _Romans_ the belief in the divinity of\nliving men and women was of a vague character. In Homer the epithet\n_dios_ when applied to human beings (individuals or peoples) means\nlittle more, if any more, than 'of exalted character' (except in the\ncase of mythical heroes, like Achilles, who were of actual divine\nparentage). At a later time such divinization was sometimes treated\njestingly. If Plutarch may be accepted as authority,[638] Alexander did\nnot take his own godhead seriously, did not believe in it, but allowed\nit merely for its effect on others. It was little more than a farce\nwhen the Syrian-Greek Antiochus II, for services rendered to a city, was\ncalled \"Theos\" by the grateful citizens;[639] it was the baldest\nflattery when Herod's oration[640] was greeted by a tumultuous assembly\nas the \"voice of a god.\" Augustus, though he allowed temples and altars\nto be consecrated to him in the provinces, did not permit it in Rome,\nbeing, apparently, ashamed of such procedures.[641] The most infamous of\nthe early emperors, Caligula, received divine honors in his lifetime by\nhis own decree.[642] Apart from these particular cases, however, the\ngeneral conception of the possibility of a man's being divine had a\nnotable effect on the religious development in the Roman Empire.[643]\nThe custom, for example, of burning incense before the Emperor's statue\n(which faithful Christians refused to do), while it strengthened the\nidea of the presence of the divine in human life, doubtless debased it.\n\n+348+. Deification of living men is not found in the great national\nreligions of _India_ and _Persia_. Mazdaism, like Hebraism, kept the\nhuman distinctly apart from the divine: Ahura Mazda is virtually\nabsolute, and Zoroaster and the succeeding prophets, including the\nsavior \u00c7aoshyan\u00e7, are men chosen and appointed by him.[644] Vedism\ndeveloped the nature-gods, and in Brahmanism the goal of the worshiper\nwas union with the divine, but not independent divinity; the muni by\nascetic observances might attain a power equal or superior to that of\nthe gods and feared by them,[645] but he remained (like the old\nmagician) a powerful man and did not receive divine worship.[646] In\nrecent times the followers of the Brahma-Samaj leader Sen are said to\nhave worshiped him as a god[647]--apparently an isolated phenomenon, the\norigin of which is not clear. Buddha was purely human to himself and\nhis contemporaries. The ascription of divinity to the Tibetan Grand\nLamas is a product of the transformation of Buddhism under the influence\nof a crude non-Aryan population that retained the old conception of the\nessential identity of nature of men and gods.\n\n+349+. When chiefs and kings are divinized, offerings are usually made\nto them as to other gods; their cult becomes a part of the polytheistic\nsystem. But it is rare that they displace the old local deities or equal\nthem in influence. Their worship passes with the passing of polytheism.\n\n\nTHE CULT OF THE DEAD\n\n+350+. In the history of religion the veneration of the dead, as is\nremarked above, is more widely diffused and more effective than that of\nthe living. We may distinguish between the cult of known historical\npersons after death (which is closely related to that of living men),\nthe deification of mythical ancestors, and the worship of ghosts.\n\n+351+. _Historical persons._ In simple communities commanding\npersonalities that have impressed the imagination of the people by\nproofs of power and by conferring benefits on communities may not\nunnaturally receive divine honors after death. Lyall reports a case of\nthis sort in recent times: the French officer Raymond in Hyderabad is\nsaid to have been worshiped as a god.[648] Other cases are reported as\noccuring in Samoa and in India.[649] Rivers mentions traditions among\nthe Todas of Southern India which, he thinks, may vouch for the worship\nof gods who were originally men, but implicit reliance cannot be placed\non such traditions.[650] Two apparently definite instances of\ndeification are given by Ellis,[651] both of cruel kings (one dethroned\nin 1818), to whom temples with complete rituals are dedicated; but the\ndeification in one of these cases (and probably in the other) was a\ndeliberate act of political leaders, and not a product of spontaneous\npopular feeling. Two other local gods mentioned by Ellis were, according\nto the tradition, two men who began the trade that made Whydah the chief\nport of the west coast of Africa; but here also the tradition is not\nperfectly trustworthy.\n\n+352+. Egyptian kings were regularly deified after death, being\nidentified with Osiris; their cult, though not equal in sanctity to that\nof the gods proper, was still prominent and important.[652] It is\nprobably to be regarded as a revision and magnification of the cult of\nthe dead kin, combined with the desire to honor great representative\nmen. No such custom is known to have existed among Semitic peoples, by\nwhom a sharp distinction was made between the divine and the human. In\nIndia it was chiefly the ascetic sages that were religiously eminent,\nand in the prevailing pantheistic system these (as is remarked above),\nabsorbing the divine essence, sometimes became as powerful as gods, but\npassed after death into the cosmic All, and remained human. The Mazdean\nfaith, like the Israelite, made it impossible to accept a deceased man\nas a god.\n\n+353+. Examples of the occasional divinization of deceased men in the\nHellenic world are given below.[653] In Rome the custom arose at a\ncomparatively late period, and it was the work not of spontaneous Roman\nthought but of political philosophy.[654] The deification of the Roman\nemperors after death had its ground in the reconstruction of Roman life\nundertaken by Augustus. He recognized a principle of unification in the\nresuscitation of the old national religion, in which the people\nbelieved, whether he himself did or not. Religion in Rome was largely an\naffair of the state; the leaders of the public religion were great state\nofficials. Augustus was made pontifex maximus, and it was only one step\nfarther to elevate the chief magistrate to the rank of a god. The good\nsense of the time generally forbade the bestowment of this honor during\nthe imperator's lifetime, but an apotheosis was in accord with the\nveneration paid to the manes and with the exalted position of the\nEmperor as absolute lord of the Western world.[655] Popular feeling\nappears to have accepted this divinization without question and in\nsincerity; educated circles accepted it as an act of political policy.\nThe elevation of Julius C\u00e6sar and Augustus to the rank of gods\nestablished the rule, and deceased emperors received divine honors up to\nthe triumph of Christianity.[656]\n\n+354+. In China, Confucius was deified as the special exponent of the\nstate religion and the authoritative teacher of the principles of social\nand political life. His religious cult is practiced by the government\n(officially) and by the masses of the people; how far it is sincerely\naccepted by the educated classes is uncertain. In China and in Japan the\ngods of war are said to be historical persons deified.\n\n+355+. The divinization of the Calif Ali by some Shiah sects was the\nproduct of religious fanaticism under the guidance of Aryan conceptions\nof the incarnation of the divine.[657]\n\n+356+. _Mythical ancestors._ Mythical ancestors are usually eponymous;\nthe tendency in all ancient peoples was to refer their names and origins\nto single persons. Such an eponym was the product of imagination, a\ngenealogical myth (Hellen, Ion, Dorus, Jacob, Israel), and was revered,\nbut was not always the object of a religious cult; such cults do not\nappear among the Semites[658] or in the native Roman rites. Nor does the\ncustom seem to have originated in the earliest periods; it was rather a\ncreation of quasi-scientific reflection, the demand for definite\nhistorical organization, and it appears first in relatively late\nliterary monuments.[659]\n\n+357+. Still later arose the worship of these ancestral founders. In\nGreece shrines were erected by various cities to their supposed\nfounders, and where, as in Athens, the tribes had their eponyms, these\nreceived divine worship, though they never attained equal rank with the\ngods proper. From Greece this cult was brought into Italy. It was\nprobably under Greek influence, and at a relatively late time, that\nRomulus was created, made the immediate founder of Rome, and took his\nplace among the objects of worship;[660] on the other hand, \u00c6neas (a\nGreek importation), though he was accepted as original founder, never\nreceived divine worship, doubtless because Romulus (nearer in name to\nthe city Roma) already held the position of divine patron. The cult of\neponyms tended naturally to coalesce with that of divine\n'heroes'[661]--the two figures were alike in character, differing mainly\nin function, and eponyms were styled 'heroes.'[662]\n\n+358+. The inverse process, the reduction of divine beings to simple\nhuman proportions, has gone on in early cults and in early attempts at\nhistorical construction to a not inconsiderable degree. Thus, to take a\nrelatively late example, by Saxo Grammaticus and in the Heimskringla\n(both of the thirteenth century) the god Odin is made into a human king\nand the history of his exploits is given in detail.[663] It is, however,\nespecially in the treatment of the old divine heroes, originally true\ngods, that the process of dedivinization appears. These figures, because\nof their local character and for other reasons, entered into peculiarly\nclose relations with human societies, of which they thus tended to\nbecome constituent parts, and the same feeling that gave the gods human\nshapes converted the heroes into mere men, who are generally\nreconstructers of society. Examples of this sort of anthropomorphizing\nare found in myths all over the world: the Babylonian Gilgamesh; the\n\"mighty men\" of Genesis vi, 4, originally demigods, the progeny of human\nmothers and of the Elohim-beings (the Ben\u00eb Elohim, 'sons of the gods,'\nmembers, that is, of the divine circle); Heracles and Hercules; the\nScandinavian (apparently general Teutonic) Valkyrs, Nornas, and\nSwan-maidens.[664]\n\n+359+. The Sicilian Euhemeros (of the latter part of the fourth century\nB.C.), after extensive travels to great places of worship, formulated\nthe theory that all the gods were deified men. Some grounds for his\ntheory he doubtless had, for, according to ancient opinion, gods might\nand did die, and their places of burial were sometimes pointed out (the\ngrave of Zeus, for instance, in Crete). How far this view had been held\nbefore the time of Euhemeros is uncertain, but he gave it vogue, and it\nis called, after him, Euhemerism.[665] In recent times it has been\nrevived in part by Herbert Spencer and Allen, who derive all gods from\nghosts.[666] Similar to it is the rationalizing of myths, which has met\nwith favor at various times.\n\n+360+. _The dead kin._ Apart from the special cases mentioned above, the\ndead have been the objects of particular care in all parts of the world.\nSome of the observances connected with them might perhaps, in themselves\nconsidered, be ascribed to natural affection. It cannot be denied that\nsavages have some love of kindred, and this feeling, in conjunction with\nthe ideas concerning the future state, might lead the survivors to do\nsuch things as it was believed would secure the comfort of the\ndeceased--decent burial in accordance with tribal customs, and provision\nof food and attendants and other necessaries. But, while the existence\nand influence of natural human kindliness need not be denied,\nobservation of savage life favors the conclusion that the greater part\nof the early usages connected with the dead have their origin in the\ndesire to conciliate them, to avert their displeasure and gain their\naid, and thus come to constitute a cult of the dead that runs through\nall phases of civilization.[667]\n\n+361+. Such usages must be very ancient, for they are found in the\nlowest tribes, and appear to be based on the earliest known conceptions\nof the nature of departed souls.[668] These latter are held to have all\nthe ordinary affections of the living, but to be endowed with\nextraordinary powers: they have their likes and dislikes, their\nkindliness, jealousy, anger, revengefulness, all on the lower moral\ngrade of undeveloped life; they are, in many regards, not subject to the\nordinary limitations of the living--they are invisible, move swiftly\nfrom place to place through obstacles impervious to the living, enter\ntheir bodies, produce sickness and death, aid or destroy crops. On the\nother hand, they need food and other necessities of ordinary life, and\nfor these things are dependent on the living. Hence the desirableness of\nsecuring their good will by showing them respect and supplying their\nneeds, or else of somehow getting rid of them.\n\n+362+. There are, then, two sorts of ghosts, or, more precisely, two\nsorts of ghostly activity--the friendly and the unfriendly--and\ncorresponding to these are the emotions of love and fear which they call\nforth. On account of paucity of data it is difficult to say which of\nthese emotions is the commoner among savages; probably the feeling is a\nmixed one, compounded of fear and friendliness.[669] In general it is\nevident that with the better organization of family life a gentler\nfeeling for the dead was called forth; but it is probable that in the\nleast-developed communities fear of the mysterious departed was the\nprevailing emotion.\n\n+363+. Though the accessible evidence does not enable us to determine\nwith certainty the motives of all savage customs connected with the\ndead, there are some distinctions that may be made with fair\nprobability. To supply the dead with food and cooking-utensils may very\nwell be, as is remarked above, the impulse of affection, and even where\nslaves and wives are slain that their ghosts may minister to the ghost\nof the master and husband, this may not go beyond pious solicitude for\nthe comfort of the deceased. But the mourning-usages common with savages\nare too violent to be merely the expression of love; the loud cries and\nthe wounding of the person are meant more probably to assure the\ndeceased of the high regard in which he is held;[670] in some cases, as\namong the Central Australians, men gash themselves so severely as to\ncome near producing death.[671] These excessive demonstrations are\nsoftened as general culture increases, and finally dwindle to an\napparatus of hired mourners. A similar explanation holds of the\nrestriction of food, the seclusion of the widow or the widower, and the\nrule against mentioning the name of the deceased: abstinence and silence\nare marks of respect.\n\n+364+. Funeral feasts also testify respect:[672] they appear to be\nextensions of the practice of providing food for the dead, feasts in\nwhich the mourners, from motives of thriftiness, take part; the ghost\nconsumes only the invisible soul of the food, and it is proper that what\nis left should furnish refreshment for the living.[673] The funeral\nfestivities are sometimes protracted, and become occasions of enjoyment\nto the circle of kinsfolk, in some cases at a ruinous expense to the\nfamily of the deceased, as is true now sometimes of Irish and other\nwakes. The honor of the family is involved, and this fact, together with\nthe natural desire for pleasure, has contributed to the development of\nthe custom in savage as well as in civilized life. In general the\nsolemnity of the various ceremonies and other usages testifies to a\nprofound conviction of the necessity of keeping on good terms with the\ndead.[674]\n\n+365+. The reports of savage customs show a certain number of cases in\nwhich the benevolent and the malevolent activities of the dead are\nequally prominent: so, for example, among the Australian Kurnai,[675]\nthe New Zealanders,[676] the Melanesian peoples,[677] the Vezimbas of\nMadagascar,[678] the Zulus,[679] the E[\u00b4w]e-speaking tribes on the west\ncoast of Africa.[680] It is probable that the list might be greatly\nextended by exact observation. When we find two peoples, dwelling near\ntogether and of the same grade of general culture, credited the one with\nfear, the other with friendly feeling toward the dead, it seems likely\nthat different sets of usages have met the eyes of the observers; a\ncertain amount of accident must color such reports.\n\n+366+. It is natural to suppose that fear of ghosts is commoner among\nless-developed peoples, kindly feeling more usual in higher communities;\nand when civilized peoples are taken into account this sort of\nprogression is obvious. But the reports of savages show such a mixture\nof customs that it is difficult to see any line of progress. Dread of\nghosts is certified in Central Australia and North Queensland, in Tonga\n(Polynesia), Central Africa, Central Asia, among the North American\nChippewas, Navahos, and Southwest Oregon Indians, and the South American\nAraucanians; friendly feeling is found in Tasmania, Western Africa,\nSouth Africa, California, and among the Iroquois and the Zu\u00f1i\nIndians.[681] In such lists there is no clear sign of a division\naccording to general culture.\n\n+367+. Friendly relations with the dead do not in themselves necessarily\ninvolve worship, but a more or less definite _cult of ghosts_ is found\nin various parts of the world. They are, or were, regarded as tutelary\nspirits in Tasmania, Ashanti, and Dahomi (where shrines are dedicated to\nthem), and by the Zu\u00f1i Indians; prayers are addressed to them in Samoa\nand the Hawaiian Islands (where there is a definite family worship), in\nYoruba, by the Banyas and the Zulus, by the Ossetes, the Veddahs of\nCeylon, and the North American Dakotas; offerings are made to\nthem--sometimes to influential persons, chiefs, and others, as in the\nGilbert Islands, in parts of Melanesia, in Borneo, and by the\nCakchiquels of Central America--sometimes to all the dead, as in the\nSolomon Islands, the New Hebrides, Fiji, Torres Straits, and by the\nZulus, the Veddahs of Ceylon, the Kolarians of Bengal, and the\nOssetes.[682]\n\n+368+. These lists include peoples of very different grades of culture;\nthe inference suggested is that the cult of the dead is of very early\norigin--its basis is the same among all communities that practice it,\nthough the particular ceremonies of worship vary.\n\n+369+. Besides forms of actual worship there are several usages that\ninvolve religious veneration of the dead. Graves are regarded as asylums\nby the Kafirs (graves of chiefs)[683] and in Tonga.[684] The Bedawin of\nArabia held (in pre-Islamic times), and still hold, graves sacred;[685]\nthey sometimes become shrines, and oaths are sworn by them. The custom\nof swearing by the dead is widespread. In their character of powerful\nspirits they are agents in processes of magic and divination. Parts of\ndead bodies are used as charms. The skull especially is revered as an\noracle.[686]\n\n+370+. Among the lower tribes, savage and half-civilized, it is chiefly\nthose who have died recently that are worshiped. A Zulu explained to\nCallaway that his people forgot those who died long ago--they were\nsupposed to be not helpful--and hope of gain has always been the basis\nof worship. Among the Kafirs of the Hindu Kush it is the custom to erect\nan effigy to the memory of every adult one year after his decease.\nWomen, as well as men, are thus honored, and may be put on an equality\nwith men by being given a throne to sit on. No worship is offered to\nthese images, but it is believed that their presence brings prosperity;\nbad weather is ascribed to their removal. There are solemn dances in\nhonor of the illustrious dead and sacrifices are offered to them.[687]\n\n+371+. The worship of the dead in the great civilized communities,\nthough more elaborate and refined than the savage cult, is in substance\nidentical with it. The Egyptians provided the departed soul with food\nand honored the dead man with laudatory notices of his earthly life; the\nroyal ancestor of a king, it was believed, might act as mediator between\nhim and the gods.[688] The Babylonians, while they lamented the\ndeparture of men to the gloomy existence in the Underworld, recognized\nthe quasi-divine power of the dead and addressed prayer to them.[689]\nThe Hebrews offered food to the dead, had funeral feasts, and consulted\nghosts who were regarded as divine.[690] The Hindu \"fathers,\" though\nkept distinct from the gods, were yet conceived of as possessing godlike\npowers and were worshiped as gods.[691] The Persian \"forefathers\"\n(_fravashis_), particularly the manes of eminent pious men, were held to\nbe bestowers of all the blessings of life; offerings were made and\nprayers addressed to them.[692]\n\n+372+. Early notices of a cult of the dead among the Greeks are scanty.\nThere was the usual kindly provision of food, arms, and other\nnecessaries for them.[693] Odysseus in Hades pours out a libation\n(honey, wine, water, to which meal is added) to all the dead, addresses\nvows and prayers to them, and promises to offer to them a barren heifer\non his return to Ithaca, and a black sheep separately to Teiresias.[694]\nFrom the sixth century onward the references in the literature show that\nthe worship of the dead (including children) was then general (and of\ncourse it must have begun much earlier). The offerings made to them were\nboth vegetable and animal; the sacrificed animal was slaughtered in the\nsame way as in the sacrifices to chthonic deities--the dead were, in\nfact, regarded as underground deities.[695] The flesh of the animals\noffered was not eaten by the worshipers.\n\n+373+. Among the dead thus honored is to be included one class of\nheroes. A Greek \"hero\" was sometimes an eminent man, sometimes such a\nman divinized, sometimes an old god reduced to human dimensions,\nreckoned in some cases to belong to the circle of the gods proper.[696]\nSuch personages might be worshiped as gods, with the sacrifices\nappropriate to the gods, or as departed men, with the sacrifices that\ncustom fixed for the dead. The hero-cult included many men of note\nrecently deceased, like Brasidas and those that fell at Marathon.[697]\n\n+374+. The cults just mentioned dealt with the departed as friendly\nsouls, the protectors of the family, the clan, or the state. The state\ncult of the dead was elaborate and solemn. The Greek citizen was\nsurrounded by a host of the eminent dead who kept him in touch with the\npast and offered him ideals of life.[698] Another attitude toward the\ndead is indicated by the great apotropaic spring festival, the\nAnthesteria of Athens, the object of which was to rid the city of the\nghosts that then wandered about.[699] This double attitude is precisely\nthat of the savage tribes referred to above. The same difference of\nfeeling appears in the Roman cults: the _manes_ are the friendly or\ndoubtful souls of dead ancestors; the Parentalia is a festival in honor\nof the dead kin; in the Lemuria, on the other hand, the father of the\nfamily performs a ceremony at midnight intended to rid the house of\nghosts.[700]\n\n+375+. Among modern peoples it is the Chinese that have organized the\nworship of the dead in the completest way; it is for them the most\nimportant part of the popular religion.[701] Similar veneration of\nancestors exists in Japan.[702]\n\n+376+. The venerated dead stood apart, as a rule, from the\nnature-spirits and the gods, but these different classes sometimes\ncoalesced, as has been remarked above, in popular usage. The powers and\nfunctions of the dead were not essentially different from those of the\ndivinities proper, particularly in the simpler stages of society. They\nwere able to bestow all the blessings and to inflict all the misfortunes\nof life. In process of time the advance of knowledge relegated them to a\nsubordinate place, but they long retained a considerable importance as\nfriends of families and states, as disseminators of disease, and as\npredictors of human fortunes.\n\n+377+. In the exercise of these functions they were often not to be\ndistinguished from the higher and lower deities. King Saul, on the eve\nof a great battle, having failed to get an answer from the national\ndeity by the ordinary legitimate methods, had recourse to necromancy and\nobtained from the ghost of Samuel the information that Yahweh had\nrefused to give.[703] The Greek _k[=e]res_ and the wandering ghosts of\nWest Africa do exactly what is ascribed to the malefic spirits of\nBabylonia.[704] Examples of such identity of function between the\nvarious superhuman Powers are found all over the world.\n\n+378+. This fact does not show that these Powers have the same origin.\nThe savage accepts agents in human life wherever he can find them--in\nbeings inhabiting mountains, rocks, trees, caves, springs, and in the\nsouls of departed men. Doubtless he thinks of the forms of these various\nactors as being all of the same sort, a sublimated manlike body; but he\nkeeps them in different categories, and in the course of time the\ntendency is for ghosts and spirits to sink out of sight and for the gods\nto absorb all extrahuman activities.\n\n+379+. The ethical power of the cults so far discussed resides in the\nhuman association to which they give rise and the sanctions they supply\nto conduct. Of these two effects the former is the more important. The\nmoral character of a ghost or spirit or deity never rises above that of\nits circle of worshipers: its approval or disapproval is the echo of\ncurrent usage, and has special efficiency only in the accompanying power\nof reward or punishment; it appeals to the hopes and fears of men. This\npolice function is doubtless valuable in restraining from crime and\ninciting to good conduct, but it has no regenerative power. The\nenlargement of human association, on the other hand, increases sympathy\nand co\u00f6peration among men, and paves the way to the cultivation of the\nmutual respect and regard which is the basis of social virtue.\n\n+380+. Among the lower cults ancestor-worship may be expected to take\nthe highest place, for the reason that it tends to strengthen family\nunity and the solidarity of the clan, tribe, or nation; all such\nknitting together of men makes for the increase of honesty and\nkindliness. The data are lacking, however, for the determination of this\npoint. It may be said in general that the attitude toward the dead\nbecomes finer with advance in civilization; but before a specific moral\npower in ancestor-worship can be proved, it will be necessary to have\nexact details of moral ideas and conduct in all the lower tribes,\ntogether with some information regarding the attitude of individuals\ntoward questions of conduct, and the motives that impel toward this or\nthat action. The question of ethical growth in society is a complicated\none, and the most that can be said for any element of social\nconstitution is that it tends to strengthen or weaken the individual's\nconfidence in and regard for his fellows.\n\n+381+. The part played in religious history by the worship of the dead\nis so important that some writers have derived all religion from\nit.[705] This view is now generally rejected for the reason that it does\nnot accord with known facts; it is only by forced (though often\ningenious) interpretations that a plausible case is made out for it. To\nreply in detail to the arguments advanced in its favor would be to go\nover the whole ground of the origin of religious observances; the answer\nis furnished by setting forth the nature of the various cults, as is\nattempted in this and following chapters. If, for example, there is\nreason to believe that savages have always regarded the lower animals as\npowerful beings, there is no need, in accounting for the veneration\ngiven them, to resort to the roundabout way of assuming a\nmisinterpretation of names of men derived from beasts.\n\n+382+. Between Euhemerism and the theory that explains myths as a\n\"disease of language\" there is little or no essential difference of\nprinciple. Both theories assume that man, having devised certain\nepithets, later came to misunderstand them and to build up histories on\nthe misunderstanding. Both thus rest the immense mass of human religious\ncustoms and beliefs, which form so large a part of human history, on the\nprecarious foundation of passing fancy and inadvertence, and they must\nbe put into the same category with the na\u00efve theory, once popular, that\nreligion is the invention of priests who sought to control men through\ntheir fears.\n\n+383+. Ancestor-worship is the feeling of kinship with the dead,\ninvested by religion with peculiar intensity and solemnity. It has been\none of the great constructive forces of society.\n\n\nCULTS OF GENERATIVE POWERS\n\n+384+. The origin of religion is not to be referred exclusively to any\none order of ideas; it springs out of man's total life. All objects and\nprocesses have been included in men's construction of nature, and the\nprocesses, when they have been held to bear on human well-being, have\nbeen ascribed to a force inherent in things or to the activity of\nsupernatural beings.\n\n+385+. The study of processes has gone hand in hand with the creation of\ndivine beings who are supposed to manifest themselves in the processes.\nThe great spectacle of nature's productivity has been especially\nrecognizable in the vegetable world and in the world of man; in both of\nthese life has been perpetually unfolding itself under men's eyes as a\nmysterious process, which, by virtue of its mysteriousness, has become\nreligious material and has entered into systems of religious worship.\n\n+386+. The relation of vegetable life to religious cults is referred to\nelsewhere,[706] and a brief survey may now be given of usages and ideas\nthat have been connected with the production of human life.\n\n+387+. It is obvious that not all customs that include the function of\ngeneration are of the nature of religious observances. The promiscuity\nthat obtains in many savage communities before marriage is a na\u00efve\nunreflective animal procedure. Exchange of wives (as in Central\nAustralia) and the offering of a wife to a guest are matters of social\netiquette. Festivals in which sexual license is the rule are generally\nmerely the expression of natural impulses. Holidays, being times of\namusement, are occasions used by the people for the satisfaction of all\nappetites: there is eating and drinking, buffoonery, disregard of\ncurrent conventions, unbounded liberty to do whatever exuberant\nanimalism prompts. Such festivities abound among existing savages,[707]\nwere not uncommon in ancient civilized times,[708] and have survived in\ndiminished form to the present day.[709] In the course of time they\noften become attached to the worship of gods, are organized, explained\nby myths, and sanctified. In such cases of coalescence we must\ndistinguish between the true worship offered to a divine being, and the\nobservances, generally originating in desire for animal amusement and\nenjoyment, that have been attached to them.\n\n+388+. _Cult of generative organs._ Men's attention must have been\ndirected very early to those organs that were believed to be connected\nwith the genesis of human life. At what stage this belief arose it is\nhardly possible to say; there are peoples among whom it seems not to\nexist;[710] but it is found over a great part of the world, and was\ndoubtless an outcome of popular observation.[711] As it was intimately\nconnected with life it passed naturally into the domain of religion, and\nin process of time became a more or less prominent part of religious\nobservances; the organs in question, both male and female, became\nobjects of religious devotion.\n\n+389+. Here again it must be noted that not all usages connected with\nthe organs of generation were religious of origin. It is pointed out\nabove[712] that the origin of circumcision and excision is to be sought\nin another direction. Ithyphallic images are sometimes merely attempts\nat realism in art; a nude figure (as in modern art) must be represented\nin its full proportions. Such seems to be the nature of certain images\namong the Western Bantu,[713] and this may have been the case with the\nimages of the Egyptian Khem and Osiris and similar deities. In general\nthis sort of representation in savage and ancient civilized communities\nis often either simple realism or indecency. Folk-stories abound in\ndetails that sound indecent to modern ears, but were for the authors\noften merely copies of current usages.\n\n+390+. All important members of the human body have been regarded as to\na greater or less extent sacred, their importance depending on their\nsubservience to man's needs. The head of an enemy gives the slayer\nwisdom and strength; an oath sworn by the head or beard of one's father\nis peculiarly binding; the heart, when eaten, imparts power; a solemn\noath may be sworn by the sexual organs. In no case does the sacredness\nof an object necessarily involve its worship; whether or not it shall\nreceive a true cult depends on general social considerations.\n\n+391+. Though phallic cults proper cannot be shown to be universal among\nmen, they have played a not inconsiderable part in religious history.\nThey appear to have passed through the usual grades of\ndevelopment--simple at first, later more complicated. The attitude of\nsavages and low communities generally, non-Christian and Christian,\ntoward the phallus, suggests that in the earliest stage of the cult some\nsort of worship was paid the physical object itself considered as a\ncreator of life; satisfactory data on this point, however, are lacking.\nIt was at so early a period that it was brought into cultic connection\nwith supernatural beings that its initial forms escape us.\n\n+392+. It seems not to exist now among the lowest peoples. There are no\ndefinite traces of it in the tribes of Oceania, Central Africa, Central\nAsia, and America. The silence of explorers on this point cannot indeed\nbe taken as proof positive of its nonexistence; yet the absence of\ndistinct mention of it in a great number of carefully prepared works\nleads us to infer that it does not play an important part in the\nreligious systems therein described.[714] It seems to require, for its\nestablishment, a fairly well-developed social and political\norganization. Some of the tribes named above have departmental deities,\nmostly of a simple sort, but apparently it has not occurred to them to\nisolate this particular function, which they probably regarded as a\nfamiliar part of the order of things and not needing special mention.\nThe gift of children was in the hands of the local god, a generally\nrecognized part of his duty as patron of the tribe, and all sexual\nmatters naturally might be referred to him. Also, as is remarked above,\nin certain tribes there was no knowledge of the connection between the\nbirth of children and the union of the sexes,[715] and such tribes would\nof course ascribe no creative power to the phallus.\n\n+393+. The best example of a half-civilized phallic cult is that which\nis now practiced in Yoruba and Dahomi, countries with definite\ngovernment and institutions. The cult is attached to the worship of a\ndeity (Elegba or Legba), who appears to be a patron of fertility; the\nphallus occupies a prominent place on his temples, and its worship is\naccompanied by the usual licentious rites.[716] These are expressions of\npopular appetite, and it does not appear that the cult itself is\notherwise religiously significant.\n\n+394+. In modern India the \u00c7ivaite phallicism is pronounced and\nimportant. The linga is treated as a divine power, and, as producer of\nfertility, is especially the object of devotion of women;[717] though\n\u00c7ivaism has its rites of unbridled bestialism, the worship of the linga\nby women is often free from impurity; it is practically worship of a\ndeity of fertility. The origin of the Indian cult is not clear. As it\ndoes not appear in the earliest literature, it has been supposed to have\ncome into Aryan worship from non-Aryan tribes. Whatever its origin, it\nis now widely observed in Aryan India, and has been adopted by various\noutlying tribes.[718]\n\n+395+. While it is, or was, well established in Japan, it apparently has\nhad no marked influence on the religious thought of the people. Phallic\nforms abound[719] in the land, in spite of repressive measures on the\npart of the government, but the cult partakes of the general looseness\nof the Shinto organization of supernatural Powers. It is said to have\nbeen adopted in some cases by Buddhists. It appears to have been\ncombined with Shinto at a very early (half-civilized) time, for which,\nhowever, no records exist.\n\n+396+. It is among the great ancient civilized peoples that the most\ndefinite organization of phallic cults is found.\n\n+397+. For Egypt there is the testimony of Herodotus,[720] who describes\na procession of women bearing small phallic images and singing hymns in\nhonor of a deity whom he calls Dionysos--probably Khem or Osiris or Bes;\nsuch images are mentioned by Plutarch,[721] supposed by him to represent\nOsiris. Both Khem and Osiris were great gods, credited with general\ncreative power, and popular ceremonies of a phallicistic nature might\neasily be attached to their cults. Bes, a less important deity, seems to\nhave been fashioned largely by popular fancy. These ceremonies were\ndoubtless attended with license,[722] but they probably formed no part\nof Egyptian serious worship. The phallus was essential in a realistic\nimage, but it appears to have been regarded simply as a physical part of\nthe god or as an emblem of him; there is no evidence that worship was\naddressed to it in itself.\n\n+398+. The evidence that has been adduced for a cult of the phallus\namong Semitic peoples is of a doubtful nature. No ithyphallic images or\nfigures of gods have been found. Religious prostitution there was in all\nNorth Semitic lands,[723] but this is a wholly different thing from a\nphallicistic cult. It is supposed, however, by not a few scholars that\ndescriptions and representations of the phallus occur in so many places\nas to make some sort of cult of the object probable. In a passage of the\nBook of Isaiah, descriptive of a foreign cult practiced, probably, by\nsome Jews, the phallus, it is held, is named.[724] The passage is\nobscure. The nature and origin of the cult referred to are not clear; it\nis not elsewhere mentioned. The word (_yad_, usually 'hand') supposed to\nmean 'phallus' is not found in this sense elsewhere in the Old Testament\nor in later Hebrew literature. But, if the proposed rendering be\nadopted, the reference will be not to a cult of the phallus but to\nsexual intercourse, a figurative description of idolatry.\n\n+399+. A distinct mention of phalli as connected with religious worship\noccurs in Pseudo-Lucian's description of the temple of a certain goddess\nat Hierapolis.[725] He gives the name to enormously high structures\nstanding in the propyl\u00e6a of the temple, but mentions no details\nsuggesting a phallic cult. Twice a year, he says, a man ascends one of\nthem, on the top of which he stays seven days, praying, as some think,\nfor a blessing on all Syria--a procedure suggesting that the pillar was\nsimply a structure consecrated to the deity of the place (probably\nAtargatis, who is often called \"the Syrian goddess\")[726]. However, if\nthere was a phallic cult there (the phallus being regarded as a symbol\nof the productive function of the deity), it is not certain that it was\nSemitic. Hierapolis had long been an important religious center in a\nregion in which Asiatic and Greek worships were influential, and foreign\nelements might easily have become attached to the worship of a Semitic\ndeity. The cult of the Asian Great Mother (whom the Greeks identified\nwith their Leto) had orgiastic elements. Lucian's reference to a custom\nof emasculation suggests Asian features at Hierapolis.[727]\n\n+400+. In Babylonia and Palestine stones, held by some to be phalli,\nhave been found.[728] While the shape of some of these objects and their\noccurrence at shrines may be supposed to lend support to this view, its\ncorrectness is open to doubt. There is no documentary evidence as to the\ncharacter of the objects in question, and they may be explained\notherwise than as phalli. But, if they are phalli, their presence does\nnot prove a phallic cult--they may be votive objects, indicating that\nthe phallus was regarded as in some sort sacred, not that it was\nworshiped. Decision of the question may be reserved till more material\nhas been collected. There is no sufficient ground for regarding the\nstone posts that stood by Hebrew shrines as phallic symbols; they are\nnaturally explained as sacred stones, originally embodying a deity,\nlater attached to his shrines as traditional objects entitled to\nveneration.[729]\n\n+401+. In Asia Minor and the Hellenic communities (both in Ionia and in\nGreece proper) the phallicistic material is extensive and complicated. A\nsymbolic signification appears to have been superimposed on early\nrealistic anthropomorphic figures that were simply images of\nsupernatural Powers. In various regions such figures came to be\nassociated with the generative force of nature in human birth, and the\ntendency to specialization assigned these divine beings special\nfunctions; of this nature, probably, were the local Athenian deities\nOrthanes, Konisalos, and others.[730] At a later period such functions\nwere attributed to the well-developed gods of fertility; rituals sprang\nup and were explained by myths, and various combinations and\nidentifications were made between the prominent gods.\n\n+402+. The most interesting figure of this character is Priapos, an\nithyphallic deity of uncertain origin; his special connection was with\nLampsakos, and he may have been an Asian creation. From the variety of\nhis functions (he was patron of gardens and viticulture, of sailors and\nfishermen, and in some places a god of war)[731] it may be surmised that\nhe was originally a local deity, charged with the care of all human\ninterests, in an agricultural community the patron of fertility, and at\nsome time, and under circumstances unknown to us, especially connected\nwith sexual life. Whatever his origin, his cult spread over Greece, he\nwas identified with certain Greek deities, licentious popular festivals\nnaturally attached themselves to his worship, and his name became a\nsynonym of sexual passion. In the later time the pictorial\nrepresentations of him became grossly indecent; his cult was an outlet\nfor popular and artistic license.[732] On the other hand, in the higher\nthought he was made the representative of the production of universal\nanimal life, and rose to the rank of a great god.[733]\n\n+403+. The Greek deities with whom Priapos was oftenest identified were\nDionysos and Hermes--both gods of fertility. They, as great gods of such\na nature, would naturally absorb lesser phallicistic figures; but they\nwere specialized in other directions, and Priapos remained as the\ndistinctest embodiment of phallicistic conceptions. Other such figures,\nas Pan, Titans, Sileni, and Satyrs, were beings connected with fields,\nwoods, and mountains, products of a low form of civilization, to whom\nrealistic forms and licentious festivals naturally attached themselves.\n\n+404+. Rome had its native ithyphallic deity, Mutunus Tutunus (or\nMutinus), a na\u00efve symbol of generative power.[734] Little is known of\nhis cult beyond the fact that he figured in marriage ceremonies in a\npeculiarly indecent way; by later writers he is sometimes identified\nwith Priapos.[735] The Romans adopted the cult of Priapos as well as\nother phallicistic forms of worship; his original character appears in\nhis r\u00f4le of patron of gardens.\n\n+405+. Phalli as amulets occur in all parts of the world; as symbols\nand perhaps as abodes of deities, they have been held potent to ward off\nall evils.[736]\n\n+406+. The female organ (_yoni_, _kteis_) appears frequently in figures\nof female deities, ordinarily without special significance, religious or\nother, except as a sign of sex. In the rare cases in which it is the\nobject of religious veneration (as in India) it is subordinated to the\nphallos[737]--there is little or no evidence for the existence of a\nyonistic cult proper.[738] Female deities act as fully formed\nanthropomorphic Powers, embodiments of the productive energies of\nnature; they are generally treated as persons, without special reference\nto bodily parts. The most definite formulation of this conception\nappears in \u00c7aktism, the worship of the female principle in nature as\nrepresented by various goddesses, often accompanied, naturally, by\nlicentious rites.[739]\n\n+407+. _Androgynous deities_ represent attempts to combine in a single\nperson the two sides of the productive power of nature. Such attempts\nare relatively late, implying a considerable degree of reflection and\norganization; how early they began we have not the data to determine.\nThey are not found among savage or half-civilized peoples.\n\n+408+. In Semitic lands no artistic representations of a bisexual deity\nare now known, but evidence is adduced to show that this conception\nexisted in early times. It has been sought in two old Babylonian\ninscriptions published by the British Museum.[740] The first of these\n(written in Sumerian) reads: \"For [or, in honor of] the (divine) king of\ncountries, the (divine) Nana [Ishtar], the lady Nana, Lugaltarsi, king\nof Kish, has constructed,\" etc. Barton takes the two titles \"the divine\nIshtar\" (='king of countries,' masculine) and \"the lady Ishtar\" to refer\nto the same deity, in whose person would thus be united male and female\nbeings. If, however, the king of countries and Ishtar be taken to be two\ndifferent deities (as is possible), there is no bisexuality. The second\ninscription, which is bilingual, has the expressions \"the mother-father\nEnlil,\" \"the mother-father Ninlil\" (Sumerian), rendered in Semitic \"the\nfather-mother Enlil,\" \"the father-mother Ninlil.\" These expressions\nprobably signify not that the two deities are bisexual, but that each of\nthem fulfills the guarding and nourishing functions of a father and a\nmother.\n\nThe expression in a hymn to Ishtar that \"she has a beard like the god\nAshur\" may be satisfactorily explained as an astrological statement, the\nmeaning of which is that the planet Dilbat (Ishtar, Venus) at certain\ntimes equals the sun (represented by Ashur) in brilliancy, her rays\nbeing likened to a beard.[741] A similar astrological interpretation is\noffered by Jastrow of a passage (to which attention was called by\nFran\u00e7ois Lenormant) in which a female Dilbat and a male Dilbat are\nspoken of. Other astrological texts indicate that the terms 'male' and\n'female' are employed as expressions of greater or less brilliancy.[742]\nLajard's view, that all Babylonian and Assyrian deities were\nandrogynous, hardly needs discussion now.[743]\n\n+409+. Of a more definite character are expressions in two Phoenician\ninscriptions. In an inscription of Eshmunazzar II (probably early in the\nfourth century B.C.) the great goddess of Sidon is called \"Ashtart\n_Shem_ Baal.\"[744] The word _shem_ means 'name,' and, if it be so\ninterpreted as to give the goddess the name of a male divinity, she may\nbe understood to have partly male form. But such change of name is\nhardly probable, and this is not necessarily the natural force of the\nphrase. In Hebrew to \"call one's name on a person or thing\" is to assert\nownership in it or close connection with it.[745] In the West Semitic\narea some personal names signify simply 'name of such and such a deity,'\nas, for example, Shemuel (Samuel), 'name of El,' Shemzebul, 'name of\n(the god) Zebul,' denoting devotion or subordination to the deity in\nquestion. \"Shem Baal\" as a title of Ashtart may then indicate her close\nrelation with the god, or, perhaps, if the expression be understood more\nbroadly, her equality with him in power (the name of a deity involves\nhis attributes)--he was the great god, but she, the expression would\nsay, is not less mighty than he; or, less probably, _baal_ may be taken\nnot as proper name but as title, the sense then being that the goddess\nis the lord of the city.[746] Another proposal is to read \"Ashtart\nsham[=e] Baal,\" 'Ashtart of the heaven [sky] of Baal.'[747] There is a\nPhoenician Baal-shamem, 'lord of the sky,' but nowhere else is the sky\ndescribed as the abode of a baal, and the transference of the local\ncity-goddess to that region would be strange; nor in the expression\n'Baal-shamem' is Baal a proper name--it is merely a title.\n\n+410+. Another phrase, occurring in many Carthaginian inscriptions,\nmakes mention of \"Tanit face of Baal,\"[748] an expression that may point\nto a female body with male face. Its indefiniteness--it does not state\nthe nature of the face (it may point to a beard)--makes it difficult to\ndraw from it any conclusions as to the character of the deity\nnamed.[749] But the probability is that it is identical in sense with\nthe one mentioned above. Tanit was the great goddess of Carthage; she is\ncalled \"Adon,\" 'lord,' and her equality with Baal is indicated by the\nstatement that she had his face, the word 'face' being here equivalent\nto 'personality' and 'power.'[750]\n\n+411+. At a later period (early in the fifth century of our era) two\nauthors, Servius and Macrobius, make definite statements concerning a\nbisexual cult, apparently Semitic.[751] Both statements occur in\nconnection with Vergil's use of the masculine _deus_ (_ducente deo_) as\na title of Venus, in explanation of which the cases of supposed\nbisexualism are cited.[752] What is said is that there was in Cyprus a\ndeity whose image was bearded--a god of virile nature, but dressed as a\nwoman, and regarded as being both male and female. Further, Philochorus\nis quoted to the effect that men sacrificed to her in women's dress and\nwomen in men's dress. This last remark does not necessarily point to an\nandrogynous deity, for exchange of dress between men and women sometimes\noccurs where there is no question of the cult of such a deity.[753] But\nthe Cyprian deity is said also to have been called [Greek:\nAphroditon] (Aphroditos? or Aphroditon?)[754]--apparently a male\nAphrodite.\n\n+412+. Leaving aside a few other notices that add nothing to our\nknowledge of the point under consideration, we should naturally\nconclude, if we give any credit to the statements of Servius and\nMacrobius, that there was a report in their time of a bisexual deity in\nCyprus. As regards Vergil's \"deus,\" that may be merely a poetical\nexpression of the eminence and potency of the goddess. But the\nassertions of her bisexual character are distinct, even if the \"beard\"\nbe discarded. This latter may have come from a misunderstanding of some\nappearance on the face of the statue; or, as has been suggested, there\nmay have been a false beard attached to it permanently or\noccasionally,[755] and from this may have sprung the belief in the\ntwofold nature of the deity. We are not told, however, that such a\nnature was ascribed to Aphrodite, or that a beard was attached to her\nstatue; and, if this was done, it is difficult to suppose that a popular\nbelief in the bisexuality of a deity could have arisen from such a\nprocedure. Some better ground for the statements of Servius and\nMacrobius there seems to have been, though we do not know their\nauthorities. In any case it may be concluded that the cult in question,\nif it existed, was late, popular, and without marked influence on the\nSemitic religious development. No figures or other traces of a bisexual\ndeity have been discovered in Cyprus or elsewhere (unless the\nCarthaginian Tanit be an exception), and all that is otherwise known of\nthe character and cult of the Babylonian Ishtar, the Phoenician\nAshtart, and the Carthaginian Tanit (=Ashtart) is against the\nsupposition of bisexuality. Ishtar, originally a deity of fertility,\nbecame, through social growth, a patron of war and statecraft; but there\nis no indication that an attempt was ever made to combine these two\ncharacters in one figure.\n\n+413+. The Phrygian figure Agdistis, represented in the myths as\nandrogynous[756] (the myths being based on cults), is connected with the\nworship of the Great Mother, Kybele (the embodiment of the female\nproductive power of nature), with whom is associated Attis (the\nembodiment of the male power).[757] The myths identify Agdistis on the\none hand with Kybele, on the other hand with Attis--he represents in his\nown person the combination of the two generative powers. But it is\ndoubtful whether this was his significance in the actual worship, in\nwhich he hardly appears; he was probably a divine figure of the same\ncharacter as Kybele and Attis, worked up by myth-makers and woven into\nthe larger myth. His self-castration reflects the practice of the\npriests and other worshipers of Kybele.[758] Thus culturally he is of\nlittle or no importance.\n\n+414+. There is no evidence that this Phrygian figure was derived from\nSemitic sources. A certain similarity between Phrygian and Syrian cults\nof gods and goddesses of fertility is obvious, and the social relations\nbetween Asia Minor, Syria, and Cyprus make borrowing in either direction\nconceivable. But cults of such deities might grow up independently in\ndifferent regions,[759] and the supposition that the Phrygian worship\nwas native to Asia Minor is favored by the great elaboration of its\nceremonies and by their barbarous character. This character suggests\nthat the worship may have originated with savage peoples who preceded\nthe Aryans in the country.[760]\n\n+415+. The most definite androgynous figure is the Greek Hermaphroditos.\nIt was only in Greece that such a compound name arose, and that the\ncomposite form became established in art. It is not certain when the\nGreek form was fixed. If the statement that Aristophanes used the term\n\"Aphroditos\"[761] (or \"Aphroditon\") is to be relied on, it must be\nconcluded that the conception existed in Greece prior to the fifth\ncentury, probably in that case as a popular usage that was unorganized\nand unimportant, since it is not referred to in the existing literature.\nBut of this Aristophanes we know nothing, and the vague statements of\nServius and Macrobius may be neglected as being without significance for\nthe figure in question.\n\n+416+. The name Hermaphroditos is said to occur for the first time in\nthe fourth or third century B.C.[762] This would indicate a gradual\nformulation of the idea, the result being the combination of two divine\nforms into a single form. Aphrodite would naturally be chosen for the\nfemale side, and the ithyphallic Hermes is appropriate for the male\nside--possibly the Hermes pillar with Aphrodite bust was the earliest\nform.[763] The representations of Hermaphrodites show a male body with\nfemale bust; the name Aphroditos would rather suggest a female body with\nmale additions. Other Greek bisexual figures are forms of Priapos and\nEros.\n\nAn historical connection between the Greek and the Phrygian forms is\npossible, but is not proved. In India the bisexual form of \u00c7iva, which\nseems to be late,[764] connects itself with the licentious character of\nhis rites. Its historical origin is uncertain.\n\n+417+. It does not appear that the cult of the Greek androgynous deities\nentered seriously into the religious life of the people. In late\nphilosophic circles they were treated merely as symbols of the creative\npower of nature, and thus lost their character as persons.\n\n+418+. The starting-point for the development of the hermaphrodite\nfigure may perhaps be found in two facts, the interchange or change of\nsexual characters[765] and the combination of two deities to express a\nbroader idea than either of them represents. The assumption of female\ndress and sexual habits by males, and of male dress and habits by\nfemales, has prevailed over a great part of the world.[766] The\nembodiment of this fact in a composite divine form would be not\nunnatural at a time when there was a disposition to give expression, in\nthe person of gods, to all human experiences. Such definite embodiment\nis, however, rare in religious history, probably, as is suggested above,\nbecause it involves a large generalization and a more or less distinct\nsymbolism. The first movement in this direction may have been na\u00efvely\nsensuous; later, as is remarked above, the symbolic conception became\npredominant.\n\n+419+. The association of certain _animals_ with certain phallic deities\n(as the bull with Dionysos, the goat with Pan, the ass with Priapos) is\na part of the general connection between gods and animals, the grounds\nof which are in many cases obscure.[767] Pan's rural character may\nexplain his relation to the goat; the bull, the ass, and many other\nanimals regarded as sacred, may have been brought into ritual connection\nwith gods by processes of subordination of divine beasts and through\ncollocation of cults. There is no evidence to show that the animals\nconnected with phallic gods were selected on account of their salacious\ndispositions or their sexual power.\n\n+420+. Phallicistic cults, attenuated by advance of refinement, survived\nlong, even into Christian times, under modified forms.[768] In such\ncases they become merely devices of ignorant piety. When the aid of a\nChristian saint is sought in order to secure fertility, the trust in the\nphallus-symbol involves no unworthy desire; and what is true of medieval\nEuropean peoples may have been true of ancient peoples. In the ancient\nworld these cults took many forms, ranging from na\u00efve faith to frank\nobscenity on the one hand and philosophic breadth on the other hand.\nThey take their place as part of the general worship of the forces of\nnature, and follow all the variations of human culture.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V\n\nTOTEMISM AND TABOO\n\n\n+421+. Totemism and taboo are both of them intimately connected with the\nhistory of early religion, but in different ways. Totemism is not\nessentially religious if religion be held to involve worship of\nsuperhuman or extrahuman beings; it has, however, in many cases\ncoalesced with religious practices and ideas, and it is sometimes\ndifficult to draw the line distinctly between it and religion proper.\nTaboo, on the other hand, is founded on magical conceptions, and these\nare nearly allied to the basis of early religion; it is more or less\nprominent in all early cults, and has survived in the higher religious\nsystems, though in these it is generally spiritualized. The two lines of\ndevelopment, totemism and taboo, appear side by side in early cults, and\ninfluence each the other; but their functions in the social organization\nof religion have been different, and they are best treated separately.\nAs the collections of material for their history are still incomplete,\naccounts of them must be regarded as, to a greater or less extent,\nprovisional.\n\n\nTOTEMISM\n\n+422+. The natural attraction of human beings for one another and the\nnecessity of providing effective means of defense against enemies have\nled men to associate themselves together in clans and tribes. In such\nassociations some form of organization arose as a matter of course;\nexperience early showed that men could not live together except under\nthe guidance and control of authoritative regulations. Such regulations\ndealt with fundamental facts of life, which in the beginnings of society\nare mostly physical. The points requiring regulation are: the relation\nof man to nonhuman things (animals, plants, and inanimate objects); the\nmaintenance of rights of life and property; and the sexual relations\nbetween human beings, especially marriage as the basis of the family.\nThe determination of what things may be eaten belongs more particularly\nunder \"taboo,\" and is considered below. Customs and rules designed to\nprotect life and property have always coalesced with religious systems;\nthey are mentioned in connection with the ethical element in\nreligion.[769] The other points--relations to nonhuman things and sexual\nrelations--may be conveniently considered together here; but, as the\nsecond point belongs rather to sociology than to the history of\nreligion, it will be sufficient, with an introductory word on marriage\nrestrictions (under _Exogamy_), to give the facts in connection with the\nvarious totemic organizations.\n\n+423+. _Exogamy._[770] All over the savage world the general rule\nprevails (though not without exceptions) that a man must not marry a\nwoman of his own clan; though the family proper (husband, wife, and\nchildren) exists, the clan is the fundamental social unit. When a tribe\ncontains several clans it is commonly divided into groups (phratries),\neach phratry including certain clans, and the rule then is that a man\nshall not marry a woman of his phratry. Usually the number of phratries\nis two, but in some cases (as among the Australian Arunta and adjoining\ntribes) these are divided so that there are four or eight exogamous\ngroups (subphratries). When the totem is hereditary the totemic clans\nare exogamous; otherwise (as among the Arunta) marriage between persons\nof the same clan is permitted.\n\n+424+. Whether the clan or the phratry preceded in time it is hardly\npossible to determine--clans may have united to form a larger group, or\nan original group may have been divided into clans. But in the latter\ncase this original group was practically a clan, so that the question of\nprecedence in time is not important. Where clan exogamy exists without\nphratries it is possible that these also formerly existed and have been\ndropped in the interests of freedom--that is, they limited the choice of\na wife to an extent that proved inconvenient.[771]\n\n+425+. An almost universal feature of the marriage rules of low tribes\nis the classificatory system of relationship. According to this system,\nthe community being divided into groups, terms of relationship indicate\nnot kinship in blood but tribal status in respect of marriageability;\nthus, the same term is used for a child's real father and for every man\nwho might legally have become the husband of his mother, and the same\nterm for the real mother and for every woman whom the father might have\nmarried; the children of such possible fathers and mothers are the\nchild's brothers and sisters; all possible spouses are called a man's\n\"wives\" or a woman's \"husbands\"; and similarly with all\nrelationships.[772]\n\n+426+. The system has many varieties of form, and gives way in time to\nthe formal recognition of blood kinship. It has been held to point to an\nearlier system of \"group marriage,\" in which all the men of one group\nhad marital relations with all the women of another group, and further\nto a primitive custom of sexual promiscuity.[773] In the nature of the\ncase these hypotheses do not admit of proof or disproof. All that is\ncertain is that the classificatory system has been and is an\naccompaniment of one stage of social and religious development.\n\n+427+. The effect of exogamous arrangements has been to prevent marriage\nbetween persons related in blood.[774] In totemic organizations, when\nthe totem is inherited, a division into two exogamous groups makes\nmarriage of brother to sister impossible, since all the children of one\nmother are in the same group; and if there are four such groups and\nchildren are assigned to a group different from that of the father and\nthat of the mother, marriage between parent and child is impossible.\nWhen the totem is not inherited (as is the case among the Australian\nArunta) similar results are secured by a further subdivision.\n\n+428+. The particular exogamic customs vary considerably among early\ntribes, the differences following, in general, differences of social\norganization. In some more settled savage communities (as, for example,\nthe Kurnai of Southeast Australia), in which there are neither classes\nnor totemic clans, marriage is permitted only between members of certain\ndistricts.[775] Well-organized social life tends to promote individual\nfreedom in marriage as in other things. Marriage with a half-sister was\nallowed by the old Hebrew law,[776] and Egyptian kings often married\ntheir sisters.\n\n+429+. _Theories of the origin of exogamy._ Exogamy has been referred to\na supposed scarcity of women, which forced the young men to seek wives\nabroad.[777] On the assumption of early sexual promiscuity it has been\nregarded as a deliberate attempt to prevent the marriage of blood\nrelations.[778] It has been supposed to result from the absence of\nsexual attraction between persons who have been brought up\ntogether.[779] An original human horde being assumed, it has been\nsuggested that the patriarch, who had possession of all the women of the\nhorde, would, from jealousy, drive the young men off to seek wives\nelsewhere.[780] From the point of view of the totem as divine ancestor,\nexogamy has been supposed to arise from religious respect for the clan\nblood, which is held to share the divinity of the totem, and would be\npolluted (with danger to the clan) by outside marriages.[781]\n\n+430+. Objections may be raised to all these theories. It is doubtful\nwhether a scarcity of women existed in early times; and supposing that\nthere were not women enough in a clan for the men of the clan, this\nwould not stand in the way of men's taking as wives their clan\nwomen.[782] The assumption of primitive sexual promiscuity, likewise,\ncannot be said to be distinctly borne out by known facts.[783] Morgan's\ntheory, however, is not dependent on this assumption--it need only\nsuppose repugnance to the marriage of blood relations. Such repugnance\ngranted, the main objection to the theory rests on the difficulty of\nsupposing savages capable of originating so thoughtful and elastic a\nscheme as the exogamous system. This is a point on which it is not\npossible to speak positively. The lowest tribes have produced languages\nof wonderfully intricate and delicate construction, and, supposing the\nprocess of constructing marriage regulations to have gone on during a\nvery long period, modifications introduced from time to time, to meet\nconditions felt to be important, might conceivably result in such\nexogamous systems as are now found.\n\n+431+. As to absence of sexual attraction between persons brought up\ntogether,[784] this seems to be a result rather than a cause of the\nprohibition of sexual relations between certain classes of persons. The\nargument from habits of the lower animals is indefinite--no general\nhabit has been proven. In orgies in India and elsewhere no repulsion\nappears between persons of the same family. In the ancient world\nmarriage between such persons was legal and not uncommon.\n\n+432+. The human horde, with its jealous patriarch, appears to be a\ncreation of the scientific imagination. It, again, was derived by its\nauthor from the procedure of certain beast-herds in which the strongest\nmale drives away his rivals. It is supposed, however, that in the human\nhorde the young men, having found wives, are allowed to come back\nbringing their wives with them, and these last the patriarch is supposed\nnot to appropriate. The theory is supported by no facts of actual usage.\n\n+433+. The supposition that the young men of a clan or tribe go off to\nseek food, and thus found a new clan, has more in its favor. Being\ncompelled to seek wives in their new surroundings, they might thus\ninitiate a habit of outside marriage that would in time become general\nusage and therefore sacred. Secession from tribes does occur, and may\nhave been frequent in prehistoric times, but concerning these times we\nhave little or no information. It may be said that movements of this\nsort would furnish a more probable starting-point for savage customs\nthan the ideas and schemes mentioned above.\n\n+434+. Proof is lacking also for Durkheim's theory. It is not probable\nthat the totem was regarded as divine in the period in which exogamy\narose--by the tribes whose ideas on this point are known the totem is\nlooked on as a friend and an equal but not as a god. And, as is pointed\nout above, there is no such general religious respect for the clan blood\nas would forbid sexual intercourse between persons of the same clan. The\ndemand for revenge for the murder of a clansman arises from the sense of\nclan solidarity and the necessity of self-defense--it is only in this\nregard that the blood of the clan is regarded as sacred.\n\n+435+. Horror of marriage or of sexual intercourse in general, within\nthe prohibited degrees or areas, is universal in low communities;\nviolation of the tribal law on this point is severely punished,\nsometimes with death. Whence this feeling sprang is not clear.[785] It\ncannot have arisen from respect for the purity of women or from a belief\nin the sanctity of the family--intercourse with girls before their\nmarriage is freely allowed, and lending or exchange of wives is common.\nMagical dangers are supposed to follow on infringement of marriage\nrules, but, as such results come from violation of any tribal custom,\nthis throws no light on the origin of the feeling of horror in question.\nAbsence of sexual attraction between persons brought up together,[786]\nthough the absence of such feeling is said to have been observed in some\nof the lower animals, is not assured for savages; its existence in\ncivilized communities is due to the acceptance of the established\nusage, which makes certain unions impossible, so that they are not\nconsidered, and the germ of such a public opinion may perhaps be assumed\nfor early tribes. Probably the horror of incest is a derivation from\neconomic and other situations and laws that arose naturally in early\nsociety--it is a habit hardened into an instinct.\n\n+436+. Though exogamy differs from totemism in origin and function, the\ntwo are often found associated--their conjunction may be said to be the\ngeneral rule. There are, however, exceptions.[787] Totemic clans are not\nexogamous in Central Australia, the Melanesian Banks Islands, among the\nNandi of East Africa, and the Bakuana of South Africa. On the other\nhand, exogamy is found without totemism in the tribes just mentioned,\namong the Todas of Southern India, in Sumatra, among the African Masai\nand Ashanti, and in Southern Nigeria, and local exogamy among tribes\n(for example, the Kurnai of Southeast Australia, and the Californian\nMaidu and Shasta) in which totemic divisions are not perceptible.\n\n+437+. In all such cases, however, the absence of records makes the\nhistory of the organizations uncertain--we do not know whether or not\none of the elements, totemism or exogamy, formerly existed and has\nyielded to disintegrating influences. Thus local exogamy may have\nsuperseded clan exogamy in many places, the former representing the more\nsettled habit of life, and the absence of the totemic constitution may\nindicate a process of decay of totemism. No general rule for the\ndecision of the question can be laid down--every case must be judged for\nitself.[788]\n\n+438+. Since a custom of exogamy presupposes at least two social groups\n(clans), and totemism appears to be connected originally with single\nclans, the natural inference is that the latter has everywhere preceded\nthe former in time. Both have undergone great changes produced by\nsimilar sets of circumstances, and in both cases the simplest form is\nprobably the oldest, though here again definite data are lacking.\nHowever, comparison of the known exogamous systems points to a two-group\narrangement as that from which the existing forms have come.\n\n+439+. Exogamy served a good purpose in early stages of society, both\nby preventing marriages between blood relations and by inducing a sense\nof the sacredness of the marriage bond. Its long persistence shows that\nit was regarded by most tribes as necessary for the maintenance of the\ntribal life. Its restriction of individual freedom in the choice of\nwives was an evil, and was in time modified and finally thrown off; but\nit seems to have been the only means, discoverable by early society, by\nwhich clans and tribes could live peaceably side by side, and it paved\nthe way for the establishment of the family proper.\n\n+440+. This brief account of the most important adjunct of totemism may\nserve to clear the way for the consideration of the totemic system.\n\n+441+. Among the various relations that undeveloped communities sustain\nto nonhuman things totemism has the peculiarity that it is an alliance\nbetween a human group (clan or tribe) and a species of animals or\nplants, or an inanimate natural object (as sun or moon), or, rarely, an\nartificial object (usually an implement of labor).[789] The nonhuman\nthing is regarded as a friend, and is respected and cared for\naccordingly. When it is a species (animal or plant) every individual of\nthe species is held to bear this friendly relation to every individual\nof the allied human group. Generally there is believed to be not only\nsimilarity or identity of nature between the two (such identity of\nnature between man and nonhuman things is everywhere an article of the\ncreed of savages) but a special intimacy, commonly a kinship of blood.\nWhile the men of a group respect their ally, it, on its part, is\nsupposed to refrain from injuring them, and even in some cases to aid\nthem. It is credited with great power, such as in savage life all\nnonhuman things are supposed to possess. The members of the human group\nregard one another as brothers; this feeling, however, can hardly be\nsaid to be peculiar to totemic organizations--it exists, more or less,\nin all early associations, particularly in any one association as\nagainst others.\n\n+442+. While, therefore, we may take a certain clan alliance as a\nfundamental fact of totemism, we find in various communities other\nfeatures of organization more or less closely combined with this into a\nsocial unity. In every such case it is necessary to inquire whether the\nfeature in question is a universal or general accompaniment of clan\nalliance, and whether it is peculiar to the latter or is found in other\nsystems also.\n\n+443+. (a) _Exogamy._ It is pointed out above[790] that totemism and\nexogamy are mutually independent arrangements, differing in function and\norigin, each being found without the other. Yet in many cases, perhaps\nin the majority of cases, the two are found combined. Exogamy supposes a\nbody of clans, and, given a group of totemic clans, it would naturally\nbe attached to these, and so become an organic part of their social\nconstitution. Where there is no totemism the question of union, of\ncourse, does not come up. Where totemism is not accompanied by exogamy\nit is sometimes probable that the union of the two once existed,[791] or\nthat exogamy is excluded by the peculiar form of the totemism.[792]\nExogamy may thus be regarded as a natural and frequent accompaniment of\ntotemism, but it is not a universal and necessary element of the totemic\nconstitution.\n\n+444+. (b) _Names._ As a general rule the totemic clan bears the name of\nits totem. The exceptions appear to be found in somewhat advanced\ncommunities, as the Fijians and the Kwakiutl (but not the northern\nbranch of this tribe).[793] There are also many larger exogamous groups\n(as, for example, in Australia) the meaning of whose names is\nobscure--they may or may not contain the name of the totem; but such\ngroups may have a different origin from that of the totemic clans.\n\n+445+. In some cases clans and tribes have distinctive _crests_ or\n_badges_, generally totemic figures or parts of such figures. These are\ncarved on beams of houses and on house poles, or cut or drawn on men's\npersons, and are used as signs manual, serving thus to indicate to\nstrangers a man's clan connections. Such emblems are employed in the\nTorres Straits islands and British New Guinea,[794] in the Aru Islands\n(southwest of New Guinea), and in North America among the Len\u00e2p\u00e9\n(Delawares), the Pueblo tribes, the Tlingit, the Haidas, and the\nKwakiutl.[795]\n\n+446+. In America the crest is not always identical in name with the\ntotem, and sometimes coalesces with the guardian animal-spirit. The\nmyths that give the origin of the crest usually describe some adventure\n(marriage or other) of a man with the crest animal, involving sometimes,\nbut not always, the origin of the clan.[796] The relation between totem\nand crest thus differs in different places, and its origin is not clear.\nThe simplest form of this relation (that found in the New Guinea region)\nmay indicate that the totem animal, being most intimately connected with\nthe clan, is chosen on that account as its badge. Or possibly totem and\ncrest have arisen, independently of each other, from some early\naffiliation with animals, and therefore do not always coincide. Such a\nmode of origination would help to explain the fact that in Northwestern\nAmerica a clan may have several crests, and a man also may acquire more\nthan one. The relation of crest to clan is looser than that of totem to\nclan--the same crest or crests are found in different clans. When the\ntotemic constitution of the tribe or clan is weakened, the crest may\nbecome more important than the totem, as is the case among the Haidas.\nBut the adoption of the crest name does not invalidate the general rule\nthat the clan bears the name of its totem.\n\n+447+. Names of families and of persons do not come into consideration\nhere. They arise from various local and personal peculiarities that, as\na rule, have nothing to do with totemism, and they become more prominent\nand important as the latter declines.\n\n+448+. The origin of clan totemic names is closely connected with the\norigin of the totemic organization, and will be more conveniently\nconsidered in connection with this point.[797]\n\n+449+. (c) _Descent from the totem._ Details so far reported as to this\nbelief are regrettably few and often indefinite, and it is not possible\nto give more than a provisional sketch of it.[798] In Central Australia\nit is held that all the members of a clan come into being as spirit\nchildren, who are the creation of mythical half-human, half-animal\nbeings of the olden time; the clan bears the name of the mythical\nancestor (its totem), and its members regard themselves as identical in\nblood and nature with the totem.[799] Similar beliefs are reported as\nexisting in New South Wales and West Australia, and a definite\nconception of descent from the totem has been found in the Santa Cruz\ngroup in Southern Melanesia, in Fiji in Eastern Melanesia, and\napparently in Tonga and Tikopia.[800] In North America the belief is\nreported as existing among the Len\u00e2p\u00e9 (Delawares) and other Eastern\ntribes.[801] In South America it appears among the Arawaks of\nGuiana,[802] and perhaps elsewhere. For Africa there is little\ninformation on this point, and what we have is not always definite;[803]\none of the clearest expressions of descent is found in the title\n\"grandfather\" given to the chameleon by the Chameleon clan of the\nHerrero of German Southwest Africa, but a comparison with the similar\ntitle given by the Zulus to a sort of divine ancestor, and with the\nHerrero mythical stories of the origins of certain clans, suggests that\nthe conception is vague.\n\n+450+. In addition to the more direct statements there are traditions or\nmyths that connect the origin of clans with animals or plants through\nthe intermediation of gods or human beings, by marriage, or some other\nrelation. The Bushbuck clan of the East African Baganda worship a\nlion-god, who is called an ancestor and is said to have turned into a\nlion at his death. Fluctuating opinions (some persons holding to direct\ndescent from a nonhuman object, others to friendly relations between it\nand the ancestor) are reported in Sumatra, Borneo, and the Moluccas.\nThe Hurons regarded the rattlesnake as a kinsman of their ancestor. The\norigin of the clan or family is referred to marriage with an animal by\nthe Borneo Dyaks and various tribes on the African Gold Coast, and to\nmarriage with a plant by some of the Upper Liluet;[804] and the origin\nof the crests in Northwestern America is ascribed to adventures with\ncrest animals.[805] In the Trobriand group of islands (lying to the\nnortheast of British New Guinea) the totems are said to have been\nbrought by the first men; naturally it is not explained whence and how\nthe men got them.[806]\n\n+451+. These instances of indirect origination (to which others of the\nsort might be added) show a variety of points of view, and may be\nvariously interpreted. They may be regarded as declensions from an\nearlier belief in the direct descent of the clan from the totem, or as\nindependent conceptions that never grew into this belief. Both these\nideas of the form of descent are found in widely separated regions and\nin communities differing one from another in general culture and in the\ndegree of importance they attach to the totemic constitution. The\npossibility of general agreement in myths, with difference in details,\nbetween tribes remote from one another is illustrated by the creation\nmyths of the Australian Arunta (who have an elaborate totemism) and the\nThompson River Indians of Northwestern America (who have no clan totems,\nsecret societies, or dramatic ceremonies); both relate transformations\nof primitive unformed persons, but in the former the creators are\nhalf-human, half-animal, in the latter they are men who transform\nhalf-human, half-animal beings. Such widespread variations point to\nearly differences in social conditions and in intellectual endowments\nwith the nature of which we are not acquainted.[807]\n\n+452+. (d) _Refusal to kill or eat the totem._ The usages in regard to\nkilling or eating the totem are so diverse, and often so uncertain,\nthat it is not possible to lay down a general rule of prohibition. An\nedible totem is only a peculiar sort of sacred animal or plant, and\nrespect for such objects often leads to refusal to kill or eat them--an\ninterdiction of this sort does not in itself show whether or not the\nobject in question is a totem. But within totemic areas the usage varies\nin a remarkable manner, as, for example, in Australia. In the north\nthere is complete prohibition, sometimes including the totems of a man's\nfather, mother, and father's father. Among the central tribes a man\nkills his clan totem only for the benefit of other clans, and eats a\nlittle of it ceremonially. In the southeast the Dieri, it is said, kill\nand eat their totems freely, while other tribes, the Wotjoballuk and\nothers, eat them only at a pinch.[808] The northeastern tribes have many\nfood taboos, which, however, relate not to the totemic clans but to the\nexogamous subclasses. A modified regard for the totem or crest (kobong)\nappears in West Australia, according to Sir George Grey's report[809];\nit is not allowable to kill a family kobong while it is asleep, and it\nis always with reluctance that it is killed.\n\n+453+. Abstention from killing and eating the totem holds, as a rule, in\nthe Torres Straits islands, while in New Guinea the custom varies--the\ntotem is eaten by some tribes, not eaten by others.\n\n+454+. In Melanesia the food restrictions connected with animal patrons\nor friends of clans are less definite than in Australia. Here, also,\nthere are local differences of usage. Prohibition of eating or using the\ntotem (fish, grass, fowl, and so forth) was found by Rivers in the Santa\nCruz group (in Southern Melanesia) but not in the northern New\nHebrides.[810] In the central islands the prohibition refers to the\nexogamous classes, and a similar usage is reported as existing in the\nDuke of York group (in the north). The Fijians refrain from eating their\ntribal sacred animals.\n\n+455+. In Polynesia family gods appear instead of totems, and the\nincarnations of gods (in animals and plants) are not eaten; such is the\nrule in Samoa and Tonga, and this was formerly the practice in Hawaii.\nThe food restrictions in Borneo and Sumatra are not definitely totemic.\n\n+456+. The non-Aryan tribes of India generally refrain from eating their\ntotems, or, in some cases, from injuring or using them; and this is true\neven of those tribes (for example, the Khonds and Oraons of Bengal) that\nhave somewhat developed theistic systems. Occasionally exemptions from\nthe rule of abstention are procured, perhaps under Aryan influence; such\ninfluence has affected many of the tribes, but has not usually destroyed\nthe old totemic customs. Among the Todas (in the south), however, Rivers\nfound only feeble suggestions of totemic objects and food restrictions;\nthe buffalo-cult seems to have ousted all others.[811]\n\n+457+. Among the native tribes of Africa there is special respect for\nthe object with which the clan or tribe has particularly definite\nrelations. The Bakuana do not eat the animal whose name is borne by the\nclan; if an animal (the lion, for example) is dangerous, it is killed\nwith an apology. The Herrero (of German Southeast Africa) abstain from\nthe flesh of the chameleon, and will not eat gray sheep or oxen. Among\nthe half-civilized Baganda, of the east, certain of the clans refrain\nfrom eating the object from which a clan takes its name; the noteworthy\npolitical organization of these people seems to have obliterated old\nclan functions in part. In the west (Senegambia, Ashanti, Dahomi,\nNigeria, Congo) there are food restrictions, but these are not generally\nconnected with totemic social organizations.\n\n+458+. There is little evidence for totemic food restrictions in North\nAmerica. The custom of apologizing to an animal on killing it, frequent\nelsewhere, is reported as existing among the Algonkin Ottawas and\nMenomini; but this is not necessarily totemic. The more advanced tribes\nof the East and South (Algonkin, Iroquois, Creeks, Choctaws, Chickasas,\nCherokees, Natchez), the peoples of the Pacific Coast, and the\nagricultural tribes of the middle of the continent (Pueblos, Mandans,\nand others) appear to be free from restrictions as to eating. The\nNavahos are said to refrain from the flesh of fish, turkeys, swine, and\nbears, but the grounds of the interdiction are not clear.[812] The\ndistinctest evidence of totemistic clan food-taboos are found among the\nSiouan Caddos (of the southern Mississippi Valley) and the Omahas (of\nthe Middle West). Both these groups are in part agricultural, and it\ndoes not appear how they have come to differ from their neighbors in\nthis regard. Food restrictions are reported for the Northwest\nregion.[813]\n\n+459+. There is no clear report of totemic food restrictions in Central\nAmerica or in South America;[814] but these regions have as yet not been\nthoroughly examined for clan usages.\n\n+460+. (e) _Magical ceremonies for increasing the supply of food._ Such\nceremonies exist, or have existed, in many regions and among peoples of\nvarious grades of culture, civilized as well as savage, but the cases in\nwhich they are, or were, conducted by totemistic clans are comparatively\nfew. This sort of economic function of the totem clan is most definite\nand important in Central and parts of Southeast Australia, where every\nclan is charged with the duty of increasing the supply of its totem for\nthe benefit of its connected clans; and magical rites are performed in\nthe fertile coast region no less than in the arid region about Lake\nEyre--that is, in these cases the employment of magic seems not to be\nconditioned on the natural resources of the land. Similar totemic clan\nfunctions appear in the islands of Torres Straits, the Turtle and Dugong\nclans performing ceremonies to increase the supply of turtles and to\nattract dugongs. Magical control of totems for the benefit of the whole\ncommunity is reported to be found in the Siouan Omaha clans (in the\ncenter of the North American continent). The tribes just mentioned are\nthose in which the social organization is definitely totemistic.\n\n+461+. Elsewhere the economic function attaches to other bodies than\ntotemic clans, as in parts of Southeast Australia, and in West Australia\n(where the ceremonies are conducted by the exogamous classes). In New\nGuinea the totemic character of the performances appears to be doubtful.\nA single instance of clan action has been found among the East African\nBaganda--the women of the Grasshopper clan undertake to increase the\nsupply of their totem; why this duty is assigned to the women is not\nclear--the custom appears to involve a relaxation of totemistic rules.\nThe economic festivals and \"dances\" of the Siouan Mandans and Hidatsa\nare general tribal ceremonies. Among the Pueblo Indians such rites are\nthe care of religious fraternities;[815] the Zu\u00f1i Frog clan performs a\nceremony to procure rain, but this duty is mainly committed to\nrain-priests. In Northwestern America the magical performances are not\nconnected with totemic clans.\n\n+462+. _Definition of totemism._ It appears, then, that not one of the\npoints just mentioned is found invariably in the systems of organization\ncommonly called totemic. Exogamy is an independent phenomenon; the clan\ndoes not always bear the name of the totem, and is not always held to\nhave descended from it; usages in regard to eating it vary greatly;\nmagical economic ceremonies are performed by other than totemic bodies.\nThere is no known clan that includes all these elements in its\norganization, though in Central Australia there is an approach to\ncomplete inclusion; the features lacking are clan exogamy and absolute\nprohibition of eating the totem, but practically a clan does not eat its\ntotem, and exogamy, for reasons given above, may be left out of\nconsideration. The Central Australian system may be said to be\nsubstantially complete; with it the North American systems stand in\nsharp contrast, and from it many others diverge.\n\n+463+. But, with all these differences, the fact remains that in\ntotemism the human group stands in a peculiar relation to some nonhuman\nobject.[816] This general statement must, however, be defined in two\nparticulars: the relation is an alliance for the benefit of both\nparties; and the nonhuman object is not regarded as a god and is not\nworshiped. The first of these particulars marks totemism off from that\ngeneral regard that is paid by savages to animals, plants, certain\nheavenly bodies, and other physical things;[817] the second particular\ndistinguishes it from the cult of ghosts and gods proper. We may\ntherefore define it as an alliance, offensive and defensive, between a\nhuman group and a nonhuman group or object that is not worshiped, the\nfriendly relation existing between every member of the one group and\nevery member of the other group.[818]\n\n+464+. This relation having been formed, the various features mentioned\nabove will naturally become attached to it in various ways and to\ndifferent extents. The clan will somehow get a name, when and how we\nneed not now ask; usually its name is that of the totem--this is in\nkeeping with the intimate connection between the two. To trace the\norigin of the clan to the totem is only to do what is done abundantly\namong uncivilized and civilized peoples (Hebrews, Greeks, and others);\nthe eponymous ancestor is constructed out of the current name of the\nclan. To refrain from killing or eating a friendly animal or plant is a\nsimple mark of respect. The conception of special ability in a clan to\ninsure a supply of its totem for food is in accord with savage ideas of\nmagical endowment. When the custom of exogamy arose it would naturally\nattach to the clan as the social unit.\n\n+465+. In view of the diverse physical surroundings of the tribes of the\nearth and their intellectual differences, it cannot be surprising that\nthey have combined these elements of organization in various ways. In\ntheir efforts to secure food, good marriage relations, protection of\nproperty, and defense against enemies, they have from time to time\nadopted such measures as the circumstances made desirable and possible.\nThere is evidence that in some instances clans have changed their social\nregulations, sometimes by a process of internal growth, sometimes by\nborrowing from without. It is not always possible to trace such\nmovements, and it is impossible now to say what the earliest social\nconstitution of men was. The probability is that the earliest state was\nan unformed one, without governmental or other institutions, and that\ntotemism was one of the first attempts to introduce order into society.\nIn accordance with what is said above, the term 'totemism' may be used\nto mean particularly a simple alliance between men and nonhuman things,\nand then more generally to mean such an alliance combined in whatever\nway, with one or more of the particular customs described in preceding\nparagraphs.[819]\n\n+466+. _Geographical survey of totemistic usages._ If totemism be taken\nin the simpler sense, as a certain sort of intimate relation between men\nand nonhuman things, it will be found to be widely distributed in the\nnoncivilized world. Its occurrence becomes rarer in proportion as\nadjuncts are attached to it; as is remarked above, it is hardly possible\nto find a clan whose constitution embraces all adjuncts. Where usages\nlike exogamy occur, or where there is reverence for an object, without\nbelief in a definite, nontheistic relation between a human clan and a\nnonhuman object, we cannot recognize totemism proper; such usages must\nbe treated as belonging to man's general attitude toward his nonhuman\nassociates. The question whether they represent germinal or decadent\ntotemism, or neither, must be considered separately in every case.\n\n+467+. The two great totemistic regions of the world are Australia and\nNorth America, and in each of these the variations of custom run through\nthe gamut of possible differences. In each of them also the native\npopulation may include different stocks, though on this point there is\nuncertainty. Differences of climate and topographical situations there\nare, but these do not always account for the diversities of culture and\ncustom.[820]\n\n+468+. _Australia._ In the heart of Central Australia (the home of the\nArunta and other tribes) there are clans that bear the names of their\ntotems, and trace their descent from half-human totem ancestors, with\nwhom they consider themselves to be identical; totems, however, are not\nhereditary, but are determined by the ancestor connected with the place\nwhere the mother first becomes aware of the child within her; each clan\nperforms magical ceremonies to secure a supply of its totem for the\nassociated clans, and, when the totem is an animal or a plant, hunts or\ngathers it and brings it to be distributed; at the distribution the\nheadman of the providing clan must eat a little of the food\nceremonially, and at other times clansmen eat of it sparingly;[821] the\nrule of exogamy relates not to the totemic clans, but to the phratries\nor subphratries.\n\n+469+. In the South Central region these features are found, with an\nexception in the rule concerning eating one's totem. Sometimes, as in\nthe Urabanna tribe, such eating is forbidden. But among the Warramunga\nthere is a relaxation of the rule in the case of old people--for them\nthe food restriction is removed (apparently a humanitarian provision);\non the other hand, for other clansfolk there is an extension of the\nrule--the prohibition includes two subclasses of the moiety to which the\nclan belongs, and conditionally includes the whole moiety (this is\nperhaps a cautionary measure, to guard against the possibility of\nunlawful eating on the part of clansmen).\n\n+470+. The special feature in North Australia (on the shores of the Gulf\nof Carpentaria) is the absolute prohibition of eating the totem. In\nregard to the performance of magical ceremonies for increase of the\ntotem also there is the peculiarity that a clan is not bound to conduct\nsuch performances--it is optional with it to do so or not; it has\nmagical power, but is not required by custom to exercise it. It is\nsuggested by Spencer and Gillen that this variation from the usage of\nthe Central region is to be attributed to the more regular rainfall on\nthe coast, which insures a more regular supply of food and thus does\naway with the necessity for magic.[822] Possibly, also, this climatic\nfeature may account for the stricter rule of prohibition mentioned\nabove; as the rule is sometimes relaxed when it is hard to get food, so,\non the other hand, it may be strictly enforced when food is plentiful.\n\n+471+. Still a different situation appears in the southeastern part of\nthe continent (New South Wales and Victoria)--several prominent features\nof the Central system are absent. The Dieri clans bear the names of\ntheir totems, from which also they think themselves descended, but they\neat them freely. Some adjacent tribes eat them only at a pinch, others\nrefrain from them. The clans of the Narrinyeri are mostly localized, and\nthe clan-names are not now those of the totems;[823] the totems are\neaten. The Kurnai show the greatest divergence from the ordinary\ntype--they have neither totemic clans nor exogamous classes; their rule\nof exogamy relates to districts. Throughout the southeast the conduct of\nmagical economic ceremonies by clans, every clan being responsible for\nits own totem, seems not to exist.\n\n+472+. In certain tribes (the Wotjoballuk, the Yuin, the Kurnai, and\nothers) there are sex-patrons, animals intimately related to all the\nmales or all the females of the tribe; the belief is said to be that the\nlife of any individual of the animal group is the life of a man or a\nwoman, and neither sex group will kill its patron animal. So far as\nregards the conception of identity with the animal and reverence for it,\nthe institution agrees with the usual totemic type; but since it is not\nconnected with clans, some such designation for the animal as \"patron\"\nor \"guardian\" is to be preferred to \"totem.\"[824] Such animals,\nprotectors of sexes, are of rare occurrence, having been certainly found\nso far only in Southeast Australia, and they occur in a body of tribes\nthat show a disposition to discard the clan constitution. In this region\nindividual men also sometimes have animal guardians, so that a general\ntendency toward individualism may be recognized. It is not unnatural to\nconnect this tendency with the fertility of the south coast, which may\nweaken the clan organization. The organization by sex is a singular\nphenomenon, of the history of which there are no records. It is\ndoubtless a special development of the widespread separation of the\nsexes, combined with an increasing recognition of the property rights\nand the social equality of women. At an early age boys were often kept\napart from girls. Special taboos, of food and other things, were imposed\non women. On the other hand, they were in some cases the owners of the\ntribal property, and were sometimes admitted to membership in secret\nsocieties. The organization of the sex would follow under peculiarly\nfavorable conditions.[825]\n\n+473+. The remaining districts of Australia have been less carefully\ninvestigated than the central and southern parts, and information about\ntheir totemistic customs is not always satisfactory. So far as the\naccounts go there is a widespread divergence from simple clan\norganization in these districts. In Northeast Australia (Queensland)\nthere are exogamous subclasses, and no clan taboos. In the southwest not\nclans but families are the social units; these trace their descent from\nanimals, and there are individual animal patrons. In the northwest no\nclan organization is reported; there is class exogamy, and in the\nmagical ceremonies the performers are taken from the exogamous classes.\n\n+474+. _Torres Straits Islands._ These noteworthy variations in the\ntotemism of the Australian continent appear to be connected in a general\nway with differences of climate and the degree of isolation of the clans\nand tribes. Similar variations appear in the Torres Straits islands and\nin British New Guinea. In the western islands of the Straits (the only\npart in which distinct totemism has been found) the social organization\nis to a certain extent independent of totemic relations: the clans are\nlocally segregated, and marriage is mainly regulated by blood-kinship.\nOn the other hand, an intimate relation between a man and his totem is\nrecognized--the latter, as a rule, is not eaten by the related clansmen\n(there are exceptions), magical economic ceremonies are performed by\ncertain clans, and there is clan exogamy. A possible survival of an\nearly social arrangement is the existence of subsidiary totems.\n\n+475+. There is also a rudimentary cult of heroes: two of these (animal\nin form) have shrines and effigies, annual dances are performed in their\nhonor, and stones are shown in which their souls are supposed to dwell.\nThe resemblance of this cult to certain forms of worship in Polynesia\n(in Samoa, for example) is apparent; the stones may be compared with\nsimilar abodes of superhuman animals or spirits in Central Australia and\nelsewhere; the myths connect the two animal heroes with the origin of\ntotems--a common procedure. One hero, Kwoiam of Mabuiag, is said to have\nbeen a real man, and to have been almost deified; divinization of dead\nmen is not unusual in Polynesia.\n\n+476+. _New Guinea._ In the eastern portion of British New Guinea the\npeculiarities of organization are[826] that the people live in hamlets;\nthat there is generally a combination of totems in a clan; and that\nspecial regard is paid to the father's totem. There is no report of\nbelief in descent from the totem.[827] The hamlets tend to become family\ngroups, but clan exogamy is observed. The system of \"linked totems\"\nseems to be designed to secure superhuman aid from all departments of\nthe nonhuman world: ordinarily there will be a bird, a fish, a snake,\nand a plant--the bird has come to be the most important of these. A man\nmay kill his own totem but not his father's--a rule that has arisen\nperhaps from a displacement of matrilineal descent (according to which a\nman's totem is that of his mother) by descent through the father. So far\nas appears, there are no magical ceremonies for increase of the supply\nof food. In both New Guinea and the Straits the fact that old customs\nare disappearing under foreign influence increases the difficulty of\ndetermining whether certain usages are primitive or decadent.\n\n+477+. _Melanesia._ The social organization in the vast mass of islands\ncalled Melanesia[828] has not been fully investigated, but the existence\nof some general features has been established. Society is divided not\ninto clans or tribes, but into exogamous classes, and the classificatory\nsystem of relationships is general. The rules governing marriage are\nless elaborate than in Australia, the method of initiation is simpler,\nand the political organization is more definite. In regard to other\nusages commonly associated with totemism the reported details are not\nnumerous. There appears to be a movement away from Australian totemism,\ngrowing more pronounced as we go eastward, and culminating in Fiji, in\nwhich totemic features are very rare.\n\n+478+. In the Bismarck Archipelago every class has connected with it\ncertain animals regarded as relatives, but in New Britain, apparently,\nnot as ancestors.[829] In New Ireland dances imitating the movements of\nthe sacred animals are performed. Such animals are treated with great\nrespect, and the relation to them constitutes a bond of union between\nmembers of a class.\n\n+479+. Some peculiarities appear in the Solomon Islands. While there is\nthe usual regard for the sacred objects (called _buto_), so that these\nare not to be eaten (in some cases not to be touched or seen), the names\nof the classes are not always those of the sacred things, and there is\ndifference of opinion among the natives as to whether the latter are\nancestors or merely associated with an ancestor: a man (particularly a\nchief) may announce that after death he will be incarnate in a given\nthing, as, for example, a banana--this then becomes sacred. But in some\ncases[830] the god of the class is regarded as the ancestor; instead of\na number of sacred animals there is a theistic system with regular\nworship--a state of things quite distinct from totemism.[831]\n\n+480+. In the New Hebrides group there is mention of a slight magical\nceremony performed by a member of a class to attract a class animal, but\nthere is no rule against eating the object whose name the class bears.\nThe usage in the Santa Cruz group in regard to eating, and the belief as\nto descent from the sacred object, differ in different islands; they are\nsometimes lax and vague, sometimes strict and definite.\n\n+481+. Belief in a vital connection between a man and some object chosen\nby himself is found in the Banks Islands; there is an obvious similarity\nbetween such an object and the North American manitu. Further, the\nbelief is reported by Rivers that in these islands the character of a\nchild is determined by an edible object from which the mother, before\nthe birth of the child, received some sort of influence; the child will\nresemble the object or be identified with it, and will not, throughout\nlife, eat of it.[832]\n\n+482+. In the easternmost group, the Fijian, the relation between the\ntribes and their associated sacred animals and plants was, and is,\nvarious. The rule was that these should not be injured, and, if edible,\nshould not be eaten. But alongside of such sacred objects real gods are\nfound; these dwell or are incarnate in certain birds, fish, and plants,\nand sometimes in men. In one district, in the interior of the large\nisland Viti Levu, Rivers learned that every village had its deity, which\nin many cases might turn into an animal, and the animal would then\nbecome taboo;[833] the familiar custom of not eating a sacred thing was\nthus extended to any new object of this sort. The functions of the\ntribal sacred animals approached in some points those of gods: they were\nconsulted by magicians on important occasions (war, sickness, marriage).\nIt was supposed (somewhat as in the Banks Islands) that the tribal\nsacred animal appeared to a mother just before the birth of her child.\n\n+483+. Thus in Melanesia, along with a large mass of sacred objects\nconnected more or less intimately with social units (but not with clans\nproper), there are usages and ideas that are commonly found associated\nwith clan totemism (belief in descent from a sacred thing and refusal to\neat it when it is edible), but also other ideas and usages (omens from\nanimals; superhuman determination, before a child's birth, of its\ncharacter; creation of a new sacred thing by an individual man) that\nlook away from clan organization to an individualistic form of\nsociety.[834]\n\n+484+. _Micronesia and Polynesia._ The character of the social\norganization in Micronesia (the Caroline and Pelew groups, with which\nmay be included the little island of Tikopia, southeast of the Santa\nCruz group) is not very well known, but the published reports indicate a\nconsiderable divergence from clan totemism. The westernmost island of\nthe Carolines, Uap (or Yap), according to a recent observer,[835]\nretains many old beliefs, is without an exogamous system, and has a\nlarge apparatus of spirits and gods. Elsewhere in the Carolines and in\nTikopia there are non-exogamous social groups, sacred animals greatly\nrevered, and in some places belief in descent from an animal-god. Sacred\nanimals and village gods (with exogamous families) are found in the\nPelew group.[836] The diversity in Micronesian customs may be due in\npart to mixture of tribes resulting from migrations.\n\n+485+. In Polynesia the family is generally the social unit, and there\nis a fairly good political organization, with more or less developed\npantheons. Gods are held to be incarnate in animals and trees, but there\nare also great gods divorced to some extent from phenomena. The theistic\ndevelopment is noteworthy in Hawaii, New Zealand, Samoa, Tahiti, and\nTonga, and there are elaborate forms of worship with priests and\ntemples. The existing organization is not totemic, but here, as\nelsewhere in similar cases, the question has been raised whether or not\nthe gods have arisen from sacred (or, more definitely, totemic) animals\nand plants,[837] and whether, in general, the existing organization was\npreceded by one approaching totemism.[838]\n\n+486+. _Indonesia._ The Battas of the interior of Sumatra have clan\nexogamy (but the clans live mixed together), and every clan has sacred\nanimals which it is unlawful to eat. One clan on the west coast asserts\nits descent from a tiger. In the Moluccas villages claim descent from\nanimals or plants, and these are taboo. The indications of totemic\norganization in Borneo are slight: there are sacred animals that are not\neaten, and there is a vague feeling of kinship with animals--phenomena\nthat are not necessarily totemic. The belief of the Sea Dyaks in\nindividual guardians is to be distinguished from general respect for\nsacred animals.\n\n+487+. _India._ The non-Aryan peoples of India are divided into a large\nnumber of exogamous clans, each with its sacred object, which it is\nunlawful to injure or use.[839] A departure from ordinary totemic usage\nappears in the fact that in many cases the sacred objects receive\nworship. The social constitution of these peoples seems to have\nundergone modifications, partly through adoption of agriculture (which\nhas occurred generally), partly by direct Hindu religious influence; the\nhistory of the non-Aryans, however, is obscure in many points. The\nAryans of India have exogamy but not totemism, and this is true in part\nof the Assamese. Totemism has not been observed in Burma[840] and China,\nor in the Malay Peninsula.\n\n+488+. _North America._ The North American native tribes, scattered over\na large territory, with widely different climatic and topographical\nfeatures, and themselves divided into half a dozen linguistic stocks,\nshow great diversities of social organization. While exogamous groups\n(clans, phratries, and local groups) are found almost everywhere, there\nis little precise information about certain fundamental points of\ntotemic systems, particularly customs of killing and eating the totem\nand belief in descent from it. With a general apparatus that often\nsuggests an original totemism, the American social type differs\nconsiderably from the Australian, resembling in some respects the\nMelanesian and the Polynesian, but with peculiarities that difference it\nfrom these. Among the Eskimo and the Californians no definite signs of\ntotemism have been discovered. Among the other peoples the Rocky\nMountain range makes a line of demarcation--the tribes of the Pacific\nCoast differ in organization decidedly not only from their eastern\nneighbors but also from all other known savage and half-civilized\npeoples. There are points of similarity to these, but the general\nPacific Coast type is unique.\n\n+489+. Beginning with the _Eastern_ tribes, we find that the Iroquois\nand their allies (Mohawks, Senecas, and others),[841] mainly\nagricultural, had the tribe or the phratry rather than the clan as their\npolitical and religious unit. The Iroquois League, organized by the\ngreat statesman Hiawatha in the fifteenth century, was a federal union\nof five (later of six) tribes that showed remarkable political wisdom\nand skill. The great festivals were tribal. The clan is recognized in a\nmyth that describes the metamorphosis of a turtle into a man who became\nthe progenitor of the clan of that name, and it was socially influential\nby reason of the brotherhood that existed among members of clans having\nthe same name in different tribes, and through the fact that a man's\npersonal name was the property of the clan. The totem figure was used as\na badge. Whether or not the totem was killed and eaten is not known. In\nthe form, then, in which it is known, the Iroquois organization cannot\nbe called totemic--whether it was originally such must be left\nundetermined.\n\n+490+. The Cherokees, belonging to the southern division of the Iroquois\nstock (living formerly in Tennessee and North Carolina), killed the\nanimals they respected, but with ceremonies. Their Green Corn dance,\nthe object of which was to insure a good crop, was expiatory, and was\naccompanied by a general amnesty.[842]\n\n+491+. Wyandot (Huron) myths[843] account for their Snake and Hawk clans\nby stories of marriages between women and a snake or a hawk; here human\nbeings are assumed to have existed before the genesis of the clan (a\ndifference from the Australian scheme), but it is true that the clan is\nheld to have descended in part from an animal.\n\n+492+. In the great Algonkin stock[844] the evidence for a distinct\ntotemic organization is similarly indefinite. The Len\u00e2p\u00e9 (Delawares),\nwho were agricultural and well advanced in manufacture, gave prominence\nto families rather than to clans, and the totem was a badge. The\nOjibwas, hunters (dwelling by the Great Lakes and in the valley of the\nSt. Lawrence),[845] also used their sacred animal forms as badges;\nwhether they ate such animals or claimed descent from them we are not\ninformed. The friendly relation existing between the Otter and Beaver\nclans is explained by a story of a marriage between an Otter clansman\nand a Beaver woman. For the Potawatamies it was lawful to kill and eat\nthe totem. The Ottawas (of Canada) and the combined Sauks and Foxes (of\nthe Mississippi Valley) had traditions of descent from the totem. The\nMenomini (of the same region) would kill the totem, but always with an\napology to it; their myths embody varying conceptions of the relation of\neponymous animals to clans: sometimes the origin of a clan is referred\nto the action of a supernatural being who changed a bear, for example,\ninto a man, or to adventures of animals; sometimes eponymous birds\n(eagle and hawk) are described as being spirits or deities. Such\nintroduction of supernatural beings involves a deviation from the\nconception of the eponymous animal as independent creator of a\nclan.[846]\n\n+493+. For the tribes bordering on the Gulf of Mexico no signs have\nbeen preserved of an organization based on the relation between clans\nand eponymous animals, plants, and other objects. The great Maskoki\nstock (including Creeks, Seminoles, Choctaws, Chickasas, and some other\nless important tribes) had a well-formed political system, and their\nreligion was represented by the Chief Magician or Priest (Medicine Man).\nThey performed magical ceremonies for increase of food, but these were\ntribal, and the Creek annual fast (_puskita_, busk) had high religious\nand ethical significance.[847]\n\n+494+. The Caddoan group, dwelling formerly west of the Mississippi, in\nTexas, Louisiana, and Arkansas, had an approach to specific totemism. In\nthe Caddo tribe clansmen refrained from killing the eponymous animal;\nbut all members of the tribe refrained from killing eagles and panthers.\nWhether this custom represents former clan restrictions is uncertain.\nFor the related Skidi Pawnee (who formerly dwelt in the Nebraska region)\nthere is evidence, from folk-tales, of a belief in the origin of clans\nfrom marriages between human beings and animals, and of belief that\nthrough such marriages benefits accrued to the people. But such beliefs\nappear not to have affected the Pawnee social organization.[848]\n\n+495+. The Nakchi (Natchez) people (of the lower Mississippi Valley)\ndwelt in villages that had such names as \"pond-lily people,\" \"hickory\npeople,\" \"swan people,\" \"forest people.\" These are possibly survivals of\ntotemic names, but there is no account of the existence of totemic\ngroups among them. On the other hand, they had a highly developed\nsun-worship, with human sacrifices.\n\n+496+. Customs in the Siouan stock vary. In the Dakota tribe there is no\nknown evidence of totemism. The Omahas (of the Missouri Valley), who\nare partly agriculturalists, partly hunters, refrain from eating or\nusing eponymous objects, certain clans are credited with magical power\nover such objects, and there are traces, in ceremonies and myths, of the\ndescent of clans, each from its eponym. This combination of more\ndefinite totemistic conceptions is not found in any other member of the\nSiouan stock. The Osages had a tradition or myth of their descent from\nanimals, but their civil organization was nontotemic--they were divided\ninto two groups, termed respectively the Peace Side and the War Side,\nand the members of the former group took no animal life, though they ate\nflesh that they obtained from the War Side. The origin of this custom is\nuncertain--the two divisions of the tribe, the hunters and the tillers\nof the soil, exchanged products, but how this division of labor arose\n(whether from a union of two tribes or otherwise) is not clear. Among\nthe Hidatsa, it is reported, there was a belief that spirit children\nmight enter into a woman and be born into the world. The resemblance to\nthe Central Australian belief is striking, but it does not appear that\nsuch entrance of spirit children was supposed to be the only mode of\nhuman birth. The Mandans (living on the Missouri River, in North Dakota)\nnow have no totemic system; but little or nothing is known of their\nearly history.[849] In the Siouan tribes the figure of the individual\nanimal guardian (the manitu or \"medicine\") plays a prominent 'r\u00f4le'.\n\n+497+. There are indications that the institutions of the Pueblo tribes\n(who are now wholly agricultural) have undergone modifications, perhaps\nunder foreign (Spanish) influence. Hopi myths represent clans as\ndescended from ancestors originally animal, and transformed into human\nshape by deities. But the elaborate sun-worship and the complicated\nsolstice ceremonies are tribal.[850] The Zu\u00f1i economic ceremonies appear\nto have passed from under clan control. Thus, the magical ceremony for\nprocuring rain, properly the function of the Frog clan, is now in the\nhands of rain-priests; and the magical, dramatic performances for\ninsuring a supply of food are conducted by nontotemic religious\nfraternities. The great Snake \"dance\" may have been originally a totemic\nceremony intended to secure rain and corn.[851]\n\n+498+. For a former totemic organization among the Navahos, Apaches, and\nMohaves (these last live on the Colorado River) there are only vague\ntraditions and other faint traces; the taboos on foods now touch not a\nparticular clan but a whole tribe.\n\n+499+. The coast tribes of Northwest America (in British Columbia and\nthe United States)[852] differ in social organization from the other\nIndians in several respects, and particularly in the importance they\nattach to rank, in their employment of the crest or badge, and in the\nprominence they give to the individual guardian animal or spirit.\n\n+500+. In the civil organization of the Carrier division of the D\u00e9n\u00e9,\nthe Salish, the Kwakiutl, and other tribes, three or four castes or\ngroups are recognized: hereditary nobles; the middle class, whose\nposition is based on property; and the common folk; and to these is to\nbe added among some tribes the class of slaves. In the summer ceremonies\nthe men are seated according to class and rank. The family pride of the\nnobles is great--every family has its traditions and pedigrees. In such\na scheme the zo\u00f6nymous clan plays an insignificant part. Classes and\nclans are mixed in the villages in which, for the most part, these\npeople live, and trade is prominent in their life. The curious custom of\nthe \"potlatch\"--a man invites his friends and neighbors to a gathering\nand makes them magnificent presents, his reputation being great in\nproportion to the extent of his gifts--appears to be a device for\nlaying up property; the host in his turn receives presents from friends\nand neighbors.\n\n+501+. The employment of a sacred object as a badge or crest, a sign of\ntribal or clan position, is found, as is noted above,[853] in various\nparts of the world: in the Torres Straits islands, in the Aru\narchipelago (west of New Guinea), and in North America among the\nIroquois, the Len\u00e2p\u00e9 (Delawares), the Pueblos, and perhaps among the\nPotawatamies. In these tribes, however, the r\u00f4le of the badge is\nrelatively unimportant--it is employed for decorative purposes, but does\nnot enter fundamentally into the organization of the clan or the tribe.\nIn Northwest America, on the other hand, it is of prime significance\nboth in decoration and in organization--it, to a great extent, takes the\nplace occupied elsewhere by the totem, and it is not always identical\nwith the eponymous object of the clan, though this may be an accidental\nresult of shifting social relations (new combinations of clans, or a\nborrowing of a device from a neighbor).\n\n+502+. _The crest._ The origin of this function of the crest and its\nrelation to the function of the totem is not clear; it may have arisen\nin different ways in different places, or different conceptions may have\nbeen combined in the same place. The decorative use is an independent\nfact, having no necessary connection with clan organization; the demand\nfor decoration is universal among savages, and the employment of sacred\nobjects for this purpose is natural. Figures of such objects are used,\nhowever, in magical procedures--abundantly, for example, in Central\nAustralia--and it is conceivable that such use by a clan may have\nconverted the totemic object into a symbol or device. The artistic\nemployment of figures of sacred objects has been developed on the\nAmerican Pacific Coast to a remarkable extent; the great poles standing\nin front of houses or erected in memory of the dead have carved on them\nhistories of the relation of the family or of the deceased person to\ncertain animals and events. These so-called totem poles presuppose, it\nis true, reverence for the sacred symbol, but the custom may possibly\nhave grown simply out of artistic and historical (or biographical)\nmotives.\n\n+503+. Perhaps, however, we must assume or include another line of\ndevelopment. The crest may be regarded either as the non-artistic\nmodification or degradation of an original true totem (due to diminished\nreverence for animals and other causes), or as an employment of sacred\nobjects (for purposes of organization) that has not reached the\nproportions of totemism proper. Which of these views will seem the more\nprobable will depend partly on the degree of importance assigned to\ncertain traditions and folk-stories of the Northwestern tribes, partly\non one's construction of the general history of totemistic observances.\nIn so obscure a subject a definite theory can hardly be maintained. The\nlarge number of stories in which the beginnings of clan life are\nattributed to marriages between clansmen and eponymous animals, or to\nbeneficent or other adventures with such animals, may appear to indicate\nthat there was an underlying belief in the descent of clans from\nanimals. On the other hand, in certain low tribes (in New Britain and\nthe Solomon Islands and elsewhere) the feeling of kinship with animals\nis said to exist without the belief that they are ancestors, or the\nanimal is regarded as the representative of a human ancestor rather than\nas itself the ancestor. This latter view may be a bit of euhemeristic\nrationalism.[854]\n\n+504+. While _guardian spirits_ (generally in animal form) are found\nabundantly in America and elsewhere,[855] their r\u00f4le in the tribes of\nthe Pacific Coast appears to be specially important, for there they\nlargely take the place occupied in Central Australia by the clan totems.\nThey are not wholly lacking, however, in Australia. Among the nontotemic\nKurnai of Southeast Australia there are animal patrons of the sexes and\nof shamans and other individuals. In like manner the shamans of the\nPacific Coast Haidas and Tlingit have their guardians, and sometimes\nsecret societies are similarly provided; in the winter ceremonies of the\nKwakiutl the youth is supposed to be possessed by the patron of the\nsociety to which he belongs. We thus have, apparently, similar and\nmutually independent developments in Australia and America out of the\nearly relations of men with animals.\n\n+505+. The Eskimo live in small groups, and marriage is locally\nunrestricted. There is the usual reverence for animals, with\nfolk-stories of animal creators and of transformations, but no\nwell-defined marks of totemism, and no recognition of individual\nprotecting animal-spirits.\n\n+506+. In the Californian tribes, which are among the least developed in\nAmerica, no traces of totemistic organization have been found.[856] The\npeople live, or lived, in villages. The shamans, who are important\nmembers of the communities, have their familiar spirits, acquired\nthrough dreams and by ascetic observances; but these belong to the\nwidespread apparatus of magic, and differ in their social function from\nguardian spirits proper.\n\n+507+. There are no definite marks of totemism in Central and\nNortheastern Asia, and few such marks in Africa. The Siberian Koryaks\nbelieve in a reincarnation of deceased human beings in animals, but\ntheir social organization is not determined by this belief. Certain\nclans of the Ainu (inhabiting the northernmost islands of the Japan\narchipelago) are said to regard as ancestors the animals whose names\nthey bear, but this belief appears to be socially unimportant. Marriage\nis not controlled by clan relations.\n\n+508+. Throughout savage Africa sacred animals, plants, and other\nobjects play a great part in life, but generally without assuming a\nspecifically totemistic r\u00f4le.\n\n+509+. In the great Bantu family the usages vary greatly.[857] One of\nthe most interesting systems is that of the Bakuana (in the south). Here\nthe eponymous animal approaches divinity--not only is it killed with\nregret, it is a thing to swear by, and has magical power; but\nindependence of the totem appears in the fact that it may be changed;\nthat is, it is a friend adopted by men at their convenience. It is in\naccord with this conception that the Bakuana (who are pastoral and\nagricultural) have clan gods. Beyond taboos on sacred objects there is\nnothing in the Bantu territory that clearly indicates a totemistic\norganization of society.\n\n+510+. In the half-civilized and higher savage communities of the\neastern and western parts of the continent totemism proper, if it has\never been predominant, has been expelled or depressed by higher forms of\norganization. It seems not to exist among the Masai, a vigorous people\nwith an interesting theistic system. The neighboring Nandi, who have\nclan totems, lay stress rather on the family than on the clan in their\nmarriage laws, and their taboos include more than their totems; their\nexcessive regard for the hyena may be due simply to their fear of the\nanimal.[858]\n\n+511+. The half-civilized Baganda (of the British Uganda Protectorate)\nrefrain from injuring clan totems, but the functions of the clans are\nnow political and religious (relating, for example, to the building of\ntemples) under the control of a quasi-royal government; there is almost\ncomplete absence of magical ceremonies for the multiplication or control\nof sacred objects.[859] Old marriage laws are relaxed--a king may marry\nhis sister (as in ancient Egypt). Free dealing with totems is\nillustrated by the adoption of a new cooking-pot as totem by one clan.\nThe cult of the python obtains here, as in West Africa. Among the\nneighboring Banyoro, and among the Bahima (west of Victoria Nyanza), who\nare herdsmen with a kingly government, there is the usual reverence for\nanimals, but eponymous animals are not important for the social\norganization.\n\n+512+. In West Africa also definite totemistic organization has not been\nfound. Everywhere there is reverence for the eponymous sacred thing,\nand, when it is edible, refusal to eat it; but the taboos are sometimes,\nas in Siena (which is agricultural), more extensive than the list of\nsacred things. In Southern Nigeria at funerals (and sometimes on other\noccasions) the totem animal or plant is offered, in the form of soup, to\nthe dead; the animal or plant in such cases is regarded, apparently,\nsimply or mainly as acceptable food for ghosts--the offering is a part\nof ancestor-worship. In Congo families have sacred animals (as in Samoa)\nwhich they abstain from eating. Here and there occurs belief in the\nreincarnation of deceased human beings in animals. A negro fetish,\nbecoming intimately associated with a clan, sometimes resembles a totem.\nThe half-civilized Ashanti, Dahomi, and Yoruba have elaborate theistic\nsystems, with monarchical governments that leave no place for a\ntotemistic organization.[860]\n\n+513+. Madagascar, before it came under European control, had a\nwell-defined religious and political hierarchy.[861] Along with its very\nelaborate tabooism the island has beliefs concerning animals that are\nfound in totemic systems but do not take the form of totemism proper.\nThe animal is regarded as an ancestor or a patron, but clans do not take\ntheir names from animals, there is no general rule of exogamy, and there\nis no word corresponding exactly to the word 'totem.' The question\narises whether the Malagasy system is a stage antecedent to totemism\nproper or an attenuated survival of it.[862]\n\n+514+. _Alleged survivals of totemism among civilized peoples._ Though\ntotemism, as a system of social organization, is not recognizable in any\ncivilized community, ancient or modern, it is held by some scholars that\nthe fragments or hints of such a system that are certified bear witness\nto its former existence in these communities.[863]\n\n+515+. In fact certain ideas and customs that occur in connection with\nsavage totemism are found abundantly among ancient Semites, Greeks and\nRomans, and in Celtic and Teutonic lands. They are such as the\nfollowing: a tribe or clan bears an animal name, and regards itself as\nakin to the animal in question and as descended from it; this animal is\nsacred, not to be killed or eaten (except ceremonially), and, when it\ndies, is to be buried solemnly; sacred animals aid men by furnishing\nomens, or even by protecting from harm; they are sacrificed on critical\noccasions (sometimes once every year), and in some cases the killing of\nthe sacrificial animal is treated as a crime; animal-gods are worshiped,\nand gods are thought to be incarnate in animals; men change into animals\nand animals into men; certain animals are sacred to certain deities;\nhuman worshipers dress in imitation of animal forms (by wearing skins of\nbeasts and by other devices); a man's tribal mark is derived from the\nform of an animal; the death of the sacrificial animal comes to be\nregarded as the death of a god; the form of social organization in\ncertain ancient communities is similar to that with which totemism is\nusually found associated.\n\n+516+. Not all of these points are found in any one case, but their\noccurrence over so wide an area, it is argued, is most naturally\nexplicable by the assumption of an original totemism of which these are\nthe survivals. It is suggested also that they may be an inheritance from\nsavage predecessors of the civilized peoples.\n\n+517+. It will be sufficient to mention a few examples of the beliefs\nand usages that appear to point to an original totemism.[864] Names of\nclans and tribes derived from animals or plants are not uncommon: Hebrew\nRa[h)]el (Rachel, ewe), perhaps Kaleb (dog) and Yael (Jael, mountain\ngoat);[865] Greek Kunnadai (dog), and perhaps Myrmidon (ant); Roman\nPorcius (hog), Fabius (bean); Irish Coneely (seal); Teutonic clan-names\nlike Wolfing and the like. Belief in a general kinship of men and\nanimals existed among Semites, Greeks, and Romans. On the other hand,\nbelief in the descent of a clan from an animal rarely appears: it is\napparently not found in the Semitic area; the Ophiogeneis of Parium (in\nAsia Minor) are said to have regarded themselves as akin to snakes and\nto have traced their genos (family or clan) to a hero who was at first a\nsnake;[866] the Myrmidons, according to one tradition, were transformed\nants, and some of the Irish Coneely clan are said to have been changed\ninto seals. Transformations of men into animals are common in Greek\nmythology. Taboos of certain foods were observed abundantly in the\nancient world: by Egyptians,[867] Hebrews,[868] Greeks,[869] and\nRomans,[870] and by Celts.[871] Among the various omen-giving animals\nsome may have been totems. Solemn annual sacrifices, followed by\nmourning for the victims, were performed in Egypt,[872] and the slaying\nof the sacrificial animal was treated as murder in various Greek\ncities.[873] Living animals were worshiped in Egypt, and everywhere in\nantiquity gods assumed animal forms, and certain animals were sacred to\ncertain gods. Worshipers clothed themselves in the skins of sacrificed\nanimals in Egypt, Cyprus, and Rome.[874] Tribal marks and ensigns were\nsometimes derived from figures of animals.[875] Finally, there are\ntraces, in the early history of the ancient civilized peoples, of the\nform of social organization with which savage totemism is found\nassociated.[876]\n\n+518+. It is possible that such facts as these may point to a primitive\ntotemistic stage of ancient civilized society. But it is to be noted\nthat the usages in question almost all relate to the general sacredness\nof animals (or of plants), not to their specific character as totems.\nThey occur in lower tribes in cases where totemism does not exist.[877]\nAnimal clan-names and tribe-names, belief in kinship with animals and\nplants and in descent from them, exogamy, transformations, refusal to\neat certain animals except ceremonially, apologies for killing them,\nomens derived from them, worship of animal-gods, incarnations of gods in\nanimals, animals sacred to gods, tribal marks derived from animals--all\nthese are found in such diverse social combinations that it is\nimpossible to infer merely from the occurrence of this or that custom\nthe existence of the peculiar form of social organization to which the\nname 'totemism' proper is given above. The same remark holds of\ninferences from the general constitution of early society; a custom of\nmatrilineal descent, for example, by no means carries totemism with it.\n\n+519+. The evidence for the existence of totemism among the ancient\ncivilized peoples, consisting, as it does, of detached statements of\ncustoms that are found elsewhere without totemism, is not decisive.\nAnimal-worship has played a great r\u00f4le in religious history, but the\nspecial part assigned to totemism has often been exaggerated. It has\nbeen held that the latter is at the base of all beliefs in the\nsacredness of animals and plants, or that certain usages (such as those\nmentioned above) are inexplicable except on the supposition of an\noriginal totemism. These positions are not justified by known facts, and\nit will conduce to clearness to give totemism its distinct place in that\ngeneral regard for animals and plants of which it is a peculiar part.\n\n+520+. Totemistic forms of society, as far as our present knowledge\ngoes, are found only among the lower peoples, and among these a\nperplexing variety of conditions exists. As our review of what may be\ncalled totemistic features shows,[878] the one permanent element in the\nrelation between men and nonhuman, nondivine objects is reverence for\nthese last on men's part; and the conception of an alliance, defensive\nand offensive, between the two groups has been proposed above as an\nadditional differentia of totemism, a sense of kinship being involved.\nIf we further add the condition that the social organization (not\nnecessarily exogamous) must be determined by this alliance, we have all\nthat can safely be demanded in a definition of totemism; but as much as\nthis seems necessary if totemism is to be marked off as a definite\ninstitution.\n\n+521+. From the point of view of religious history the important thing\nin any social organization is its character as framework for religious\nideas and customs. If the central social fact is an intimate relation\nbetween a human group and a nonhuman class of natural objects, then\nconceptions regarding this relation may gather about it, and these will\nbe as various as the tribes of men. The elements of social and religious\ninstitutions spring from the universal human nature and attach\nthemselves to any form of life that may have been suggested by\ncircumstances. Thus the term 'totemism' may be used loosely to denote\nany combination of customs connected with the idea of an alliance\nbetween man and other things, and the alliance itself may exist in\nvarious degrees of intimacy. The restricted definition suggested above\nis in part arbitrary, but it may serve as a working hypothesis and as a\nnorm by which to estimate and define the various systems or cults\ninvolving a relation between human groups and individuals on the one\nside and nonhuman things on the other side.\n\n+522+. _Conditions favorable and unfavorable to totemistic\norganization._ The questions whether totemism was the earliest form of\nhuman social life and whether existing freer forms are developments out\nof definite totemism may be left undetermined. Data for the construction\nof primitive life are not accessible, and how far decay or decadence of\ninstitutions is to be recognized must be determined in every case from\nsuch considerations as are offered by the circumstances. We may,\nhowever, distinguish between social conditions in connection with which\nsome sort of totemism flourishes and those under which it is nonexistent\nor feeble; we may thus note unfavorable and, by contrast, favorable\ngeneral accompaniments. These may be roughly described as economic,\nindividualistic, political, and religious.\n\n+523+. _Economic conditions._ Of savage and slightly civilized tribes\nsome live by hunting or fishing, some are pastoral (nomadic or settled),\nsome practice agriculture. Without undertaking to trace minutely the\nhistory of these economic practices it may be assumed that they are\nfixed in general by climatic and topographical conditions. Where food is\nplentiful, thought and life are likely to be freer. In general, savage\npeoples are constantly on the alert to discover supplies of food, and\nthey show ingenuity in devising economic methods--when one resource\nfails they look for another. Hunters and fishers are dependent on wild\nanimals for food, and stand in awe of them. The domestication of animals\nleads men to regard them simply as material for the maintenance of\nlife--the mystery that once attached to them vanishes; they are\nconsidered not as man's equals or superiors but as his servants. The\nsame result follows when they are used as aids in tilling the soil or in\ntransportation. Agricultural peoples also have generally some knowledge\nof the arts of life and a somewhat settled civil and political\norganization, and these tend to separate them from the lower animals and\nto diminish or destroy their sense of kinship with them.\n\n+524+. We find, in fact, that in many cases totemic regulations are less\nstrict where the food supply is plentiful and where agriculture is\npracticed. The correspondence is not exact--other considerations come\nin, such as isolation and the unknown quantity of natural tribal\nendowments; but the relation between the economic and totemic conditions\nis so widespread that it cannot be considered as accidental.\n\n+525+. Thus, for example, the contrast between the social system of\nsterile Central Australia and that of certain tribes on the\ncomparatively fertile southeast coast is marked; the Kurnai have\npractically no clan totemism. In the islands of Torres Straits and in\nNew Guinea agriculture marks a dividing line between stricter and looser\norganizations based on regard for the totem. The agricultural Melanesian\nand Polynesian tribes, with great regard for animal patrons, lay stress\non the family or on voluntary associations rather than on the clan. In\nAfrica the partially civilized peoples, such as the Baganda and adjacent\ntribes in the east, and Yoruba, Dahomi, and Ashanti in the west, have\nfairly well-developed religious organizations, in which totems play a\nsubordinate part. The customs of certain tribes in the south are\nespecially worthy of note: the pastoral Herrero have a double system of\nclans, maternal and paternal, and their food restrictions are curiously\nminute, relating to parts of animals or to their color; the Bakuana, who\nare pastoral and agricultural, kill the clan eponymous animals, though\nunwillingly, and appear not to regard them as ancestors. The non-Aryan\ntribes of India have been so long in contact with Aryan civilization\nthat in many cases, as it seems, their original customs have been\nobscured, but at present among such agricultural tribes as the Hos, the\nSanthals, and the Khonds of Bengal, and some others, totemic\norganizations are not prominent, and the Todas, with their buffalo-cult,\nshow no signs of totemism.\n\n+526+. In North America the variety of climatic and other economic\nconditions might lead us to expect clear testimony as to the relation\nbetween these conditions and totemic development; but the value of such\ntestimony is impaired by the absence of information concerning early\nforms of organization. In the period for which there are details it\nappears that in the Eastern groups (Iroquois, Algonkin, Creek, Natchez,\nSiouan, Pueblo) the effective r\u00f4le of totemism is in inverse proportion\nto the development of agriculture and to stable civil organization:\nthere are clans bearing the names of animals and other objects, with\nmythical stories of descent from such objects, and rules of exogamy, but\nthe civil, political, and religious life is largely independent of these\nconditions; there are great confederations of tribes with well-devised\nsystems of government that look to the well-being of the whole\ncommunity, the clan-division being of small importance. The mode of life\nappears to be determined or greatly influenced by climate, though\ndifferent climatic situations sometimes lead to similar results:\nagriculture naturally arises from fertility of soil, but the Pueblo\ntribes have been driven (perhaps under civilized influences), by the\naridness of their land, to till the soil. Throughout the East the known\nfacts suggest that a nontotemic organization has followed an earlier\nform in which quasi-totemic elements are recognizable.\n\n+527+. The interesting social organization of the Northern Pacific\nCoast, on the other hand, appears to be independent of agriculture. The\npeople live by hunting and fishing; families and villages are the\nimportant social units; instead of totems there are crests or badges;\nsociety in some tribes is marked by a division into classes differing\nin social rank. The history of all these tribes, however, is obscure:\nthere have been modifications of organization through the influence of\nsome tribes on others; the details of the various social schemes are not\nall accurately known. The settled village life and the half-commercial,\nhalf-aristocratic constitution of society must be referred to racial\ncharacteristics and other conditions with which we are not acquainted.\nAs in the East, so here there is the suggestion of a movement away from\na form of organization that resembles true totemism. The Northwest has a\nremarkable system of ceremonies, but in definiteness and elevation of\nreligious conceptions it is greatly inferior to the East.\n\n+528+. The fact that some of the least-advanced American tribes,\nparticularly the Eskimo and the California tribes, show no signs of\ntotemistic organization[879] makes against the view that totemism was\nthe initial form of human society, but its historical background is not\nknown. In any case it does not invalidate what is said above of the r\u00f4le\nof agriculture in the modification of savage institutions. The lines of\nsavage growth have been various--a general law of development cannot be\nlaid down; the history of every community must be studied for itself,\nand its testimony must be given its appropriate value. In this way it\nwill be possible to give a sketch of totemistic forms and suggestions,\nif not a history of totemism.\n\n+529+. _Individualistic institutions._ The development of individualism,\na universal accompaniment of general social progress, is unfavorable to\ntotemism, since in this latter the individual is subordinated to the\nclan. To assert one's self as an individual is practically to ignore the\ntotem, whose function pertains to the clan as a whole, without separate\nrecognition of its members. Revolt against the supremacy of the clan (if\nthat expression is allowable) has shown itself from an early social\nstage and in all parts of the world. The principal forms in which it\nappears are the institution of voluntary societies, and the adoption of\npersonal guardians by individuals.\n\n+530+. _Secret societies._ It is a common custom in the lower tribes to\nkeep the sexes separate and to distinguish between the initiated and\nthe uninitiated. There are often men's houses in which the young\nunmarried males are required to live.[880] Women and boys are forbidden\nto be present at ceremonies of initiation when, as in some instances,\nthe secrets of the tribe are involved. Thus there arise frequently\nsecret associations of males, who conduct tribal affairs. But these\nassociations are not voluntary--all initiated men belong to them\nperforce--and they are not divorced from totemic relations. The real\nvoluntary society is of a quite different character. In general, in its\nmost developed form, it ignores differences of age, sex, and clan. There\nare, however, diversities in the constitution of the various\norganizations that may be called voluntary;[881] conditions of\nmembership and functions vary.\n\n+531+. Such organizations are of two sorts, one mainly political or\ngovernmental, the other mainly religious. The best examples of the first\nsort are found in Melanesia, Polynesia, and West Africa. The clan\ngovernment by the old men, of which a simple form exists in Central\nAustralia, has passed into, or is represented by, a society of men that\nundertakes to maintain order, exact contributions, and provide\namusements for the people. The Dukduk of the Bismarck Archipelago,[882]\nthe Egbo of Old Calabar, and the Ogboni of Yoruba,[883] to take\nprominent examples, are police associations that have managed to get\ncomplete control of their respective communities and have naturally\nbecome instruments of oppression and fraud. They have elaborate\nceremonies of initiation, are terrible to women and uninitiated males,\nand religion usually enters only casually and subordinately into their\nactivities, chiefly in the form of magical ceremonies. A partial\nexception, in regard to this last point, occurs in the case of the Areoi\nsociety of Tahiti, which, as it is the best-organized society in\nPolynesia, is also the most tyrannical, and the broadest in its scope;\nits members enjoy not only a large share of the good things of this\nlife, but also the most desirable positions in the future life.[884]\n\n+532+. On the other hand, the North American voluntary societies are\nmainly concerned with the presentation of religious ideas by the\ndramatization of myths, and by demanding for membership some sort of\nreligious experience. How far such societies existed in the Eastern\ntribes it is not possible to say. Among these tribes, as among the Skidi\nPawnee, the Navahos, and other groups of the Middle West, the control of\nreligion has largely passed into the hands of priests--an advance in\nreligious organization. Where ceremonies are conducted by societies,\nmembership in these is often conditioned on the adoption of a personal\ndivine patron by every member.\n\n+533+. This adoption of a _guardian spirit_ by the individual is the\nmost definite early divergence from the totemistic clan organization. An\nintermediate stage is represented by the sex-patrons of Southeast\nAustralia,[885] who embody a declaration of independence by the women.\nIn this region, moreover, among the Kurnai, not only shamans but all\nother men have each his special \"brother\" and protector.[886] Naturally,\nwhere the family, in distinction from the clan, is the social unit,\nfamily protectors arise. The Koryaks of Northeastern Asia have a\nguardian spirit for every family and also for every person.[887] A\ncurious feature of Dahomi religion is the importance that is attached to\nthe family ghost as protector, the ghost, that is, of a former member of\nthe family, ordinarily its head; he has a shrine, and becomes\npractically an inferior deity. Still more remarkable is the worship that\nthe West African native, both on the Gold Coast and on the Slave Coast\n(communities with well-developed systems of royal government), offers to\nhis own indwelling spirit;[888] the man's birthday is sacred to the\nspirit and is commenced with a sacrifice.[889] In Samoa a guardian\nspirit (conceived of as incarnate in some animal) is selected for a\nchild at its birth.[890] Some such custom is said to exist among the\nEskimo of the Yukon district in Alaska; a guardian animal is selected\nby a boy when he arrives at the age of puberty, or it is selected for\nhim in his early childhood by his parents.[891]\n\n+534+. While these examples indicate a tendency toward the adoption of\nindividual patrons, and may suggest that the custom is, or was, more\nwidespread than now appears, it is among the North American Redmen that\nthis sort of individualism is best developed and most effective socially\nand religiously.[892] There are traces of it in the Eastern tribes; but\nit is in its Western form that it is best known--it is explicit among\nthe Western Algonkins and the Siouan tribes, and on the Northwest\nPacific Coast. Most men, though not all, seek and obtain a guardian\nspirit (usually represented by an animal) which shall protect from\ninjury and bestow prowess in war, success in love, and all other goods\nof life. The spirit is, as a rule, independent of the clan totem--is\nfound, indeed, in nontotemic tribes; it is often identical with the\neponymous animal of some religious society. It is sometimes inherited,\nbut rarely--the essence of the institution is that the guardian shall be\nsought and found. The preparation for the quest is by fasting; the\nrevelation of the guardian comes in a dream or a vision, or by some\nstrong impression made otherwise on the mind.\n\n+535+. Among the Siouan Indians there are religious societies, each of\nwhich bears the name of some animal and has a ritual composed of chants\nand songs which, it is often claimed, have been received in a\nsupernatural manner.[893] The youth who aspires to become a member of\none of these societies goes off alone to the forest, and there, fasting\nand meditating, waits for the vision of the sign. This comes usually in\nthe form of an animal, and the youth enters the society whose\ndistinguishing mark this animal is. First, however, he must travel until\nhe meets the animal he saw, when he must slay it and preserve the whole\nor a part of it. This trophy is the sign of his vision and is the most\nsacred thing he can possess, marking as it does his personal relation to\nthe supernatural being who has appeared to him.\n\n+536+. A similar ceremony is found among the Kwakiutl in Northwestern\nAmerica.[894] The novice is supposed to stay some time with the\nsupernatural being who is the protector of his society. From this\ninterview he returns in a state of ecstasy, and is brought to a normal\nstate by the songs and dances and magical performances of the shaman;\nbut before he is permitted to take part in the ordinary pursuits of life\nhe must undergo a ceremonial purification. In these tribes, as is\nremarked above, the totemic groups have been replaced by clans, and in\nthe winter ceremonial these clans (according to one report) are again\nreplaced by the secret societies, whose function is political only in\nthe sense that its members form a part of the aristocracy. Recently\nsocieties of women have been established--a fact that illustrates the\ndivergence of the new system from the old.\n\n+537+. The details of initiation or of acquisition of the guardian\nspirit vary (for example, it is not always required that the youth kill\nhis patron animal), but in all cases there is recognition of the\nemotional independence of the individual, and there is involved a\ncertain largeness of religious experience in the modern sense of the\nterm. The demand for the supernatural friend represents a germinal\ndesire for intimate personal relations with the divine world; and,\nthough the particular form that embodied the conception has given way\nbefore more refined ideas, the conception itself has survived in higher\nreligions in the choice of patron saints.[895]\n\n+538+. _Political conditions._ Political organization, in unifying a\ncommunity under the control of a central authority, tends to efface\nlocal self-governing groups. This process is visible in the increased\npower of Melanesian chiefs, in the royal governments of Polynesia and\nWestern and Eastern Africa, and in the inchoate constitutional\nfederations of Eastern North America. In all these cases the simple clan\nsystem is reduced to small proportions, and totemism loses its social\nsignificance. The way in which the functions of totemic groups are thus\nmodified appears plainly in such governmental systems as that of the\nEast African Baganda (in which heads of clans have become officers of\nthe king's household)[896] and the Iroquois Confederation (in which the\ntribes act through their representatives in a national Council or\nParliament).\n\n+539+. _Religious conditions._ The personal guardian spirit and the\ntotem, when it assumes this character, sometimes receive worship--they\nare treated as gods. But their r\u00f4le as divinities is of an inferior\nnature, and it does not last long. Deities proper came into existence as\nembodiments of the sense of an extrahuman government of the world by\nanthropomorphic beings; they are direct products of the constructive\nimagination.[897] When the true gods appear the totemic and individual\nhalf-gods disappear. We find that totemism is feeble in proportion as\ntheistic systems have taken shape, and that where personal guardians are\nprominent there are no well-defined gods. In Central Australia there is\nonly a vague, inactive form that may be called divine; a more definite\nconception is found in Southeastern Australia, where the strictness of\ntotemism is relaxed. Melanesia and Polynesia show an increased\ndefiniteness of theistic figures. Northwestern North America is, in\ncomparison with the East, undeveloped in this regard. Similar relations\nbetween totemism and theism appear in India and South America. In a\ncertain number of cases the facts suggest that the former system has\nbeen superseded by the latter.\n\n+540+. Cults of the totem and of individual guardian spirits are to be\ndistinguished from certain other forms of worship with which they have\npoints of connection. The West African fetish is the abode of a tutelary\nspirit, and finally is absorbed by local gods; it arises, however, from\nbelief in the sacredness and power of inanimate things, and is without\nthe sense of identity with the spirit that characterizes the North\nAmerican relation. The family sacred symbols that are worshiped in some\nplaces[898] are really family gods (whether or not they were originally\ntotems), developed, probably, under Brahmanic influence. The worship of\na tutelary spirit has sometimes coalesced with that of an ancestor, but\nthis is doubtless due to the collocation of two distinct cults; at a\ncertain stage an ancestor is naturally regarded as friend and protector.\nThe general potency termed \"mana\" is not to be connected particularly\nwith any one cult; it represents a conception that probably underlies\nall ancient forms of worship.\n\n+541+. It thus appears that several lines of social progress have proved\nunfavorable to totemism, and to these movements it has generally\nsuccumbed. Its home has been, and is, in isolated hunting communities;\nagriculture and social intercourse have been fatal to it as to all early\nforms of society based on a belief in kinship with nonhuman natural\nobjects.\n\n+542+. It remains to mention the principal theories of the origin of\ntotemism that are or have been held, and to ask what part it has played\nin the history of religion.\n\n+543+. _Theories of the origin of totemism._ These may conveniently be\ndivided into such as refer the origin to individual action, and such as\nrefer it to the action of clans.\n\n+544+. _Individualistic theories._ Among the earliest of theories were\nthose that explained the totemic constitution as due to a confusion in\nthe minds of savages between names and things. Individuals or families\nmight be named after animals, plants, and other objects, and these, it\nwas supposed, might come to be regarded as intimately associated with\nhuman persons, and might be looked on with affection or reverence and\neven worshiped.[899] Or, more definitely, it was held that, the origin\nof such names being forgotten, reverence for the ancestors led to\nreverence for the things after which they were named and identification\nwith them--a man whose ancestor was called \"the Tiger\" would think of\nhimself as descended from a tiger and as being of the tiger stock.[900]\nIt is now generally recognized, however, that the origin of so\nwidespread and influential a system of organization as totemism cannot\nbe referred to a mere misunderstanding of nicknames; and whether such\nmisunderstanding was general or natural in early times is open to doubt.\n\n+545+. It sometimes happens that a man (generally a chief) announces\nthat after death he will take the form of this or that animal or plant,\nand this procedure, it has been supposed, would found a totemic\nfamily--his descendants would revere the object in question as the\nembodiment of the spirit of the ancestor, would take its name, and, when\nit was edible, would refrain from eating it.[901] It is true that the\nbelief was, and is, not uncommon among savages that a deceased person\nmight take the form of some natural object; but the reported cases are\nrare in which a man deliberately enjoins on his descendants reverence\nfor such an object with the result that a quasi-totemic group\narises.[902] This custom is not frequent enough to account for totemism.\n\n+546+. A theory suggested by the fact that many clans perform magical\nceremonies (for the purpose of increasing the supply of food) is that,\nwhen the magical apparatus of some body of persons consisted of parts of\nan animal, the animal would become sacred, a magical society might be\nformed by an individual magician, and thus a totemic magic-working clan\nmight be created. For this hypothesis there is no support except in the\nfact that changes in clan life are sometimes brought about by the old\nmen; but such changes are modifications of existing usages, not new\ncreations. The power of a savage man of genius may be admitted, but to\naccount for the known totemic communities we should have to suppose a\nvast number of such men, in different parts of the world, all working in\nthe same direction and reaching substantially the same results.\n\n+547+. The belief that a man might deposit his soul in an animal or a\nplant or some other object is found in West Africa, North America, and\nprobably elsewhere. As such objects would, as a rule, not be killed\n(and every individual of a group would be thus respected), it has been\nsupposed that, when various persons deposited their souls in the same\nobject, a totemic body would come into existence.[903] This view would\naccount for totemic reverence and for the sense of kinship, but the\nobjection to it is that in most totemic organizations the belief in\nquestion has not been certified.\n\n+548+. The \"conceptional\" theory refers the origin of totemism to the\nbelief, found among certain peoples, that conception is produced by the\nentrance into the mother's womb of some object (animal, plant, or other)\nwith which the child is identified.[904] In Central Australia it is held\nthat what passes into the woman is a spirit child which has a certain\nobject for its totem; but in this case the previous existence of the\ntotem is assumed. In certain islands (Mota and Motlav) of the Banks\ngroup, however, there exists, it is said, the belief that a child is the\nobject from which the mother received some influence at conception or at\nsome other period of pregnancy--the child resembles the object, and may\nnot eat it if it is edible.[905] The persons thus identified with a\ngiven object would, if united, constitute a group totemic in the\nrespects that they believe themselves to be one with the object in\nquestion and refrain from eating it.[906] The totemic object is\nselected, in the case of every child, by the fancy of the mother, and\nis, therefore, not inherited; totemic groups, thus, would be found\ndistributed through the larger groups (phratries or tribes), and might\nalso gradually coalesce and form local groups. If the belief in this\norigin of birth (identity of the child with some object) were found to\nbe widespread, and generally effective as the ground of early social\norganization, it would furnish a satisfactory explanation of totemistic\nbeginnings. But in point of fact it has so far been found, in full form,\nonly in a small region in Melanesia, and its history in this region is\nnot known; back of it may lie some other system of organization. And in\nthis region clan totemism is lacking or faint. Further testimony is\nneeded before it can be accepted as the solution of the problem of\ntotemic origins.[907]\n\n+549+. A similar remark must be made in reference to theories based on\nthe belief that the souls of the dead are incarnate in animals and\nplants. Such a belief is a natural outgrowth from the conception of the\nidentity of nature of human beings and animals, and it occurs in so many\nparts of the world (Oceania, Africa, America) that it might naturally be\nregarded as having been at one time universal, though it is not now\nfound everywhere. Reverence for an ancestor might be, and sometimes is,\ntransferred to the object in which he is supposed to be incarnate; from\nthis object a man holds himself to be descended, and he refrains from\neating or injuring it.[908] This view, a combination of reverence for\nancestors and reverence for animals and plants, thus supplies two\nfeatures of totemistic organization, but proof is lacking that it is the\nbasis of this organization. If it be the determining consideration in\nsome cases, there are many cases in which its influence is not apparent.\nThere are myths tracing the totemism of clans to ancestors having animal\nforms, but these myths are relatively late savage philosophical\nexplanations of existing institutions.\n\n+550+. The relation of the individual patron and guardian to the clan\ntotem has been variously defined. Such a patron, it is sometimes held\n(obtained by a dream or a vision), descends from the original possessor\nto his children (or, in a matrilineal system, to his sister's children),\nand thus becomes the patron (the totem) of a family or kin; and a larger\ngroup, formed by the union of several kins, may similarly have its\nprotecting spirit. Cases in which descent is through the mother here\nmake a difficulty--a man's guardian spirit would not then be inherited.\nGranting that the personal patron of a shaman or of an ordinary man may\nbe inherited, such inheritance appears to be of rare occurrence, and\nthere is no trustworthy evidence that it ever leads to the formation of\na totemic clan.\n\n+551+. It is true there is a resemblance between a man's relation to his\nclan totem and his relation to his personal guardian--in both cases the\nsacred object is revered and spared. It is sometimes the case also (as,\nfor example, among the Australian Arunta) that the totem comes through\nan individual (the mother) and is not transmissible, and yet endogamous\nclans arise by the union of persons having the same totem. But here the\nresemblance ceases--the Arunta child's totem is determined for him\nbefore his birth, but a man chooses his personal guardian for himself,\nand joins others having the same guardian, not in a clan but in a secret\nsociety. Furthermore, the institution of the personal guardian is very\nrare except in North America, and there flourishes in inverse proportion\nto the strength of clan life proper.\n\n+552+. On the supposition of the primitive predominance of the rule of\ndescent through the mother individualistic theories of the origin of\ntotemism, with one exception, are out of the question--the totem is\nfirst chosen by a man, but children would have the totem not of the\nfather but of the mother. The exception is the conceptional theory, in\nwhich the totem is determined by the mother--especially the Mota (Banks\nIslands) form, in which the choice of a sacred object by the woman is\nunlimited. In a small community a certain number of women would,\nhowever, choose the same object, and thus totemic groups would arise.\nThis scheme of organization, though not open to the objection mentioned\nabove, is geographically limited.\n\n+553+. _Theories based on clan action._ Here the starting-point is the\nclan, which is supposed to have come into existence somehow; it is not\nessential to determine precisely the method of its origination, though\nthe question of method is sometimes included in the discussion of a\ntheory. The clan finds itself confronted by various natural objects with\nwhich, it believes, it must form helpful relations; or some sort of\nrelation is forced on it by the conditions of life. The question is how\na human group came to enter into the totemic relation.\n\n+554+. The simplest answer is that the primitive clan deliberately chose\namong all associated objects some one to be its particular friend or its\nspecial associate,[909] naturally valued and respected this object,\nrefrained from eating it when it was edible, took its name, came to\nregard it as ancestor, and created myths explanatory of these\nconceptions. This general theory has assumed various forms, but the\nobjection usually made to its central supposition is that such\ndeliberate choice is out of keeping with the known methods of early\nsocieties. Though a certain amount of reflection must be assumed for\nprimitive men (the lower animals, indeed, show reflection), it is held\nthat so elaborate a system as totemism, like other institutions, must\nhave been the product of accidental experiences, developed through a\nlong period of time. Something more definite, it is said, is required in\norder to account for the details of the system--all that can be safely\nassumed is that early man, constantly on the alert to better his\ncondition, took advantage of every situation to strengthen himself by\ntaking precautions against enemies or by securing the aid of surrounding\nobjects, human and nonhuman.\n\n+555+. The totem is supposed by some to have been originally merely the\nmark or badge by which a human group distinguished itself from\nneighboring groups. In hunting expeditions and migrations such a mark\nwould be necessary or, at any rate, useful.[910] More generally, it was\nnatural for a clan to have a name for itself, as it had names for its\nindividual members and for other objects. It might take its name from an\nassociated animal or plant or heavenly body or from a place. The badge\nand the name once adopted, other totemic features would follow. Such\nbadges are common in Northwestern America, and are found elsewhere, and\nthe term 'totem' has been explained by natives as meaning 'badge.' But\nthis explanation is late, and the employment of the sacred object as\nbadge is not widely diffused. When it gives a clan its name it is, of\ncourse, a distinguishing mark, but this does not show that such\ndistinction was in all cases its original function. Nor would the badge\ncome into use till the name had been fixed.\n\n+556+. The view just mentioned does not attempt to explain how a\nparticular name came to be attached to a clan. This lack is supplied by\nthe theory that a clan was named by its neighbors after the kind of food\non which it chiefly subsisted.[911] The objection to this theory is that\nno group of men is known to confine itself to one article of\nfood--savages eat whatever they can find--and moreover contiguous groups\nwould feed on the same kinds of food. A view not open to this objection\nis that names of clans, also given from without, expressed fancied\nresemblances of the persons named to animals and other objects, or\npeculiarities of person or speech, or were derived from the place of\nabode.[912]\n\n+557+. It is obviously true that human groups have names derived from\nobjects with which they are somehow specially connected; in the lists of\nclan-names in Oceania, Africa, India, America, animal names predominate,\nbut many are taken from plants, and some from inanimate objects;[913]\nwhen groups become settled they are sometimes called after their places\nof abode. The other supposition in these \"name theories\"--that the names\nare given from without--is less certain. There are examples of such\nnaming by outsiders--nicknames, sometimes respectful, sometimes\nderisive.[914] But the known cases are not numerous enough to establish\na general rule--the origin of names of clans and tribes is largely\ninvolved in obscurity.[915] There is no improbability in either theory\nof the method of naming, native or foreign--both modes may have existed,\none in one region, one in another, and one group may at different times\nhave been called by different names.\n\n+558+. \"Co\u00f6perative\" theories suppose that a number of groups united\nfor economic purposes, to each being assigned the duty of increasing by\nmagical means the supply of a particular sort of food or other\nnecessity, and procuring a portion for the general store.[916] Such\nco\u00f6peration, however, assumes too great a capacity of organization to be\nprimitive. It is hardly found outside of Central Australia, in which\nregion there are indications of a long period of social\ndevelopment.[917]\n\n+559+. The theory that the totem is a god, immanent in the clan,\nincarnate in every member of the clan, a divine ancestor, the center of\nthe clan's religion,[918] is contradicted by the actual relation between\na clan and its totem: the latter is cherished as a kinsman and friend,\nbut not worshiped as a god.[919]\n\n+560+. _Summing-up on the origin of totemism._ This brief survey of\nproposed theories of the origin of totemism is sufficient to show the\ncomplexity of the problem. Not one of the hypotheses just mentioned is\nuniversally accepted, and no one of them appears to account\nsatisfactorily for all the known facts. Some of them are based obviously\non data derived from limited areas. Australian usage suggested the\nco\u00f6perative theory, and Australia and Melanesia the conceptional theory.\nThe identification of totemism with ancestor-worship comes from South\nAfrica; its connection with the belief in transmigration is due to\nIndonesia; its derivation from the individual guardian is based on a\nNorth American institution; and North America probably suggested the\nbadge theory also. It may be frankly confessed that in the present state\nof knowledge all theories are guesses.\n\n+561+. As there are communities in which it is probable or possible that\ntotemism has never existed, so it is conceivable that it has been\ndeveloped in different ways in different places. Considering the variety\nof circumstances in primitive life, it would not be strange if human\ngroups found themselves impelled to take various paths in their\nattempts at effective organization. The starting-point being reverence\nfor animals and other objects of nature, and belief in their kinship\nwith men, one human group may have been led by some accidental\nexperience to regard some nonhuman group or object as its ally. In\nanother case a name, adopted by a group of its own accord or given it\nfrom without, may have induced such an alliance. Individuals may have\nimposed their guardian animals or plants on communities. A badge, chosen\nfor convenience, may have been the beginning of a totemic organization.\nIn these and other ways a group of men may have come to form intimate\nrelations with a nonhuman group or other object.\n\n+562+. This fundamental relation having been established (with aversion\nto eating or injuring the sacred object), various usages would attach\nthemselves to it in accordance with general laws of social development.\nIn many cases a rule of exogamy, for the better regulation of marriage,\nwould be adopted. When tribes, consisting each of several clans, came\ninto existence, a co\u00f6perative economic system would sometimes arise:\nmagical methods of producing results, common in early stages of life,\nwould be so organized that to every clan would be assigned the duty of\nproducing a supply of some sort of food. Following the general tendency\nto genealogical construction, the belief in kinship with the sacred\nobject would lead a clan to imagine an ancestor of the same kind, animal\nor animal-human or plant or rock, and myths explaining the origin would\nbe devised. Various other usages and ideas would coalesce with those\nbelonging to totemism proper: belief in the superhuman power of nonhuman\nthings, including the conception of mana; the belief that every newborn\nchild is the reincarnation of an ancestor; recognition of omens from the\nmovements of such things; belief in the magical power of names;\nreverence for ancestors--a natural feeling, in itself independent of the\ntotemic conception; totems regarded as creators; the employment of\ntotemic animals as emissaries to the supernatural Powers. Thus the\nresultant social system would be a congeries of beliefs and usages, and\nin such a system, when it appears, the totemic element must be\ndistinguished from its attachments, which must be referred each to its\nappropriate source.\n\n+563+. _Function of totemism in the development of society._ The service\nof totemism to society lies in the aid it has given to the friendly\nassociation of men in groups. Common social feeling, the perception of\nthe advantage to be gained by combination in the quest for food and for\ndefense against human enemies, originated the formation of groups.\nTotemism strengthened union by increasing the sense of brotherhood in\nthe clan and facilitating the c\u00f6operation that is a condition of social\nprogress. This sort of service was rendered in early times by all\nsystems in which social relations were connected with relations to\nanimals and other natural objects; but totemism made a special appeal to\nthe emotions and gave all the members of a human group one and the same\nobject of devotion about which sentiments of loyalty and brotherhood\ncould crystallize. It is a crude, initial political form that has given\nway to more definite forms.\n\n+564+. It cannot be said that totemism has contributed to _economic_\nprogress except in so far as every stable organization may be favorable\nto general progress. It has been claimed that it effected the\ndomestication of animals and plants.[920] In support of this claim it is\nurged that, apart from reverence for these objects, there is nothing in\nsavage ideas and customs that could lead to domestication. Early man,\nseeking food, would try all accessible animals and plants--but why, it\nis asked, should he desire to keep them as attachments to his home and\ncultivate them for his own use? Would his purpose be amusement? But,\nthough savages sometimes have animals as pets, the custom is not\ngeneral, and such pets are freely killed. Could the motive be utility?\nThe answer is that savages have neither the ability to perceive the\nadvantage, for food and labor, that would accrue from domestication, nor\nknowledge of the fact that seeds must be kept, in order to secure a\ncrop, from one year to another, nor the self-restraint to practice\npresent abstinence for the sake of future good.\n\n+565+. On the other hand, it is said, semireligious reverence for\nanimals preserves them from injury, they lose their fear of man, and\nthose that are domesticable become tame and are appropriated and used by\nmen; and sacred plants are retained from one year to another for ritual\npurposes, and their seeds produce a succession of crops. Totem animals\nare not eaten--a pastoral people does not eat its cattle, it keeps them\nfor their milk. In a word, animals, it is held, are not tamed by man of\nset purpose, but grow tame when not molested, and those that are edible\nor capable of rendering service are gradually domesticated; and\nsimilarly, through religious use of plants, the possibility of\ncultivating certain plants becomes known.\n\n+566+. This argument rests on the assumption of the universal mental\nincapacity of early men--a subject admittedly obscure. Certainly they\nappear to be quite lacking in knowledge and reflection in some regards;\nyet they sometimes show remarkable skill in hunting (so, for example,\nthe African Pygmies), and they have created remarkable languages. But,\nif we leave the question of intellectual capacity aside, there are facts\nthat seem to throw doubt on the totemic origin of domestication. In the\nfirst place, the conditions under which reverence for a totemic animal\nmay make it tame do not appear to have existed in totemic society. For\nsuch taming it is necessary that the animal be perfectly safe within a\nconsiderable area. But this is not possible where a group of men is\ncomposed of various clans, a given animal being spared by one clan but\nfreely hunted and killed by all the other clans[921]--a state of things\nthat was presumably universal.\n\n+567+. Further, it is difficult to discover any historical connection\nbetween the actual cases of domestication of animals and reverence for\nthese as totems. It is unfortunate for the decision of this question\nthat in the two principal totemic centers, Australia and North America,\nthere are very few native domesticable animals--only one (a species of\ndog) in Australia, and two (dog and bison) in North America. The history\nof the dog in North America, however, is suggestive: it has been\ndomesticated by totemic Redmen for hunting purposes and by nontotemic\nEskimo for drawing sledges--that is, its economic use seems to be\nindependent of totemic considerations. Other cases of divergence between\nemployment of animals and their position as totems have been cited in\nUganda, for example;[922] but civilization is relatively far advanced in\nUganda, and in such cases we cannot infer original conditions from\nexisting customs.\n\n+568+. It may fairly be surmised that observation in some cases led to\nthe domestic use of animals. The value of the milk of cattle, goats, and\nmares as food may have been suggested to men who were acquainted with\nthe life of these animals; and valuing them for their milk, their owners\nwould abstain from eating them except under pressure of hunger or for\nceremonial purposes. Such a procedure does not seem to be beyond the\ncapacities of very simple communities. Chance may have suggested the\nfunction of seeds in the growth of plants, and, agriculture once entered\non, the labor of animals would gradually be utilized. So far as regards\nartistic representations, these are found everywhere, and their\noccurrence on totemic poles (as, for example, among the Haidas of Queen\nCharlotte Islands) cannot be regarded as a special product of totemism.\n\n+569+. Considering the obscurity of the subject, it is doubtless wise to\nrefrain from offering a universal theory of the origin of domestication\nof animals and plants. All that is here contended for is that the large\nr\u00f4le sometimes assigned to totemism in this regard is not supported by\nthe facts now known to us. Future investigations may bring with them new\nconstructions of early history.\n\n+570+. _Relation of totemism to religion._ As the beginnings of totemism\nare obscure it is not possible to say exactly what a man's attitude\ntoward his totem was in the earliest period. But, when the totemic\nrelation became a definite feature of social organization, the feeling\nwas that the totem was in the nature of a clansman, of the same blood as\nthe human group, and entitled to all the respect and affection with\nwhich men regarded their clan-brethren. The sentiment, in this point of\nview, was sacred in the sense in which this term may be used of the\nfeeling existing between persons of the same human group; it involved a\ncertain sense of obligation toward fellow members--to respect their\nrights and to defend them against enemies was an imperative duty.\n\n+571+. Totemic clanship, however, differed from ordinary human clanship\nin that the nonhuman clan-brother was regarded as a specially powerful\nbeing, endowed with the superhuman qualities with which all animals and\nplants and certain other objects were credited. Regard for the totem\nwas, thus, part of the regard paid to nonhuman objects in general, only\nemotionalized and intensified by the belief that the nonhuman group was\nin a peculiar way allied to the human group. There was not only\nunwillingness to injure the totem--there was fear that one would suffer\nby such an act. The totem, it was believed, was able in its turn to\ninflict injury; and this belief added an element of awe to the feeling\nwith which it was regarded.\n\n+572+. In another respect, also, the totem shared the powers of other\nnonhuman objects--it could aid its friends. The expectation of totemic\naid is, however, vague in the earlier stages of organization, that is,\nin communities in which totemism proper is well-defined--it appears to\namount to little more than a feeling that things will go well if respect\nis paid to the totem. In cases where there is more definite aid there is\nalways the question whether the aid is afforded by the totem in its\nspecific character of clan-brother or merely in its character of\nnonhuman powerful thing. Omens, for example, are given by all natural\nobjects; when an object of this sort happens to be a totem, it is not\nclear that its capacity of omen-giving belongs to it simply as totem.\n\n+573+. There is similar uncertainty in the case of the Queensland\npractice, when a man, on lying down at any time or rising in the\nmorning, whispers the name of the animal after which he is called or the\nname of the animal belonging to his group-division, in the belief that\nit will give him success in his affairs;[923] here the animal is not a\nclan totem, and the evidence does not show that it has come from such a\ntotem--it may be a sacred animal that has somehow been brought into\nspecial connection with the man or with his group. Personal guardians\nthat confer magical powers on a man do not here come into consideration.\n\n+574+. The relation between totemism and the practice of magic appears\nto be essentially one of coexistence in a community. The two belong to\nthe same stage of culture and the same order of ideas; but the fact that\neach is found without the other shows that neither is dependent on the\nother. Naturally they are sometimes combined, as sometimes happens in\nNorth America and particularly in Central Australia (where every totemic\nclan is charged with certain magical ceremonies); yet this close\nalliance is rare. Magical practice rests on a conception of man's\nrelation to nature that is distinct from the conception of kinship\nbetween a human clan and a nonhuman species or individual object.\n\n+575+. Secret societies sometimes perform magical ceremonies; but such\nsocieties are not totemic--either they have risen above the totemic\npoint of view, or they have sprung from ideas and usages that are\nindependent of totemism proper.[924]\n\n+576+. It is difficult to find a clear case of the offering of religious\nworship to a totem as totem. There are the ceremonies performed by the\nAustralian Warramunga for the purpose of propitiating or coercing the\nterrible water snake Wollunqua.[925] This creature is a totem, but a\ntotem of unique character--a fabulous animal, never visible, a creation\nof the imagination; the totem proper is a visible object whose relations\nwith human beings are friendly, the Wollunqua is savage in nature and\noften hostile to men. He appears to be of the nature of a god, but an\nundomesticated one--a demon, adopted by a tribe as totem, or identified\nwith a previously existing totem. The situation is an exceptional one\nand cannot be regarded as evidence of general totemic worship.\n\n+577+. The question whether a totem ever develops into a god is a part\nof the general question whether a sacred animal ever becomes a god.[926]\nThe complications of early ideas and customs and the paucity of data\nfor the formative period of early religion make an answer to these\nquestions difficult. As far as regards the evolution of the totem into a\ntrue divine figure the evidence is not decisive. The identification of\nheroes or gods with animals, their transformations into animals, and\ntheir incarnations in animal forms may, indeed, suggest such an\nevolution. Thus, in the island of Yam (between Australia and New Guinea)\ntwo brothers, Sigai and Maiau, have their shrines, in which they are\nrepresented by a shark figure and a crocodile figure respectively, and\nto them food is presented, songs are sung, dances are danced and prayers\nare offered. Other heroes, Kwoiam (a totem-bringer), Sida (an introducer\nof the arts of life), Yadzebub (a warrior), and some unnamed are revered\nin islands of Torres Straits.[927] In the Rewa district in Fiji every\nvillage, it is said, has a deity, and these deities have the power of\nturning into animals, which are then not eaten--that is, it may be\nsupposed, the god is a developed totem.[928] In the Wakelbura tribe of\nSoutheast Australia the totem animal is spoken of as \"father,\" a title\nfrequently given to clan gods. Household gods are considered to be\nincarnate in animals and other objects in some of the Caroline Islands,\nin Tonga and Tikopia, and in Samoa, and in these islands, except Samoa,\nthe people are supposed to have descended from the animals in question.\nSimilar ideas seem not to exist in the Americas or in Africa; in India\nthe influence of Hindu cults has largely effaced or greatly modified\nnon-Aryan usages so that their original form cannot generally be\ndetermined.[929]\n\n+578+. The cases just mentioned are susceptible of other explanations\nthan that of an evolution from totem to god. The history of the cult of\nheroes in Yam and other Torres Straits islands is obscure, but from\nknown facts the indications are that the hero figures have arisen\nindependently of the totem figures and have been, by a natural process,\nidentified with these.[930] The peculiarity of the Rewa deities is that\nthey assume animal forms at will, and such animals, not being eaten, are\nheld to be totems. Whether totems or not they are sacred and might\neasily be identified with gods who stood alongside of them; an obvious\nexplanation of this identity would be that the god assumed the form of\nthe animal.[931] A similar explanation may be given of incarnations of\ngods in animals--a metamorphosis is a temporary incarnation. The Samoan\nMoso is incarnate in half a dozen different objects, and some deities\nare incarnate in men. As for the title \"father,\" it belongs of course to\nthe object from which a clan is supposed to be descended.\n\n+579+. The sacramental eating of the totem, where such a custom exists,\ninvolves a certain identity of nature of totem and clan god, but the two\nare regarded as distinct--their distinctness is, indeed, a necessary\ncondition of the sacrificial efficacy of the totem as a means of\nplacating the deity.[932]\n\n+580+. Our review seems, thus, to lead to the conclusion that there is\nno good ground for the opinion that a totem has ever grown into a god.\nThe question, belonging, as it does, to a period for which we have no\ncontemporary records, must be admitted to be difficult, and answers to\nit must be of the nature of hypotheses; but gods and spirits appear to\nhave taken shape through processes of thought different from those that\nlie at the basis of totemism.[933]\n\n\nTABOO\n\n+581+. So far we have been considering the growth of the simpler\nreligious ideas and the parallel development of a quasi-religious social\norganization. The ethical development is no less important than the\nreligious and the political, with which it has always been closely\nconnected. Ethical ideas and customs are in their origin independent of\nreligion. Religion deals with the relation between human beings and\nsupernatural Powers; ethics has to do with the relation between man and\nman.[934]\n\n+582+. Thus, the necessity for the protection of life and property\n(including wives and children) has produced certain rules of conduct,\nwhich are at first handed on orally and maintained by custom, and\ngradually are formulated in written codes. The protection of the tribal\nlife is secured by the tribal leaders as representatives of society. The\nprotection of individual interests is at first in the hands of the\nindividuals concerned, but always under the sanction of society. The\nmurderer, the thief, and the adulterer are dealt with by the person\ninjured or by his clan or family, in accordance with generally\nrecognized regulations. As social life becomes more elaborate, such\nregulations become more numerous and more discriminating; every new\nethical rule springs from the necessity of providing for some new social\nsituation. In all communities the tendency is toward taking the\nprotection of interests out of the hands of the individual and\ncommitting it to the community; this course is held to be for the\nadvantage of society.[935]\n\n+583+. As men are constituted, to account for the growth of moral\ncustoms we need to assume only social life; practically all our\nrequirements that refer to the relations between men are found among\nearly tribes, and it may be taken for granted that any body of human\nbeings, living together and having some form of activity, would work out\nsome such system of rules, mostly negative or prohibitive but also to\nsome extent positive. Even the law of kindness, a product of natural\nhuman sympathy, exists among the lowest known peoples. The reference of\nmoral growth to social necessities does not involve the denial of a\ngerminal sense of right and wrong or of germinal moral ideals, but this\nsense and these ideals arise, through reflection, from experience. We\nare here concerned only with the actual conduct of men traceable in the\nearly forms of society.\n\n+584+. But while social life is the basis of ethical construction, the\nactual ethical constitution of men has been influenced by religion, in\nlater times by the supplying of lofty ideals and sanctions, in early\ntimes by a magical determination of things injurious. It is this second\ncategory that is covered by the term 'taboo,' a Polynesian word said to\nmean 'what is prohibited.' Prohibitions arising from natural human\nrelations constitute civil law; those arising from extrahuman or other\nmagical influences constitute taboo.[936]\n\n+585+. Early man, regarding all objects as possibly endowed with power,\nselects out of the whole mass by observation and experience certain\nobjects which affect his life, his relations with which he finds it\ndesirable to define. These are all mysterious;[937] some are helpful,\nsome harmful. The helpful objects become lucky stones, amulets. The\ninjurious or dangerous objects are the more numerous; in an atmosphere\nof uncertainty the mysterious is dreaded, avoided, and guarded against\nby rules.[938]\n\n+586+. The objects affected by the conception of taboo are as various as\nthe conditions of human life--they include things inanimate and animate,\nand events and experiences of all sorts. Sometimes the danger is\nsupposed to be inherent in the object, sometimes the quality of\ndangerousness is imposed on it or infused into it by some authority; but\nin all cases there is present the force (mana) that, in savage theory,\nmakes the external world a factor in human destinies.[939] This force\nmay be transmitted from one object to another (usually by contact[940]),\nand thus the taboo infection may spread indefinitely, a silent and\nterrible source of misfortune, sometimes to a single person, sometimes\nto a whole community. Ceremonies connected with taboo are designed to\nprotect against this destructive influence.\n\n+587+. The principal taboo usages may be classed roughly under certain\nheads, which, however, will sometimes overlap one another.\n\n+588+. _Taboos connected with the conception of life._ For early man the\ncentral mystery of the world was life, and mystery and danger attached\nto all things connected with its genesis, maintenance, and cessation--to\npregnancy, birth, death, corpses, funerals, blood. Against these things\nprecautions, in the form of various restrictions, had to be taken.\nPregnancy was sometimes regarded as due to supernatural agency, and in\nall cases was noted as a mysterious condition in which the woman was\npeculiarly exposed to evil influences; she was sometimes required to\nkeep her head covered or to avoid moonshine, or to live separated from\nher husband.[941]\n\n+589+. Care for women during pregnancy and after the birth of a child\nmight be induced by natural human kindliness. But certain usages in\nconnection with birth indicate fear of superhuman dangers. In many\nregions (Central Asia, Africa, Oceania, China) the mother is taboo for a\ncertain time, being regarded apparently as a source of danger to others,\nas well as being herself exposed to danger. The child also is surrounded\nby perils. Mother and child are protected by isolation, ablutions\n(baptism), amulets, conjurations, and by consecration to a deity.[942]\nThe intimate relation between father and child may make it necessary to\nimpose taboos on the former--he is sometimes required to go to bed (the\n_couvade_, or man-childbed), to abstain from work and from certain foods\nheld to be injurious, and to avoid touching weapons and other dangerous\nthings; thus, through the identity of father and child, the latter is\nguarded against the hostile mana that may be lurking near. The seclusion\nof the mother sometimes varies in duration according to the sex of the\nchild; in most cases, apparently, the period is longer for a male\nchild;[943] in the Jewish ritual the period for the maid-child is twice\nas great (eighty days) as that for the male;[944] the difference in the\npoints of view, perhaps, is that the evil influence may direct itself\nparticularly against, or be more serious for, the male as socially the\nmore important, or it may be more dangerous for the female as the\nweaker.[945]\n\n+590+. _Taboos connected with death._ The danger to the living arising\nfrom a death is of a twofold nature: the corpse, as a strange, uncanny\nthing, is a source of peril; and there are possible external\nenemies--the spirit that produced the death, and the ghost of the\ndeparted. Against these dangerous things avoidance of the corpse is the\ncommon precaution--a dead body must not be touched, or, if it is\ntouched, he who touches must undergo purification.[946] Perhaps the\nvarious modes of disposing of corpses (exposure, inhumation, cremation)\nwere originally attempts to get rid of their dangerous qualities; later\nother motives came in. The body of a suicide was especially feared, and\nwas staked down on a public way to prevent its reappearance; it was\nperhaps the abnormal and desperate character of the death that produced\nthis special fear. The dread of a corpse is, however, not universal\namong savages--in many cases it is eaten, simply as food or to acquire\nthe qualities of the deceased, or for other reasons. It is feared as\nhaving hurtful power, it is eaten as being sacred or helpful.\n\n+591+. The house in which a death occurs shares the evil power of the\ndead body, and sometimes must be destroyed, together with all its\nfurniture, or abandoned or purified.[947] Death diffuses its baleful\ninfluence through the atmosphere, making it unfavorable for ordinary\nwork, which, accordingly, is often then suspended for a time.[948]\nSeclusion is sometimes enjoined on widower or widow,[949] and mention of\nthe name of the deceased is forbidden--the identity of spouse or name\nwith the dead effects the transmission of what is dangerous in him. In\nanother direction the earthly dwelling of a dead person is protected--a\ncurse is pronounced on one who violates it.[950]\n\n+592+. _Taboos connected with woman and the relations between the\nsexes._ Among many peoples there is dread of the presence of women and\nof their belongings under certain circumstances.[951] The ground of this\nfear may lie in those physiological peculiarities of woman which are\nregarded as mysterious and dangerous, and the antagonism of feeling may\nhave been increased by the separation between the sexes consequent on\nthe differences in their social functions and their daily pursuits.\nWoman seems to move in a sphere different from that of man; she acts in\nways that are strange to him. Whatever its ground, the feeling of dread\nis a real one: a case is reported of a man who, on learning that he had\nlain down on his wife's blanket, became violently ill.\n\n+593+. Various restrictions are imposed on women at periods of sexual\ncrisis. The girl on reaching the age of puberty is generally (though not\nalways[952]) immured, sometimes for weeks or months, to shield her from\nnoxious influences, human and nonhuman. During menstruation a woman is\nisolated, may not be looked on by the sun, must remain apart from her\nhusband, and her food is strictly regulated.[953] It is not infrequently\nthe case that certain foods are permanently forbidden women, for what\nspecial reasons is not clear.[954] The rule forbidding a wife to eat\nwith her husband may have come originally from nonreligious social\nconsiderations (her subordination to the man, or the fact that she\nbelonged to a social group different from his), but in that case it\nlater acquired a religious character. Women have commonly been excluded\nin savage communities from solemn ceremonies (as those of the initiation\nof males) and from tribal councils;[955] such rules may have originated\nin the natural differentiation of social functions of the sexes or in\nthe desire of men to keep the control of tribal life in their own\nhands, but in many cases the presence of women was supposed to vitiate\nthe proceedings supernaturally. In industrial enterprises, such as\nhunting and fishing, they are sometimes held to be a fatal\ninfluence.[956] In family life a wife's mother was debarred from all\nsocial intercourse with her son-in-law.[957]\n\n+594+. Where procreation was ascribed to the union of the sexes, sexual\nintercourse, as being intimately connected with life, was credited with\nsupernatural potency, generally unfavorable to vigor.[958] It has been\nlargely prohibited on all important public occasions, such as hunting\nand war, and particularly in connection with religious ceremonies.[959]\nVarious considerations may have contributed to the establishment of such\ncustoms, but in their earliest form we have, probably, to recognize not\nany moral effort to secure chastity, but a dread of injurious mana\nresident in women.[960] We may compare the fact that women have often\nbeen regarded as specially gifted in witchcraft.[961]\n\n+595+. _Taboos connected with great personages._ The theory of mana\nincludes the belief that special supernatural power resides in the\npersons of tribal leaders, such as magicians, chiefs, priests. It\nfollows that danger attaches to their bodies (particularly to head,\nhair, and nails), to their names, and to their food and other\nbelongings. These things must be avoided: their food must not be eaten\nby common folk; their houses and other property must not be used; their\nnail-cuttings must be buried so that danger may be averted from the\ncommunity; their names must not be mentioned. They themselves, being\npeculiarly sensitive to malign influences, must be protected in the\nhouse and when they walk out; and it is in some cases not safe for the\ncommon man to look on the chief as he passes through the village.\n\n+596+. Not all these regulations are found in any one community, but the\nprinciple is the same everywhere. The greatest development of taboo\npower in chiefs occurs in Polynesia, the home of taboo. There they are\nall-powerful. Whatever a chief touches becomes his property. If he\nenters a house, steps into a canoe, affixes his name to a field, it is\nhis. His control appears to be limited only by the accident of his\nmomentary desire. No one thinks of opposing his decisions--that would be\nfatal to the opposer. This social situation passes when a better form of\ncivil government is established, but some features of the old conception\ncling to later dignitaries: till recently the nail-parings of the\nemperor of Japan were carefully disposed of lest, being inadvertently\ntouched, they should bring misfortune.\n\n+597+. A priest also may carry taboo infection on his person. In\nEzekiel's scheme of ritual organization it is ordered that when the\npriest, having offered sacrifice, goes forth into the outer court where\nthe people are, he shall put off the garments in which he ministered and\nlay them in a sacred place, and put on other garments, lest some one\ntouching him should be made ritually unclean, that is taboo, forbidden\nto mingle with his fellows or to do his ordinary work for a certain time\n(generally till the evening).[962] In many regions there have been and\nare numerous restrictions on priests, some of which are in their own\ninterests (to preserve their ritual purity), some in the interests of\nothers (to guard them against the infection of taboo).[963] Other\nquasi-official or devoted persons (as, for example, the Hebrew\nNazirite[964]) were subject to restrictions of food. Strangers, who in\na primitive period were frequently put to death, in a more humane period\nwere subjected to purifying processes in order to remove the taboo\ninfection that might cling to them.[965]\n\n+598+. _Industrial taboos._ The customs of certain Polynesian chiefs,\ndescribed above, cannot be said to aid industry, but there are taboo\nusages designed to protect and further popular occupations. These\ndoubtless have a natural nonmagical basis--the necessity of making good\ncrops and protecting private property would be recognized everywhere,\nand would call forth legal enactments; but it was inevitable, in certain\ncommunities, that such enactments should be strengthened by supernatural\nsanctions such as those offered by the conception of taboo.\n\n+599+. Protective arrangements of this sort abound in Oceania and\nIndonesia. In Samoa the sweet-potato fields are taboo till the crop is\ngathered.[966] Hawaiian fisheries are protected by the simple device of\nforbidding the taking of certain fish at certain seasons; here the\neconomic motive is obvious, but taboo penalties are annexed.[967] During\nplanting time in New Zealand all persons employed in the work were taboo\nfor other occupations and obliged to give all their time to the\nplanting; and the same rule held for hunting and fishing.[968] The\nBorneo Kayans refrain from their usual occupations during planting,\nharvesting, and the search for camphor.[969] Similar restrictions, of an\nelaborate kind, are in force in Sumatra,[970] and in Assam.[971]\n\n+600+. The property of private persons was protected: the common man\nmight impose a taboo on his land, crops, house, and garments, and these\nwere then safe from depredation. It was true, however, in New Zealand as\nelsewhere, that the potency of the imposed taboo depended on the\ninfluence of him who imposed it; chiefs, as uniting in their persons\ncivil and religious authority, were the most powerful persons in the\ncommunity, and taboos ordered by them were the most effective. In\nMelanesia taboo is largely employed for the protection of private\nproperty--curses are pronounced against trespassers, and the authority\nof the tabooer is re\u00ebnforced by that of the local spirit or ghost\n(_tindalo_);[972] here taboo has become definitely an element of civil\nlaw, in which it tends to be absorbed.\n\n+601+. _Taboos connected with other important social events._ It appears\nthat all occurrences supposed to affect the life of the community have\nbeen, and often still are, regarded as bringing with them, or as\nattended by, supernatural influences (resident in mana or in spirits)\nthat may be dangerous. Against these perils the usual precautions are\ntaken, one of the commonest (as in cases mentioned in the preceding\nparagraphs) being abstinence from ordinary work; the belief, apparently,\nis that such work is tainted with the injurious influence with which the\natmosphere is charged.\n\n+602+. Among religious ceremonies the expulsion of evil spirits was\nnaturally attended with danger, and work was prohibited. Such was the\ncustom in Athens at the Anthesteria and on the sixth day of the\nThargelia, and in Rome at the Lemuria.[973] Among existing tribes there\nare numerous examples of this sort of restriction: it is found in West\nAfrica[974] and in Indonesia (Kar Nicobar, Bali[975]); in Assam it takes\nthe form of a taboo (_genna_) for laying to rest the ghosts of all who\nhave died within the year[976] (an All Souls ceremony).\n\n+603+. In general, sacred seasons, times of great communal ceremonies,\ndemand the avoidance of ordinary pursuits, which, it is feared, may\nimperil the success of the ceremonies by necessitating contact with\nthings infected or nonsacred. The earlier Hebrew usage recognized such\nseasons (new moon, sabbath, and perhaps others); the later usage\nincreased the number of tabooed days as the ritual was expanded and\norganised.[977] For Greece we have the Plynteria, on the principal day\nof which work was suspended;[978] in Rome the feriae were such days,\nregular or occasional.[979] The inbringing of first fruits was a\npeculiarly solemn occasion, when gratitude to the deity mingled with\nfear of hostile influences; so among the Hebrews[980] and at Athens[981]\nand in Tonga.[982] Polynesian restrictions on the occasion of ceremonies\nare given by Ellis.[983] All such days of abstinence from ordinary work\ntend to become holidays, times of popular amusement, and a taboo element\nmay be suspected in such festivals as those of the later Hindu\nperiod.[984] Naturally, also, days of restriction become sacred to\ndeities.\n\n+604+. Great nonreligious tribal events and peculiar situations demand\nrestrictive precautions. Warriors prepare for an expedition by remaining\napart from their wives.[985] Women whose husbands are absent are\nsometimes immured or forbidden all intercourse with human beings; by\nreason of the identity of husband and wife supernatural harm to the\nlatter will affect the former. Afflictive occurrences, such as famines,\npestilences, earthquakes, are signs of some hostile supernatural power,\ndefense against which requires the avoidance of ordinary pursuits.\nArbitrary enactments by chiefs may attach restrictions to a particular\nday. Sometimes restrictive usages, of obscure origin, become communal\nlaw. Thus, every Toda clan has certain days of the week (not the\noccasion of special ceremonies) in which it is forbidden to follow\nordinary occupations; among the things forbidden are the giving of\nfeasts, the performance of funeral ceremonies, the cutting of nails, and\nshaving; women and dairymen may not leave the village, and the people\nand buffaloes may not move from one place to another.[986] Doubtless\nthis system of prohibitions is the outcome of many generations of\nexperience--the organization of various local usages.\n\n+605+. _Taboos connected with the moon._ Unusual celestial phenomena,\nsuch as eclipses, meteors, and comets, have always excited terror, being\nreferred to some hostile supernatural agency, and have called forth\nspecial placative and restrictive ceremonies. They are accounted for in\nsavage lore by various myths.[987] But the permanently important taboos\nhave been those that are associated with the phases of the moon. These\nperiodical transformations, unexplained and mysterious, seemed to early\nman to have vital relation with all earthly life--the waxing and waning\nof the moon was held to determine, through the sympathy existing between\nall things, the growth and decay of plants, animals, and men.[988] Hence\narose the widely diffused belief that all important undertakings should\nbe begun while the moon was increasing, and innumerable regulations for\nthe conduct of affairs were established, not a few of them surviving in\ncivilized popular belief and practice to the present day.\n\n+606+. Sometimes the changes in the moon are minutely observed. The\nNandi describe every day of the month by the appearance of the moon or\nby its relation to occupations.[989] Natural observation in some cases\ndivided the lunar month into four parts: the Buddhist uposatha days are\nthe four days in the lunar month when the moon is full or new or halfway\nbetween the two;[990] in Hawaii the 3d-6th, 14th-15th, 24th-25th,\n27th-28th days of every month were taboo periods;[991] the Babylonians\nhad five such periods in certain months (four periods with one period\nintercalated). But, though the quartering of the lunation may seem to us\nthe most natural division of the month, in actual practice it is rather\nthe exception.[992] The simplest division, indeed, is that into two\nparts, determined by new moon and full moon (Cambodia, Siam; cf. the\nMexican period of thirteen days). The division into three periods of\nten days each (Egypt, Greece, Annam, Japan) ignores lunar phases and\nseeks a convenient and symmetrical arrangement. With this decimal system\nis perhaps connected the division of the month into six periods of five\ndays each (Yoruba, Java, Sumatra, and perhaps Babylonia). The Romans had\na somewhat irregular official division of the first half of the month\ninto three parts (Kalends, Nones, Ides) corresponding in a general way\nto lunar phases, and also commercial periods of eight days (_nundinae_),\nperhaps of similar origin. A seven-day division is found in Ashantiland\n(and perhaps in Peru), and in Java there is reported a division of a\nyear into thirty periods of seven days each.\n\n+607+. It appears, then, that in several communities there has been a\ndivision of the month in the interests of convenience, without regard to\nlunar phases; that in several cases a seven-day week has been fallen\nupon; and that of the phases of the moon new moon and full moon have\nbeen most frequently looked to as chronological marks. The new moon,\napart from its function of indicating the beginning of the lunar month,\nhas also by many tribes been hailed with joy as a friend restored to\nlife after seeming extinction.[993] The full moon, while it has not\nentered so intimately into the emotional life of man, has played an\nimportant part by marking the division of the month into two equal\nparts.\n\n+608+. _The Hebrew sabbath._ Taboo days are days of abstinence from\nwork, set apart as seasons of rest.[994] Such was the original form of\nthe Hebrew sabbath--it is described in the earlier Old Testament notices\nsimply as a day on which ordinary work was unlawful.[995] The history of\nits precise origin and development is, however, by no means clear.\nTheories that derive it from the cult of some particular deity or\nregard it as primarily a day for placating a supernatural Power[996] may\nbe set aside. It may be assumed that it is an early institution somehow\nconnected with the moon, and a definite indication of origin appears to\nbe furnished by the fact that in a Babylonian inscription the term\n_shabattu_[997] is used for the full moon. The identification of Hebrew\nsabbath with full moon is favored by the collocation of new moon and\nsabbath in early Old Testament documents[998] as days on which trading\nwas unlawful. These, obviously, were the two chief taboo days of the\nmonth; the fact that new moon stands first is doubtless due to its\nposition in the month.\n\n+609+. It is uncertain whether the Babylonian full-moon day was ritually\nparticularly important, and it is not clear how the Hebrews came to\ninvest this day, if it was their sabbath, with peculiar significance. In\nthe earlier legal documents it is merely a restrictive period--man and\nbeast are to rest from toil;[999] in later codes religious motives for\nthe observance of the day are introduced--first, gratitude to Yahweh for\nthe rescue of the nation from Egyptian bondage, and then respect for the\nfact that Yahweh worked in creating the world six days and stopped work\non the seventh day.[1000] In the sixth century we find the sabbath\nelevated to the position of specific sign of Yahweh's protective\nrelation to the people, and still later it is regarded as a day of\njoyous obedience to divine law.[1001] Thus, the process of moralization\nof the day was probably a long-continued one.[1002]\n\n+610+. In the various experimental divisions of the month, as we have\nseen, a week of seven days has been approached independently in several\nplaces (Babylonia, Hawaii, Java, Ashantiland). The basis of this\ndivision is doubtless the quartering of the lunation, and it has been\nre\u00ebnforced, probably, by considerations of convenience--seven is an\nintermediate number, six days of work and one of abstinence and rest\n(holiday) commends itself as a practical arrangement. It appears among\nthe Hebrews as early as the eighth century B.C.;[1003] it may have been\nderived from or suggested by Babylonian usage, or it may have been an\nancient Hebrew custom--data on this point are lacking. In any case the\nJewish genius for religious organization seized on the seven-day scheme\nand wove it into the system of worship. A more important step taken by\nthe Jews was the ignoring of lunar phases (except, of course, new moon\nas the beginning of the month) and reckoning the week and the seventh\nday (the sabbath) in a continuous line. We have noted cases in which\nlunar phases were ignored, but this Jewish arrangement appears to be\nunique, and its simplicity and convenience have commended it to the\nworld.\n\n+611+. _Lucky and unlucky days._ The malefic influences emanating from\nvarious objects and resident in the air attached themselves to certain\ndays, and out of the vast mass of experiences in every community there\ngrew up systems of days when things might or might not be done with\nsafety and advantage. There were the great occasions, economic and\nastronomical, referred to above, and there were particular occurrences,\nsuch as a death or a defeat, that stamped a day as unlucky. There are\nmany such beliefs, the origin of which is lost in a remote antiquity.\nThe ancient civilized nations had their codes of luck. Egypt had a long\nlist of unlucky days.[1004] In Babylonia onerous restrictions were\nimposed on kings, seers, and physicians on certain days (the 7th, 14th,\n19th, 21st, 28th) of the sixth and eighth months[1005] (and perhaps of\nother months). A brief list of days favorable and unfavorable to work\nis given by Hesiod.[1006] The Roman _dies nefasti_, properly\n'irreligious days,' were inauspicious, unlucky.[1007] Similar lists of\nlucky and unlucky days are found among existing tribes,[1008] and the\npopular luck codes in Christian communities are numerous and\nelaborate.[1009] These have done, and still do, great harm by\nsubstituting irrational for rational rules of conduct.\n\n+612+. In many of the cases cited above and in many totemistic\nregulations there are prohibitions of particular sorts of food. Such\nprohibitions, very numerous, are found in all grades of\ncivilization.[1010] They have arisen from various causes--climatic\nconditions, hygienic beliefs, religious conceptions (as, for example,\nthe recognition of the sacred character of certain animals, and the\nconnection of certain foods with supernatural beings and\nceremonies[1011]), sometimes, perhaps, from accidental experiences; the\nhistory of most of the particular usages escapes us. The fundamental\nprinciple involved is the identity of the food with him who eats\nit--when it is charged with supernatural power (by its own sacredness,\nor by its connection with a sacred person, or by ecclesiastical decree)\nit becomes malefic to an unauthorized person who partakes of it.\n\n+613+. A peculiar form of prohibition of foods appears when a society is\ndivided into groups that are kept apart from one another by social and\nreligious traditions that have hardened into civic rules. In such cases\nthe diet of every group may be regulated by law, and it may become\ndangerous and abhorrent for a superior to eat what has been touched by\nan inferior. The best example of this sort of organization is the Hindu\nsystem of castes, which has a marked and unhappy effect on the life of\nthe people.[1012] All such arbitrary social divisions yield gradually to\nthe influence of education and civic freedom, and this appears to be the\ntendency in India at the present day.\n\n+614+. _Punishment of violation of taboo._ Where the hostile power is\ninherent in an object, punishment is supposed to follow violation\nautomatically--through contact the malefic influence passes into the\nman's body and works destruction. Many experiences seem to the savage to\nestablish the certainty of such a result. Fervid belief, moreover,\nproduced by long tradition, acts powerfully on the imagination, and in\ntaboo-ridden communities thus often brings about the bodily ill called\nfor by the theory: a man who ate of food that he found on the roadside,\nlearning afterwards that it belonged to a chief, fell ill and died in a\nfew hours.[1013] When taboo regulations have been taken up into the\ncivil law,[1014] punishment for violations is inflicted by the civil\nauthorities. The tendency to make taboo a part of the civil law, and to\nsubordinate the former to the latter, increases with the advance of\nknowledge and political organization; and one result of this movement is\nthat great personages are sometimes permitted to violate with impunity\ntaboos imposed by inferiors. The native theory in such cases doubtless\nis that the great man's mana overcomes the taboo infection; but at\nbottom, we may surmise, lies the sense of the dominance of civil\nauthority.\n\n+615+. The chief's mana, however, sometimes comes into play as a means\nof relief. A man who has inadvertently (or perhaps, in some instances,\npurposely) violated a taboo may escape punishment by touching some part\nof a chief's body. Here the innate potency of the superior man expels or\ndestroys the taboo force that has entered the inferior--another example\nof how the primitive theory of taboo is modified by conceptions of\nsocial rank and authority.\n\n+616+. _Removal of taboo._ In general, magical ceremonies may be\nemployed to counteract the injurious influence resident in a thing or an\nact, or to destroy the evil consequences resulting from a violation of\nthe taboo law. For this purpose sprinkling with water, bathing in water,\nand the employment of charms are held to be effective. Thus in the old\nHebrew code the taboo resting on a house supposed to be infected with\nthe plague is removed by sprinkling the house with water and the blood\nof a slain bird, and setting free a second bird alive, which is supposed\nto carry the plague-power off with it.[1015] A woman is tabooed forty\ndays at the birth of a male child, and eighty days at the birth of a\nfemale child; the taboo is removed by a holocaust and a\nsin-offering.[1016]\n\n+617+. A general taboo regulation may be set aside by tribal agreement\nin the interests of convenience or pleasure. On certain occasions the\nrestrictions on the intercourse of the sexes are removed for a brief\nperiod, at the expiration of which the prohibitory law resumes its\nplace.[1017] Many special ceremonies in various parts of the world have\nto do with modifications of marriage laws.[1018]\n\n+618+. _Taboo and magic._ Reference is made above to magical procedures\nin connection with taboo customs. Taboo and magic have a common basis in\nthe conception of an occult force (which may conveniently be called\n_mana_) resident in all things, but they contemplate different sides of\nthis force, and their social developments are very different. Taboo\nrecognizes the inherent malefic manifestations of the force (known by\nsupposed experience), and avoids them; magic uses the mana energy to\neffect results impossible for unaided human power. In taboo man feels\nhimself to be under the dominance of an occult law, and his virtue is\nblind obedience; in magic he feels himself to be the master of a great\nenergy, and what he needs is knowledge. Taboo has originated a mass of\nirrational rules for the guidance of everyday life; magic has grown\ninto a quasi-science, with an organized body of adepts, touching\nreligion on one side and real science on another side.\n\n+619+. A closer relationship between magic and taboo has been assumed in\nview of the fact that both rest to some extent on the principle of the\nassociation of ideas, the principle that like procedures produce like\nresults. It is true that some taboo rules depend on this\nconception:[1019] the flesh of timid animals is avoided, that of\ncourageous animals is eaten, under the belief that the man partakes of\nthe character of the food he eats; association with women is sometimes\nsupposed to make a man or a boy effeminate. It is to be expected that in\nthe immense number of taboo prohibitions and precautions some should be\nfound in which the association of ideas is the determining factor. But\nfor the majority of taboo regulations this explanation does not hold. In\nthe economic and sexual taboos mentioned above, in the dread of corpses,\nin the fear of touching things belonging to a chief, and in other cases\nthere are customs that can only be referred to a belief in an injurious\npotency residing in certain objects.[1020] Practically, savage tribes\ndistinguish between taboo and magic.\n\n+620+. Contamination of customs has always been the rule in human\ncommunities, early and late, savage and civilized. We have seen how\nthere has often been a coalescence between taboo regulations proper and\nordinary civil law. To state the case more fully, these have been fused\ninto a unity of social life with individual initiative, magical notions,\narbitrary enactments. The actual social constitution even of slightly\ndeveloped tribes is composite, the outcome of long experience and\nexperiment in which all the lines of social feeling and thought have\ngradually drawn together and been compacted into a more or less unitary\nmass. While these lines have influenced each the others, it is possible,\nto a considerable extent, to distinguish the sphere of each. Thus we\ncan, in many cases, see where ordinary civil law comes in to adopt,\nmodify, or set aside taboo rules, and so we can generally recognize the\nline of demarcation between definite taboo and the conception of\nassociation of ideas. In some cases the explanations offered of taboo\ncustoms are afterthoughts--imagined hypotheses to account for things\nalready in existence.[1021]\n\n+621+. The despotism exercised by taboo systems over certain Polynesian\ncommunities is one of the extraordinary facts of human history. In New\nZealand and Hawaii the restrictions on conduct were so numerous and were\ncarried out so mercilessly that life under these conditions would seem\nto us intolerable.[1022] In addition to a great number of particular\nprohibitions and to the constant fear of violating the sacredness of the\npersons of chiefs and trenching on their prerogatives, we find in New\nZealand the amazing rule that on the occasion of a great misfortune (as\na fire) the sufferer was to be deprived of his possessions--the blow\nthat fell on him was held to affix a stigma to all that he owned.\nBesides the traditional taboos there were the arbitrary enactments of\nchiefs which might constantly introduce new possibilities of suffering.\nYet with all this the people managed to live in some degree of comfort,\nsomewhat as in civilized communities life goes on in spite of\nearthquakes, epidemics, bank failures, the injustices of law, and the\ntyranny of the powerful.\n\n+622+. The duration of certain taboo periods among various peoples in\nvarious ages has varied greatly. Taboos relating to foods, chiefs, and\nthe intercourse of the sexes are usually permanent everyday customs;\nthose that relate to economic procedures are in force for the time\ndemanded by each industry. In Hawaii the catching of certain species of\nfish was forbidden for half the year, and the Borneo harvest taboo\n(carrying prohibition of other work) lasts sometimes for weeks. There is\nmention in a Maori legend of a taboo of three years.[1023] According to\nthe later Hebrew law, in every seventh year all agricultural operations\nceased.[1024] A portent may demand a long period of restriction, as in\nthe case of the Roman nine-day ceremony (_novendiales feriae_).[1025] As\nhas been remarked above, economic taboos are often dictated by\nconvenience--they are prudential rules to which a supernatural sanction\nhas been attached.\n\n+623+. _Diffusion of taboo._ Polynesia, particularly New Zealand and\nHawaii, is the special home of taboo--the only region in which it is\nknown to have taken the form of a well-compacted, all-embracing system.\nIt exists in Melanesia, but it is there less complicated and\ngeneral,[1026] and the same thing is true of British New Guinea.[1027]\nIn parts of Borneo it is found in modified form: there are two sorts of\ntaboo, one, called _mali_, absolutely forbidding work on certain\noccasions, the other, called _penti_, allowing work if it is begun by a\nperson not _penti_; before the birth of a child the latter form of taboo\nrests on both parents.[1028] The Land Dyaks have their _lali_ days and\nthe Sea Dyaks their _pemate_,[1029] these terms being the equivalents of\n_taboo_.\n\n+624+. Though there is no proof of the existence of all-pervading taboo\nsystems among the peoples of Asia and America, there are notices of\ntaboo regulations in particular cases in these regions. At the birth of\na child the Hindu father was subject to certain restrictions along with\nthe mother, and his taboo was removed by bathing.[1030] Among the Sioux\nIndians on the death of a child the father is taboo for a period of six\nmonths or a year.[1031] In West African Calabar there are taboos (called\n_ibet_) on individuals, connected with spirits, the guardians of\nchildren.[1032] In Assam economic and other taboos are elaborate and\nwell organized.[1033] Such observances, in connection with death, are\nfound among the Kafirs[1034] and the Eskimo.[1035]\n\n+625+. For the ancient civilized peoples there is no proof of the\nexistence of general taboo systems. Various particular prohibitions,\ninvolving a sense of danger in certain things, are mentioned above; they\nrelate chiefly to corpses, to infected houses, to women in connection\nwith menstruation and childbirth,[1036] to certain official persons (as\nthe Roman flamen dialis). There are also the lists of unlucky days\n(Egyptian, Babylonian, Greek, Roman). The origin of food prohibitions\n(Hebrew, Pythagorean) is uncertain;[1037] they may have arisen, as is\nsuggested above, from general regard for sacred animals and plants, or\nfrom totemistic relations, or from other conditions unknown to us; the\nHebrew lists of forbidden animals may have been gradually expanded under\nthe guidance of antagonism to surrounding non-Yahwistic cults. Whether\nthe ancient taboo usages are the remains of older more extensive systems\nor represent the extreme point to which tabooism was carried by the\ncommunities in question the data do not enable us to decide.\n\n+626+. In various places, outside of the Polynesian area, we find terms\nthat bear a more or less close resemblance in signification to\ntaboo.[1038] Melanesian _tambu_ is that which has a sacred\ncharacter.[1039] The Borneo terms (_lali_, _pemate_, _mali_, _penti_)\nare mentioned just above, and there is the _pomali_ of Timor (in the\nMalayan Archipelago). The Malagasy _fady_ is defined as 'dangerous,\nprohibited.'[1040] In Gabun (West Africa) _orunda_ is said to mean\n'prohibited to human beings.'[1041] The Hebrew _tam[=e]_ is used of\nthings dangerous, not to be touched, ritually defiling,[1042] and this\nsense sometimes attaches to the term _qadosh_ (rendered in the English\nversion by 'holy'), which involves the presence of a supernatural (and\ntherefore dangerous) quality.[1043]\n\n+627+. From all the facts known it may be concluded that the conception\nof taboo exists or has existed in some form in a great part of the\nworld,[1044] though its development has differed greatly in different\nregions. In general its prevalence appears to have been in inverse\nproportion to that of totemism--it is lacking or feeble in the chief\ntotemic centers, Australia and North America, and strongest in\nPolynesia, where totemism is hardly recognizable. It may be said that,\nwhile totemism appears in those forms of social life that have been\ncreated by hunting communities,[1045] taboo is the product of more\nsettled societies, in which agriculture plays an important part. But\nwhile this is true, at least in a general way, we are not able to trace\nall the influences that have determined the development of totemism and\ntaboo; some of these are lost in the obscurity of the remote past, and,\nunfortunately for purposes of investigation, both taboo and totemism, as\nwe now meet them in actual operation, are in process of decay. Why, for\ninstance, taboo has flourished in Hawaii with its fishing industries and\nhas not flourished in certain half-civilized, partly agricultural North\nAmerican tribes we are unable to explain precisely. We may fall back on\nthe vague statement that every community has accomplished that for which\nits genius fitted it, but how the genius of any one people has fitted it\nfor this or that particular task it is not always possible to say.\n\n+628+. _The disappearance of the taboo system_ in civilized nations is\nto be referred to the general advance in intelligence and morality.\nUsually this movement is a gradual and silent one, marked by a quiet\ndropping of usages as they come to be held unnecessary or oppressive.\nSometimes a bold individual rebels against the established custom and\nsuccessfully introduces a new era: thus in Yoruba, under an old custom,\nwhen a king died his eldest son was obliged to commit suicide; this\ncustom was set at defiance by a certain Adelu in 1860, and has not since\nbeen observed.[1046] All the influences that tend to broaden thought go\nto displace taboo. The growth of clans into tribes, the promotion of\nvoluntary organizations, secret societies, which displace the old\ntotemistic groups, the growth of agriculture and of commercial\nrelations--all things, in a word, that tend to make the individual\nprominent and to further family life lead naturally to the abrogation of\noppressive taboos.\n\n+629+. Doubtless also among lower tribes intercourse with higher\ncommunities has had the same result. One of the most remarkable episodes\nin the history of taboo is its complete overthrow in the Hawaiian\nIslands in the year 1819 by a popular movement.[1047] The movement was\nbegun by members of the royal family, particularly by one of the queens,\nand was eagerly followed by almost the whole population--the result was\nthe final overthrow of the system. This was before the arrival of\nChristian missionaries; but as foreigners had visited the islands many\nyears before (Captain Cook first came in 1778), it is possible that the\nsuggestion of the reform came from observation of the fact that the\ntaboos were disregarded by those men without evil effects. In any case\nit was the acceptance of better ideas by the people that led to the\nrevolutionary movement.\n\n+630+. _R\u00f4le of taboo in the history of religion._ The relation of taboo\nto morality and religion and to the general organization of society\nappears from the facts stated above. It has created neither the sense of\nobligation nor the determination of what is right or wrong in conduct.\nThe sense of obligation is coeval with human society--man, at the moment\nwhen he became man, was already potentially a moral being (and a\nreligious being as well).[1048] His experience of life induced rules of\nconduct, and these, with the concurrence of some hardly definable\ninstincts, became imperative for him--the conception involved in the\nword 'ought' gradually took shape. The practical content of the\nconception was determined by all sorts of experience; the decisive\nconsideration was whether or not a given thing was advantageous. The\nbelief arose that certain disadvantageous things were to be referred to\nextrahuman influences, and such things were of course to be\navoided--this belief produced the taboo system.\n\n+631+. The prohibitions of morality sprang from social relations with\nhuman beings, the prohibitions of taboo from social relations with\nsuperhuman beings--duties to both classes of beings were defined by\nexperience. The rule \"thou shalt not kill thy clansman\" was a necessity\nof human society; the rule \"thou shalt not touch a corpse\" sprang from\nthe fear of a superhuman, malign, death-dealing Power. Avoidance of\npoisonous herbs was an obligation founded on common experience;\navoidance of a chief's food and certain other foods arose from dread of\noffending a spirit or some occult Power. And so with all taboo\nprescriptions as contrasted with others relating to conduct.[1049]\n\n+632+. Taboo is in essence religious, not moral. In so far as it\nsupplies a supernatural sanction for moral conduct proper and maintains\nrational social relations (as when a man's wife and other property are\nmade taboo to all but himself), it is often beneficent. On the other\nhand, it is antimoral when it elevates to the rank of duties actions\nthat have no basis in human relations or are in any way antagonistic to\na healthy human instinct of right. This it has often done, and there has\naccordingly resulted a conflict between it and morality--a conflict that\nhas formed no small part of the ethical history of the race, its echoes\nremaining to the present day. In all religions it has been hard to bring\nabout an intelligent harmony between the moral and the ritual. Taboo was\nnot originally irrational--it sprang from the belief (rational for the\nearly time) in the presence of the supernatural in certain objects, and\nthis belief was held to be supported by early experience, according to\nwhich it seemed that violations of taboo were followed by sickness or\ndeath or other misfortunes. It came to be thought irrational with the\nprogress of knowledge and reflection.\n\n+633+. Taboo, being a religious conception, has been adopted and\nfostered by all popular systems of religion. It has been set aside not\nby religion as such but by all the influences that have tended to\nrationalize religion. Religious leaders have modified it so far as\nmodification has been demanded by public opinion. So enlightened and\nspiritual minded a man as the apostle Paul declared that an unworthy\nparticipation in the eucharistic celebration produced sickness and\ndeath.[1050] Innumerable are the taboos that have passed silently into\noblivion.\n\n+634+. Taboo, then, is a concomitant of man's moral life that has\nsometimes opposed, sometimes coalesced with natural morality. Like all\nwidely extending institutions it has tended in part to weld men\ntogether; like all irrational restrictions it has tended also to hold\nmen apart. Like all positive law it has fostered the sense of moral\nobligation, but like all arbitrary law it has weakened the power of\nintelligent and moral obedience. It has been not the guardian of\nmorality, but a temporary form (useful in a primitive stage of society)\nin which a part of the moral law expressed itself. The real moral force\nof society has been sympathetic social intercourse, which, under the\nguidance of an implicit moral ideal, has been constantly employed in\ntrying to spiritualize or to reject those enactments of taboo that have\nbeen proved by experience, observation, and reflection to be\ninjurious.[1051]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI\n\nGODS\n\n\n+635+. The climax of the organization of external religion appears in\nthe conception of gods proper; this conception is always associated with\nmore or less well-developed institutions. Early religious life expresses\nitself in ceremonies; the god is the embodiment of man's ideal of the\nextrahuman power that rules the world. It is not always easy to\ndistinguish the true gods from the other supernatural beings with which\nearly man's world is peopled.[1052] As far as concerns power, the ghosts\nand the spirits appear to do all that the gods are credited with doing;\nthe sphere of ghostly action is practically unlimited, and the spirit\nthat dwells in a spring, in a river, or in a mountain, is as mighty in\nhis sphere as Indra or Apollo in his sphere; the difference between them\nand gods is a difference of intellectual and moral culture and of the\ndegree of naturalization in a human society--a god might be defined as a\nsuperhuman Being fashioned by the thought of a civilized people (the\nterm 'civilized' admitting, however, of many gradations). Still, gods\nproper may be distinguished from other Powers by certain characteristics\nof person and function. Ghosts are shadowy doubles of human beings,\nsometimes nameless, wandering about without definite purpose except to\nprocure food for themselves, uncertain of temper, friendly or unfriendly\naccording to caprice or other circumstances, able to help or to harm,\nand requiring men to be constantly on the alert so as not in an\nunguarded moment to offend them. Souls of recently deceased ancestors,\nmore highly organized ghosts, conceived of also as attenuated bodies,\nhave powers not essentially different from those of the simpler ghosts,\nbut are differentiated from these in function by their intimate\nrelations with the family or clan to which they belong, and by their\nmore definite human nature; they are as a rule permanently friendly, are\ncapable of definite sympathetic social intercourse with living men, and\nare sometimes controllers and patrons, hardly to be distinguished from\nlocal or departmental gods. Spirits are ethereal beings residing in, or\nclosely connected with, certain objects (trees, rivers, springs, stones,\nmountains, etc.), sometimes permanently attached to these objects,\nsometimes detached; roaming about, sometimes kindly, more generally\ninimical, authors of disease and death, to be feared and to be guarded\nagainst, but sometimes in function (though not in origin) identical with\nancestral ghosts. Totems, in their developed form, are revered, but\nrarely if ever worshiped. The term 'animal-gods' may mean either living\nanimals regarded as divine, or animals believed to be the forms assumed\nby gods; in the latter case they may be taken to be real gods of an\ninferior type.\n\nIn distinction from the four classes of Powers just mentioned, a true\ngod is a supernatural being with distinct anthropomorphic personality,\nwith a proper name or a distinctive title, exercising authority over a\ncertain land or people or over a department of nature or a class of\nphenomena, dwelling generally in a sanctuary on the earth, or in the\nsky, or in the other world, and in general sympathetic with men. Gods\nhave rational human qualities, human modes of procedure, and are human\nbeings in all things except power.[1053]\n\n+636+. The god appears to have been at the outset a well-formed\nanthropomorphic being. His genesis is different from that of the ghost,\nspirit, ancestor, or totem. These, except the spirit, are all given by\nexperience: totems are familiar objects plainly visible to the eye;\nghosts and ancestors are known through dreams and appearances by day,\nand by tradition; and the conception of the spirit is closely allied to\nthat of the ghost, though it is in part a scientific inference rather\nthan a fact of experience. In distinction from these a god is a larger\nproduct of imagination, springing from the necessity of accounting for\nthe existence of things in a relatively refined way. The creator is a\nbeast only in low tribes, and in process of time, if the tribe continues\nto grow in culture, is absorbed in the cult of a true god. It is rarely,\nif ever, that a beast, whether a totem or only a sacred thing, becomes a\ngod proper.\n\nThe best apparent examples of such a growth are the Egyptian bull Apis,\nwho had his temple and ministers, the Hindu monkey-god Hanuman, and the\ndivine snake of the Nagas of India.[1054] But, though in these cases the\nbeast forms receive divine worship, it is not clear whether it is the\nbeast that is worshiped or a god incarnate in the beast; the question is\ndifficult, the data being meager. The myths in which gods appear in\nbeast forms do not prove a development of the former out of the latter.\nIt is not necessary to suppose that Zeus was once a bull, Artemis a bear\nor a sow, Adonis a boar, and Aphrodite a sow or a dove. The myths may be\nnaturally explained as arising from the coalescence of cults, the local\nsacred beast becoming attached to a local deity who had a different\nbirth.\n\nThe god is a figure of slow growth. Beginning as a sort of headman,\nidentified sometimes with an ancestor, sometimes with a beast, his\ncharacter is shaped by all the influences that go to form the tribal\nlife, and he thus embodies from generation to generation the tribe's\nideals of virtue.\n\n+637+. The list of classes of supernatural Powers given above must be\nregarded, as is there intimated, as a general one. One class appears\nsometimes to shade into another; in the theistic schemes of low tribes\nit is often difficult to define the conceptions of supernatural beings\nwith precision.\n\n_Early mythical founders of culture._ Before proceeding to a\nconsideration of true gods, a class of beings must be mentioned that\nappears to stand on the borderland between divine animals, spirits, and\ngods. There are various sorts of beings that appear sometimes in animal\nform, sometimes in human form, their function being the arranging of the\naffairs of the world, the origination of institutions, and sometimes a\ndefinite creation of various things. The title \"founders\" or\n\"transformers\" or \"culture-heroes\" has been given them. They arise,\njust as the true gods do, from the necessity of accounting for the\nbeginnings of things,[1055] and, from a comparison of the ideas of\nvarious tribes, a certain growth in the conception may be recognized.\n\n+638+. In some cases the figure is that of a mere trickster, a\nmischievous being, the hero of countless stories, who acts from caprice\nor malice, though his actions may result in advantage to men. Such are\nmany of the animal forms of the North American Indians: the coyote of\nthe Thompson River Indians,[1056] the raven of North British\nColumbia,[1057] the mink and the blue jay of the North Pacific\nCoast.[1058] In other cases, as also to some extent in the Thompson\nRiver region, he appears in a more dignified form as a benevolent\norganizer.\n\nThis growth of the trickster into the real culture-hero may be referred\nto a progress in thought and refinement.[1059] Among the Northern Maidu\nof California there is a sharp distinction between the two characters:\nthe coyote is tricky and mischievous in the bad sense, with no desire to\ndo anything profitable to men; the benevolent and useful work of the\nworld is ascribed to a personage called \"the creator,\" who is always\ndignified and regardful of the interests of man.[1060] This sort of\ndistinction, intended to account for the presence of both good and evil\nelements of life, is found in inchoate form among other low peoples (as,\nfor example, the Masai and the Australians[1061]), but reaches its full\nproportions only in the great civilized religions.\n\n+639+. In this class of vaguely conceived creators or transformers we\nmay place the Central Australian Arunta ancestors, who embodied the idea\nof the identity of beasts and human beings, and are the originators of\nall the arts and institutions of the tribes; they established the\ntotemic groups and the ceremonies, and, in the developed myth,\nperpetuate their existence by entering the bodies of women and being\nborn as human beings.[1062] The relative antiquity of this conception of\nthe origin of things is uncertain; in one point of view it is crude, but\nin another it is an elaborate and well-considered attempt to explain the\nworld. These Arunta ancestors, notwithstanding their half-bestial forms,\nare represented as acting in all regards like human beings, and as\nhaving planned a complete system of tribal organization, but no\nreligious worship is offered them--they figure only in sociogonic myths\nand in the determination of the totemic status of newborn children.\nAmong the Navahos we find a combination of beast and man in the work of\ncreation.[1063] In their elaborate cosmogonic myth the first actors are\nCoyote, First Man, and First Woman, and there is discord between Coyote\nand his human coworkers. Here again the object seems to be to account\nfor the diverse elements of the tribal life.\n\n+640+. Many such personages, originators or introducers of the arts of\nlife and the distribution of territory, are described in the folk-tales\nand myths of the North American tribes. The conception, it may be\nconcluded, existed all over the world, though for many communities the\ndetails have not yet been brought to light.[1064] A noteworthy personage\nof this class is the Melanesian Qat (especially prominent in the Banks\nIslands), a being credited with almost plenary power, the creator or\narranger of seasons, the introducer of night, therefore an important\ncultural power, yet mischievous, the hero of numerous folk-stories; he\ndoes not appear in animal form but lives an ordinary family life. He is\nnot worshiped--he is regarded rather as the explanation of phenomena, a\ngenuine product of early cosmogonic science. He appears to be the\nnearest approach in Melanesia to a real creator (with the exception\nperhaps of a somewhat uncertain female being called Koevasi); but\nalongside of him stand a number of spirits and ancestral ghosts who play\nan important part in the organization of society.[1065] For the Koryaks\nof Northeastern Siberia the \"Big Grandfather\" is an arranger of all\nthings out of pre\u00ebxisting material;[1066] the Chukchee, on the other\nhand, regard as creator a benevolent being residing in the zenith. Vague\nstories of simitar arrangers are found among the East African Nandi, and\nthe South African Zulus.[1067]\n\n+641+. Traces of this function of organizing society appear in the\nmythical figures of some higher religions. Among such figures may be\nreckoned the Babylonian Gilgamesh, the Old Testament Cainides, the Greek\nHeracles, Theseus, Orpheus, and others.[1068] But these personages\ngenerally take on human form and are treated as factors in the regular\nsocial development.\n\n+642+. The \"culture-hero\" thus seems to be a natural product of\nincipient civilization. He represents the vague feeling that the\ninstitutions of society arose out of human needs and that the\norigination of these institutions demanded more than human wisdom and\npower.[1069] He partakes of the nature of both men and gods--he is\nall-powerful, yet a creature of caprice and a slave of accident. To him\nsociety is supposed to owe an incalculable debt; but his mixed nature\naffords a wide field for bizarre myths and folk-stories, and he of\nnecessity gives way to more symmetrical divine figures.\n\n+643+. The god, in the true sense of the word, is the highest\ngeneralization of the constructive religious imagination. In his\nsimplest and earliest form he appears as a venerable supernatural man,\nwise according to the wisdom of his place and time--such is the natural\nconception of the lower tribes. His position is described by the titles\n\"the old one,\" \"the father,\" \"the grandfather\";[1070] he is a superhuman\nheadman or chief, caring for his people, giving them what they need,\nsharing their ethical ideas and enforcing their ethical rules. He is an\nall-sufficient local ruler or overseer, his functions touching the whole\nlife of his people and of no other people. In the progress of\nmyth-making (that is, in the construction of early scientific theology)\nsuch gods are not infrequently represented as men who have gone up to\nthe sky; this is a natural way of accounting for their superterrestrial\nabode. Savage conceptions of the origin and history of such figures are\nusually vague, and their theologies fluctuating and self-contradictory;\nbut there are two points as to which opinion is firm: the god is like\nmen in everything except power, and his functions are universal. He\nrepresents not a monotheistic creed (which takes the whole world as the\ndomain of God), but a narrow tribal acceptance of the sufficiency of the\nlocal divine patron.[1071]\n\n\nCLAN GODS\n\n+644+. The character just described is that of the earliest known gods;\nit is embodied in certain figures found in various parts of the world.\nSuch divine figures belong to the simplest form of social organization,\nthe clan; it is in the clan that they are shaped, and they reflect the\nconceptions, political and ethical, of the clan. In Southeast Australia\nthe personages called Daramulun, Baiame, Bunjil, correspond to this\ndescription: they are supernatural old men who have always existed; they\nare taken for granted without inquiry into their origin; they direct the\naffairs of the tribe in a general way in accordance with the moral\nideas of the place and time.[1072] The Australians have other beings\nwith vaguely expressed characters and functions, but our information\nregarding these is so meager that it is not possible to form a distinct\njudgment of their character. Similar figures are the Klamath Indian \"Old\nMan\"[1073] and the Zulu Unkulunkulu, an old man, the father of the\npeople, only dimly understood by the natives who have been questioned on\nthis point; they are uncertain whether he is dead or alive, but in any\ncase he is revered as a great personage.[1074]\n\n+645+. Other such deities are reported in South Africa, as the Qamata of\nthe Xosa, Morimo of the Bakuana, and farther north Molungu.[1075] On the\nWest Coast also, in Ashanti, Dahomi, and Yoruba, a number of deities\nexist which were in all probability originally local.[1076] Such appears\nto be the character of certain gods of the non-Aryan tribes of India, as\nthe Kolarian Sunthals and Koles.[1077] Perhaps also the god Vetala was\noriginally such a local deity with the savage characteristics proper to\nthe time and place, though later he was half Brahmanized and became a\nfiend.[1078] Among the Todas every clan has its god, who was the creator\nand instructor of the people. The large number of gods now recognized by\nthe various Toda communities are essentially the same in character and\nfunction, and the existing system has doubtless been formed by the\ncoalition of the clans.[1079] In North America the Navahos have a number\nof local deities, the _yei_ (Zu\u00f1i, _yeyi_), some of which are called by\nterms that mean 'venerable.'[1080] The Koryak guardians of occupations\nand houses may be of the nature of such objects of worship in the\nclans,[1081] and so also the Patagonian family-gods. Cf. the Greek\n[Greek: kourotrophos]. In Japan the early system of supernatural beings\nhas been obscured by the great religions of the later time--Shinto in\nits developed form, and Buddhism--but the indications are that the\ngeneral term _kami_, a designation of all supernatural things, included\nlocal deities.[1082]\n\n+646+. It is not clear how early the practice began of giving these\nbeings proper names. In the lowest known tribes we meet descriptive\ntitles such as \"old one,\" \"grandfather,\" \"grandmother\"; and so among\nsome civilized peoples, as the Semites, whose local deities are often\nknown simply as _baals_ ('possessors,' 'lords'), sometimes as lords of\nparticular places, as, for example, the Arabic Dhu ash-Shara (Dusares),\n'lord of the Shara.' A god identified with a particular object may be\ncalled by its name; so 'Heaven' is said to have become the proper name\nof a Huron deity (cf. Zeus, Tien, Shangti).[1083] Names of Pawnee gods\nare Bright Star (Evening Star), Great Star (Morning Star), Motionless\nOne (North Star), and many other such; the Navahos have The Woman Who\nChanges (apparently the changing year), White Shell Woman, Child of\nWater;[1084] the Kolarian Sunthals, Great Mountain;[1085] the Brazilian\nArawaks, River-born.[1086] A proper name becomes necessary as soon as\ndefinite social relations with a god are established. Divine names in\ncivilized religions, of remote origin, are often inexplicable.\n\n+647+. Among the simple clan gods divinized men should be included. In\nmany parts of the world, as is remarked above, chiefs and other great\npersonages are regarded as divine; this attribution of divinity is a\npart of that general early conception according to which there was an\nelement of power in all things, naturally embodied in a special way in\nimportant men. This sort of divinization is particularly prominent in\nMelanesia and parts of Polynesia; it exists also in Japan and in West\nAfrica. As a rule it is only the recently dead that are thus regarded as\ndivine objects of worship, and the cult would thus be substantially a\npart of the worship of ancestors; but such divinized men frequently\nbore a peculiarly intimate relation to the clan or community and became\nspecific protectors.[1087] So far as their origin is concerned, this\nclass of divine patrons differs essentially from the old clan god, whose\ngenesis probably belongs to a remote antiquity and is based on the\ngeneral consciousness of some powerful influence in nature.[1088]\n\n+648+. Clan gods are found abundantly among the ancient civilized\npeoples, Egyptian, Babylonian, Canaanite, Arabian, Greek, Roman, and\nprobably existed among other peoples as to whom we have no exact\ninformation. In Old Egypt every hamlet had its protecting deity; these\ncontinued to be the objects of popular worship down to a very late time,\nthe form of the deity being usually that of a living animal.[1089]\n\n+649+. A similar religious constitution obtained among the old Semitic\npeoples. This is obvious in the case of the Canaanites (including the\nPhoenicians), where every clan or community had its divine lord (the\nBaal), who was a universal deity sufficient for all the needs of the\nliving, though particularly connected with the dominant interests of his\npeople.[1090] Such, probably, was the original form of the Hebrew Yahweh\n(Jehovah); in his Sinaitic home he was naturally connected with the\nphenomena of desert and mountain, and in Canaan, whither the Israelites\nbrought his cult, he was after a while recognized as the giver of crops\nalso, and gradually became a universal god in the larger sense of the\nterm.[1091] The Phoenician Baals--such as the Tyrian Melkart, 'the\nking of the city'--are obviously local deities.[1092] The same thing is\ntrue of the various gods that appear in pre-Mohammedan Arabia; the\ndeity of any particular clan or tribe was known to the people as \"the\ngod\" (Arabic _Allah_, that is, _al-Ilahu_), and the title \"Allah,\"\nadopted by Mohammed as the name of the supreme and only god, thus in so\nfar fitted in with the usage of the people.[1093]\n\n+650+. In Babylonia also a very large part of the divine names found in\nthe inscriptions must be understood to refer ultimately to local\ndeities, each supreme in his own territory; the later theologians\n(probably priests) endeavored to organize these into a sort of pantheon,\nbut never succeeded in differentiating the various deities distinctly.\nIn general it may be said that all these old Semitic gods had one and\nthe same character; each in his place was supreme, and it is difficult\nto find any difference in real character and function among the great\ngods, as Ea, Bel, Marduk, Sin, Shamash, Ishtar, Nabu, Ashur, Eshmun, and\nothers.[1094]\n\n+651+. The same remark will probably hold good of the popular worship of\nthe old Greeks. When Pausanias traveled through Greece he found\neverywhere local cults which bore evidence of primitiveness, and\nobviously pertained to the clan gods of the various regions. In many\ncases these had been identified with old animal-gods or had been\ninterwoven into the general later scheme and had been merged with the\ngreat gods of the developed pantheon.[1095] The functions ascribed to\nvarious deities in the Veda suggest a similar origin for them. When we\nfind that many of them are credited with the same larger or smaller acts\nof creation, protection, or blessing, we may suspect that they were\noriginally clan gods that have been incorporated in the great theologic\nsystem, and that \"henotheism\" is mainly a survival from this earlier\nscheme or an extension of it.[1096] Similar local gods appear in\nPeru[1097] and Mexico.[1098]\n\n+652+. One class of _Greek \"heroes\"_ may be considered as belonging in\nthe category of clan gods.[1099] When the hero appears to be originally\na god his worship is identical in character with that offered to local\ndeities; so in the case of Achilles and many others.[1100] Such an one\nis often a divine patron of a definite (usually small) territory, has\nhis sacred shrine with its ministers, and his specific sacrificial cult.\nA trace of this type may perhaps be recognized in Hesiod's\n\"halfgods,\"[1101] the heroes of the Trojan war and others, whom he\nplaces just after the age of bronze and just before his modern age of\niron; their origin is thus made relatively late, as was natural if they\ndescended culturally from old gods.\n\n+653+. A similar view appears in the fact that a hero is sometimes of\nmixed parentage--his father or his mother is divine: a local god,\nstanding in close cultic connection with a greater deity, is easily made\ninto a son of the latter. In general, in the popular worship there seems\nto be no distinction between old heroes and gods. Where such a hero\nstood in close relations with a community--if, for example, as was\nsometimes the case, he was the patron or tutelary divinity of a family,\nor a mythical ancestor--there was doubtless a peculiar tenderness in the\nfeeling for him. But his general function probably was simply that of\nlocal patron.[1102]\n\n+654+. Clan gods are specially important in the history of worship--they\nform the real basis of the great theistic development. Ghosts and\nspirits continue to be recognized and revered or dreaded, but they are\nnot powerful social bonds--it is the local deity about whose person\norganized public worship grows up, and it is he whose functions are\ngradually enlarged till he becomes a universal god. The initial forms of\nreligion are everywhere limited locally and intellectually; it is only\nby loyalty to the home as a center and standing-place that man's\nreligious affections and ideals have expanded so as to embrace the\nworld, and reach a high standard of ethical purity and logical\nconsistency.\n\n\nDEPARTMENTAL GODS\n\n+655+. It must be regarded as an advance in religious conceptions and\nreligious life when natural phenomena are divided into classes and\nassigned each to its special deity; such a scheme brings men into more\nintimate and sympathetic relations with the gods. It presupposes a\nrelatively advanced observation of nature and some power of co\u00f6rdination\nand generalization, and seems to be found only in communities that have\nsome well-organized communal life. In general it belongs to the\nagricultural stage and to the higher civilizations that have grown out\nof this stage. Care for food appears to be the starting-point; later,\nall sorts of social interests demand consideration.\n\n+656+. This specialization of functions is possibly in part an elevation\nof the old scheme of spirits according to which every object in the\nworld was conceived of as inhabited or controlled by some spiritlike\nbeing. It is not probable that the departmental gods are always\ndeveloped directly out of spirits--they appear sometimes to belong\nrather in the clan system, are anthropomorphic, human, lending\nthemselves more readily than spirits do to human intercourse.[1103] It\nis true that the lower cults of animals and spirits persist alongside of\nthe higher religious forms, and the various groups often appear to blend\nwith one another, as is generally the case in transitions from one\nsystem of thought to another.\n\n+657+. Deities with this sort of specialized functions appear in all\nparts of the world and at various periods of culture. The particular\nsort of specialization differs according to climatic conditions and\nsocial organization--that is, it depends in any community on the nature\nof the phenomena that touch the life of the community closely. But the\ngeneral principle remains the same--it is the effort to penetrate more\ndeeply into the nature of the supernatural Powers, and to enter into\nmore intimate and helpful relations with them; it is the beginning of a\nmore practical study of theology proper.\n\n+658+. A somewhat low and vague form of specialization of function is\nfound in Melanesia, where certain beings appear as patrons of\nwork.[1104] These are said by Codrington to be ghosts, yet to be prayed\nto just as if they were gods; and in fact, being men with indefinitely\ngreat powers, they can hardly be distinguished from such deities as\nDaramulun and Unkulunkulu, except in the fact that their function is\nspecific. In Australia the published reports do not describe\ndepartmental gods proper, with the possible exception of an undefined\nbeing in the North. A more developed scheme exists in Polynesia. In New\nZealand there were deities of food-planting and of forests.[1105] The\nhighest point of Polynesian civilization seems to have been reached in\nthe Hawaiian Islands, where, besides several great gods, there were\ndeities of the sky, the sea, winds, and lightning, of agriculture, and\nof various occupations and professions, such as fishing, and even\nrobbing.[1106]\n\n+659+. The Sea Dyaks have a god of rice-farming and one of war.[1107] In\nthe Malay Peninsula there is a confused mingling of supernatural beings\nof various sorts, with a great development of magic; the determination\nof the functions of the better-developed gods is rendered difficult by\nthe fact that the Malays have been much affected by Hindu\ninfluence.[1108] Such influence is possibly to be recognized also in the\nsystems of the Dravidian and Kolarian tribes, though in them there seems\nto be a native non-Aryan element. The Khonds have gods of rain, fruit,\nhunting, and boundaries. Among all these tribes the chief deity is the\nsun-god, by whose side stands the earth-god; these may well be\nprimitive, though their present form may be due to Hindu\ninfluence.[1109]\n\n+660+. The Masai of Eastern Africa have two chief gods--one black, said\nto be good; the other red, said to be bad.[1110] The only trace of a\nrecognition of cosmic powers appears in their myth that the sky and the\nearth were once united in one embrace;[1111] but it is not clear that\nthey recognize a god of the sky and one of the earth. Among the Bantu,\nwho are largely, though not wholly, pastoral, there appears to be no\ntrace of an apportionment of natural phenomena among supernatural\nbeings.[1112] On the West Coast of Africa there is a somewhat elaborate\nscheme of departmental deities. The sky is the chief god, but in Dahomi\nand Ashanti there are gods of lightning, fire, the ocean, the rainbow,\nwar, markets, silk, cotton, and poison trees, smallpox, sensual desire,\ndiscord, and wisdom; in Dahomi there is a tutelary god of the royal\nfamily. The Yorubans have a similar system, embracing gods of the Niger,\nnightmare, wealth, gardens, and divination.[1113] This more elaborate\nsystem corresponds to their more highly developed scheme of social\norganization.\n\n+661+. The tribes of Northeastern Asia are less developed religiously.\nThe Koryaks are said to have benevolent and malevolent deities, but\nappear not to have made much progress in the recognition of the distinct\ndepartments of nature.[1114] The Ainu have a large number of specific\ndeities: the goddess of fire, whose title is \"Grandmother\"; gods of the\nkitchen, of doors, of springs, and of gardens.[1115] As the Ainu culture\nresembles that of Northeastern Asia in several respects, it is possible\nthat in the latter region there exists a more highly specialized scheme\nthan has yet been reported. In Central Asia also it seems that no great\nprogress has been made in this direction by native thought. The\nstatement of Herodotus[1116] that the Thracians in time of thunderstorms\nused to shoot arrows at the sky and threaten the god, may point to a\nrecognition of a god of the sky or of storm. In the greater part of\nCentral Asia the conception of local spirits has prevailed and still\nprevails (Shamanism), a phase of religion that stands below that of the\ndivision of nature into departments. In certain districts of Mongolia,\nin which the theistic system is complicated, departmental deities are\nnow found, but the obvious dependence of this region on Buddhism\n(Lamaism) and other outside cults makes it doubtful whether or how far\nthis scheme of gods is of native origin.[1117]\n\n+662+. In North America the Algonkin and Maskoki nations and the Skidi\nPawnee have deities of the sky, the heavenly bodies, the winds, and\nfire.[1118] In the western part of the continent the theistic systems\nare less developed, but the details of the cults have not yet been fully\ncollected; so far as appears, a departmental organization has not been\nmade. In Brazil there is a trace of such a conception among the Tupis;\nbut the South American tribes remain at a low level of theistic\ndevelopment.[1119]\n\n+663+. The three greater religions of America, the Maya, the Mexican,\nand the Peruvian, offer much more interesting material, in regard to\nwhich the information which has been handed down to us is often\nunfortunately meager. Particularly, little definite is known of the Maya\nsystem; the indications are that the Mayas were superior in civilization\nto the Aztecs, and their religious customs and conceptions\ncorrespondingly higher than those of the latter.[1120]\n\n+664+. The Aztec religion is that which the Spaniards on their arrival\nfound to be the dominant one in Mexico. It was the religion of a\nconquering race, formed in part by a coalition of tribes and a\ncombination of cults. From the records (none of which are\ncontemporaneous) it appears that there was a very considerable\nspecialization of function in the Aztec deities. These were probably\nlocal gods with universal functions gradually differentiated.\nHuitzilopochtli, apparently a patron of vegetation (with three annual\nfestivals corresponding to agricultural seasons), became especially the\ngod of war, in accordance with the character of the Aztecs. Another side\nof social life was embodied in the conception of Tezcatlipoca, who\nrepresented law and justice, but naturally became also a god of war. In\nsharp contrast with these stands Quetzalcoatl, a milder god, apparently\na representative of general culture and good life. But he is commonly\nheld to be of foreign origin. If a foreigner, he was nevertheless\nadopted by the Aztecs and embodied one side of their life, particularly,\nperhaps, the protests against the human sacrifices, which were so\nprominent a feature in the cults of the other two deities. There were\nfurther a god of rain, a goddess of harvest, and a goddess of sensual\npleasure, besides a great number of minor specialized deities. With this\nspecialization of function, however, there was no corresponding\ndevelopment of character in the gods, no pantheon proper. The myths\nwhich have been preserved relate to the origin of social customs and to\nthe birth of gods. They appear to have been developed only a step beyond\nthe myths of the Redmen.[1121]\n\n+665+. The Peruvian cult differs from the Mexican in that it recognizes,\nin its developed form, one pre\u00ebminent deity, the sun-god, from whom\nissues all authority. Along with him stand two prominent figures,\nViracocha and Pachacamac, who also are credited with great powers.\nApparently they were local universal deities who were incorporated into\nthe Peruvian system and subordinated to the sun-god. All three are only\nvague, general figures, having no histories except a few stories of\norigins, and the Peruvian myths do not differ in essential character\nfrom those of the Aztecs.[1122]\n\n+666+. In this category we may include a large number of minutely\nspecialized deities of the Egyptians, the Greeks, and the Romans. As\namong some lower tribes already referred to, so here many common objects\nand pursuits are regarded as being under the fostering care of specific\ndeities. In Egypt the ripe ear of the grain, the birth of a child and\nits naming, and other things had their special divinities.[1123]\n\n+667+. The Greeks had such divine patrons of the corncrib, beans,\nplowshare, cattle, city walls, banquets, potters, physicians, athletic\ncontests, and even one hero known as the \"frightener of horses\" and a\ndeity called the \"flycatcher.\"[1124]\n\n+668+. The Romans carried out this specialization in even greater\ndetail. Almost every object and every event of the communal life had its\npatron deity: the house, the hearth, the field, the boundary stone,\nsowing and reaping, the wall, breath, marriage, education, death; the\nLares were the special protectors of the house or of the field, and all\npatrons of the home were summed up under the general designations _dii\npenates_ and _dii familiares_. Most of these beings have proper names,\nbut even where there are no such names, as in the case of the _dii\npenates_, there can be little doubt that they were looked on as personal\nindividualized beings.[1125] The tendency was, as time went on, to add\nto the number of these specialized patrons, as appears from the Roman\n_indigitamenta_[1126] lists of such divine beings redacted by the\npriests, who were disposed, naturally, to make the objects of worship as\nnumerous as possible; but herein they doubtless responded to a popular\nimpulse.\n\n+669+. This disposition to define practical functions minutely appears\nalso in the cultic history of the greater gods of the old Roman\nreligion: the r\u00f4le of Jupiter as god of sky and rain was definitely\nfixed, and Tellus was not the divine mother of the human race but the\nbeneficent bestower of crops. As the functions of such greater gods\nbecame more numerous and more definitely fixed, epithets were employed;\nJupiter had a dozen or more of such adjectival additions, and it appears\nthat at a later time such epithets were personalized into deities; but\nthis academic or priestly procedure does not set aside the fact that the\nearly Roman religion recognized a vast number of divine beings as the\nspecific patrons of certain things and acts.\n\n+670+. It was quite natural for the practical Roman mind to place\neverything of importance under the care of a divine being--a procedure\nwhich is simply carrying out in greater detail modes of thought which we\nhave seen to be common in many of the lower tribes. Augustine thinks\nthis specialization amusing, ridiculous, and difficult to understand. He\nbrings up the whole question of origin when he asks why it was necessary\nto have two goddesses for the waves of the sea--one, Venilia,\nrepresenting the wave as advancing to the shore; the other, Salacia,\nrepresenting the wave as receding.[1127] This seems, to be sure, an\nunnecessary specialization; but, considered in connection with the whole\nRoman system, it is not less intelligible than the multiplication of\ndeities attending upon the birth and education of a child, on the\nprocesses of farming, and on the fortunes of war. Since human life is\nguided by the gods, thought the Romans, there is no act that may not\nhave its god; this system is the objectivation of the conception of\ndivine special providence.[1128]\n\n+671+. To certain Semitic deities highly specialized functions have been\nsupposed to belong; but the known facts hardly warrant this supposition.\nIn the names Baal-Marqod, Baal-Marpe, Baal-Gad, the second element may\nbe the name of a place; that is, the Baal may be a local deity (as the\nBaals elsewhere are). The title Baal-berit[1129] has been interpreted as\nmeaning \"lord of a covenant\"--that is, a deity presiding over treaties;\nbut the expression is not clear. Baalzebub is in the Old Testament the\ngod of the Philistine city Ekron, where he had a famous oracle;[1130] it\nis highly improbable that the name means \"lord of flies\" (which would\nrather be Baal-zebubim), but the sense is obscure. The New Testament\nBaal [Beel]-zebul[1131] (the only correct form) has been variously\nexplained. The second element, _zebul_, occurs in the Old Testament as a\nname of the heavenly abode of the deity,[1132] and the title has been\nregarded as the Semitic rendering of a Greek or Roman title of a god of\nheaven (Zeus Ouranios; cf. Caelestis, epithet of Jupiter); as foreign\ndeities were called \"demons\" by the later Jews, the chief of these\ndeities, it is held, might well be taken to be the \"prince of demons.\"\nHowever this may be, Beelzebul cannot be ranked among the deities with\nhighly specialized functions.[1133]\n\n+672+. The scheme of gods just described is closely allied to that of\ntutelary deities for individual human beings. A transitional step may be\nrecognized in the assignment of special divine protectors to every house\nor village or grove, as among the Ainu (with whom the tutelary power is\nthe head of a bear), in Borneo (where every house has a human skull as\nprotector), among the Khonds, in the Vedic Vastoshpati, the \"lord of the\nhouse,\" in the Hindu \"house goddess,\" and in the Chinese tutelary god\nfor every year.[1134] From such a scheme to the assignment of a\nprotecting spirit to every human being there is but a step, and this is\nmade natural or necessary by the increasing sense of the value of the\nindividual. Such tutelary spirits or deities are found in Polynesia and\nAfrica.[1135] The North American manitu and the Central American\nnagual,[1136] referred to above, are not only special objects of worship\nbut also constantly present guardians of individual men. The Iroquois\nhave special tutelary spirits.[1137] In Ashanti such a function is\nperformed by the indwelling spirit, which is scarcely distinguishable\nfrom the man himself.[1138] The Roman _genius_ represents the man's\nindividual life, but becomes also his guardian;[1139] and the _daimon_\nof Socrates was possibly originally a being of the same sort,[1140]\nthough he may have identified it with conscience.\n\n+673+. In the great religions of antiquity every city and every state\nhad its special divine protector. The Persian fravashis are the\nguardians of individual human beings. The later Jews held that there was\na guardian angel for every nation and for every person.[1141] All such\nconceptions embody the human sense of dependence on divine aid and the\ndemand for specific divine protectors standing near to man and\nsustaining special relations with individuals. In some forms of\nChristianity the function of protection is assigned to patron saints.\n\n+674+. Certain classes of departmental or specific gods may be mentioned\nhere for the purpose of indicating their development.\n\n+675+. _Creators._ The work of the creation of the world is assigned\namong various peoples to a great variety of beings. In the earliest\nstrata of religious belief animals play a great r\u00f4le as creators. The\nknown examples of their creative function are so numerous that we may\nwell be disposed to regard it as universal. In general it is the\nbest-known animal, or the one credited with the greatest sagacity, that\nis regarded as creator.[1142]\n\n+676+. But the natural progress of thought involved the advance to the\nconception of anthropomorphic creators. A transitional stage is\npresented by the Australian Arunta, in whose mythical system the authors\nof tribal institutions and the makers of heavenly bodies are the\nhalf-animal, half-human ancestors; this seems to be an attempt at a\ntransformation of the old scheme of creation by animals--unwilling to\nabandon the earlier conception, these tribes have satisfied themselves\nby the theory that the ancestors and creators, though animals in nature,\nmust at the same time have been human.[1143] We may compare with these\nthe Melanesian and Samoan supernatural beings who are incarnate in\nanimal forms and are at the same time originators of civilization.[1144]\nThese zo\u00f6morphic beings are not necessarily totems, as in Australia;\noutside of the Arunta it does not appear that totems as such are ever\nregarded as creators[1145]--they are ancestors, but at that point their\nfunction appears to cease.\n\n+677+. There are however ghosts, which, while of course representing\nancestors, are regarded not specially in their ancestorial capacity, but\nrather as powerful beings who have been more or less active in framing\nthe constitution of society. This form of ghost occurs in Melanesia,\nwhere also spirits, vague beings who never were human, play a great\nr\u00f4le. The best authorities find it somewhat difficult to distinguish\nbetween such ghosts and spirits on the one hand, and gods on the other\nhand.[1146] The Qat of the Banks Islands is in one sense a creator,\nsince he determines the regular courses of the seasons and is the\nintroducer of night; yet, since he does not actually create the world,\nbut only rearranges the existing material, he belongs rather in the\ncategory of transformers or initiators. Real anthropomorphic gods appear\nas creators in very early tribes. Such, for example, are Baiame,\nDaramulun, Bunjil of Australia,[1147] perhaps Supu of the Melanesian\nisland of Vate.\n\n+678+. In Polynesia there is a better-defined cosmogonic\nanthropomorphism. The Hawaiian creators Kane and Tangaloa appear to be\nfully formed deities.[1148] The Maoris have the divine figures Heaven\nand Earth, whose children are the producers of all things in the world.\nBut Maui, who seems to be a general Polynesian figure, is rather a\nculture-hero than a god, though his achievements were of a very serious\nsort. The Tapa of the Borneo Land Dyaks,[1149] and the Boora Pennu of\nthe Khonds[1150] may be regarded as real gods. On the West Coast of\nAfrica the Yorubans, the most advanced of the coast tribes, with a\nwell-developed pantheon, have deities who may be called creators; such\nare Obatala, who, according to one account, made the first human pair\nout of clay, and Ifa, the restorer of the world after the flood.[1151]\nIn North America the New England Kiehtan and the Virginian Oki have\ncreative functions.[1152] The Navahos ascribe the creation of certain\nanimals to a god Bekotsidi, whose character and r\u00f4le, however, are\nvague.[1153] The Brazilian Tupan and Jurupari appear to be divine\ncreators.[1154] For a good many tribes in all parts of the world the\npublished reports give no precise information regarding the beginning of\nthings, but it seems probable that fuller acquaintance with them would\nreveal conceptions similar to those described above.\n\n+679+. The great civilized nations, with their well-formed\nanthropomorphic deities, have constructed elaborate cosmogonies, which\ncommonly begin with the conception of an unshaped mass of material out\nof which the gods arise and create the world. There is no great\ndifference in these various schemes: Babylonians and Greeks have fallen\nupon substantially the same general view of creation; the variations\namong the various peoples are due to circumstances of place and culture.\nIt is noteworthy that the Maoris have a cosmogony which is not unlike\nthat of the great civilized nations of antiquity, but the origin of\ntheir scheme of the world is not clear.[1155]\n\n+680+. _Gods of the other world._ The class of departmental gods\nincludes those who have charge of the other world. As soon as the abode\nof men after death is definitely fixed, it is natural that a deity\npresiding over this other world should arise. Among the lower tribes\nthis sort of god is not frequent.[1156] One of the clearest cases of\nsuch organization occurs in Fiji.[1157] Here, in addition to other\ndeities who deal with the dead on their entrance into this farther\nworld, the great deity Ndengei has his abode, and one of his functions\nis to pass on the merits of those who present themselves from the world\nof living men. He is, however, in part an otiose deity and can hardly be\nsaid to rule over this otherworldly realm. Similar undeveloped deities\nare found among the Maoris and the Finns.[1158]\n\n+681+. But fully formed and effective divine rulers of the other world\noccur only in the more advanced religions, such as the Babylonian, the\nEgyptian, the Hindu, the Persian, the Greek, the Roman.[1159] From the\nnature of their abode such deities have very little to do with the life\non earth except when, as in the Egyptian system and to some extent in\nthe Fijian, there is a judge of conduct, with authority to assign the\ndead their places, good or bad. In such cases they become important\nmoral factors in life.\n\n+682+. An ethical god of the other world appears not to have been\ncreated by the Semites. The Babylonian Underworld goddess or god has\nnothing to do with moral character, and among the Hebrews, so far as the\nstatements in the Old Testament go, no special deity was assigned to the\nother world; whether such an Underworld deity once existed and was lost\nby the Hebrews, or has been expurged by the later editors of the Old\nTestament books, must remain uncertain;[1160] in the late pre-Christian\nperiod the national god, Yahweh, was regarded as controlling the\nUnderworld as well as Heaven and Earth.[1161] The Greek A\u00efdes or\nPlout[=o]n and the Roman Pluto also are not ethical gods in the higher\nsense, as indeed no early deity of any people has such a moral\ncharacter. At a later period ethical distinctions were introduced into\nthe administration of the other world.\n\nBy reason of paucity of data it is difficult to determine the precise\ncharacters of various Celtic, Slavic, and Germanic deities whose names\nappear in the records. They are gods of clans and of departments of\nnature; none of them can properly be reckoned among the great\ngods.[1162]\n\n+683+. _Division into good and bad Powers._ Among many savage and\nhalf-civilized peoples we find that a distinction is recognized between\ngood and bad ghosts and spirits--a distinction at first vague, based on\npassing experiences in which all the fortunes of men, favorable and\nunfavorable, are referred to these beings. Their morals are those of the\nhuman communities with which they are connected: they may be amiable or\nmalignant, beneficent or revengeful, but the ethical element in their\ncharacters and deeds is not distinctly recognized and is not made the\nbasis of the distinction between the two classes. The world is seen to\nbe full of Powers that make for weal or for woe--a conception that\ncontains the germ of all the later development but is at first nebulous.\n\n+684+. In a somewhat higher form of culture these two classes of Powers\nmay be unified respectively into, or replaced by, two gods, one helpful,\nthe other harmful. Such appears to be the scheme of the Masai, who have\ntheir black god and red god.[1163] A Californian cosmogonic myth\ndescribes a nonmoral conflict of work between the good \"Creator\" and the\nmalicious Coyote.[1164] A real unification appears, however, to be\nrare; it supposes in fact a degree of reflection and organization that\nwe should not expect to find among lower peoples. The story, for\nexample, that has been told of a well-developed dualistic system of the\nIroquois is based on a misconception.[1165] Dualism proper is not\nrecognizable among the savages of America, Polynesia, Asia, or\nAfrica.[1166] In the Old Testament prior to the sixth century B.C. the\nspirits, good and bad, which are not essentially different from those we\nfind among the lower tribes, are massed under the control of Yahweh, and\ndo his bidding without moral reflection; when he sends a lying spirit\ninto the mouth of Ahab's prophets[1167] this spirit goes without malice\nmerely to perform the will of the supreme god. This massing of all\nspirit Powers under the control of one god is a step toward unity and\nclearness in the conception of the government of the world.\n\n+685+. At a later stage of social growth there appears the conception of\na cosmic struggle, the conflict between the natural forces that tend to\ndisorder and those that tend to order. Philosophical reflection led to\nthe supposition of an original chaos, a medley of natural forces not\ncombined or organized in such a way as to minister to the needs of human\nlife; and a similar conception of conflict may have arisen from\nobservation of the warring elements at certain seasons of the year.\n\n+686+. The adjustment of the rival forces and the establishment of a\nsystem of physical order is referred to the great gods. Such a picture\nof the original state of things is contained in the elaborate Babylonian\ncosmologies that have come down to us; in these the dragon of disorder\n(Tiamat) is completely conquered by the god Bel-Marduk, who represents\nthe Babylonian civilization of the time in which the cosmology arose. Of\nthe same nature is the Egyptian myth of the contest between Horus (the\nlight) and Set (the dark), in which, however, the victory of Horus is\nnot described as being absolute[1168]--a representation suggested,\npossibly, by the recognition of the persistence of the good and bad\nelements of the world; compare the cosmologies of the Maidu and the\nKhonds mentioned above (\u00a7684). In the Greek and Teutonic myths in which\nthe Giants are the enemies of the great gods a more humane and settled\ngovernment of the world is introduced by Zeus and Wodan. Traces of this\nconstruction of the universe are to be found also among the Maoris, the\nHawaiians, and other peoples of a like grade.[1169]\n\n+687+. In the original form of these myths there is no moral element\nbeyond the fact that the settlement of the cosmic powers was necessary\nin order to the establishment of good social life. Individual wicked\ndeities do not appear at this stage, but the way is prepared for them by\nthe picture of cosmic struggle in which powers friendly and unfriendly\nto men are opposed to one another. A similar conception is found in the\nfigures of the Fates, who are the embodiment of the course of events in\nthe world--the immovable, remorseless, absolute fortune of men, good and\nbad--a picture of life as it has presented itself, doubtless, to men in\nall periods of history. Out of this came the abstract conception of\nFate, the impersonal power that controls all things.\n\n+688+. The deeper conception of a conflict between the moral good and\nthe moral evil in life belongs to the latest period in religious\nhistory. Here the determining fact is the control of the world by the\nhigh gods, who have their adversaries, but in general prove victors. At\nthe foundation of this scheme of the world lies the conception of order,\nwhich is particularly defined in the Vedic _arta_ and the Avestan\n_asha_[1170]--the regulation of the world in accordance with human\ninterests, in which the ethical element becomes more and more prominent\nas human society is more and more formed on an ethical basis.\n\n+689+. Ethical dualism is most fully embodied in the Persian conception\nof two gods, good and bad, with the understanding that the good god,\nAhura Mazda, exercises a certain restraint on the bad god, Angro Mainyu,\nwho is finally to be crushed.[1171] This optimistic point of view, which\nhas no doubt existed in germinal shape among all peoples, appears also\nin the modified dualism of the Old Testament and the late Jewish and\nChristian schemes. The Old Testament Satan is originally a divine being,\none of the \"sons of the Elohim\" (that is, he belongs to the Elohim, or\ndivine, class); his function is that of inspector of human conduct,\nprosecutor-general, with a natural tendency to disparage men and demand\ntheir punishment. As a member of Yahweh's court and council he makes\nregular reports to his divine lord and pleads cases before the divine\ncourt.[1172] In this character he is suspicious and mischievous but not\nimmoral; but a little later a trace of malice appears in him,[1173] and\nin the uncanonical Jewish book of the Wisdom of Solomon and in the New\nTestament he advances to the position of the head of the kingdom of\nmoral evil, so that he is called also \"the god of the present\nage\"[1174]--that is, he is the controller of the existing unregenerate\nelement in human society, and is to be displaced when the ideal age\nshall be established.\n\n+690+. _Man's attitude toward demons._ Demons[1175] (the term being\ntaken to include all early malefic superhuman beings, whether ghosts or\nspirits) are feared and guarded against, but rarely receive worship. As\nthey are the authors of all physical ills that cannot be explained on\nnatural grounds, measures, usually magical, are taken to thwart their\npurposes--to prevent their intervention or to overcome and banish the\nevil begun by them. As they are not credited with moral principle,\nhostility to them rests not on ethical feeling but merely on fear of\nsuffering.[1176] If they are placated, it is in cases in which they\napproach the character of gods and in so far cease to be demons in our\nsense of the word. They serve a useful purpose in that, taking on their\nshoulders all the ills of life, they leave the clan gods free from the\nsuspicion of unfriendliness to men.[1177] On the other hand, the belief\nin them has created a pseudo-science of relief from suffering and a\ngreat host of pseudo-doctors who for a long time exercised a large\ncontrol over society and bound men in fetters of ignorance.\n\n+691+. In early societies demons have not individual names. In savage\nsocieties there are malefic deities, with individual names, connected\nwith sicknesses and other ills; but such deities are not demons. Demons\ndo not enter into friendly social relations with men,[1178] and\nobservation of experiences is not carried so far as to assign every ill\nto a separate author. In more advanced societies, as, for instance, the\nBabylonian,[1179] demons are divided into classes according to their\nvarious lines of activity, and to these classes names are given. If some\nindividual demon, representing a particular ill, becomes specially\nimportant, it may receive an individual name. In general, the demonic\nname-giving follows the theistic, but lags behind it. Clan gods have at\nfirst some such appellation as Old One, Grandfather, or a descriptive\nepithet (as among some American Indian tribes), and later, Lord, Lady,\nMighty One, Exalted One; in process of time they receive proper names,\nwhich must have arisen at a relatively early period, since the meaning\nof the names of most of the old deities was to the ancients, as it is to\nus, unknown. In the case of the demonic world this development has not\nbeen carried so far, for the reason stated above, namely, that these\nbeings, unlike gods, have not become real citizens of the communities\nwith which they are connected.\n\n+692+. In like manner the organization of demons has not kept pace with\nthat of gods. In most regions they have remained a mob, every individual\npursuing his way independently. It is only in advanced cults that they\nform a community with a head. In China and Persia the sharp division of\nsupernatural forces into two classes was the outcome of great religious\nreformations that followed the usual savage chaos of the hordes of\ndemons. The Jewish demonology (probably influenced by the Persian) chose\nfor the head of its kingdom of evil an old god (the Satan) or the\nsimilar figure Azazel.[1180]\n\n+693+. It does not appear that religious worship has ever been offered\nto a being regarded as morally bad and in honor of moral badness. The\n\"devils\" reported by early (and some recent) travelers as the recipients\nof religious homage turn out on inquiry to be clan gods whose anger is\nfeared.[1181] The cult of many savage and many civilized deities has\nbeen, and is, characterized by gross cruelty and licentiousness; but it\nis certain that human sacrifice and sexual indulgence were, and are, in\nthese cases not regarded as morally wrong. Durga (Kali), wife of \u00c7iva,\nmost terrible and repulsive of female deities, while she is feared, is\nalso revered as the giver of all good gifts; and the Thugs, when they\noffered her their strangled victims, ascribed no more moral blame to her\nthan to themselves--their work they regarded not as murder but as pious\nsacrifice.[1182] The Gnostic sects, Ophites and Cainites, looked on the\nserpent and Cain as friends of the supreme Deity and of man; they were\nenemies only of the Demiourgos, the Jewish god Yahweh, who, they held,\nwished to keep man in ignorance.[1183] The Mesopotamian Yezidis also\n(the so-called devil-worshipers) revere only beings that they regard as\nmorally good or as destined to become good. Their peculiar attitude\ntoward Satan (a mingling of fear and respect) is based not on his\nconnection with evil but on their expectation that, though he is now\nfallen from his high angelic estate, he is ultimately to be restored to\nhis original dignity.[1184]\n\n+694+. Thus, it cannot be said that a demon has ever developed into a\ngod. The malefic Powers of savages have generally been absorbed by\nhigher beings or have otherwise disappeared. Some gods, such as the\nHebrew Satan and certain Greek deities, have been degraded to the\ndemonic class. In some cases, particularly in the Zoroastrian system, a\nbeing who is the consolidation of all malign supernatural activities has\nbeen credited with all-but divine power and authority.[1185] But the two\nclasses remain distinct--the true \"god\" is a friendly member of a human\nsociety, and when he is angry may be placated; the true \"demon\" is\nessentially hostile to men and must be thwarted and expelled.[1186]\n\n+695+. _Gods of abstractions._ Gods of abstractions, found in certain\ntheistic systems, are to be distinguished on the one hand from deities\nthat are simply personalizations of physical objects (such as Vesta and\nAgni) and on the other hand from poetical personifications, such as that\nof Wisdom in the Jewish books of Proverbs, Ecclesiasticus, and the\nWisdom of Solomon, and from concrete figures like the Logos of Philo and\nthe Fourth Gospel. Though these abstract forms appear to be relatively\nlate (posterior to the formation of the greater gods), the meagerness of\nour data makes it difficult to describe their genesis and the\nconceptions of their character by the peoples among whom they arise.\nSome facts known to us, however, may help us to understand in part the\nprocess by which they came into existence.\n\n+696+. We have already considered the tendency in human communities to\nparticularize the divine objects of worship and to personalize external\nobjects; everywhere, it would appear, there is a disposition to assign a\nparticular divine control to every fact that is specially connected with\nhuman interests. We have to note, further, the tendency to concretize,\nas, for example, in many cases in which evil, physical or moral, is\nregarded as a concrete thing that may be removed bodily from the\ncommunity.[1187] This sort of conception we may suppose to be connected\nwith early psychological theory, according to which anything that\naffects man is credited with manlike form and power. The facility with\nwhich the abstract and the concrete may be identified is illustrated by\nsuch modern terms as deity, majesty, highness, state, government,\ndirection, counsel; in these expressions the abstract quality or act is\nincarnated in certain persons, and so we may imagine that at a certain\nstage of society any quality or act might be isolated and regarded as a\npersonal thing. A series of victories, for example, might suggest the\nconception of 'victory' as a thing present in these events, and the\ntendency to personalize would then create the divine figure Victory.\nHistorically a personalization may have arisen, in some cases, through\nthe isolation of an epithet of a deity (so, for example, Fides may have\ncome from Dius Fidius),[1188] but in such cases the psychological basis\nof the personalization is the same as that just stated. From these, as\nis remarked above, must be distinguished poetical and philosophical\nabstractions.\n\n+697+. Whatever be the explanation of the process, we find in fact a\nlarge number of cases in which such abstractions appear as deities and\nreceive worship.\n\n+698+. _Semitic._ The material for the Semitic religions on this point\nis scanty.[1189] The Arabic divine names supposed by N\u00f6ldeke to\nrepresent abstractions are Man[=a]t (fate), Sa'd (fortune), Ru[d.][=a]\n(favor), Wadd (love), Man[=a]f (height), 'Au[d.] (time). Whether these\nare all abstract terms is doubtful. _Wadd_ means also 'lover,' divine\nfriend or patron. _Sa'd_ occurs as adjective 'fortunate,' is the\nappellation of certain stars, and the god Sa'd is identified by an Arab\npoet with a certain rock[1190]--the rock is doubtless an old local\ndivinity. _Ru[d.][=a]_ is found apparently only as a divine name (in\nPalmyrene and Safa inscriptions and as a god of an Arabian tribe)--the\nform may be concrete, in the sense of 'favoring,' divine patron. As\n\"time\" (_dahr_, _zaman_) often occurs in Arabic poetry in the sense of\n'fate,' the god 'Au[d.] may be an embodiment of this conception.[1191]\n_Man[=a]f_, if understood, as is possible, in the sense 'high place,' is\nnot abstract but concrete, though in that case the original reference of\nthe term is not clear.\n\n+699+. Man[=a]t is one of the three great goddesses of Mecca, the others\nbeing Al-L\u00e2t ('the goddess') and Al-Uzza ('the mighty one'); as these\ntwo names are concrete, there is a certain presumption that _Man[=a]t_\nlikewise is concrete. The original meaning of the word is obscure. It\ndoes not occur as a common noun, but from the same stem come terms\nmeaning 'doom, death,'[1192] and, if it be allied to these, it would be\nan expression for 'fate' (like _'Au[d.]_). However, the stem is used in\nthe sense 'number, determine, assign,' and Man[=a]t may be the divine\ndeterminer of human destinies. From this same stem comes the Biblical\n_Meni_, and apparently the Assyrian _Manu_.[1193] The ordinary North\nSemitic conception of the source of human destinies is that they are\ndetermined by the gods and written on tablets or in a book,[1194] and\nthe same conception may have existed in the South Semitic area.[1195]\nThe other deity mentioned in Isaiah lxv, 11, is Gad; the word means in\nArabic and Hebrew 'fortune, good fortune,' and occurs as the name of a\ndeity in Phoenician and Aramaic inscriptions, but the data are not\nsufficient to fix its original sense. It is the name of a Hebrew tribe,\nwhich is perhaps so called from the tribal god, and the name of a\ntribal god is probably concrete.[1196]\n\n+700+. It seems, then, that for most if not all of the names of the\nSemitic deities just mentioned abstract senses, though possible, are not\ncertain. N\u00f6ldeke remarks that most of these terms are poetical--they may\nbe ornate epithets given to old concrete divine figures, in which case\nthe real cults were attached to these latter and not to abstractions. It\nmust be regarded as doubtful whether Semitic religion created any\nabstract deity.\n\n+701+. _Egyptian._ The most prominent Egyptian abstract deity is Maat,\n'truth.' She fulfilled an important function in the judgment-hall of\nOsiris in the Underworld, and was widely revered, but had no mythical\nhistory, and seems to have been rather a quasi-philosophical creation\nthan a vital element of the Egyptian religious life. A god Destiny is\nmentioned, who generally bestowed a happy fate.[1197]\n\n+702+. _Roman and Greek._ The most fully developed form of this\nconception is found in the Roman cult.[1198] The civic genius of the\nRomans led them to give prominence to the maintenance of public and\nprivate rights; thus among their deities appear public safety or\nsalvation (Salus Publica), public faith or fidelity to engagements\n(Fides), civic harmony (Concordia), connubial purity (Pudicitia), filial\ndevotion (Pietas), the boundary of property (Terminus), victory\n(Victoria), liberty (Libertas). There are further the gods Youth\n(Juventus and Juventas) and Desire[1199] (Cupido), perhaps as things\nfundamental in human life.[1200] Fortune (Fortuna) is the mass of\nevidence determining life by the will of the gods, with which the\nutterances of the gods (Fata) are identical, and the embodiment of the\ndetermining agencies is the Parc\u00e6. Several of these deities have their\ncorrespondents in the Greek theistic system:[1201] Eros (desire); Tuche\n(that which is allotted one by the gods or by the course of events);\nMoira (Aisa), the unification of all the powers that determine man's\ndestiny. The god Kronos was by some improperly identified with \"time\"\n([Greek: chronos]).[1202]\n\n+703+. _Aryan._ Among the Aryans of India the god Kama (desire) appears\nto be identical with Cupido. Some other abstractions, such as Piety and\nInfinity, are akin to Mazdean conceptions.[1203] Brahma, originally\n'magical formula,' then 'prayer,' and later 'pious thought,' becomes\nfinally Brahma, the all-embracing god. [R.]ta (arta), 'order,' at first,\nperhaps, the proper order of the sacrificial ritual, becomes finally\n'moral order or righteousness' and 'cosmic order.' This conception is\nstill more prominent in the Avesta,[1204] in which Asha (Order) is one\nof the Amesha-spentas, only inferior to the supreme god; the other\ncompanions of Ahura Mazda have similar titles and may equally be\nregarded as the personalization of abstract ideas.[1205] In the same\ncategory may be included the Mazdean conceptions Endless Time (Zrvan\nAkarana) and Endless Space (Thwasha), which appear to be treated in the\nAvesta as personal deities.[1206] The organizers of the Mazdean faith,\nhaving discarded almost all the old gods, invested the supreme god with\ncertain moral qualities, and these, by a natural process of thought,\nwere concretized (Ahura Mazda is sometimes included in the list of\nAmesha-spentas). Thus arose a sort of pantheon, an echo of the old\npolytheism; but the history of the process of formulation is\nobscure.[1207]\n\n+704+. Most, if not all, of the abstract conceptions mentioned above are\nalso placed, in the various theistic systems, under the control of great\ngods. Thus, for example, Jupiter is the guardian of boundaries and has\nthe epithet \"Terminus,\" and Zeus is the patron of freedom\n(Eleutherios).[1208] It is, however, not necessary to suppose that the\nabstractions in question are taken from the functions of the great gods.\nRather these epithets of the gods are to be explained from the same\ntendency that produced gods of abstractions. It was the sense of the\nimportance of the boundary in early life that led both to the creation\nof the god Terminus and to the assignment of the epithet \"Terminus\" to\nJupiter. The desire or love that was so important an element in human\nlife both fashioned itself into a personality and was put under the\nguardianship of a special deity. Public safety was a cherished idea of\nthe Romans and was doubtless held to be maintained by every local or\nnational god, yet could none the less become an independent deity. The\ndata are not sufficient to enable us to determine in all cases the\nquestion of chronological precedence between the deification of the\nabstraction and the assignment of the epithet to a god. We know that in\nthe later Roman period abstractions were personalized, but this\nprocedure was often poetical or rhetorical.[1209]\n\n+705+. A general relation may be recognized between the intellectual\ncharacter of a people and the extent to which it creates abstract gods.\nThe Semitic peoples, among whom the development of such gods is the\nfeeblest, are characterized by objectiveness of thought, indisposition\nto philosophical or psychological analysis, and a maintenance of local\npolitical and religious organization; it is natural that they should\nconstruct concrete deities exclusively or almost exclusively. Egypt also\nwas objective, and carried its demand for visible objects of worship to\nthe point of incarnating its gods in living animals; such living gods\ntend to banish pale abstractions, and such conceptions played an\ninsignificant part in Egyptian religion. In India, with its genius for\nphilosophical refinement, we might expect to find this latter class of\ngods; but Indian thought speedily passed into the large pantheistic and\nother generalizations that absorbed the lesser abstractions. Greece\nappears to have had the combination of philosophy and practicalness that\nfavors the production of a certain sort of abstract gods, and a\nconsiderable number of these it did produce;[1210] but here also\nphilosophy, in the form of large theories of the constitution and life\nof man, got the upper hand and repressed the other development. The\nRomans had no pretensions to philosophic or \u00e6sthetic thought, but they\nhad a keen sense of the value of family and civic life, and great skill\nin using religion for social purposes. It is they among whom specialized\ndeities, including abstractions, had the greatest significance for the\nlife of the people--family and State.\n\n+706+. With the growth of general culture all specialized divinities\ntend to disappear, absorbed by the great gods and displaced by better\nknowledge of the laws governing the bodily and mental growth of\nmen.[1211] The divinities of abstractions, so far as they were really\nalive, had the effect of making great civic and religious ideas familiar\nto the people. Later (as in modern life) such ideas were cherished as\nthe outcome of reflection on domestic and national relations--in the\nearlier period they were invested with sacredness and with personal\npower to inspire and guide. Exactly what their ethical influence on the\nmasses was it is hardly possible to determine; but it may be regarded\nas probable that they helped to keep alive certain fundamental\nconceptions at a time when reflection on life was still immature.\n\n\nNATURE GODS\n\n+707+. The term \"nature gods\" may be taken as designating those deities\nthat are distinguished on the one hand from natural objects regarded as\ndivine and worshiped, and on the other hand from the great gods, who,\nwhatever their origin, have been quite dissociated from natural objects;\nin distinction from these classes nature gods are independent deities\nwho yet show traces of their origin in the cult of natural\nobjects.[1212]\n\n+708+. These three classes often shade into one another, and it is not\nalways easy to draw the lines between them. It is worth while, however,\nto keep them separate, because they represent different stadia of\nreligious and general culture; the nature gods are found in societies\nwhich have risen above the old crude naturalism, but have not yet\nreached the higher grade of intellectual and ethical distinctness. But\nas they are in a real sense dissociated from natural objects, they tend\nto expand as society grows, and it is unnecessary to attempt to deduce\nall their functions from the characteristics of the objects with which\nthey were originally connected. In some cases, doubtless, they coalesce\nwith the local clan gods whose functions are universal; and in general,\nwhen a god becomes the recognized deity of his community, the tendency\nis to ascribe to him a great number of functions suggested by the\nexisting social conditions. In some cases the particular function of the\ngod may be derived from the function of the natural object whence he is\nsupposed to spring; but the number and variety of functions that we\noften find assigned to one deity, and the number of deities that are\nconnected with a single function, indicate the complexity of the\nprocesses of early religious thought and make it difficult to trace its\nhistory in detail.\n\n+709+. Among natural objects the heavenly bodies, sun, moon, and stars,\nand particularly the sun and moon, have very generally attracted men's\nattention and become objects of worship. The deification of the sun may\nbe traced through all stadia of development, from the crudest\nobjectivism to a highly developed monolatry or a virtual\nmonotheism.[1213] Veneration of the physical sun, or a conception of it\nas a supernatural man, is found in many parts of the world.[1214] It has\nnot been observed, apparently, in Australia, Melanesia, Indonesia, and\non the North American Pacific Coast;[1215] these regions are all\nbackward in the creation of gods--devoting themselves to the elaboration\nof social organization they have contented themselves largely with an\napparatus of spirits and divine animals. In Central and Northern Asia\nand among the Ainu of Jesso, while there appears to be a recognition of\nthe sun as divine, it is difficult to distinguish real solar\ndivinities.[1216] In Japan mention is made of a sun-goddess but she\nplays an insignificant part in the religious system.[1217]\n\n+710+. The cult is more developed in Eastern and Central North America,\nparticularly in the former region. The Navahos (in the center of the\ncontinent) have a vague deity of the sun, but the cult is most prominent\namong the Algonkin (Len\u00e2p\u00e9) and Natchez tribes; the last-named\nespecially have an elaborate cult in which the sun as deity seems to be\ndistinct from the physical form.[1218]\n\n+711+. The highest development of this cult in America was reached in\nMexico and Peru. In both these countries, which had worked out a\nnoteworthy civilization, the solar cult became supreme, and in Peru it\nattained an ethical and universalistic form which entitles it to rank\namong the best religious systems of the lower civilized nations.[1219]\n\n+712+. The Egyptians, with their more advanced civilization, finally\ncarried sun-worship to a very high point of perfection. The hymns to Ra,\nthe sun-god, reached the verge of monotheism and are ethically high, yet\ntraces of the physical side of the sun appear throughout.[1220] The same\nthing is true of the old Semitic sun-cult. The Babylonian and Assyrian\nShamash is in certain respects an independent deity with universal\nattributes, but retains also some of the physical characteristics of the\nsun.[1221] In Africa, outside of Egypt, the only trace of an independent\nsun-god appears to be in Dahomi, where, however, he is not prominent;\nwhy such a god should not be found in the neighboring countries of\nAshanti and Yoruba is not clear; climatic conditions would affect all\nthese countries alike.[1222]\n\n+713+. In the Veda the sun-god Savitar has a very distinguished position\nas ethical deity, but earlier than he the similar figure Surya\nrepresents more nearly the physical sun, and this is true perhaps also\nof Mitra.[1223] With the latter it is natural to compare the Avestan\nMithra; he is held by some to have been originally a god of light, but\nhe seems also to have characteristics of the sun in the Avesta,[1224]\nand in late Persian the word _mihr_ ('sun') indicates that he was at any\nrate finally identified with the sun. It is noteworthy that a distinct\nsun-worship is reported among certain non-Aryan tribes of India,\nparticularly the Khonds;[1225] this cult may be compared with that of\nthe Natchez mentioned above,[1226] though the Khonds are less socially\nadvanced than these American tribes.\n\n+714+. The cultic history of the moon is similar to that of the sun, but\nin general far less important. In addition to its charm as illuminer of\nthe night, it has been prominent as a measurer of time--lunar calendars\nappear among many tribes and nations, uncivilized (Maoris, Hawaiians,\nDahomi, Ashanti and Yorubans, Nandi, Congo tribes, Bantu, Todas, and\nothers) and civilized (the early Babylonians, Assyrians, Hebrews,\nGreeks, Romans, perhaps the early Egyptians, and now all Mohammedan\npeoples). Naturally it has been associated with the sun in myths,\nstanding to it in the relation of brother or sister, husband or wife.\nAmong existing noncivilized peoples it sometimes receives worship as a\ngod[1227] or as connected with a god.[1228] In these cases it retains to\na great extent its character as an object of nature. So the Greek\nSelen[=e] and the Roman Luna, standing alongside of the lunar gods\nproper, probably indicate an early imperfect deification of the moon.\n\n+715+. Though the stars were generally regarded, both among savages and\nin ancient civilized communities, as animated (possessed of souls), and\nin a sort divine,[1229] instances of the deification proper of\nparticular stellar bodies are rare. In Egypt they were reverenced, but\napparently not worshiped.[1230] The Babylonian astronomers and\nastrologers began early to connect the planets with the great gods\n(Jupiter with Marduk, Venus with Ishtar, etc.), and stars, like other\nheavenly bodies, were held by them to be divine, but a specific\ndivinization of a star or planet does not appear in the known\nliterature.[1231] The same thing is true of China, where, it may be\nsupposed, reverence for the stars was included in the general high\nposition assigned to Heaven.[1232] In the Aryan Hindu cults stars were\nrevered, and by the non-Aryan Gonds were worshiped, but there is no\nstar-god proper.[1233]\n\n+716+. In the Old Testament and the Apocrypha there are passages in\nwhich stars and planets are referred to in a way that indicates some\nsort of a conception of them as divine: they are said to have fought\nagainst Israel's enemies, and in the later literature they are (perhaps\nby a poetical figure of speech) identified with foreign deities or with\nangels.[1234] But there is no sign of Israelite worship offered them\ntill the seventh century B.C., when, on the irruption of Assyrian cults,\nincense is said to have been burned in the Jerusalem temple to the\nmazzalot (probably the signs of the zodiac) and to all the host of\nheaven (the stars);[1235] and there is still no creation of a\nstar-god.[1236] The early Hebrews may have practiced some sort of\nstar-worship; there are traces of such a cult among their neighbors the\nArabs.\n\n+717+. The Arab personal name Abd ath-thuraiya, 'servant (worshiper) of\nthe Pleiades,' testifies to a real cult,[1237] though how far it\ninvolves a conception of the constellation as a true individual deity it\nmay be difficult to say. It has been supposed that the pre-Islamic Arabs\nworshiped the planet Venus under the name Al-Uzza,[1238] but this is not\ncertain. It is true that they worshiped the morning star, and that\nancient non-Arab writers identified the planet with Al-Uzza because it\nwas with this goddess that the Roman goddess Venus was generally\nidentified by foreigners. But Al-Uzza was an old Arabian local deity who\ngradually assumed great power and influence, and it is certain that she\ncould not have been originally a star. It must, therefore, be considered\ndoubtful whether the Arabs had a true star-god.\n\n+718+. A well-defined instance of such a god is the Avestan\nTistrya.[1239] His origin as an object of nature appears plainly in his\nfunctions--he is especially a rain-god, and, as such, a source of all\nblessings. Alongside of him stand three less well defined stellar\nPowers. The Greeks and Romans adopted from Chaldean astronomy the\nnominal identification of the planets with certain gods (their own\ndivine names being substituted for the Babylonian); this did not\nnecessarily carry with it stellar worship,[1240] but at a late period\nthere was a cult of the constellations.[1241]\n\nTo some savage and half-civilized peoples the rainbow has appeared to be\na living thing, capable of acting on man's life, sometimes friendly,\nsometimes unfriendly.[1242] It figures largely in myths, but is not\ntreated as a god.\n\n\nTHE GREAT GODS\n\n+719+. Along with the deities described above there is a class of higher\ngods with well-defined personalities, standing quite outside physical\nnature and man, with definite characters, and humanized in the higher\nsense. In contrast with the bizarre or barbarous anthropomorphic forms\nof the earlier deities these have the shape of refined humanity, capable\nof taking part in the life of the best men; they are the embodiment of a\nreflective conception of the relations between men and the great world.\nInchoate divine forms of this sort may be recognized among certain\nhalf-civilized communities, but in their full form they are found only\namong civilized peoples, being indeed the product of civilization; and\namong such peoples they exist in varying degrees of approach to\ncompleteness.\n\n+720+. The process of growth from the clan deities and the nature gods\nup to these higher forms may be traced with some definiteness in the\ngreat civilized nations of antiquity. We can see that there has been a\nscientific movement of separation of gods from phenomena. There is the\ndistinct recognition not only of the difference between man and physical\nnature, but also of the difference between phenomena and the powers that\ncontrol them.[1243] At the same time there is an increasing belief in\nthe predominance of reason in the government of the world, and along\nwith this a larger conception of the greatness of the world and finally\nof its unity. Artistic feeling co\u00f6perates in the change of the character\nof divine beings--the necessity of giving symmetry and clearness to\ntheir persons, whereby they more and more assume the form of the highest\nhuman ideals. Necessarily the ethical element advances hand in hand with\nthe intellectual and artistic; it becomes more and more difficult to\nconceive of gods as controlled by motives lower than those recognized by\nthe best men.\n\n+721+. This general progress of thought is in some cases embodied in the\nconception of a succession of dynasties--one set of gods is overthrown\nor succeeded by another set; the most extreme form of the overthrow\nappears in the conception of the death of a whole community of gods, but\nthis occurs not in the form of natural development, but only when one\nstadium or phase of religion is overmastered and expelled by another.\n\n+722+. In Babylonia the earliest pair of deities, Lakhmu and Lakhamu,\nvague forms, were succeeded by a second pair, Anshar and Kishar,\nsomewhat less vague, and these in their turn yielded to the more\ndefinite group represented by Ea, Bel, and Marduk--deities who became\nthe embodiments of the highest Babylonian culture; in Assyria Ashur and\nIshtar occupied a similar position. In the long religious history of the\nHindus many of the gods prominent in the Veda disappear or sink into\nsubordinate positions, and deities at first unimportant become supreme.\nThe Greek succession of dynasties resembles the Babylonian. The ancient\nHeaven and Earth are followed by Kronos,[1244] and he is dethroned by\nZeus, who represents governmental order and a higher ethical scheme of\nsociety. The Romans appear to have borrowed their chronology of the gods\nfrom the Greeks: the combination of Saturnus with Ops (who belongs\nrather with Consus), the identification of these two respectively with\nKronos and Rhea, and the dynastic succession C\u00e6lus,[1245] Saturnus,\nJupiter, seem not to be earlier than the Hellenizing period in Rome.\n\n+723+. These changes, when original, may have been due partly to the\nshifting of political power--the gods of a particular dominant region\nmay have come into prominence and reigned for a time, giving place then\nto deities of some other region which had secured the hegemony; the\nhistory of the earliest gods lies far back in a dim region without\nhistorical records and therefore is not to be reconstructed definitely\nnow. But such light as we get from literary records of later times\nrather suggests that the dynastic changes are the product of changes in\nthe conception of the world, and these are as a rule in the direction of\nsounder and more humane thought.\n\n+724+. There is a general similarity between the great deities that have\nbeen created by the various civilized peoples, since civilization has\nbeen practically the same everywhere. But the gods differ among\nthemselves according to the special characters, needs, and endowments of\nthe various peoples, so that no deity can be profitably studied without\na knowledge of the physical and mental conditions of the community in\nwhich he arose. But everywhere we find that any one god may become\npractically supreme. Here again the political element sometimes comes\nin--a dominant city or state will impose its special god on a large\ndistrict. There is also the natural tendency among men to concentrate on\nan individual figure. As legendary material has always gathered around\nparticular men, so the great attributes of divinity gather about the\nperson of a particular god who, for whatever reason, is the most\nprominent divine figure in a given community. Such a god becomes for the\nmoment supreme, to the exclusion of other deities who under different\ncircumstances might have had similar claims to precedence; and under\nfavorable conditions a deity thus raised to the highest position may\nmaintain himself and end by becoming the sole deity of his people and of\nthe world. In any case such a divine figure becomes an ideal, and thus\ninfluences more or less the life of his worshipers.\n\n+725+. In Oriental polytheistic systems the desire to secure\ncompleteness in the representation of divine activity shows itself in\nthe combination of two or more forms into a unity of action. On the\nlower level we have the composite figures of Egypt and Babylonia,\ncongeries of bodies, heads, and limbs, human and nonhuman--the result\npartly of the survival of ancient (sometimes outgrown) forms or the\nfusion of local deities, partly of the imaginative collocation of\nattributes. Many compound names may be explained in this way; in some\ncases they seem to arise from accidental local relations of cults.\n\nAs illustrations of lines of growth in divine figures we may take brief\nbiographies of some of the greater gods. It is in comparatively few\ncases that the development of a god's character can be satisfactorily\ntraced. There are no records of beginnings--we can only make what may be\njudged to be probable inferences from names, cults, and functions. The\ndifficulty of the subject is increased by the fact that mythologians and\ntheologians have obscured early conceptions by new combinations and\ninterpretations, often employing familiar divine figures simply as\nvehicles of late philosophical ideas or some other sort of local dogmas.\n\n+726+. _Egypt._[1246] The cult of the sun in Egypt issued in the\ncreation of a group of solar divinities, the most important of whom are\nHorus (Har or Hor) and Ra (or R\u00ea).\n\nHorus appears to have been the great god of united Egypt in the earliest\ntimes about which we have information. The kings of the predynastic and\nearly dynastic periods are called \"worshipers of Horus,\" a title that\nwas adopted by succeeding monarchs, who had each his \"Horus name.\"[1247]\nHe was also the special patron of some small communities--a fact that\nhas been variously interpreted as indicating that the god's movement was\nfrom local to general patron,[1248] or that it was in the opposite\ndirection[1249]; the former of these hypotheses is favored by what\nappears elsewhere in such changes in the positions of deities. As Horus\nis always connected with light he may have been originally a local\nsun-god; it is possible, however, that he was a clan god with general\nfunctions, who was brought into association with the sun by the natural\nprogress of thought. In any case he became a great sun-god, but yielded\nhis position of eminence to Ra. The myth of his conflict with Set, the\nrepresentative of darkness, is probably a priestly dualistic\nconstruction, resting, perhaps, on a political situation (the struggle\nbetween the North and the South of the Egyptian territory).[1250]\n\n+727+. The general development of Ra is plain, though details are\nlacking. It may be inferred from his name (which means 'sun') that he\nwas originally the physical sun. Traces of his early crudeness appear in\nthe stories of his destruction of mankind, and of the way in which Isis,\nby a trick, got from him his true name and, with it, his power.[1251]\nWith the growth of his native land (Lower Egypt) he became the great\nlord of the sun, and finally universal lord;[1252] his supremacy was\ndoubtless due in part to the political importance of On (Heliopolis),\nthe seat of his chief shrine. What other circumstances contributed to\nhis victory over Horus are not recorded; in general it may be supposed\nthat political changes occasioned the recedence of the latter.\n\nThe primacy of Ra is illustrated by the fact that Amon was identified\nwith him. Amon, originally the local god of Thebes,[1253] became great\nin the South as Ra became great in the North, rising with the growth of\nthe Theban kingdom. His hold on the people, and particularly (as was\nnatural) on the priests, is shown in a noteworthy way by the episode of\nAmenhotep IV's attempt to supplant him by establishing a substantially\nmonotheistic cult of the sun-god Aton; the attempt was successful only\nduring the king's life--after his death Amon, under the vigorous\nleadership of the Theban priests, resumed his old position and\nmaintained it until the first break-up of the national Egyptian\ngovernment. But it was Amon-Ra that became supreme from the fourteenth\ncentury onward. The combination of the names was made possible by the\nsocial and political union of the two divisions of the land, and it was\nRa who gave special glory to Amon.[1254]\n\n+728+. A different line of growth appears in the history of Osiris--he\nowed his eminence mainly to his connection with the dead. Where his cult\narose is not known; he was a very old god, possibly prominent in the\npredynastic period;[1255] at a later time the importance of Abydos, the\nchief seat of his worship, may have added to his reputation. But the\nceremonies of his cult and the myths that grew up about his name\nindicate that he was originally a deity of vegetation, the patron of the\nunderground productive forces of the earth, and so, naturally, he became\nthe lord of the Underworld,[1256] and eventually (as ethical conceptions\nof life became more definite in Egypt) the embodiment of future justice,\nthe determiner of the moral character and the everlasting fate of men.\nWhy he and not some other underground god became Underworld judge the\ndata do not make clear. His association with the death and\nrevivification of plants gave a peculiarly human character to his\nmythical biography and a dramatic and picturesque tone to his\ncult.[1257] Of all ancient lords of the Otherworld it is Osiris that\nshows the most continuous progress and reaches the highest ethical\nplane--a fact that must be referred to the intense interest of the\nEgyptians in the future.[1258]\n\n+729+. The three most prominent female deities of the Egyptian pantheon,\nHathor of Dendera, Neith (Nit, Neit) of Sais, and Isis of Buto, exhibit\none and the same type of character, and each is occasionally identified\nwith one of the others. Hathor was widely worshiped, but was not\notherwise especially noteworthy. The famous inscription said to have\nstood in the temple of Neith at Sais (\"What is and what shall be and\nwhat has been am I--my veil no one has lifted\"[1259]) seems not to be\nimmediately connected with any important religious movement, though it\nis in keeping with the liberal and mystical tendency of the later time.\nThe third goddess, Isis, had a more remarkable history. Her beginnings\nare obscure, and she appears in the inscriptions later than the other\ntwo. She may have been a local deity,[1260] brought into association\nwith Osiris (as his sister or his wife) through the collocation of their\ncults, and thus sharing his popularity; or she may have been a late\ntheological creation.[1261] Whatever her origin, as early as the\nsixteenth century B.C. she appears as a great magician (poisoning and\nhealing Ra by magic arts),[1262] then (along with Osiris) as civilizer,\nand finally as model wife and mother, and as serene and beneficent\nmistress of the land. It was, apparently, in this last character that\nshe became the gathering-point for the higher religious and ethical\nideas of the time, and the central figure in a religious scheme that was\nwidely adopted in and out of Egypt and seemed to be a formidable rival\nof Christianity.[1263]\n\n+730+. _India._ It is in India that we find the most varied and most\nsweeping development in the functions and positions of deities--a result\ndue in part to the long-continued movement of philosophic thought,\npartly to changes in the popular religious point of view occasioned by\nmodifications of the social life.[1264]\n\nThe etymology of the name Varuna is doubtful, but the representation of\nhim in the Rig-Veda points to the sky as his original form--he is a\nclear example of a sky-god who becomes universal. Of his earliest\nhistory we have no information--in the most ancient records he is\nalready fully formed. In the Rig-Veda he embraces the whole of life--he\nis absolute ruler and moral governor, he punishes sin and forgives the\npenitent. In conjunction with Mitra he is the lord of order.[1265]\nMitra, originally the physical sun, is naturally associated with Varuna,\nbut in the Rig-Veda occupies a generally subordinate position, though he\nappears sometimes to have the attributes of his associate; the two\ntogether embody a lofty ethical conception. In accordance with the Hindu\nfondness for metaphysical abstractions and generalizations the nature\ngod Varuna in the course of time yielded the primacy to Prajapati, 'lord\nof beings,'[1266] who in his turn gave way to the impersonal Brahma. In\nthe popular cults as well as in philosophical systems Varuna sank (or\nperhaps returned) to the position of patron of phenomena of\nnature--there was no longer need of him.\n\n+731+. A god of somewhat uncertain moral character is Indra, who as a\nnature god is closely connected with the violent phenomena of the air\n(rain, thunder, and lightning). In this relation he is often terrible,\noften beneficent, but with low tastes that it is difficult to explain.\nHis fondness for soma, without which he attempts nothing, is perhaps a\npriestly touch, a glorification of the drink that played so important a\npart in the ritual; or he may herein be an expression of popular tastes.\nThe sensuous character of the heaven of which he (as air-god) is lord\narose doubtless in response to early conceptions of happiness;[1267] it\nis not unlike the paradise of Mohammed, which is to be regarded not as\nimmoral, but only as the embodiment of the existing conception of happy\nfamily life. Yet Indra also became a universal god, the controller of\nall things, and it was perhaps due to his multiform human character as\nwarrior and rain-giver[1268] (in his victorious conflict with the\ncloud-dragon), and as representative of bodily enjoyment, that he became\nthe favorite god of the people. It is not hard to understand why Agni,\nfire, should be associated with him and share his popularity to some\nextent; but the importance of fire in the sacrifice gave Agni a peculiar\nprominence in the ritual.\n\n+732+. The most curious case of transformation and exaltation is found\nin the history of Soma, at first a plant whose juice was intoxicating,\nthen a means of ecstatic excitement, a gift to the gods, the drink of\nthe gods, and finally itself a god invested with the greatest\nattributes. This divinization of a drink was no doubt mainly\npriestly--it is a striking illustration of the power of the association\nof ideas, and belongs in the same general category with the deification\nof abstractions spoken of above.[1269]\n\n+733+. An example of a god leaping from an inferior position to the\nhighest place in the pantheon is afforded by Vishnu, a nature god of\nsome sort, described in the early documents as traversing the universe\nin three strides. Relatively insignificant in the earlier period and in\nthe Upanishads, he appears in the epic, and afterwards, as the greatest\nof the gods, and, in the form of his avatar Krishna, becomes the head of\na religion which has often been compared with Christianity in the purity\nof its moral conceptions. By his side in this later time stands his\nrival \u00c7iva, the chief figure in a sect or system which shared with\nVishnuism the devotion of the later Hindus. The rise of these two gods\nis to be referred probably to the dissatisfaction in the later times\nwith the phenomenal character which still clung, in popular feeling, to\nthe older deities. Varuna, once supreme, sank after a while to the\nposition of a god of rain, and Indra, Agni, and Soma were frankly\nnaturalistic, while the impersonal Brahma was too vague to meet popular\ndemands. What the later generation wanted was a god personal and\ndivorced from physical phenomena, supreme, ethically high, but invested\nwith warm humanity. These conditions were fulfilled by Vishnu and \u00c7iva,\nand particularly by Krishna; that is, the later thought constructed\nthese new deities in accordance with the demand of the higher and the\nlower religious feeling of the time: the two sides of the human demand,\nthe genial and the terrible, are embodied, the first in Vishnu, the\nsecond in \u00c7iva.\n\n+734+. The primeval pair, Heaven and Earth, though represented as the\nparents of many gods and worshiped with sacrifices, play no great part\nin the Hindu religious system. Dyaus, the Sky, never attained the\nproportions of the formally identical Zeus and Jupiter. His attributes\nare distinctly those of the physical sky. The higher r\u00f4le is assigned to\nVaruna, who is the sky conceived of as a divine Power divorced from\nmerely physical characteristics;[1270] the mass of phenomena connected\nwith the sky (thunder, lightning, and such like) are isolated and\nreferred to various deities. Prithivi, the Earth, in like manner,\nretains her physical attributes, and does not become the nourishing\nmother of all things.[1271]\n\nWith a partial exception in the case of Ushas[1272] (Dawn) the early\nHindu pantheon contains no great female figure; there are female\ncounterparts of male deities, but no such transcendent personages as\nIsis, Athene, and Demeter. Whether this fact is to be explained from\nearly Hindu views of the social position of women, or from some other\nidea, is uncertain. In certain modern religious cults, however, the\nworship of the female principle (\u00c7akti) is popular and influential. It\nis probable that in early times every tribe or district had its female\ndivine representative of fertility, an embryonic mother-goddess. If the\nAryan Hindus had such a figure, she failed to grow into a great\ndivinity. But the worship of such deities came into Aryan India at a\nrelatively recent date, apparently from non-Aryan sources, and has been\nincorporated in Hindu systems. Various forms of \u00c7akti have been brought\ninto relation with various gods, the most important being those that\nhave become attached to the worship of \u00c7iva.[1273] To him is assigned as\nwife the frightful figure called Durga or Kali (and known by other\nnames), a blood-loving monster with an unspeakably licentious cult.\nOther \u00c7akti deities are more humane, and there is reason to suppose that\nthe ground of the devotion shown to Kali, especially by women, is in\nmany cases simply reverence for the female principle in life, or more\nparticularly for motherhood.[1274]\n\n+735+. The original character of the Hindu lord of the Otherworld, Yama,\nis obscured by the variety of the descriptions of him in the documents.\nIn the Rig-Veda he appears both as god and (as it seems) as man. He is\nthe son of the solar deity Vivashant (Vivashat); he is named in\nenumerations of gods, and Agni is his friend and his priest; he receives\nworship, and is besought to come to the sacrifice.[1275] On the other\nhand, he is never called \"god,\" but only \"king\";[1276] he is spoken of\nas the \"only mortal,\" and is said to have chosen death; he is associated\nin heaven with the \"fathers.\"[1277] The modern interpretations of his\norigin have followed these two sets of data. By some writers he has been\nidentified with the sun (particularly the setting sun), and with the\nmoon.[1278] But these identifications are set aside for the Veda by the\nfact that in lists of gods he is distinguished from sun and moon.[1279]\nBy others he is regarded as the mythical first man, the first ancestor,\nwith residence in the sky, deified as original ancestors sometimes were,\nand, as the first to die and enter the world beyond, made the king of\nthat world.\n\nThough Yama is not the sun in the Veda, it is possible that he was so\nregarded in the period preceding the Vedic theological construction, and\nin support of this view it may be said that the sun setting, descending\ninto the depths, is a natural symbol of the close of man's life,[1280]\nand rising, represents the man's life in the beyond--thus the sun would\nbe identified with man, and not unnaturally with the first man, the\nfirst to die. In support of the other view may be cited the great r\u00f4le\nascribed by many peoples to the first man: in savage lore he is often\nthe creator or arranger of the world,[1281] and he is sometimes, like\nYama, the son of the sun.[1282] Such an one, entering the other world,\nmight become its lord, and in process of time be divinized and made the\nson of the creator sun.[1283] The Hindu figure is often compared to the\nAvestan first man, Yima; but Yima, so far as appears, was never\ndivinized, and is not religiously of great importance. Nor do the late\nJewish legends and theosophical speculations bear on the point under\nconsideration: in Paradise, it is said, Adam was waited on by angels,\nthe angels were commanded by God to pay him homage (so also in the\nKoran), and he is described as being the light of the world; and Philo\nand others conceived of a first or heavenly man (Adam Kadmon), free from\nordinary human weakness, and identical with the Logos or the\nMessiah--therefore a judge in the largest sense of the word.[1284] But,\nwhile these conceptions testify to the strong appeal made to the\nimagination by the figure of the mythical first man, they throw little\nlight on the original form of Yama--the early constructions do not\ninclude the judge of the other world, and the later ones are too late to\nexplain so early a figure as the Vedic king of that world.\n\n+736+. In the Rig-Veda Yama is specifically the overlord of the blessed\ndead--the pious who were thought worthy to dwell in heaven with the gods\nand to share to some extent their divinity; with the wicked he seems to\nhave nothing to do. The general history of the conception of the future\nlife suggests that in the earliest Indo-Iranian period there was a hades\nto which all the dead went.[1285] If there was a divine head of this\nhades (originally an underground deity, like Osiris, Allatu, and\nPloutos) he would accompany the pious fathers when, in the later Hindu\ntheologic construction, they were transported to heaven; and if the\nfirst ancestor occupied a distinguished place among the dead,[1286] he\nmight be fused with the divine head into a sort of unity, and the\nresult might be such a complex figure as Yama appears to be. However\nthis may be, the Vedic Yama underwent a development in accordance with\nthe changes in the religious ideas of the people, becoming at last an\nethical judge of the dead.[1287]\n\n+737+. _Persia._ The Mazdean theistic system presents special\ndifficulties.[1288] The nature of its divine world is remarkable, almost\nunique, and the literature that has come down to us was edited at a\ncomparatively late period, probably not before the middle of the third\ncentury of our era, so that it is not always easy to distinguish the\nearlier and the later elements of thought. It is generally regarded as\ncertain that the two branches of the Aryan race, the Indian and the\nPersian, once dwelt together and formed one community, having the same\ngeneral religious system: the material of spirits is substantially the\nsame in the two and they have certain important names in common--to the\nIndian Asura, Soma, Mitra, the Persian Ahura, Haoma, Mithra correspond\nin form exactly. But in the way in which this material was modified and\norganized the two communities differ widely.\n\n+738+. The peculiarity of the Persian system is that it practically\ndisregards all the old gods except Mithra and Anahita, substituting for\nthem beings designated by names of qualities, and organizes all\nextrahuman Powers in two classes--one under the Good Spirit (Spenta\nMainyu), the other under the Bad Spirit (Angro Mainyu). The former is\nattended by six great beings, Immortal Spirits (Amesha-spentas): Good\nMind, Best Order or Law, Holy Harmony or Wisdom, Piety, Well-being,\nImmortality.[1289] In the Gathas, which are commonly held to be the most\nancient Zoroastrian documents, these attendants of the supreme god are\noften nothing but qualities, but on the other hand are often personified\nand worshiped. The rival of the Good Spirit is surrounded similarly by\nlying spirits (_drujas_), among whom one, Aeshma, holds a prominent\nplace. The two divine chiefs stand side by side in the earliest\nliterature almost as coequal powers; but it is explained that the\nwicked one is to be destroyed with all his followers.\n\n+739+. In some of the early hymns (Ya\u00e7nas) Mithra is closely attached to\nAhura Mazda--the two are called \"the lofty and imperishable ones.\" The\ngoddess Anahita, first mentioned in an inscription of Artaxerxes II, and\ndescribed only in the late Fifth Yasht, appears to have been originally\na deity of water. It was, doubtless, her popularity that led to her\nofficial recognition by Artaxerxes; possibly her formal recognition by\nthe Mazdean leaders was a slow process, since she does not appear in the\nolder Avesta. In the Yasht she receives worship (being in the form of a\nbeautiful young woman) as the dispenser of all blessings that come from\npure water; she is said to have been created by Ahura Mazda, and is\nwholly subordinated to him. Besides these two a great number of lesser\ngods are mentioned; the latter, apparently the old local gods and\nspirits here subordinated to the supreme god, are unimportant in the\nofficial cult. The souls of the departed also become objects of worship.\n\n+740+. It thus appears that Zoroastrianism was a reform of the old\npolytheism. The movement closely resembles the struggle of the Hebrew\nprophets against the worship of the Canaanite Baals and other foreign\ngods. In both cases there is evidence going to show that popular cults\ncontinued after the leaders of the reform had thrown off the offensive\nelements of the old system: the Hebrew people continued to worship\nforeign gods long after the great prophets had pronounced against them;\nand the official recognition of Ahura Mazda in the Ach\u00e6menian\ninscriptions[1290] by no means proves that lower forms of worship were\nnot practiced in Persia by the people.[1291]\n\n+741+. If we ask for the grounds of this recoil from the old gods, we\nmust doubtless hold that ethical feeling was a powerful motive in the\nreform, though economic and other considerations were, doubtless, not\nwithout influence.\n\nSince Ahura Mazda is ethically good and his worship ethically pure,\nthere is clearly in its origin hostility to low modes of worship and to\nmaterialistic ideas. Possibly also we have here a struggle of a clan for\nthe recognition of its own god, as among the Israelites the Yahweh party\nrepresented exclusive devotion to the old national god. If there was\nsuch a clan or party in Persia, it is obvious that it produced men of\nhigh intelligence and great moral and organizing power, and all that we\nknow of the religious history leads us to suppose that the establishment\nof the supremacy of Ahura Mazda was the result of a long development.\n\n+742+. As to the provenance of the Mazdean supreme lord, not a few\nscholars of the present day hold that he was identical with the Indian\nVaruna. It is in favor of this identification that the qualities of the\ntwo deities are the same, and there is also the noteworthy fact that\nAhura Mazda is coupled with Mithra as Varuna is coupled with Mitra;\naccording to this view the Mazdean deity was originally the god of the\nsky, by whose side naturally stands the sun. In a case like this,\ninvolving a general agreement between two systems of thought, there are\ntwo possible explanations of the relation between them: it may be\nsupposed that one borrowed from the other (in the present case the\nborrowing would be on the part of the Persians); or the explanation may\nbe that the two communities developed original material along the same\ngeneral lines, though with local differences. In the absence of\nhistorical data it is perhaps impossible to say which of these\nexplanations is to be preferred. There is, however, no little difficulty\nin the supposition that one community has actually borrowed its\nreligious system from a neighbor; the general probability is that each\nfollowed its own line.\n\n+743+. Nor is it probable that the rejection of the old divine names by\nthe Persians was the result of hostility toward their Indian neighbors.\nIt is doubtless a curious fact that the Indian name for 'evil spirit,'\n_asura_, is in Persian the name of a good spirit, Ahura, while the\nIndian _diva_, the general term for a god, is in Persian the designation\nof a wicked spirit, _daeva_. The Persian employment of _daeva_ for 'evil\nspirit' may be explained as a protest not against Indian gods, but\nagainst the deities of their own land; so the Hebrew prophets or their\neditors apply opprobrious names, \"no-god\" and other terms, to deities\nregarded by them as inadequate. The abstractions of the Mazdean system\nhave been referred to above. They seem to have been resorted to from a\nfeeling of profound disgust at the worship of some class of people.\nUnfortunately we have not the historical data that might make the\nsituation clear. In the Gathas the people of Ahura Mazda are suffering\nfrom the incursions of predatory tribes, and the greater part of the\nappeals to the deity are for protection for the herds against their\nenemies. We thus have a suggestion of a struggle, political and\nreligious, between the more civilized Aryans and the savage Tataric\ntribes around them.\n\n+744+. In the later period of Mazdeanism the old titles of supreme deity\nwere succeeded (though not displaced) by the terms \"Boundless Time\" and\n\"Boundless Space,\" the latter doubtless suggested by the vault of\nheaven. These generalizations, however, had little influence on the\ndevelopment of the theological side of the religion, which has continued\nto regard Ahura Mazda and Angro Mainyu as the two heads of the world and\nthe determiners of human life. The rituals of the Mazdean and Hindu\nfaiths were influenced by the ethical developments of the two, becoming\nsimpler and more humane with the advance toward elevated conceptions of\nGod and man.\n\n+745+. In view of such facts as are known it may be surmised that the\nMazdean system originated with an Aryan agricultural tribe or body of\ntribes dwelling near the Caspian Sea, in contact with hostile nomads.\nThese Aryans, we may assume, had the ordinary early apparatus of spirits\nand nature deities (gods of the sun, water, etc.), but, at the same\ntime, a disposition to concentrate worship on a single god (probably a\nsky-god), who became the chief tribal deity and was naturally regarded\nas the source of all things good, the Good Spirit; the phenomena of life\nled them (as it led some other early peoples) to conceive of a rival\nspirit, the author of things hostile to life. With economic conditions\nand intellectual characteristics very different from those of their\nHindu brethren, they developed no capacity for organizing an elaborate\npantheon--they were practically monolatrous, were content with an\nall-sufficient Good Spirit (the Bad Spirit being tolerated as an\nintellectual necessity), gradually subordinated to him such gods as the\npopular feeling retained, and relegated to the sphere of evil the host\nof inferior hurtful spirits or gods (_daevas_) whose existence they\ncould not deny.[1292] The religious leaders, representing and enforcing\nthe tribal tendency of thought, in the course of time gave more and more\ndefinite shape to the cult; perhaps Zoroaster was a pre\u00ebminent agent in\nthis movement. Ethical purification, as a matter of course, went hand in\nhand with cultic organization. The old gods or spirits, associates of\nthe supreme god, became embodiments of moral conceptions, and a ritual\nof physical and moral purity was worked out. Such may have been the\ngeneral history of the official system; data for a detailed\nchronological history are lacking.[1293]\n\n+746+. _China._ Chinese religion is characterized by a remarkable\nrestraint in ecclesiastical development: simple religious customs, no\nnative priestly order, few gods, almost no myths. The basis of the\npopular religion is the usual material, comprising ancestors, spirits\n(including tutelary spirits), a few departmental gods (of war, of the\nkitchen, etc.), some of which are said to be deified men. The system is\nthus nearly the same as that of the central Asiatic Mongolians.[1294]\n\n+747+. The reflective movement (which must have begun long before the\nsixth century B.C., the period of Confucius and Lao-tsze) is marked by\nthe attempt to perfect the social organization, regard being paid mainly\nto visible, practical relations. Stress is laid on the principle of\norder in family and state, which is held to reflect the order of the\nuniverse;[1295] speculation is avoided, there is a minimum of religion.\nIn the more developed religious system the two prominent features are,\nfirst, the dominant conception of the unity of the family and of the\nstate led to the emphasizing of the worship of ancestors--a cult which,\ngoing back to a very early time, has been interwoven in China with the\nindividual and communal life in a thoroughgoing way, with a constant\ninfusion of moral ideas; and in the next place, the order of society and\nof the external world is represented by Heaven.[1296]\n\n+748+. Originally, doubtless, Heaven was the physical sky (as among the\nHindus and Persians and many other peoples), but at an early period came\nto be practically the supreme god. A sort of monotheistic cult has thus\nbeen established as the official religion. The emperor is the Son of\nHeaven and the High Priest of the nation, and in the great annual\nsacrifices performed by him the host of minor powers is practically\nignored and worship is addressed to the controlling powers of the world.\nThis official worship does not set aside the cult of the various\nspirits, whose existence is recognized by the minor officials as well as\nby the people. The cult of local spirits has grown to extraordinary\ndimensions. They fill the land, controlling the conditions of life and\ndemanding constant regard; and the experts, who are supposed to know the\nlaws governing the action of the spirits (for example, as to proper\nburial-places), wield enormous power, and make enormous charges of\nmoney. These spirits are treated as of subordinate importance in the\nofficial religion. The process by which China has reached this religious\nattitude must have extended over millenniums, and, as is stated above,\nthe intellectual movement in the direction of simplicity and clearness\nhas been attended by an advance in ethical purity.\n\n+749+. The tendency of Chinese thought is illustrated by the two systems\nof philosophy which in the sixth century B.C. formulated the conception\nof a universal dominant order:[1297] Confucius represents the extreme\nlogical development of natural order in human life as a product of\ncosmic order--he is content absolutely to deal with the practical\naffairs of life and discourages attempts to inquire into the nature of\ngods or into the condition of men after death. Lao-tsze, on the other\nhand, similarly taking the Way (_tao_), or Universal Order, as the\ninforming and controlling power of the world, appears to have laid the\nstress on the relation between it and the human soul--a conception that\nhas affinities with the Stoic Logos. But it is Confucianism that has\nremained the creed of educated China. Taoism, beginning, apparently, as\na spiritual system, did not appeal to the Chinese feeling, and speedily\ndegenerated into a system of magical jugglery. Thus the Chinese, with\nthe feeblest religious sense to be found in any great nation, have\nnevertheless reached the grandiose conception of the all-embracing and\nall-controlling supreme Heaven. In their case the governing\nconsideration has been the moral organization of social life, and Nature\nhas swallowed up all great partial deities.\n\n+750+. _Japan._ Japan has produced no great god;[1298] out of the mass\nof nature gods reported in the Kojiki not one becomes pre\u00ebminent. There\nis recognition of Heaven and Earth as the beginning of things, and of\nthe sun as a deity, but neither the sky-god nor the sun-goddess becomes\na truly high god. Japanese theistic development appears to have been\ncrippled at an early period by the intrusion of Chinese influences; the\nvery name of the national religion, Shinto, 'the Way of the Gods,' is\nChinese. The emperor was deified, and ancestor-worship became the\nprincipal popular cult;[1299] but Confucianism and Buddhism overlaid the\nnative worship at an early period. The later forms of Shinto have moved\nrather toward the rejection of the old deities than toward the creation\nof a great national god.\n\n+751+. _Semitic peoples._ Among the various Semitic peoples there is so\nmarked a unity of thought that, as Robertson Smith has pointed\nout,[1300] we may speak of the Semitic religion, though there are\nnoteworthy local differences. Generally we find among these\ncommunities, as elsewhere, a large number of local deities, scarcely\ndistinguishable in their functions one from another.[1301] A noteworthy\nillustration of the long continuance of these local cults is given in\nthe attempt of the last king of Babylon, Nabonidus, to centralize the\nworship by bringing the statues of the local deities to Babylon; the\nresult was a general popular protest. Similarly an attempt was made by\nKing Josiah in the seventh century B.C. to centralize all Israelite\nworship in Jerusalem, but the history of the succeeding generations\nshows that the attempt was not successful. The local gods represent the\nclannic and tribal organization, to which the Semites appear to have\nclung with peculiar fondness.\n\n+752+. Semitic religion shows an orderly advance through the medium of\ntribal and national feeling in conjunction with the regular moral and\nintellectual growth of the community. First one god and then another\ncomes to the front as this or that city attains leadership, but these\nchief gods are substantially identical with one another in functions.\nThe genealogical relations introduced by the priestly theologians throw\nno light on the original characters of the deities and are often ignored\nin the inscriptions. A natural division into gods of the sky and gods of\nthe earth may be recognized, but in the high gods this distinction\npractically disappears.\n\n+753+. Turning first to the Tigris-Euphrates region, we find certain\nnature gods that attained more or less definite universal\ncharacter.[1302] The physical sky becomes the god Anu, who, though\ncertainly a great god, was never so prominent as certain other deities,\nand in Assyria yielded gradually to Ashur. Why the Semites, in marked\ncontrast with the Indo-Europeans and the Chinese, have shown a\nrelatively feeble recognition of the physical heaven we are not able to\nsay; possibly the tribal feeling referred to above may have led to a\ncentering of devotion on those deities that lay nearer to everyday life,\nor in the case of Babylonia it may be that the city with which Anu was\nparticularly connected lost its early importance, and its deity in\nconsequence yielded to others.[1303] The sun is a more definite and more\npractically important object than the expanse of the sky, and the\nSemitic sun-god, Shamash, plays a great r\u00f4le from the earliest to the\nlatest times. The great king Hammurabi (commonly placed near the year\n2000 B.C.), in his noteworthy civil code, takes Shamash as his patron,\nas the inspirer of wisdom and the controller of human right; and from\nthis time onward this deity is invoked by the kings in their\ninscriptions. The worship of the sun was established in Canaan at an\nearly time (as the name of the town Bethshemesh, 'house of Shemesh,'\nshows), and under Assyrian influence was adopted by a large number of\nIsraelites in the seventh century B.C.; the prophet Ezekiel represents\nprominent Israelites as standing in the court of the temple, turning\ntheir backs on the sacred house and worshiping the sun;[1304] but as to\nthe nature of the sun-god and his worship in these cases we have no\ninformation. Other nature deities that rose to eminence are the\nmoon-god, Sin, and the storm-god, Ramman.\n\n+754+. The other deities of the Babylonian and Assyrian pantheons seem\nnot to be connected by their names with natural phenomena. They are\nattached to particular cities or districts, and each district or city,\nas it becomes a great religious center, raises its favorite god to a\nposition of pre\u00ebminence. Generally the choice of a special deity by a\nparticular city lies back of historical documents, and the reason for\nsuch choice therefore cannot be definitely fixed. The attributes and\nfunctions of the resulting great gods, as has already been remarked, are\nsubstantially everywhere the same, and where one function becomes\nprominent, it is often possible to explain its prominence from the\npolitical or other conditions.\n\n+755+. Moreover, as in all theological constructions that follow great\npolitical unifications, it was natural to extend the domain of a\nprincipal god to whatever department of life or of nature appealed\nespecially to the theologian. When we find certain gods invested with\nsolar functions it does not follow that they were originally\nsun-gods--such functions may be a necessary result of their pre\u00ebminence.\nOut of the great mass of Babylonian and Assyrian deities we may select a\nfew whose cults illustrate the method of development of the religious\nconceptions. As non-Semitic (Sumerian) religious and other ideas and\nwords appear to have been adopted by the Semitic Babylonians, it is not\nalways easy to distinguish between Semitic and non-Semitic conceptions\nin the cults as known to us.\n\n+756+. _Babylonia._ The god Ea appears to have been originally the local\ndeity of Eridu, a city which in early times stood on the Persian Gulf.\nThis proximity to the sea may account for the fact that Ea was generally\nassociated with water (in Babylonia, as elsewhere, there were many\ndeities of waters). It is not certain that this was his original r\u00f4le,\nbut it was, in any case, assigned him in the course of the theistic\nconstruction. It is not improbable that in the original form of the\nBabylonian epic it was Ea who sent the flood and saved one man--a\nnatural representation for the god of Eridu; in later recensions of the\npoem it is first Bel and then Marduk who assumes the principal r\u00f4le. As\nEridu was probably a prominent political center, Ea, as its chief god,\nnaturally became the creator, the bestower of wisdom, the author of the\narts of life, in general a universal god. As the political center\nshifted, the popular interest changed and Ea yielded more or less to\nother gods, continuing, however, throughout the whole Babylonian and\nAssyrian period to receive high consideration.\n\n+757+. Enlil, the god of Nippur, had a similar career; originally local,\nhe became supreme. A peculiar feature of his history is the fact that\nthe title Bel, 'lord' (which is the Semitic equivalent of the\nnon-Semitic Enlil), clung to him in a peculiar way and practically\nousted the original name. This title was assigned to various gods (so in\nCanaan the title Baal), and its special appropriation by the god of\nNippur must be referred to the preponderant importance of that city in\nthe period before the rise of Babylon. In the Babylonian system he is\nlord of the lower world, that is, apparently, the divine king of the\nearth; his original domain, the district of Nippur, was extended to\nembrace the whole world--a sort of extension that was common in all\nancient religions. His importance is evident from the fact that he was a\nmember of the early triad, Anu, Bel, Ea, names that have been supposed\nto represent three divisions of the world into heaven, earth, and ocean.\nIt seems probable, however, that this triadic grouping was the work of\nrelatively late constructionists; it is more likely that the original\nprominence of these three deities was due to the fact that they\nrepresented the more important political communities.[1305]\n\n+758+. A particularly good illustration of the dependence of a god's\nposition on the political position of his region is furnished by the god\nMarduk, a name the meaning of which is uncertain. He is first clearly\nmentioned in the inscriptions of Hammurabi (ca. 2000 B.C.), but\nmentioned in such a way that his cult must go back to a much earlier\ntime. From the devotion paid him by Hammurabi, and much later by\nNebuchadrezzar II (sixth century B.C.), it is generally assumed that he\nwas the local god of Babylon. He rose with the fortunes of this city,\nfinally becoming supreme: he was regarded as creator, and invested with\nall the highest functions; in the later astronomical constructions he is\nrepresented as the arranger of the zodiacal system and all that was\nconnected with it, but, as is pointed out above, this is no ground for\nregarding him as having been originally a sun-god. A glimpse into the\nmethod of theological reconstruction is afforded by the representation\nin the cosmogonic epic where he is invested with supreme power by the\nolder gods--this investiture is with probability regarded by\nAssyriologists as representing the leadership attained by the city of\nBabylon (ca. 2000 B.C.), whose religious hegemony lasted throughout the\nexistence of the Babylonian state.\n\n+759+. _Assyria._ The Assyrian pantheon is in general identical with\nthat of Babylon, but has certain features which are due to the peculiar\ncharacter of the Assyrian civilization. The god Ashur, originally the\nlocal god of the city or district of Ashur, and then the chief god of\nAssyria, was naturally a war-god--Assyria was essentially a military\nnation, differing in this regard from Babylonia. He is, however, more\nthan a mere god of war--he has all high attributes, and came to\nrepresent in Assyria that approach to monotheism which in Babylon was\nembodied in the later cult of Marduk.\n\n+760+. Babylonian and Assyrian _female deities_ are of two classes:\nthose who are merely consorts of the male deities, and those who\nrepresent fertility. The first class we may pass over--the goddesses of\nthis class are vague in character and functions and play no important\npart in the religious system; they appear to be artificial creations of\nthe systematizers. The deities of the second class, however, are\nimportant. From a very early time the fertility of nature has been\nreferred appropriately to female Powers, and in the Semitic pantheon a\nlarge number of such divinities occur. A deity of this sort naturally\nbecomes a mother-goddess, with all the attributes that pertain to this\ncharacter; in some cases a mother-goddess becomes supreme.\n\n+761+. A very early female divinity is Bau, worshiped particularly at\nthe city Lagash and by King Gudea. Her function as patron of\nproductiveness is probably indicated in the spring festival held in her\nhonor on New Year's Day, in which she is worshiped as the giver of the\nfruits of the earth. There are several local female deities that seem to\nbe substantially identical in character with Bau. Innanna (or Ninni) in\nUruk (Erech) was the mistress of the world and of war, and Nana is\nhardly to be distinguished from her.[1306] In Agade Anunit has a similar\nr\u00f4le; in Lagash Nina was the determiner of fate, and the mother of the\ngoddesses.\n\n+762+. These names appear to be titles signifying 'mistress,' 'lady,'\nand this is probably the meaning of the name of the great goddess who\nfinally ousted or absorbed her sisters, Ishtar.[1307] In the earliest\nform in which Ishtar appears, in the old poetry, she is the deity of\nfertility; when she goes down to the Underworld all productiveness of\nplants and men ceases; and her primitive character at this time appears\nin the account of her marriages with animals, in which there is to be\nrecognized the trace of the old zo\u00f6latrous period; but as patron of\nfertility she becomes in time a great goddess and takes on universal\nattributes--she is the mother of gods and men, universal protector and\nguide. Where war was the chief pursuit she became a goddess of war; in\nthis character she appears in Babylonia as early as the time of\nHammurabi, and later in Assyria. In the genealogical constructions she\nwas brought into connection, as daughter, wife, or other relation, with\nany god that the particular conditions suggested. As the Assyrians grew\nmorally she was endowed with all the highest virtues (so in the\nPenitential Psalms), and occupied so pre\u00ebminent a position that under\nfavorable circumstances she might perhaps have become the only god of\nthe land.\n\n+763+. If her name signified originally 'lord' or 'lady,' the occurrence\nof several Ishtars in Assyria (particularly Ishtar of Nineveh and Ishtar\nof Arbela) is easily understood; so in Canaan, as we learn from the Old\nTestament, there was a great number of local Ashtarts.[1308] We can thus\nalso explain the male deities Ashtar in Moab and Athtar in South\nArabia.[1309] None of these, however, attained the eminence of the\nBabylonian and Assyrian Ishtar; her supremacy in Mesopotamia was due\ndoubtless in part to the political importance of the cities that adopted\nher. She had her rivals, as we have seen, in Marduk and Ashur and\nothers; and that she was able to maintain herself is to be ascribed in\nsome measure to the importance attached by her worshipers to the\nfertilizing power of nature.\n\n+764+. The other Semitic peoples, with the exception of the Hebrews,\noffer little material for tracing the development of the great gods. For\nthe Aramean region the records are sparse; Aramean deities appear to be\nof the same character as the Canaanite.[1310] In Canaan (including\nPhoenicia) out of the vast number of local divinities, the Baals and\nAshtarts, few attained to eminence, and it is doubtful whether any one\nof them deserves the title \"great.\"[1311] The divine patrons of cities\nwere locally powerful; such were the Baal of Tyre, called Melkart ('the\nking of the city'), the Ashtart of Sidon, and Tanit of Carthage;[1311]\nthese owed their reputation to their official positions, and there is no\nother record of their development. The same thing is true of the Moabite\nKemosh, the Ammonite Malkom (Milkom), and the Philistine Dagan (Dagon)\nand Baalzebub. None of these became ethically great or approached\nuniversality. The Phoenician Eshmun was known to the Greeks, and was\nidentified by them with their Asklepios (\u00c6sculapius), probably because\namong the various functions attaching to him as local deity healing was\nprominent; but of his theologic history little is known.[1312] Several\nNorth Arabian deities, especially Dusares (Dhu ash-Shara) and the\ngoddesses Al-L\u00e2t and Al-Uzza, were widely worshiped, their cults\nextending over the whole Nabatean region; but the communities to which\nthey belonged never produced a great civilization or attained great\npolitical significance, and these deities always retained traces of\ntheir local nature.[1313] The same remark is to be made of the South\nArabian gods known to us; they were locally important, but we have\nlittle information concerning their characters.[1314]\n\n+765+. The clearest example of the orderly advance of a deity to\npre\u00ebminence is afforded by the Hebrew Yahweh (Jehovah). Originally, it\nwould seem, a local deity, the god of certain tribes on the northern\nboundary of Arabia,[1315] he was adopted by the Hebrews under conditions\nwhich are not quite clear, and was developed by them in accordance with\ntheir peculiar genius. At first morally and intellectually crude, he\nbecame as early as the eighth century B.C. ethically high and\npractically omnipotent.[1316] For many centuries he was regarded merely\nas the most powerful of the gods, superior to the deities of other\nnations, and it was only after the beginning of our era that the Hebrew\nthought discarded all other gods and made \"Yahweh\" synonymous with\n\"God.\" In each period of their history the conception that the Hebrews\nhad of him was in accord with the economic and intellectual features of\nthe time.[1317]\n\n+766+. A word may be added respecting the Semitic titles Ilu, or El, and\nElohim, which have been supposed by some recent writers to prove the\nexistence of an early monotheism, particularly in Southern Arabia. The\nterms mean simply 'god,' and were applied by early Semitic communities\nto any deity, particularly to the local god. In the Arabia of Mohammed's\ntime a tribe would call its deity simply \"the god,\" a sufficient\ndesignation of him for the place;[1318] this designation, in Arabic\n_al-ilahu_, came to be pronounced \"Allah,\" and this familar term, as is\nremarked above, was adopted by Mohammed and expanded (probably under the\ninfluence of some advanced Arabian circle of thinkers of his time) into\nthe conception of the one only god, which he and others had derived from\nChristians and Jews. In certain parts of the Old Testament also \"Elohim\"\nstands for the national god, conceived of as all-sufficient. But these\nare late conceptions. There is no proof that in South Arabia or in\nBabylonia the term Ilu meant anything else than the local deity, though\nsuch a deity would naturally receive all the attributes that his\nworshipers demanded in their religious constructions. Most of the\nappellations of Semitic deities are epithets, and while this mode of\nconceiving of the gods militated against the development of them into\ndistinct personalities and the construction of a pantheon, it was\nfavorable, on the other hand, to isolation and to the tendency to\nelevate any favorite deity to a position of pre\u00ebminence.\n\n+767+. _Greece._ The Greeks, with their rich imagination and artistic\nfeeling, filled the world with divine figures, well-defined types of\nGreek character, ideals of Greek thought. Greece alone has constructed a\ntrue pantheon, a community of gods all individualized, but all compacted\ninto a family or a body of government. The question of their historical\ndevelopment involves great difficulties, partly because the wide\ndiffusion of their cults in Hellas occasioned many local expansions of\nthe original conceptions in the various regions, partly because most of\nthe deities appear fully or almost fully formed in the earliest literary\nmonuments, so that we are dependent on cultic procedures and passing\nallusions for a knowledge of their preliterary character. Without, then,\nattempting an investigation of the obscure prehistoric theogonic period,\nthe general lines of growth of some of the principal divine personages\nmay be followed (as far as the data permit) as examples of the way in\nwhich the great gods were gradually created.[1319]\n\n+768+. Zeus, originally doubtless a sky-god (not the sun), represents\nan old Indo-European divine conception, found substantially also among\nall the great peoples of antiquity, as well as in many half-civilized\ntribes. But nowhere has he attained so eminent a position as in Greece.\nThe Hindu Dyaus (the 'shining one')[1320] is not prominent in the Vedic\nmythology or in later times, and the Mazdean Ahura Mazda, if he was\noriginally the sky, had dropped his physical characteristics and become\nonly a spirit; the Latin Jupiter approaches Zeus most nearly in name and\ncharacter. A sky-god is naturally conceived of as universal ruler,[1321]\nbut in any particular region he assumes the characteristics of the\nruling human personages of the place and time. Zeus appears first as a\nbarbarian chieftain with the ordinary qualities of such persons. Stories\nthat have come down about him reflect a period of what now seems\nimmorality, though it was the recognized morality of the time; he is\ndeceitful and changeable and completely unregardful of any definite\nmarriage laws. His cult in some places (for example, in Arcadia) had\nsavage features. Whether he had originally in the Hellenic world a\nspecial home, and if so what it was, cannot now be determined.[1322]\n\n+769+. In the historical period he appears as a chief god in many places\nin Greece, gradually absorbs the functions of other gods, and receives\nnumerous titles derived from places and functions. He is the father of\ngods and men, but not the sole creator of the world. His gradual rise in\nmoral character may be traced in the literature. In Homer he is a\nuniversalized Agamemnon, with very much the intellectual and moral\nqualities of Agamemnon; a process of growth in the conception of him in\nthe Homeric poems is indicated by the incongruities in his\nportraiture--at one time he is a creature of impulse and passion, at\nanother time a dignified and thoughtful ruler. In Pindar and the\ntragedians of the fifth century he has become the representative of\njustice and order in the world, and in later writers he comes to be more\nspecifically the embodiment of everything that is good in the universe.\nHe represents the Greek conception of civic authority, and thus the\nnearest approach to monotheism discoverable in the Greek mythological\nsystem; and as embodying the finer side of religious feeling he both\npunishes and forgives sin.\n\n+770+. Next in importance to Zeus as representative of Greek religious\nthought stands Apollo. The meaning of the name and the original seat of\nthe god are obscure; he appears to have been a Pan-Hellenic deity; he\nwas definitely shaped by the whole mass of Hellenic thought. Originally,\nperhaps, the local deity of some hunting and pastoral region, and\npossessing the quasi-universal attributes of such deities, the wide\ndiffusion of his cult (through conditions not known to us) brought him\ninto relation with many sides of life. While he shares this\nmany-sidedness with several other gods, the Greek genius of theographic\norganization assigned him special headship in certain distinctively\nHellenic conceptions. Zeus embodied the theocratic idea, and Apollo the\nideas of Pan-Hellenic civic unity, artistic feeling, and the more\nintimate ethical and religious experience. He became the patron of the\nAmphictyonic assembly and of literature and art, and, especially in\nconnection with the Delphic oracle, the fosterer of ethical conceptions\nof ritual and of sin. How it came to pass that these particular\ndepartments were assigned him it is not possible to say. Such\nspecialization was natural to the Greeks, but the determining conditions\nin particular cases have not been recorded, and can only be surmised.\nHis growth kept pace with that of the Hellenic people--in the Iliad he\nis a partisan, and his words and deeds do not always command our\nrespect, but in the later theological constructions he throws off his\ncrudeness. His connection with the sun was a natural consequence of his\nrise to eminence; he is not a sun-god in the earliest literary remains.\n\n+771+. Poseidon, second only to Zeus in power, is also of obscure\norigin.[1323] His specific marine character is certain, though as a\ngreat god he had many relations and functions.[1324] Possibly he was\noriginally the local deity of some marine region, and by reason of the\nimportance of his native place, or simply through the intimate\nrelationship between the Greek communities, and in accordance with the\nGreek spirit of organization, came to be generally recognized as the god\nof the ocean.[1325] Though he was widely revered he remained largely a\nnature god--he never attained the majesty and moral supremacy of Zeus,\nnever, indeed, represented specifically any refined moral or religious\nconception. Whether this ethical and religious meagerness was a\nconsequence of the vagueness of the relation between the sea and human\nlife, or of some other fact, is a point that can hardly be determined.\n\n+772+. Hermes, to judge from his history, was the creation of some\npastoral community, an ideal of rustic excellence: fleet of foot, a\nleader in popular amusements, skilled in simple music, eminent in an art\nmuch valued in early times--the art of stealing cattle. When he was\ntaken into the circle of Greek theological thought his swiftness\nrecommended him to the position of messenger of the gods,[1326] and his\nfunction as psychopompos, the guide of souls to the other world, would\nthen follow naturally; from this function it cannot, however, be\ninferred that he was originally a chthonic deity--a character that does\nnot accord with the early portraitures of him. Like other gods he grew\nmorally, but he never reached ethical distinction. Skill in theft was in\nearly times often regarded as a virtue,[1327] and in general he who got\nthe better of his fellows was esteemed a master of good luck and\nprosperity; and a bestower of outward prosperity Hermes came to\nbe.[1328] His main quality was cleverness, in contrast with the\nintellectual power of Apollo.\n\n+773+. On the other hand, another rustic figure, the Arcadian herd-god\nPan,[1329] never developed into a great Hellenic god. His worship was\nwidely diffused; he appears often in artistic representations, and\nPindar thought him worthy of a hymn (of which, unfortunately, only\nfragments survive), but in general he remained uncouth and half savage,\na goatlike figure, the companion of satyrs, or (as the Homeric hymn\ndepicts him) a merrymaker. He seems to have been an embodiment of the\nlower rustic pleasures, a local god, probably not a divinized\ngoat.[1330]\n\n+774+. His name, however, taken to mean 'all,' gave occasion to fanciful\ninterpretations. He was so called, it was said, because he gave delight\nto all the Immortals;[1331] or his person and his musical and other\ninstruments were supposed to represent universal nature--his horns the\nrays of the sun and the horns of the moon, his spotted fawnskin the\nstars, his pipe of seven reeds the harmony of the heavens, his crook the\nyear, which returns on itself, and so on.[1332] The Stoics and the\nOrphic writers made him Universal God, the creator of the world.[1333]\nIn the popular cult, however, he remained the merry patron of herds. The\nmost satisfactory explanation of his name is that which derives it from\nthe stem _pa_, 'feed'--he is then \"the goatherd.\"[1334] The story told\nby Plutarch, of a voice heard crying on the coast of Epirus, \"Great Pan\nis dead,\" arose from some misapprehension, but no precise explanation\nof its origin has been given.[1335] Poets like Pindar and Vergil,\ndisposed to preserve and dignify the old traditions, treat Pan\nrespectfully and sympathetically, but such constructions are\nnonpopular.[1336]\n\n+775+. Ares seems to be the creation of a war-loving tribe; in the Iliad\nhe is a fierce warrior, armed cap-a-pie, delighting in battle and\nslaughter. Through the machinations of Hera and Athene he is overcome by\nhuman heroes, the poet's feeling being, possibly, contempt for the mere\nsavage fighter; in fact, Ares in the Iliad is, from our point of view,\nhardly a respectable character--he violates his promise, and when\nwounded cries out like a hurt child. But as war-god he was widely\nrevered in Greece; in Thebes especially he was honored as one of the\ngreat gods. Hesiod makes him the son of Zeus and Hera,[1337] but he\nnever attains moral or other dignity; in the popular cult he remained,\nprobably, merely the patron of war. In the later artistic\nrepresentations he is the ideal of warlike vigor and grace. In the\nHomeric hymn (which may be of Orphic origin) he is transformed into a\nlover of peace and a source of all pure and lofty aspirations--a violent\nprocedure, induced by the poet's unwillingness that an Olympian should\nrepresent anything but what was morally good.\n\n+776+. The process of development of a god's character is illustrated\nwith special clearness by the history of Dionysus. It is generally\nagreed that he was of foreign origin, an importation from Thrace. The\nfeatures of his earliest cult known to us are marked by bald savagery.\nHis worshipers indulged in wild orgies, probably excited by intoxicating\ndrinks, tore to pieces a goat (as in Thrace) or a bull (as in Crete) and\nate the flesh raw;[1338] and the evidence goes to show that they\npracticed human sacrifice. All these procedures have parallels in known\nsavage cults. Omophagic orgies are described by Nilus (among the\nSaracens), and such customs are reported as existing or having existed\nin the Fiji Islands and elsewhere.[1339] Among many tribes intoxication\nis a common preparation for the work of the shaman; and human sacrifice\nhas been practiced in all parts of the world. There is nothing peculiar\nin the office of soothsayer that accompanied the Dionysiac cult; mantic\npersons and procedures have formed a prominent part of the constitution\nof the lower peoples everywhere.\n\n+777+. Dionysus, in a word, was originally the local god of a savage\ncommunity; the data are not sufficient to fix precisely his original\nplace and the original conception of him. His mantic function does not\nnecessarily show that he was a ghost. It is true that the dead were\noften consulted (and necromancy long survived among civilized peoples),\nbut any spirit or god might take possession of a worshiper and make him\nthe vehicle of revelation. Nor is the phallus-cult peculiar to Dionysus;\nthis cult is widely diffused, and its origin is to be referred not\nspecifically to the recognition of the general generative power of\nnature, but to the mystery of human life.[1340] In his original home\nDionysus seems to have represented everything that touched the life of\nhis people. When, at a certain time, he passed into Hellas (carried,\ndoubtless, by immigrants), he took on the character necessitated by his\nnew surroundings--a process of transformation began. Exact chronological\ndata are lacking, but as in the Iliad[1341] he is the son of Zeus, he\nmust have been adopted by the Greeks very early. In his new home he\nbecame the patron of the vine.[1342] In a vine-growing region any\nprominent deity may become a wine-god;[1343] but the special connection\nof Dionysus with wine in Greece suggests that in his earlier home he was\nsomehow identified with intoxicating drinks. With vegetation in general\nalso he may have been connected in Thrace--such a relation would be\nnatural for a clan god--and in that case his Hellenic r\u00f4le as god of\nvegetation would follow as a matter of course; or, if he advanced from\nthe vine to the whole of vegetable nature, the development is\nintelligible.\n\n+778+. When and on what grounds he was accepted as one of the Olympians\nis not clear;[1344] perhaps it was on account of the importance of vine\nculture, perhaps from the mysterious character of his cult, the\nenthusiasm of divine inspiration reflected in the frenzy of the\nworshipers, or from these causes combined; his later name, Bacchus,\nwhich seems to refer to cultic orgiastic shouting, would appear to\nindicate this element of the cult as a main source of his popularity.\nOnce established as a great god he was credited with various functions.\nThe Greek drama arose in connection with his worship, and at Eleusis the\nold element of seizure by the god was transformed by the higher thought\nof the time into the conception of ethical union with the deity. Thus\nthe old savage god came to stand for man's highest aspirations.\n\n+779+. As among other peoples, so among the Greeks the government of the\nUnderworld was gradually organized, and a head thereof appointed.[1345]\nAlready in the Iliad and in Hesiod[1346] the universe is divided into\nthree parts under the rule of the Kronids Zeus, Poseidon, and A\u00efdes\nrespectively; the earth, however, and Olympos, says Poseidon, are the\ncommon property of them all--there was no complete governmental\nseparation between the Underworld and the Upperworld. The Greeks, with\ntheir joy in the present, gave comparatively little prominence to the\nfuture (being herein sharply contrasted with the Egyptians).\n\n+780+. The title generally given to the underground chief, Hades\n(apparently 'the invisible one'), indicates the vagueness that attached\nto this deity.[1347] In the Iliad he is a dark and dread divinity. The\nprecise significance of his title Plouton[1348] is uncertain; but under\nthis name he is connected in the myths with processes of vegetation--it\nis Plouton who carries off Persephone, leaving the world in the deadness\nof winter. The figure of the underground deity appears to have taken\nshape from the combination of two mythological conceptions--the\nunderground fructifying forces of nature, and the assemblage of the dead\nin a nether world or kingdom.[1349] His only moral significance lay in\nhis relation to oaths, wherein, perhaps, is an approach to the idea of a\ndivine judge below the earth.[1350]\n\n+781+. The _female deities_ of the Greeks are no less elaborately worked\nout than the male gods, and, like these, are types of human character\nand representatives of human pursuits.[1351]\n\n+782+. The great goddess Hera is in Homer attached especially to Argos,\nSparta, and Mycen\u00e6, but at a very early time was Pan-Hellenic. The\nmeaning of her name and her origin are uncertain. There is no good\nground for regarding her as having been originally a moon-goddess\n(Selene was the real moon-goddess). What is certain is that she had a\nspecial relation to women and particularly to childbirth; but such a\nfunction is so generally attributed to some goddess that we can only\nsuppose that she rose to eminence through local conditions unknown to\nus. The most interesting point about her is that she came to be the\nrepresentative of the respectable Greek matron, jealous of her wifely\nrights, holding herself aloof from love affairs, a home person, entitled\nto respect for the decency of her life, but without great womanly charm.\n\n+783+. By a natural mythological law she was regarded as the consort of\nZeus, and gradually acquired dignity without, however, ever coming to be\na distinct embodiment of any form of intellectual or moral life. As Zeus\nembodied the conception of civil and political headship, so Hera appears\nto have embodied the idea of the wife as controller of the purely\ndomestic affairs of the family, her business being the bringing up of\nchildren and the oversight of servants--duties that may have seemed at\nan early period not to require great moral and intellectual power.\n\n+784+. A distincter form is that of Demeter, who, whatever the meaning\nof her name,[1352] certainly represents the fertile earth--a figure\nsimilar to hundreds of others in the world, and doubtless existing at\nvarious points in Greece under local names; she probably represents a\nunification of the different conceptions of the fertile earth, a process\nthat went on in the natural way in Greek thought, and was formulated by\nthe poets. Her historical connection with the great Asian earth-goddess,\nthe Mother-Goddess, is uncertain. Demeter, however, never became the\ngreat earth-mother; she remained attached to the soil, except that in\nthe Eleusinian mysteries she (probably as patron of fertility) was\nallegorized into a representation of those moral conceptions of the\nfuture that gradually arose in Greece.\n\n+785+. The group of deities that may be called maiden goddesses is of\npeculiar interest. A maiden goddess is originally an independent deity\nwho, for whatever reason, has not been brought by the myth-makers into\nmarriage relations with a male deity. Generally such independence is a\nresult of the fact that the goddess is the representative of fertility.\nShe may, in accordance with early customs of human society, choose\ntemporary consorts at will (as is the case with Ishtar); she may be in\nher sole person (like the Dea Mater) the productive power of the world;\nor she may remain a virgin, occupied only with the care of some\ndepartment of life (so Athene and Artemis). Which of these characters\nshe takes depends on early social conditions and on the nature of the\nlocal theistic organization. In Greece these goddesses assume various\nshapes.\n\n+786+. There is first the primitive divine Power of vegetation, called\nsimply the Kore, the Maiden, a figure ultimately identical with Demeter\nand in the later constructions represented as her daughter. She is not\nnecessarily to be regarded as a development out of an original\ncorn-spirit. Her title \"maiden\" may be compared with the Semitic title\n\"mistress,\" mentioned above, and with the names expressing family\nrelations, \"sister,\" \"mother\"--only this particular designation defines\nher simply as an unmarried female divinity. The \"corn-maiden\" of modern\nEuropean folk-lore may be the cultic degradation of an old deity.[1353]\nThe title Kore became almost a proper name, though the designation was\nnot so definite as in the cases of Bel and Ishtar.[1354]\n\n+787+. As the Kore is the representative of vegetable life, so Hestia\nstands in general for the indoor life, the family. She long retained\nthis local character, but gradually assumed the position of the great\ngoddess of the home center, the hearth,[1355] and was connected with the\nhousehold fires and festivals. She represents the more intimate social\nlife of the family in contrast with Hera, who stands for the government\nof the household.\n\n+788+. The development of the functions of Artemis is comparatively\nclear. The origin of the name is doubtful, but in the earliest records\nshe is connected with the fertile earth, with vegetable and also with\nanimal life.[1356] This character indicates that she was at one time a\nlocal, all-sufficient deity, though it is hardly possible to determine\nher original seat. As a local goddess in the hunting area she was\nnaturally connected with the chase, and as a female divinity she was the\npatroness of marriage and the protector of human birth. Her original\nnature as the maiden appears in the representation of her as a virgin\nwhich occurs in Homer.[1357] There is no contradiction between this\ncharacter and her function of presiding over marriage and birth if we\nconsider her as a local goddess who from one point of view was regarded\nas a simple maiden, from another point of view as the protector of\nwomen.[1358] Thus invested with the control of these important features\nof life she naturally became a general patroness, a guardian. Later she\nwas connected with Apollo as his sister, exactly by what steps we do not\nknow; and in the mythical constructions she was represented as the\ndaughter of Zeus and Leto.[1359]\n\n+789+. The Hellenic goddess Artemis is to be distinguished from the\nEphesian deity to whom the Greeks gave the same name, though when the\nGreeks came into close contact with Asia Minor the two were identified.\nAnd in fact, though in historical origin the two deities are to be kept\napart, they doubtless go back to the same conception. The Ephesian\ngoddess was the Great Mother--she stood specifically for the idea of\nmaternity which lies at the basis of the world; the Greek divinity,\nbeginning as a local protectress, took on larger functions which gave\nher general resemblance to the universal mother.\n\n+790+. The relation between Artemis and Hekate is an illustration of the\nprocess of co\u00f6rdination and harmonization that went on continually among\nthe Greeks. Hekate does not appear in Homer, but in Hesiod she has the\nfull form of a great deity--she exercises control over heaven, earth,\nand sea;[1360] and at a later period she becomes similarly connected\nwith the Underworld. This variety of functions can be explained only by\nthe supposition that she also was a local deity, who, like all local\ndeities, was regarded as universal.[1361] As the meaning of her name is\nuncertain and her original region unknown, it can be only surmised that\nher cult spread gradually in Greece through the growing unification of\nthe Hellenic states. Like Artemis she presided over human birth. The\nfunctions of the two goddesses being so nearly the same (they appear to\nrepresent similar conceptions arising at different centers), it was\nnatural that in the later times they should be identified or closely\nassociated.\n\n+791+. Athene is said in a late myth (not in the Iliad) to have been\nborn from the head of Zeus, a representation that has led many recent\nscholars to regard her as the goddess of the thunderstorm, the lightning\nthat cleaves the clouds, the divine warrior that slays the dragon. But\ningenious and attractive as this interpretation is, to determine the\norigin of the goddess it is safer to go to the earlier forms of her\ncult. At a very early period she is connected with ordinary social\noccupations.[1362] She is the patroness of the cultivation of the land;\nin Athens, where the olive was important, it was she who bestowed this\ntree on the city; here she is the maiden, the genius, the divine patron\nof vegetation. She presided over the domestic employments of women,\nspinning and weaving--that is, she is the goddess of household\nwork.[1363] As is the case with so many divine patrons of men's early\nsimple employments, she grew with the community and became gradually a\ngreat goddess, and necessarily a patroness of cities. In her character\nof general patroness she became a goddess of war--a necessity for all\nancient states. On the other hand, in a community (like Athens, for\nexample) where intellectual insight was highly esteemed she would\nnaturally become the representative of cleverness and wisdom.\n\n+792+. The peculiar nature of the wisdom that is prized by men depends\non time and place. In the earliest periods what Athene bestows is a high\ndegree of common sense and skill in devising ways and means, such as\nOdysseus shows. In later times of larger cultivation she bestows wisdom\nin the higher sense, intellectual breadth. Exactly how it came to pass\nthat the two figures Artemis and Athene developed on such different\nlines we are unable to say--the beginning of the divergence goes back to\ntimes of which we have no records; but, as gods represent the elements\nof human life, it was natural that a gradual differentiation should take\nplace; the same general conception would be particularized in different\nways in different places, just as divergent forms of the same original\nword acquire different significations in speech.[1364] As for the later\ncombination of these deities with heavenly bodies and many other things,\nthese are to be regarded as the product of later poetical imagination\nand the tendency to universalize all great deities.\n\n+793+. Aphrodite exhibits more clearly than any other deity the process\nor the direction of the Hellenization of a foreign god. Her titles\nCypris, Paphia, Cytherea, as well as her connection with Adonis, point,\nas is generally held, to a Semitic origin[1365]; she seems to have been\nidentical with the great Babylonian, Assyrian, and Syrian goddess Ishtar\n(Astarte)[1366]. Received into the Greek pantheon at a very early time\n(already in the Iliad she is one of the Olympians), she yet shows the\nmain characteristics of the Semitic deity[1367]--she is especially the\nrepresentative of fertility and sexual passion, and also has relation to\nwar. The lines of development, however, were different in different\ncommunities. In Babylonia and Assyria Ishtar became a great universal\nnational deity, charged particularly with the care of all the interests\nof the state, while in Syria and Canaan the corresponding figures\n(Attar, Ashtart) remained to a great extent local, and were especially\nprominent in festivals.\n\n+794+. In Greece the conception of Aphrodite was worked out in a\nnon-Semitic way in two directions. By poets and philosophers she was\nmade the beneficent producer of all things, shedding her charm over\nanimate and inanimate nature;[1368] and the sentiment of love, for which\nshe stood, was exalted into a pure affection, the basis of married life.\nThe baser side of her cult, with its sexual license (Asiatic of origin),\nremained along with the higher conception of her,[1369] but the latter\nwas the special contribution that the Greeks made to her development.\n\n+795+. The theistic scheme of the old Greek polytheistic period is the\nbroadest and finest that the ancient polytheism produced. It recognized\na divine element in all sides of human life, from the lowest to the\nhighest; it marked out the various directions of human feeling and\neffort, and in its final outcome it reached the conception of a unity in\nthe divine government of the world, and gave expression to man's best\naspirations for the present and for the future. True, it gave way at\nlast to philosophy; but it had recognized those elements of thought on\nwhich philosophy was based. The Persian and Hebrew systems expressed\nmore definitely the idea of a divine monocracy, and lent themselves\neasily to the formation of a religious society, a church, but they did\nnot escape the limitations of mere national feeling. The Greeks founded\nno church--they formulated universal ethical and religious conceptions,\nand left the development to the individual. All the great ancient\nreligions reached a high ethical plane and a practical monotheism, but\nthe Greek was the richest of all in the recognition of the needs of\nhumanity.\n\n+796+. _Rome._ The Roman pantheon (if the Italian divine community can\nproperly be called a pantheon) had not the fullness and fineness of the\nGreek--in accordance with the Roman genius it included only deities\nhaving special relations with the family and its work and with the\nstate.[1370] The rich Roman development of specific gods of the home is\nreferred to above.[1371] The old nature gods long retained their place,\ndoubtless, in popular worship, but were gradually subordinated to and\nabsorbed in the larger divine figures. And the great gods themselves\nbegan at an early time to be assimilated to Greek deities and to assume\ntheir functions and even their names.[1372]\n\n+797+. The most important of the nature gods are Sol, Luna, and Tellus\n(primitive figures that soon gave way to deities divorced from the\nphysical sun, moon, and earth), and the patrons of agricultural work,\nConsus and Ops, Liber and Libera, Silvanus and Faunus. The natural\nfeatures represented by these deities did not disappear entirely from\nthe greater deities, but were purified and elevated. Anna Perenna, for\nexample, as representative of the round of years, remained by the side\nof Janus, but he embodied this conception in a larger civic way.\n\n+798+. The greatest of the Roman gods, Juppiter[1373] or Jupiter, is\nidentical in name with Zeus, but differs from him in mythological\ndevelopment and in the final form of his character. As sky-god he was\nconnected with atmospheric phenomena (rain and lightning) and so\nnaturally with wine and other crops. But as chief god of the state he\nspeedily rose above these connections, and as Optimus Maximus became the\nrepresentative of all Roman virtues. Along with this native development\nhe was in later times more or less identified with Zeus. By his side\nstood the national deity Quirinus, who remained a local patron and never\nrose to large proportions. Related to him are Sancus and Dius Fidius,\nwho represented some primitive conceptions similar to those belonging to\nhis early form, but they did not develop into great gods. These three\nwere practically absorbed by him, but the history of this process is\nobscure.\n\n+799+. Janus, the guardian of the entrance to the house (_janua_)--a\nfunction of prime importance in early times, had a prominent place in\nthe cult. He was invoked at the beginning of the day, the month, and the\nyear; in the Salian hymn he is called \"god of gods\" and \"good creator\";\nhe was served by the rex sacrorum, who was the first in priestly\ndignity. He may thus have been a chief god in the oldest Latin\nscheme.[1374] Yet he seems never to have come to stand for anything\nintellectually or morally high except in late philosophical thought.\nThough the guardian of public as well as private houses, he was not the\npatron of the city. He remained in the cult a sort of family and clan\ngod, and represented only the ideas of a primitive mode of life, the\ngreat r\u00f4le being assigned to the sky-god.[1375]\n\n+800+. To judge from the old rituals Mars was in the earliest time of\nwhich there is any record a god of vegetation. The Arval Brothers, who\nwere charged with the care of crops, addressed their petitions to him,\nand it was to him that the Roman husbandman prayed for a blessing on his\nlabors.[1376] What may have been his still earlier character we have no\nmeans of determining with certainty. The view that he was originally a\ngod of the fructifying sunlight[1377] seems to rest mainly on a\nprecarious etymology, the derivation of his name from a stem _mar_\nmeaning 'to shine'; but it does not appear that ancient peoples\nattributed the growth of crops to the sun.[1378] Analogy would rather\nlead us to regard him as an old local deity, naturally connected with\nvegetation. However this may be, the importance of agriculture for the\nlife of the community raised him to a position of eminence, his priestly\ncollege, the Salian (traditionally referred to Numa), was one of the\ngreatest, he was connected with various departments of life, and for the\nwarlike Romans he naturally became the patron of war. The cult of the\nold war-goddess Bellona maintained itself, but she never attained the\nhighest rank; she is not the equal of Mars, with whom in the later\nconstructions she was brought into connection. In the Hellenizing period\nhe was identified with Ares.[1379]\n\n+801+. The name Saturn is generally connected with the stem _sa_\n(_sero_, _satum_, _sata_), to sow, and he is accordingly regarded as an\nagricultural deity, the special patron of agricultural work. Whether or\nhow he differed originally from Mars is not clear--perhaps in original\ndifferentiation of functions, he being attached to the work of sowing,\nMars to vegetation in general; or perhaps they were two similar deities\nbelonging originally to different regions, and differentiated when\nbrought together in the same system. Information on this point is\nlacking. That Saturn was an ancient Latin god is probable from the fact\nthat he was traditionally said to be an old king of Latium. Of his\nearliest cult in Rome little is known. The feast that bears his name,\nthe Saturnalia (held on December 17 and some following days), was a time\nof popular festivity, when social distinctions were laid aside (slaves\nwere on an equality with masters). Similar festivals are found\nelsewhere.[1380] Midwinter, when the work of gathering in the harvest\nwas over, was a natural time for festivities.[1381] Saturn, or the\nfigure from which he arose, may have presided over this season\noriginally, or he may have been gradually connected with an old\nceremony. The process of Hellenizing him began early. He was identified\nwith Kronos, made the father of Jupiter and the head of a pre-Jovian\ndivine dynasty, and, in accordance with the tendency to regard the\nformer days as better than the present, the _Saturnia regna_ became the\ngolden age of the past.[1382] Apart from this he seems to have had no\nethical significance.\n\n+802+. In the case of certain deities, as Volcanus, Neptunus, Mercurius,\nSancus, a pronounced Roman development cannot be traced, partly because\nof the lack of full data, partly, in the case of Volcan, Neptune, and\nMercury, because of an early and complete identification with the Greek\ngods Hephaistos, Poseidon, and Hermes.\n\n+803+. The Roman _female deities_[1383] are far less developed than the\nGreek--their functions are simple, their mythological interest small.\nThe members of the group representing the productive power of the\nearth--Bona Dea, Dea Dia, Libera, Fauna, Ceres, Proserpina,[1384] and\nothers--were not worked up by the Romans into great personalities.\n\n+804+. Juno, an independent deity, originally not the wife of Jupiter,\nis, in the developed cult, the special patron of the maternal side of\nthe life of women, and, as such, is a great domestic power, the\nembodiment of a large part of family life. It was probably as great\nsky-goddess that she attained this position--the chief female deity is\nnaturally the protector of women. The name came to designate the woman's\npersonality as childbearer, and more generally her inner essence or\nself, as \"genius\" came to designate the male essence.[1385] Whether this\nusage was simply an extension of the idea of 'protectress' to that of\n'self,' an identification of woman with her specific function in the\nfamily, or rested on some older conception, is not clear. However this\nmay be, she became a great goddess, in the later construction the wife\nof Jupiter, and was identified with Hera, to whom in fact she is nearly\nrelated in function and character. Though her name appears to contain\nthe same stem (_iu_) as 'Jupiter,' and her epithet 'Lucina' the stem\n_luc_, 'to shine,' there is no proof that she was, in early times,\nregarded as a light-deity, or particularly as moon-goddess. She was\nsky-goddess, but not, for that reason, necessarily light-goddess.\n\n+805+. The importance attached by the Romans to the family life is\nexpressed in the cult of Vesta, the guardian of the hearth as the center\nof that life.[1386] The Penates, however, the divine protectors of the\nhousehold, were no less important in the family cult than she. The state\nalso had its Vesta and its Penates. To this character of sacredness\nstamped on the life of the private family and the larger family, the\nstate, ethical significance and influence must doubtless be ascribed.\n\n+806+. Diana appears to have originated in the time when life was spent\nlargely in forests, and trees were a special object of worship; she was\nin historical times connected with groves.[1387] Her cult was widely\ndiffused in Italy, and she became (perhaps because she embodied the\ncommon feature of the old life) the representative of Italian unity. As\ngreat female deity she was the helper of women in childbirth. Her name\nis based on the stem _di_, 'to shine,'[1388] which appears in 'Jupiter'\nand 'Juno'; but she is not a sky-goddess--the \"shining\" in her case is\nthat of trees and plants, the green color that gleams in the light, so\nthat the grove is called _lucus_, the 'shining mass.'[1389] Diana was\nsoon identified with Artemis, and was endowed with her attributes.\n\n+807+. Another Italian goddess, Minerva, stood, probably, in the earlier\ntime for the simpler arts of a simple community--she was the patroness\nof manual work and of the healing art. The expression _omnis Minervae\nhomo_, descriptive of a man capable in his line of work, almost reduces\nher to an abstract idea. The name (as the older form, Menerva, more\nclearly indicates) is based on the stem _man_ (found in Latin _mens_),\nand appears to mean 'endowed with mind' (or, 'spirit'), though exactly\nwhat was the range of this conception in the earliest times is not\nclear.[1390] Later her function was extended to embrace intellectual\ncapacity, but it was not until her identification with Athene (not later\nthan the third century B.C.) that she attained her full cultic\nsignificance.[1391]\n\n+808+. Venus, though an old Italian deity (as her name and her ancient\ntemples show), was so early Hellenized that her proper native\ndevelopment was cut short. The fact that she was in early times the\npatroness of gardens[1392] suggests that she was originally a deity of\nthe productive field; probably she belonged in the group of goddesses\n(Libera, Bona Dea, and others)[1393] who presided over fertility. It\nwould seem that every region in Italy had such a _numen loci_ (naturally\nmainly agricultural). It is not clear to what particular spot Venus was\noriginally attached,[1394] or how she came to be revered over a wide\nregion. Under ordinary Italian conditions she might have become a deity\nlike Ceres. But in Sicily, at Mount Eryx, according to tradition, her\ncult came into contact with that of Aphrodite, whose qualities she soon\nassumed.[1395]\n\n+809+. In the third century B.C. the cult of the Sicilian Venus (Venus\nErycina) was brought to Rome by direction of the Sibylline Books, and\nfrom this time onward her advance to prominence was continuous. As a\ngreat goddess she became (like Ishtar and Aphrodite) in a warlike\ncommunity the patron of war (Venus Victrix). When the \u00c6neas myth was\nadopted in Rome she took the place of Aphrodite as mother of that hero\n(who became the founder of the Roman state), and was honored by Julius\nC\u00e6sar and others as Venus Genetrix. The old Roman moral feeling appears\nin the dedication of a temple (114 B.C.) to Venus Verticordia as\natonement for the unchastity of three Vestals.[1396] In general the\nlater functions and cult of Venus were reproductions or imitations of\nthose of Aphrodite. Such a divine figure, it seems, the Romans would\nnever have developed out of their own resources.\n\n+810+. The general characteristics of the great ancient national\nreligions are indicated in the preceding descriptions. In the\nsacrificial cult and the general apparatus of worship there is no\nimportant difference between them, but they differ notably among\nthemselves in the construction of the divine world. The simplest\ntheistic system is the Chinese, which regards the world as order\ncontrolled by Heaven. The western cults fall into two divisions, the\nEgypto-Semitic and the Indo-European. The Egyptian and the Semitic,\nthough they differ in collateral points (divinization of kings, idea of\nthe future life), agree in lacking a true pantheon. On the other hand,\nnotwithstanding resemblances between the Hebrew and the Persian, the\ndifference between the Semitic group and the Indo-European is\nwell-defined. This difference may be indicated by pointing out certain\npeculiarities of the Semitic theistic system.\n\n+811+. _Features of Semitic theism._ 1. Paucity of departmental gods and\nabsence of highly specialized gods. Of this latter class, so prominent\nin Greece and Rome, there is no clear trace in Semitic cults.[1397]\nDepartmental deities are not found in Arabia, Canaan (including Israel\nand Phoenicia), and Syria. The Hebrew Yahweh obviously controls all\ndepartments of nature and life. The Phoenician Eshmun (a name of\nuncertain meaning) was identified by the Greeks with their Asklepios as\ngod of healing, but no special function of this sort is attributed to\nhim in Semitic records. As he was somehow connected with the Kabiri, the\n\"great gods,\" it is probable that he was a local divinity credited with\ngeneral powers.[1398] There is more ground for recognizing real\ndepartmental gods in Babylonia and Assyria, though even there the\nevidence is not quite satisfactory. The great gods, Ea, Bel, Sin,\nShamash, Marduk, Ishtar, Ashur, preside over all human interests. Nabu\nstands for agriculture as well as for wisdom, and Ea for wisdom as well\nas for the great deep. Nergal is not the only god of war. Perhaps the\ndistinctest case of specialization is Ramman (Ninib, Adad), the\nstorm-god[1399]: the \"thunderbolts of Im [Ramman]\" are mentioned in \"The\nWar of the Seven Evil Spirits\"; yet Shamash stands with him against the\nstorm-spirits. In general it appears that the recognition of special\ndepartments for gods is inchoate and feeble in Babylonia and Assyria.\nThere is a separate deity for the Underworld, sometimes a goddess,\nsometimes a god, but they are vague figures.[1400] The connection of\ncertain gods with certain stars was a late construction, and seems to\nhave had no significance for worship except a general\ndeanthropomorphizing tendency.\n\n+812+. 2. There is no trace of a cult of heroes in the Semitic area.\nThe Babylonian Etana, Gilgamesh, and Nimrod (an enigmatical figure), and\nthe Old Testament Nephilim do not receive worship.[1401] The dead were\nconsulted, but there was no cult of the great ancestors.[1402] The\ndivinization of Babylonian kings, referred to above,[1403] seems not to\nhave carried worship with it.\n\n+813+. 3. The Semitic material of malefic spirits, while in general the\nsame as that found elsewhere in the world, has a couple of special\nfeatures. In Babylonia there was a sort of pandemonium, a certain\norganization of demons,[1404] with proper names for some classes; demons\nusually have not proper names, but may receive such names when they come\ninto specially definite relations with men. The demon Lilit mentioned in\nthe Old Testament,[1405] is probably Babylonian. The two great Hebrew\nhostile beings, Satan and Azaz[)e]l, are rather gods than demons.[1406]\nThey were both most highly developed under Persian influence, and in the\nBook of Enoch take on the character and r\u00f4le of Angro Mainyu. Their\nhistory exhibits, however, the disposition of the later Jews to organize\nthe realm of supernatural evil; about the first century B.C. the\nserpent-god of Genesis iii was identified with Satan.[1407]\n\nThe Greek malefic beings, Ker, Harpy, Fury, Gorgon, Sphinx, and the\nlike, appear to have been developed out of ghosts[1408]--whether or not\nthis is true of the Babylonian demons the known material does not enable\nus to say. Organization of such beings was carried out fully by the\nPersians, but not by any other Indo-European people and not by the\nChinese.\n\n+814+. 4. On abstract gods and phallic cults see the discussions of\nthese points above.[1409]\n\n+815+. 5. Semitic theistic myths differ from Indo-European in that they\nare almost wholly without the element of personal adventures of\ngods.[1410] Since all known genuine Semitic myths seem to have their\noriginal home in Babylonia, and Babylonian mythical material bears marks\nof Sumerian influence, the question has been raised whether we have any\ngenuinely Semitic mythical biographies of gods. However this question\nmay be answered, it remains true that the Semites show little\ndisposition to work out this line of thought.\n\n+816+. Of the origin of these peculiarities of the Semitic theistic\nsystem, as of all such origins, it is impossible to give any\nsatisfactory explanation. Geographical and climatic conditions have been\nappealed to: the Semitic area was small and isolated--the Semites were\nshut off by oceans, mountains, and rivers from the rest of the world,\nwere disposed to migrate only within the limits of their area,[1411] and\nlong lived under the monotonous influence of the desert; thus, it is\nsaid, their conception of the world became objective and limited--they\nwere clannish, practical, unanalytic, and unimaginative. But the origin\nof races is obscure, and the genius of every ancient people was formed\nand developed in remote ages under conditions not known to us. We can do\nlittle more than note the characteristics visible in historical times.\n\n+817+. Paucity of myths and the other features mentioned above accord\nwith the later r\u00f4le of Semitic, especially Hebrew, theism--the tendency\nto conceive of the deity as on the one hand aloof and transcendent, and\non the other hand standing in close social relations with man as his\nlord and protector. This proved to be socially the most effective idea\nof God, and has been adopted by all the great nations of the western\nworld.\n\n+818+. The contributions of the Indo-European religions to the religious\nthought of the world are indicated in the preceding sketches. What is\nto be learned from the Chinese the future must show. The general history\nof civilization leads us to expect a gradual combination and fusion of\nall lines of religious development, in which every system will\ncontribute its best, and the lower elements will be discarded.[1412]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII\n\nMYTHS\n\n\n+819+. Myths represent the savage and half-civilized science of origins,\nthe imaginary construction of the world. From the earliest times men\nhave shown curiosity respecting the origin of the things that lie about\nthem. In the presence of plains and mountains, trees and rivers, sun,\nmoon, and stars, beasts and human beings, they have felt the necessity\nof accounting for the beginning of all these objects.[1413] This attempt\nat giving a natural history of the world is in itself a scientific\nprocedure, but in the earlier periods of humanity it naturally attached\nitself to the hypothesis of superhuman Powers--the production of this\nvariety of mysterious things appeared to demand capacity above that of\nman. The science and the fancy of early man combined to produce a great\nmass of theories and stories which to their inventors seemed to be a\nsatisfactory account of the origin of all things.[1414]\n\n+820+. Myths thus furnish an important contribution to the history of\nearly opinion, scientific and religious; in the absence of written\nrecords they often offer our only means of information concerning early\nthought. They describe the origin not only of the physical world but\nalso of communities and social organizations and institutions. They have\na noteworthy vitality, lasting from the beginning of human communal life\ninto periods of advanced civilization; and, when adopted by great\nreligious organizations and interwoven into their theories of salvation,\nthey perpetuate to civilized times the ideas of the crude period in\nwhich they originated. In many cases they stand side by side, and in\nsharp contrast, with elevated moral conceptions of the deity, and then\nhave to be harmonized, usually with a great expenditure of exegetical\ningenuity, with the higher ideas of society.\n\n+821+. The mythopoeic age, in the widest sense of the term, embraces\nthe whole period in which appeal is made, for the explanation of\nphenomena, to other than natural agencies; but it is generally\nunderstood to extend only up to the time when, though a general divine\nPower is invoked for creation, this is regarded as working solely\nthrough the laws of nature.[1415] And within this period the myth-making\nimpulse lasted longer in some directions than in others. In general, the\nmythical theories concerning the larger processes, as, for example, the\ncreation of the world, received no addition after the establishment of a\nsettled civilization; but after this time even well-advanced communities\ncontinued to invent mythical accounts of the origin of customs,\ninstitutions, genealogies, and similar facts. Throughout the whole\nmyth-making period a progression may be recognized in the character of\nthe myths: from the earlier animal and human creators we pass to the\nhigher anthropomorphic forms, the great gods; there is increased\nliterary excellence, a molding and a remolding of the old crude stories,\nwith a combination of them into well-ordered histories; they are\nconstantly modified by the growing acquaintance with the laws of nature\nand by the higher intellectual conceptions of the deity; and they are\nmore and more infused with ethical significance.\n\n+822+. An examination of myths all over the world shows that the most of\nthem, especially those relating to creation and to the histories of the\ngods, originated at a period when men stood intellectually and morally\non a very low plane.[1416] The first myth-makers were savages, with all\nthe well-known characteristics of savage life. Having next to no\nknowledge of natural law, and holding to a practical identity of nature\namong men, beasts, and physical things, they had no difficulty in\nimagining all sorts of transformations and creative procedures. No limit\nwas conceived of for the power of beasts and men--there was no object in\nheaven or earth which, according to the current ideas, could not have\nbeen produced by some procedure which was similar to the procedures of\nordinary life. The ethical character of the creators and of the\nintroducers of general culture was that of the communities that imagined\nthem; naturally the stories were full of ethical barbarities and\nviolations of all the moral rules recognized at a later period; and, as\nis remarked above, these stories continued into civilized times, and had\nto be interpreted by various devices.\n\n+823+. One of the most noteworthy facts in the history of mythology is\nthe general similarity of the myths that are found all over the world.\nAllowing for continuous moral and intellectual progress and for local\ndifferences of surroundings, it may be said that the theories of the\nproduction of the earth and the heavenly bodies, of man and other\nobjects, of customs and institutions, show substantially the same types\neverywhere. The question has been raised whether this virtual identity\nis to be explained by the supposition of independent origination at\nvarious points, or is to be attributed to a borrowing by one community\nfrom another. The question of the migration of myths is a part of the\nlarger question of the migration of culture, and is attended with all\nthe difficulties that attach to this latter. It is not possible at\npresent to give an answer which shall embrace all the phenomena.\nObviously any satisfactory solution of the problem must be preceded by a\nthorough examination of all particular myths, all social\ncharacteristics, and all geographical and migratory relations affecting\nthe early communities; and on these points there is yet much to learn.\n\n+824+. It is well known that customs and beliefs have sometimes passed\nfrom one tribe or nation to another, when there has been close social\nintercourse between the two. It is known also that early men were\ncapable of long journeys by land and by water: the migration legends of\nvarious peoples are full of the details of such movements; in\ncomparatively recent times there have been great migrations of large\nbodies of people, as, for example, from the Arabian desert to the north\nand northwest, and from the central Asiatic steppes westward and\neastward; and the tribes of the Pacific Ocean appear to have traversed\nlong distances in their canoes. And when we consider the great lapse of\ntime, many thousands of years, that preceded the formation of the human\nsociety with which we are acquainted, it appears to be impossible to\nassign any limit to the possibility of tribal movements on the face of\nthe earth. On the other hand, we do not know whether, or how far, such\nmigrations issued in social fusion; and all the well-attested cases of\nborrowing of customs and ideas have sprung from long-continued social\nunion.\n\n+825+. Further, a distinction must be made between general resemblances\nand minute agreement or complete identity; there may be a similarity so\ngreat as to force on us the hypothesis of imitation, and there may be\ngeneral similarities that may be ascribed to ordinary human thought\nworking in different places under similar conditions. In fact, the\nconditions of existence have not varied very greatly over the globe.\nThere are differences of climate and soil and surface-configuration, but\neverywhere there have been the sky with the heavenly bodies, the\nsequence of day and night, sunshine and rain, hunting and fishing,\ntrees, rivers, beasts and birds, and the cultivable soil; and as man's\nproblem was everywhere the same--namely, how to put himself into good\nrelation with his surroundings--and as his intellectual equipment was\neverywhere substantially the same, it would not be surprising if he\nshould fall on similar methods of thought and procedure independently in\nvarious parts of the world. It was natural to early man to think of the\nsun as a ball of fire which had somehow been thrown up into the sky, and\nof the moon as associated with the sun as sister or wife or husband, and\nof the stars as children of these two. For creative agents early man had\nto look to the beings about him, particularly to beasts, birds, and\ninsects. The process of creation was simple--the story usually amounts\nmerely to saying that such and such a beast or other being made this or\nthat object; and there is very rarely, if ever, a conception of an\nabsolute beginning; almost always a reconstruction of existing material\nis assumed.\n\n+826+. Both explanations of the resemblances in myths, it thus appears,\nare reasonable in themselves, and every case must be considered\nseparately. That a community has borrowed one story does not prove\nborrowing in the case of any other story; and that a people has been a\ncenter of distribution of certain myths does not prove that it was the\noriginator of all myths. These two propositions appear to be\nself-evident, but they have often been ignored in discussions of the\nprovenance of mythical material.[1417]\n\n+827+. The similarities in myths all over the world extend over the\nwhole domain of religion. Myths may be divided into those which deal\nwith the creation of the world and of man (cosmogonic), those which deal\nwith the origins of tribes and nations (ethnogonic), those which refer\nto the origin of customs and institutions (sociogonic), and those which\nare based on the forms and movements of the heavenly bodies, clouds,\nwinds, and so forth (solar, lunar, procellar, and so forth).\n\n+828+. _Cosmogonic myths._[1418] Among early tribes the creators are\nvery often familiar animals, such as the coyote, the raven, the hare\n(North America), the wagtail (among the Ainu), the grasshopper (among\nthe Bushmen)--in general, whatever animals appear to the men of a\nparticular tribe to show skill and power. Reference is made above to the\nreasons which led early men to pay such high regard to the lower\nanimals.[1419] But in more advanced savage communities the creative\nfunction is ascribed to a man, as among the Thompson River Indians and\nin Southeast Australia; in Central Australia the authors of creation or\nof the arrangement of things are beings who are indifferently men or\nanimals, but are regarded as the ancestors of the tribes. In the higher\nreligions the creators are nature gods and great gods, and finally the\none God stands alone as creator.\n\n+829+. The act of creation is commonly represented as a process. Mud is\nbrought up from a pool, or an island is raised from the sea (the\nMaoris, the Redmen), and these are stretched out so as to meet the needs\nof men; or a dragon or a giant is cut to pieces and the various parts of\nthe universe are made from the pieces (Babylonia, India, Scandinavia);\nor, in still later times, an unformed mass of water is conceived of as\nthe original state out of which all things are fashioned (Babylonians,\nHebrews, Hindus, Greeks); or the universe issues from an egg (the origin\nof the egg being left unexplained),[1420] or the earth is represented as\nthe mother of all things (California). Elaborate cosmogonies are found\nin New Zealand (the Maoris), in North America (the Pawnees, the Len\u00e2p\u00e9,\nand so forth), in Australia, and elsewhere. An interesting example is\nthe Californian Achom[=a]wi cosmogony. In the beginning, according to\nthis scheme, were only the sea and the sky, and from the sky came down\nthe Creator; or a cloud, at first tiny, grew large, condensed, and\nbecame the Silver-Gray Fox, the Creator, and out of a fog, which in like\nmanner was condensed, came the Coyote, and these two made the earth and\nman.[1421]\n\n+830+. In all these cases the creation is out of already existing\nmaterial[1422] and the creator is really a culture-hero or transformer,\na character that clings to deities in the most advanced religions, as\nthe Egyptian, Babylonian, and Greek. The character of these early\ntransformers and creators is that of the communities in which they\noriginate. Morally they represent both the higher and the lower sides of\nlife, and this is true in all periods--the Hindu Indra is as tricksy and\nunmoral as the North American Coyote, and the early form of Zeus\nresembles these and other savage figures.[1423] The conceptions of the\ncreator grew more and more ethically good, but the lower representations\ncontinued to exist side by side with the higher.[1424]\n\n+831+. It is not altogether strange that the two sorts of creative\nPowers should be early thought of as mutually antagonistic. The Maidu\nbad creator is constantly opposing and bringing to naught the work of\nhis good rival, and their collision produces the actual state of things\non the earth.[1425] It is probably by way of explanation of the evil in\nthe world that in this myth the bad Coyote finally overcomes his rival.\nThe resemblance of this scheme to the Mazdean dualism, except in the\noutcome, is obvious. For a full account of these systems we must await\nfurther information; but at present there is no ground for holding that\nthe similarity is due to borrowing.\n\n+832+. In various early cosmogonies the representation is found of an\nearlier race or an early world that had been destroyed, sometimes by a\nflood (Babylonia, India, Greece, Polynesia, North America, South\nAmerica), sometimes in other ways.[1426] Flood stories probably arise\nfrom local inundations, and may therefore have been constructed\nindependently in various regions. In some cases the general conditions\nfavor the supposition of distribution from one point: it seems probable,\nfor example, that the Babylonian flood story was adopted by the\nCanaanites and from them by the Hebrews (the supposition of common\ndescent from an original Semitic myth is made improbable by the\ncloseness of resemblance between the Babylonian and Hebrew forms); it\nmay have passed to India, but the Hindu story may be accounted for from\nlocal conditions. But we know of no such intercourse between the\nAmericas, Polynesia, and Western Asia, as would suggest a migration of\nthe myth from the latter to the two former, though this is conceivable.\n\n+833+. The origin of man is included in that of the world. He is made\nfrom clay or wooden figures or stones, or, as in Australia, out of a\nshapeless mass. The conception found in various parts of the world, that\nthe present race of men was preceded by another, appears to be due\nsometimes to a real, though often confused, tradition of an earlier\npopulation, sometimes to a vague conception of the conflict and\nincompleteness in the world. Traditions of predecessors are found in\nvarious parts of the world. In North America--as, for example, among the\nNavahos--a part of the early history is the conflict with certain mighty\nand evil beings who made good life impossible--a semidualistic\nscheme.[1427] This view comes from the general disposition to conceive\nof the past as the time of mightier agencies, good and bad, than now\nexist.\n\n+834+. A not uncommon representation is that man was originally not\nmortal, or that it was a question whether or not he should be mortal\n(death being generally regarded by early man as an abnormal event,\nproduced by supernatural agency). In such cases mortality is brought\nabout by an accident or an error: among the Maoris by a mistake of the\nhero Maui;[1428] among the Hebrews by the disobedience of the first man,\nor by his failure to eat of the tree of life; in South Africa by the\naccident that the messenger who was to announce immortality was outrun\nby one who announced mortality.[1429]\n\n+835+. The belief that the earliest men were longer-lived and of larger\nstature than their successors is found among certain peoples.[1430] Of\nthe origin of this belief in ancient times we have no accounts. It may\nhave been suggested by various objects supposed to be remains of men, or\nit may have been due simply to a tendency to conceive of the beginners\nof human society as superior beings (dedivinized gods). The Hebrew\ntradition ascribed great age to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and\nMoses, on a generally descending scale; the longevity of the\nantediluvians is perhaps a speculative continuation of the series back\nof Abraham on an ascending scale, though special mythical traits here\ncome in.\n\nConnected with the general belief in the superiority of early conditions\nof life is the belief in a primitive earthly paradise; the history of\nthis conception is not clear, but in some cases the paradise appears to\nhave been the delightful abode of a deity, into which human beings were\nfor various reasons admitted, or the primeval fair and happy\nearth.[1431]\n\n+836+. The belief that the world or the existing order is to be\ndestroyed appears to be connected with the conception of history as\ninvolving a cycle of ages, and the theory of ages may have arisen from\nthe tradition or the knowledge of social and political revolutions, the\nrise of each new phase of civilization involving the destruction of its\npredecessor. Traditions of past cataclysms may have helped toward the\nformulation of an expectation of coming destruction. This expectation,\ngeneralized under the influence of belief in a final judgment of men by\nGod, would lead to the announcement of a final destruction of the\npresent world. This destruction, which ushers in a new age, is\naccomplished in various ways, sometimes by water, wind, or fire,[1432]\nsometimes by supernatural enemies.[1433] The Hindu and the Persian\nschemes of successive ages are relatively late theological\nconstructions, but they are based on the older idea that present things\nmust have an end.[1434] The Navaho series of five worlds represents,\napparently, nothing but traditions of social changes, interspersed with\nminor \u00e6tiologic myths.[1435]\n\n+837+. Many other cosmogonic details, common to various peoples, might\nbe added. Transformation from human to animal or mineral forms and the\nreverse are to be found, as we have seen, everywhere. The slaying of\ndragons by gods or heroes is often connected with creation, but belongs\nsometimes in the category of cultural or nature myths. Abnormal forms of\nbirth and generation may be sometimes products of savage fancy, or they\nmay be attempts to set forth the mysterious or the supernatural in\ncertain beings, or they may be nature myths: in various mythologies a\ngod or a hero is born from the side or the thigh or the head of the\nmother or the father; fecundation by other means than sexual union\nappears in North America, Egypt, Greece, and generally in savage\ntribes.[1436] The representation of the primeval parents, Heaven and\nEarth, as having been originally united in a close embrace and then\nseparated, Heaven being lifted up and Earth remaining below, is so\nremarkable that it might be doubted whether it arose independently in\ndifferent places; yet, as it is found in New Zealand,[1437] in\nEgypt,[1438] in India,[1439] among the Masai of Eastern Central\nAfrica,[1440] and as the supposition of borrowing for these widely\nseparated communities would be difficult (except, perhaps, as between\nEgypt and the Masai land), it is simpler to regard the myth as a natural\neffort of early science.[1441] It need hardly be added that with all the\nsimilarities in the various cosmogonic systems the diversities among\ndifferent peoples are as numerous as the differences of surroundings and\ncharacter.\n\n+838+. Among most early communities the great figures of the past\n(creations of imagination) to whom are ascribed the introduction of the\narts of life and the general betterment of society are regarded as\ndemigods, descended from parents one of whom is divine and the other\nhuman; it is sometimes the father, sometimes the mother, that is\ndivine.[1442] This conception is a simple and natural explanation of the\nsupposed extraordinary powers of the personages in question. A more\nrefined conception represents man as receiving life from the breath of\nGod,[1443] whence easily comes the idea that man is the child of God and\nhas in him a spark of divinity.\n\n+839+. _Ethnogonic myths._ Early science has to account not only for\nthe origin of the world and the human race, but also for the origin of\nparticular tribes and their surroundings. The area involved is the known\nworld, which among savage peoples is small in extent but increases with\nknowledge, the general method of accounting for social division\nremaining, however, the same. As a rule, the center of the distribution\nof mankind is the territory of the particular tribe in which the myth\noriginates. There is always the conviction, expressed or implied, that\nthe tribe in question is the center of the world and the favorite of the\ncreative Power;[1444] it being established in its place, the rest of the\nworld is divided among other tribes--a conception that survives among\ncivilized peoples of antiquity.[1445]\n\n+840+. The ethnogonic history generally takes the form of a\ngenealogy--every tribe or other group is derived from a mythical\nancestor, who among savages is frequently a beast, or half-beast\nhalf-human, or even in some cases a rock or a stone. Familiar examples\nare the genealogical systems of the Australians, the Maoris of New\nZealand, the Samoans, the American Indians;[1446] but the conception\nappears to be universal. There was indeed no other natural way of\naccounting for the origin of a tribe: as an existing family would reckon\nits beginning from the grandfather, so the tribe would come from some\nremote person, and so at a later time the nation, and then finally the\nhuman race. As there were no historical records of such beginning, the\nscientific imagination of early peoples constructed the first parents in\nvarious ways, often by personifying the tribe and transferring its name\nto the mythical ancestor. It is in this way that the genealogical lists\nof the post-Mohammedan Arabians arose; it is certain that they had no\nrecords of the past extending further than a few generations, and in\nsome cases the origins of the names in genealogical lists may be fixed.\nThe Greek method of naming ancestors is simple and obvious: the sons of\nHellen are Dorus, Xuthus, \u00c6olus; the sons of Xuthus are Ach\u00e6us and Ion;\nand these are all descended from Deucalion. In like manner the\nPelasgians are carried back to the ancestor Pelasgus, and the\nPeloponnesians to Pelops. The Roman Romulus, Remulus, Remus, are natural\ninventions based on the name of the city.\n\n+841+. Genealogical elaboration was carried out more fully by the\nHebrews than by any other ancient people. Not only were tribal names,\nJacob, Israel, Judah, Joseph, Ephraim, and the rest, personified, but\nthey were arranged in a well-shaped family system; and, the same method\nbeing applied to all the nations known to them, these were carried up to\nthe three sons of Noah, and finally through Noah up to the first man,\nwhose Hebrew name, Adam, means simply man.[1447] The table of nations in\nGenesis x is a remarkable example of ethnographic organization. As it is\nbased on geographical relations, it does not in all particulars accord\nwith modern ethnological schemes, but it is a noteworthy attempt to\nembrace the whole world in a family picture. The view that the division\nof the earth among the various peoples revolved around the Israelite\nterritory is expressed in the poem cited above,[1448] which is of the\nseventh century B.C., and it may be inferred that this large\ngenealogical unification was completed among the Israelites at a time\nwhen they felt the influence of the great Assyrian civilization, with\nwhich they seem to have come into somewhat intimate contact. Later\nexamples are found in Vergil's \u00c6neid and Milton's \"History of Britain\"\n(in which he adopts early attempts at genealogical construction).\n\n+842+. _Sociogonic myths._ Most of the customs and institutions of early\npeoples go back to a time when there were no records, and their\nintroduction was naturally referred, so soon as reflection thereon\nbegan, to gods and heroes of primeval time.\n\n+843+. The arts of life are commonly explained in this mythical way.\nThe beginnings of agriculture are referred in Melanesia to the Little\nOne or to Qat, in Mexico to the god or culture-hero Quetzalcoatl, in\nPeru to Viracocha or Pachacamac, or to Manco Capac and his wife. For the\nAlgonkins Michabo, the Great Hare, was the teacher of fishing and of\nother pursuits.[1449] The Babylonian god Ea was the instructor of his\npeople in all the arts of civilization.[1450] In the Old Testament\nCainite (Kenite) genealogy the originators of pastoral life, of\nmetal-working, and of music, are the ancient ancestors.[1451] In the\nBook of Enoch the employment of metals, the use of writing, and in\ngeneral all the early arts of civilization are ascribed to the fallen\nangels, whose children are represented in the Book of Genesis[1452] as\nthe culture-heroes of the olden time. The introduction of writing into\nGreece is ascribed by the Greeks to the mythical hero or demigod\nCadmus.[1453] Fire is in India the production of the god Agni[1454] (who\nis simply fire elevated to the rank of a personal divinity); in the\nGreek myth it is stolen and given to men by the demigod Prometheus[1455]\nagainst the will of the gods, who are jealous of human progress.[1456]\nAmong various savage tribes there are similar histories of the\nderivation of the use of fire from superhuman beings.[1457]\n\n+844+. Early ceremonies, as we have seen,[1458] are universally\nconnected with religion, and their origin is ascribed to divine or\nsemi-divine figures of the past. In Australia the initiation ceremonies,\nwhich take up a great part of the tribal life, are regarded as having\nbeen established by the mythical ancestors.[1459] Among the Hebrews\nwhen circumcision, an early initiation ceremony,[1460] became\nreligiously important, its establishment was referred to the ancestor\nAbraham, who is said to have acted by direct command of God,[1461] but\nin earlier documents there are hints of other origins for the\nrite.[1462] The ritual dances of the North American Indians, which are\nvery elaborate, are accompanied by explanations in which the origin of\nevery detail is referred to some event or person in the supernatural\npast;[1463] and similar explanations are given of the dances of\nMexico.[1464] In many cases the restrictions of food and other things\nare ascribed to the experiences of the ancestors or to the commands of\ndeities: the Hebrew usage of not eating a certain sinew is connected\nwith the story of the struggle between Jacob and a divine being.[1465]\n\n+845+. Festivals also were treated in this manner as soon as men began\nto reflect on the origin of society. As one feature in the festival\nsacred to Mars (March 1) was the dancing of the priests who carried\ncurious shields, it was narrated, to account for this, that the shield\nof Mars fell down from heaven;[1466] and the goddess Maia, according to\none conjecture, was invented to explain the name of the month of\nMay.[1467] A Greek explanation of the fact that children at a later\nperiod were not called by the mother's name was that in the contest\nbetween Poseidon and Athene for the control of the city of Athens the\nlatter deity prevailed by the votes of the women, who were in the\nmajority, and to appease the wrath of Poseidon this rule was then made\nby the men.[1468] The Gileadite festival in which maidens lamented the\ndeath of the daughter of Jephthah[1469] was doubtless an old rite in\nwhich the death of some divinity was bewailed. The Greek Boedromia was\nreferred to the succor given by Theseus against the Amazons,[1470] and\nin the celebration of the Eleusinian mysteries \u00e6tiological myths\nconnected with Demeter, Kore, and Dionysos formed the central part of\nthe proceedings.[1471] In the Old Testament the spring festival\n(Passover) is connected with the departure of the people from Egypt, and\nthe autumn festival (Tabernacles) with the sojourn in the wilderness;\nand by the later Jews the midsummer festival (the Feast of Weeks,\nPentecost) was similarly brought into connection with the giving of the\nlaw on Mount Sinai.\n\n+846+. _Relation between myth and ritual._ The question whether myth\ncomes from ritual or ritual from myth has been much discussed. Obviously\nuniversal precedence cannot be allowed to either of the two. There are\ncases in which primary mythical beliefs determine the form of religious\nprocedure: the belief, for example, that a god, as anthropomorphic\ndivine patron, must be placated and provided with all the accessories of\na potentate, leads to the offering of food and other gifts and to the\nestablishment of abodes and attendants; the sense of his aloofness and\nof his powerful and dangerous qualities induces cautionary rules for\napproach to his presence; because he has manlike intellectual and\nemotional limitations his favor must be secured by prayers and praises;\nif he has a son, this latter may act as mediator between his father and\na suppliant, or one god may mediate with others in behalf of men.[1472]\nOn the other hand, there are many examples of myths that arise as\nexplanation of ritualistic details.[1473] It is sometimes hard to say on\nwhich side the precedence in time lies. In general, it seems, it is from\nbroader and fundamental mythical conceptions that ritual arises, while\nmythical narratives spring from particular ritualistic observances.\n\n+847+. Important religious changes which have come to pass through\nnatural changes of thought, usually by the movement toward greater\nrefinement, are explained as having been introduced by some great\nreformer. The abrogation of human sacrifice was a reform of great\nmoment: in Mexico it is ascribed to the god Quetzalcoatl,[1474] and in\nthe Old Testament to Abraham acting by command of God.[1475] One of the\nIncas of Peru is said to have reached monotheistic views by a process of\nreasoning, and the post-Biblical Jewish myths ascribed the same\nachievement to Abraham.[1476]\n\n+848+. As a rule sacred places were connected with stories of the\npresence of divine personages or mythical ancestors. In Samoa, the\nHawaian group, and other Pacific Islands many stones are connected with\nstories of heroes, spirits, or gods.[1477] In Central Australia every\nstone, rock, or tree has its myth of the half-bestial ancestors.[1478]\nIn Greece, as Pausanias relates, there was hardly a place that did not\nhave its story of the origin of some sacred spot or thing due to a\ngod.[1479] In the earlier books of the Old Testament the sacred places,\nwhich were Arabian or Canaanite shrines adopted by the Hebrews, are\ngenerally connected with the presence of the patriarchs or other great\nmen. The magical qualities of springs, pools, and other bodies of water\nare explained by stories in which a god or other divine person descends\ninto them, or in some other way communicates power.[1480]\n\n+849+. _Myths of heavenly bodies, winds, and vegetation._ As the sun,\nthe moon, and other objects of nature were regarded as anthropomorphic\npersons and naturally came into relation with men, their imagined\nadventures have produced a great mass of stories in all parts of the\nworld. These stories are partly attempts to account for phenomena and\npartly are simply products of fancy; the myth-maker is very often a mere\nstory-teller. The sun, conceived of usually as an old man, is supposed\nto live in a house up in the sky, to have his wife and children, to\nreceive visitors, and to interfere to some extent in human affairs. An\neclipse was obviously to be regarded as the work of an enemy of the sun,\nusually a dragon (so in many low tribes, and in India). A great excess\nof heat on the earth might be explained by the supposition that the\nchariot of the sun had been driven too near the surface.[1481] The\nwaning of the moon was supposed to be due to her sorrow at the loss of\nher children, the stars, which were devoured by the sun. The moon might\nbe a fair woman who becomes enamored of a human being. At a later time\nin the progress of astronomical knowledge the planets and certain of the\nstars were individualized--they became actors in human history or, still\nlater, the abode of supernatural beings.[1482]\n\n+850+. The beginnings of astrological theory are probably to be\nrecognized at a very early period. The height of the sky above the\nearth, the persistence with which the stars seem to look down on men,\nthe invariability of their courses, the mysteriousness of their origin\nwould naturally lead to the belief that they had some control over human\naffairs. Meteors, regarded as falling stars, have always been objects of\ndread. The development of astrology has been due to the increase of\nastronomical knowledge and to the tendency to organize religion in its\naspect of dependence on the supernatural Powers.[1483]\n\n+851+. Winds have played a less prominent part in theistic history than\nthe heavenly bodies, but have given rise to not a few myths in\nreligions of different grades of culture and in different parts of the\nworld.[1484] In the Scandinavian myths the storm wind as a\nrepresentative of the prevailing climatic condition has assumed special\nprominence. In the Iliad when a messenger is dispatched to the abode of\nthe winds to secure their aid, these are found feasting like a human\nfamily.[1485] Later, winds are, of course, subordinated to the great\ngods.\n\n+852+. From time to time theories have arisen explaining many deities\nand heroes as representatives of the heavenly bodies, and many stories\nof gods and heroes as reflecting the phenomena of the sky or the air.\nSuch theories have been carried so far sometimes as to explain\neverything in mythology as a solar or lunar or astral myth. These\nconstructions leave much to the fancy, and it is not difficult to find\nin mythical narratives references to the movements of the sun or the\nmoon or the stars or the winds. It is possible that such reference\nreally exists in certain stories. It is probable also that simple myths\nrepresenting such phenomena have been in later times elaborated and\nbrought into connection with a more detailed astronomical knowledge. The\nsame principles of interpretation should guide us here as are referred\nto above.\n\n+853+. There are doubtless cases in which a hero or a god represents the\nsun or the moon, the correspondence between the adventures of the hero\nand the movements of the heavenly bodies being plain. The twelve labors\nof Heracles may represent the passage of the sun through the twelve\nsigns of the zodiac; but if this be the case, it is certain that such\nconstruction was relatively late, and that the separate adventures must\nbe referred to some more simple facts. If Heracles slays the Hydra, it\nis more natural to regard this as having represented originally some\nmundane phenomenon of nature or some simple conflict of the savage life.\nThe same thing is probably true of the adventures of the Babylonian\nhero Gilgamesh, who is sometimes considered to be the original of\nHeracles. Nothing is easier than to expound the story of Samson in the\nOld Testament as a series of solar and other phenomena,[1486] but the\nprobability is that he embodies the vague recollections of early tribal\nadventures, and, notwithstanding his name (which means 'solar,' that is,\ndevoted to the sun), there is no good ground for supposing that his\nhistory has been astronomically worked over. A similar remark applies to\nmany discussions respecting various deities, Hindu (as Indra), Egyptian\n(as Osiris), Semitic (as Nergai, Marduk, Nabu), and Greek (as Apollo).\nIn all such cases it is necessary to inquire first whether the\nexplanation of the myth may not be found naturally in some ordinary\nhuman experience or some very simple natural phenomenon, and a line of\ndemarcation must be drawn between original forms of the myth and later\nlearned constructions.\n\n+854+. Another source of mythical narration is the history of\nvegetation, which at the present time has largely supplanted the solar\ntheory. The amazing spectacle of the decay and revival of vegetation,\nnaturally referred to superhuman power, and the importance of plants for\nhuman life, have led to the construction of stories (sometimes founded\non ritual) in which the adventures of the spirit of vegetation are\nrecounted. Obviously there is a sound basis for this view. The earth was\nnecessarily regarded as the mother from whom came the corn and wine that\nsupported human life. The study of the relatively modern European\nceremonies[1487] has brought out the persistence of such an idea, and\nthe similarity between the new ceremonies and the old may be said to\nhave demonstrated the existence of an early cult of the divine Power\ncontrolling vegetation.\n\n+855+. The Asian Magna Mater and the Greek Mother (Demeter) or Maiden\n(Kore, Persephone) are identical in function with the corn maiden of\nmodern times, and the latter figure may be a degraded or socialized\ndescendant of an early deity. When we add that ancient local deities all\ntook account of the products of the soil, it will not seem improbable\nthat a great mass of stories should have arisen describing the\nadventures of the Spirit of Vegetation.[1488] The descent of a hero or a\ngod into Hades may be explained as the passage of the sun from its\nsummer warmth to its winter feebleness, or as the annual death and\nrevival of vegetation. Which of these views shall be adopted will depend\nin any case on the particular coloring of the story, on the\nsignification of the names involved, or on the ceremonies accompanying\nthe worship. It is not now possible to frame a theory that shall embrace\nall possible phenomena.\n\n+856+. Certain great myths have in the course of time taken on elaborate\nliterary form, and in this form show traces of advanced thought on some\nfundamental questions. Such myths occur among half-civilized peoples.\nThere is, for example, the great mythical cosmogony of the Maoris of New\nZealand--a scheme seemingly so philosophic in form that it excites\nwonder as to how it could have arisen in such a place.[1489] The story\nof the adventures of Maui, a general Polynesian figure, constitutes a\nPolynesian history of the rise of civilization. Among the North American\nIndians the mythological systems of the Algonkins, the Pawnees, and\nother tribes, include the origin of all forms of natural objects and all\ninstitutions of society. The histories of the Great Hare of the Len\u00e2p\u00e9,\nthe Thunder Bird of the West, and the various transformers or\nculture-heroes, are scarcely less elaborate than the New Zealand\nstories. The mythologies of the Finns also (given in the Kalevala) are\nnoteworthy. Passing to higher forms, it is sufficient to note the\nsuggestive story of Balder among the Scandinavians, and, in the ancient\nworld, the Egyptian Osiris myth, the Great Dragon myth of the Babylonian\ncosmogony, the various forms of the story of a primeval paradise, and\nthe ceremonies and ideas that have arisen in connection with the death\nof a god.\n\n+857+. The motif of the _antagonism between light and darkness_ appears\nto be attached to or involved in certain myths, especially the great\ncosmogonies and stories in which solar deities figure prominently. The\noriginal unformed mass of matter is often, perhaps generally, conceived\nof as being in darkness, and its transformation is attended with the\nappearance of light[1490]--light is an essential element in the\nconditions that make earthly human life possible; in contrast with the\nUpperworld the Underworld is dark. The diffusion of light is a main\nfunction of the sun, and the high gods dwell in continual\nbrightness.[1491] Light is the symbol of right, security, and happiness.\nBut it is doubtful whether the expression of the antithesis and conflict\nof light and darkness is the immediate object of the early portraitures\nof deities and the mythical narratives of creation and the future of the\nworld. The Egyptian Ra has no conflict with darkness, and the struggle\nbetween Osiris (and Horus) and Set, while it may be and often is\ninterpreted in this sense, is susceptible of other interpretations. The\nmotif in the Babylonian cosmogony is the bringing of order out of\ndisorder, in which work the creation of light is an incident. In\nethically advanced religious systems, such as the Hindu and the Persian,\nthe good Powers are connected with light and the wicked Powers with\ndarkness, but a conflict between these adjuncts is not brought out\nclearly. No such conflict appears in Greek mythology. Where a\nsupernatural being intervenes in defense of light (as when a god\ndestroys a dragon-creature who attempts to swallow the sun), this is\nsimply an explanation of a physical phenomenon, and not a conflict\nbetween light and darkness.\n\n+858+. The theory, widely held, that a great body of early myths,\nincluding the conception of the characters and functions of many\ndeities, represent the struggle between light and darkness, is,\ntherefore, not sustained by the facts. Such a generalization is found in\nlate philosophic systems, but it does not belong to early religious\nthought, which deals with concrete personal agents.[1492] A conflict\nbetween two gods is often to be explained as the rivalry of two\ndistricts or of two forms of culture. Attacks on luminous bodies, or\ndefenses of them, are common as \u00e6tiological myths, and an antagonism\nbetween light and darkness then naturally appears, as is observed above,\nas an accessory or incident, but not as an immediate object of mythical\nportraiture. The closeness of the relation between the\nlight-and-darkness theory and the solar theory of myths is obvious.\n\n+859+. _Myth and legend._ In the course of the formulation of myths they\nhave naturally become mingled with legend. As they narrate the\nachievements of the great supernatural figures of the past, these\nachievements have often become blended in the twilight of tradition with\nactual (though embellished) experiences of the clan or tribe and of the\ngreat men therewith connected.[1493] In such cases it is generally\ndifficult to decide where legend ends and myth begins, and every story\nmust be investigated separately, and its nature determined from what is\nknown of the real history of the time and of the development of mythical\nideas. Familiar examples of this combination of legend and myth appear\nin connection with the Homeric poems, certain Asian and Greek cults, and\nthe early histories of Greece and Rome and Israel.[1494] The elucidation\nof such narratives must be left to the technical investigator in the\nvarious historical periods. In general, it may be said, there is enough\nhistorical material to enable us to trace the development of tribes and\nnations with a fair degree of certainty; and the caution already\nexpressed against excessive mythological interpretation is especially in\nplace in such researches.[1495]\n\nThe material published under the general title of \"folk-lore\" consists\nof various elements--purely religious usages and ideas, mythical and\nlegendary narratives, and fanciful stories. As the term, defined\nprecisely, refers only to popular survivals from defunct religious\nsystems, its material shows a constant process of modification from\ngeneration to generation by newer ideas. The mythical element,\nextricated from the general mass, must be treated in accordance with the\ngeneral principles of the criticism of myths.[1496]\n\n+860+. _Mythical biographies._ As gods and heroes are the actors in\nmythical constructions of society, the stories in such constructions\ngenerally assume the form of anecdotal biographies of these personages.\nSuch sketches gather fresh material from generation to generation, are\ngradually worked up into literary shape, and, being brought into\nconnection with historical traditions, assume historical form, and are\nthen sometimes accepted in their homes and elsewhere as\nhistorical.[1497] As they embody the ideas of the times in which they\noriginate, they have, in so far, historical and psychological value.\nCharm of style has given some of these stories literary value, and they\nhave been accepted as part of the literary treasure of the world. They\nare sometimes combinations or fusions of myth and legend, and these two\nelements are not always easily distinguishable the one from the\nother.[1498]\n\n+861+. In questions that touch the original nature of a god the possible\ndifference between earlier and later conceptions of him must, of course,\nbe borne in mind. When a deity has been definitely shaped and has become\na patron of a community, he may be identified by the people, or\nparticularly by poets and priests, with any object or idea that is of\nspecial interest to the community. The baals of the agricultural\nCanaanites presided over irrigation, but were not specifically\nunderground gods;[1499] they were rather general divine patrons\ninterested in all that interested the people. A solar deity, becoming\nthe favorite god of an agricultural community, may be regarded as\nconnected with vegetation; or a god of vegetation may be associated, in\nastronomical circles, with the sun. A divine figure is often composite,\nthe product of the coalescence of several orders of ideas. In general it\nmay be said that the simplest and least socially refined function of a\ngod is likely to indicate his original character. We must go behind the\nconceptions of cultivated times to the hints given in popular\nobservances and poetry.\n\n+862+. _Interpretation of myths._ For savage and half-civilized\ncommunities, and for the masses in civilized times, the stories of the\nachievements and adventures of gods, heroes, and ancestors, accepted as\nhistory, have been and are sources of enjoyment and of intellectual\nimpulse. Narrated by fathers to their families, and recited or sung by\nprofessional orators and poets to groups and crowds throughout the\nland,[1500] they have been expanded and handed down from generation to\ngeneration, receiving from every generation the coloring of its\nexperiences and ideas, and in the course of time have taken literary\nshape under the hands of men of genius, and have been committed to\nwriting. For the early times they not only formed a body of historical\nliterature, but also, since they described relations between men and\ngods, came to be somewhat vague yet real sacred scriptures of the\npeople.[1501] As such, being regarded simply as statements of facts,\nthey needed no outside interpretation; and being molded by human\nexperience, they carried with them such moral and religious instruction\nas grew naturally out of the situations described. A more highly\ncultivated age, dissatisfied with bald facts, desired to find in the\nstories the wisdom of the fathers, and the imagination of poets and\nphilosophers was long occupied with discovering and expounding their\ndeeper meanings till further research set aside such attempts as\nuseless. The treatment of mythical material thus shows three stadia: the\nacceptance of myths as genuine history; esoteric explanations of their\nassumed profound teachings; and finally, return to their original\ncharacter as primitive science, having their origin in crude conceptions\nof life. A brief sketch may show how the interpretation of myths has\ncome to be regarded as an historical and sociological science.\n\n+863+. _Ancient interpretations of myths._ When the progress of thought,\nespecially in Greece, made it impossible to accept the current beliefs\nconcerning gods and their doings, it was felt necessary to put some\nhigher meaning into them--they were rationalized and spiritualized by a\nprocess of allegorization. This process seems to have begun in Greece as\nearly as the sixth century B.C.[1502] It was the philosophers who\nundertook to reinterpret the Homeric mythical material, and the extent\nto which this procedure had been carried in the time of Plato is\nindicated by the fact that he ridicules these modes of dealing with the\npoet.[1503] But Homer maintained his place in literature, and the demand\nfor a spiritualizing of his works increased rather than diminished. A\nscience of allegory was created, Pergamus became one of its chief\ncenters,[1504] and the Alexandrian Jew Philo applied the method to the\ninterpretation of the Pentateuch. It was speedily adopted in the\nChristian world, and has there maintained itself, though in diminishing\nextent, up to the present day.[1505] As a serious interpretation of\nancient myths, outside of the Old Testament, it is no longer employed.\nMyths are, indeed, important as reflecting early opinions, religious and\nother--good doctrinal matter may be extracted from them, but this must\nnot be ascribed to the intention of their authors and reporters. In the\nOld Testament itself the Jewish editors have socialized the mythical\nmaterial (weaving it into the history, as in Genesis), or have brought\nit under the work of the national deity.\n\n+864+. _Recent interpretations._ In recently proposed interpretations we\nmay note first certain attempts at a _unification_ of some body of myths\nor of all known mythical material. These attempts, almost without\nexception, take the sky and the heavenly bodies as their basis.\n\nAt the end of the eighteenth century, when the theory of human unity\nhad taken hold of the French revolutionists, C. F. Dupuis[1506]\nundertook to explain all the cults of the world as having come from the\nworship of the universe--a conception broad enough to cover everything;\nbut he practically reduces it to the worship of the heavenly bodies,\nparticularly the sun, and derives all myths from stellar objects. His\nwork is ingenious, learned, and suggestive, but in his day the facts of\nancient mythology were insufficiently known.\n\n+865+. In the next century the study of Sanskrit and Old Persian widened\nthe field of knowledge, the science of Indo-European grammar was\ncreated, and on this followed attempts at the construction of an\nIndo-European mythology. The first definitely formulated unification was\nthe theory of F. Max M\u00fcller,[1507] which derived all Aryan\n(Indo-European) myths from phenomena of the sun and the dawn, largely,\nhe held, through misunderstandings of the meaning of old descriptive\nterms (myths as a \"disease of language\"). It is conceivable that a word,\noriginally used simply as descriptive of an actual fact, may have passed\ninto a proper name and become personalized and the center of adventures;\nbut the character of early man's thought, as we now know it, makes it\nimpossible to regard such a view as a probable explanation of the mass\nof mythological material. M\u00fcller's services to the science of the\nhistory of religions were great, but his theory of the origin of myths\nhas now been generally abandoned.[1508]\n\n+866+. The great discoveries of literary material made in Egypt and\nBabylonia since the middle of the nineteenth century have aroused\nspecial interest in the religions of these countries. Leadership in\nancient civilization is claimed by Egyptologists and Assyriologists,\neach party for its own land. It is, however, Babylonia that has given\nrise to the largest theories of the unity of myths--a fact due in part\nto its development of astronomy, in part, perhaps, to the resemblance\nbetween the Babylonian mythical material and that of the Old Testament.\nDupuis[1509] had observed that the ancient Chaldeans taught that the\nheavenly bodies controlled mundane destinies, and, according to\nDiodorus, that the planets were the interpreters of the will of the\ngods. This is substantially the point of view of E. Stucken,[1510] who,\nin common with Dupuis (though, apparently, independently), holds to the\nunity of ancient religions and the astral origin of all myths. From\nBabylonia, he thinks, myths passed to all parts of the world, Egypt,\nAsia, Europe, Polynesia, and America--in such migrations, however, it\nwas the motif that passed; the personages might vary in different\nlands.[1511] Finally he traces all sagas of all peoples to the creation\nmyth.[1512] This supreme unification is reached by arguments so\nfar-fetched as to deprive them of force.\n\nStucken's position was adopted and elaborated by H. Winckler, who was\nfollowed by A. Jeremias and some others.[1513] Winckler attempts to show\nthat a single religion existed in the ancient Oriental world (with a\nsingle system of myths), and that this was dominated by the conception\nthat there was a correspondence between the heavenly world and the lower\nworld in such wise that all earthly affairs were indicated by the\nmovements of the heavenly bodies, whence arose the whole religious\nsystem of Western Asia and Greece.\n\n+867+. What is true in this theory (to which the name of\n\"Panbabylonianism\" has been given) is that Semitic mythology is a unit,\nwith Babylonia as its birthplace, and that certain elements are common\nto the Egyptian, Semitic, Greek, and other mythological systems. The\nsubstantial identity of Babylonian, Aramean (Syrian), and Canaanite\nmyths is generally acknowledged:[1514] the Old Testament dragon-myth\n(which occurs also in the New Testament Apocalypse) is found in full\nshape only in Babylonian material;[1515] the Syrian Adonis myth is at\nbottom the Babylonian story of Tammuz and Ishtar. The probability is\nthat all early Semitic schemes of creation and prehistoric life are\nessentially one. Further, such conceptions as the origin of the world\nfrom an unshaped mass of matter and the origin of man from the earth are\nwidely distributed over the earth.\n\n+868+. Babylonia, then, is the chief mythopoeic center for the Semitic\nregion, but we are not warranted in extending its influence as\nmyth-maker beyond this region. The myths of the Indo-European peoples\nhave in general the stamp of independent creation. Loans there may be\n(as, for example, in the myths connected with Aphrodite and Heracles,\nand perhaps others), but these do not affect the character of the whole.\nThe relation between the Semitic and the Egyptian mythologies is still\nunder discussion.\n\n+869+. The astral element of the theory, based on arbitrary parallelisms\ncarried out without regard to historical conditions, is an unauthorized\nextension of the generally accepted fact that certain myths are astral.\nWinckler's assumption of an astral \"system\" that obtained throughout the\nWestern world is supported only by unproved assertions of the sort just\nreferred to.\n\n+870+. Jensen's contention that all myths come from the Babylonian\nGilgamesh story[1516] exhibits the same general method as the theories\nof Stucken and Winckler (giving assertion in place of proof), differing\nfrom them only in the material of comparisons.\n\n+871+. The fundamental vice of these theories (apart from the arbitrary\ncharacter of the assertions made by their authors) is the failure to\ntake into account the historical development of mythical conceptions,\ntheir beginnings in the rudest periods of human thought, and their\ngradual elaboration and distinct formulation in the great communities,\nin which process, along with the varieties of local conditions, certain\nfundamental resemblances remain throughout.[1517]\n\n+872+. Besides these more prominent or more definitely formulated\ntheories there has been in some quarters a disposition to insist too\nstrongly on lines of mythical development connected with the plant\nworld, particularly with the death and revival of vegetation. All that\nwe know of the history of mythical material among existing savages and\nin the earliest forms of belief of civilized nations forbids the\nlimitation of the origin of myths to any one department of nature or to\nany one part of the world. Myths, like gods, may be composite: of this\nnature, probably, are some cosmogonic histories,[1518] and the stories\nof Gilgamesh, Heracles, Perseus, and many others. The lines of origin\nmentioned above have, naturally, in some cases, coalesced, and their\ncombination into single coherent narratives has been spread over long\nperiods of time. For this reason there is always need of detailed\ninvestigations of particular myths as a preparation for a general\nhistory of mythology.[1519]\n\n+873+. _Modern critical methods in the interpretation of myths._ The\ntreatment of myths has followed the general course of the development of\nthought in the world. In the old national religions they were\nincorporated in the substance of the religious beliefs. The reformers of\nthought either ignored them (so, for example, Confucius and Buddha), or\ndenounced their absurdities (so Plato and others), or allegorized or\nrationalized them (so many Greek philosophers); the early Christian\nwriters treated Old Testament myths as history, and ridiculed the myths\nof Greece and Rome. During the long period when the European peoples\nwere assimilating the ideas of Christianity the study of myths remained\nin abeyance. After the classical revival there was a return to the\nallegorizing method, the fondness for which has not yet completely died\nout.[1520]\n\n+874+. The extension of knowledge in the eighteenth century gave an\nimpetus to the study of religion, the results of which for mythological\ninvestigation appear in the works of Dupuis and others.[1521] These\nauthors were necessarily ignorant of many important facts, but they\nhave the merit of having collected much material, which they treated as\nsomething that had to be explained in accordance with the laws of human\nthought.\n\n+875+. The turning-point in the development of mythological science was\nthe rise of the modern critical study of history, begun by Voltaire and\nGibbon and carried on by Niebuhr and others. A vigorous group of writers\narose in Germany. Creuzer,[1522] indeed, holding that the myths of the\nancients must embody their best thought, and falling back on symbolism,\ncannot be said to have advanced his subject except by his collection of\nmaterials; there is some basis for his position if the ancient myths are\ntaken in the sense given them by the later poets and philosophers, but\nthe supposition of a primary symbolism in myths is set aside by an\nexamination of the ideas of undeveloped races. Creuzer's theory was\neffectively combated by Voss.[1523] Other writers of the time adopted\nexacter methods of inquiry,[1524] and K. O. M\u00fcller,[1525] particularly,\nlaid the foundation for a scientific treatment of myths by\ndistinguishing between their real and their ideal elements, between the\nactual phenomenon and the imaginative (the true mythical) explanation of\nit.\n\n+876+. The next generation witnessed two retrograde movements in the\ninterpretation of myths. F. Max M\u00fcller, dazzled by the wealth of\nSanskrit mythological material, revived the solar theory, with a\npeculiar appendage;[1526] the defects of his theory must not blind us to\nthe great service he performed in arousing interest in the comparative\nstudy of myths and leading the way to a formulation of the conception of\nthe general history of religion. On another side the vast accumulation\nof the religious ideas and usages of lower tribes led Herbert Spencer to\nhis euhemeristic view.[1527] Neither of these theories has seriously\naffected the growth of the science of mythology.\n\n+877+. A saner direction was given to investigation by the great\nbiological and sociological studies made in the second half of the\nnineteenth century.[1528] E. B. Tylor definitely stated the view that\nthe origin of myths is to be found in all the ideas of early man. By a\nvery large collection of facts[1529] he showed that the same\nrepresentations that are familiar in Egyptian, Semitic, Hindu, Greek,\nRoman, and other ancient myths occur also in the systems of\nhalf-civilized and savage communities; and he pointed out how such\nrepresentations had their basis in the simple ideas of undeveloped men\nand how their survival is to be traced through all periods of history.\nThis fruitful view has been illustrated and developed by later\nwriters,[1530] and much light has been thrown on the genesis and growth\nof myths by studies of existing popular customs in civilized\ncommunities.[1531]\n\n+878+. Interest in the subject has now become general, and collections\nof material are being made all over the world.[1532] At the same time it\nis recognized that every local mass of myths must be studied first by\nitself and then in connection with all other known material, and that\ngreat caution must be exercised in dealing with questions of origin,\ntransmission, and survival. Arch\u00e6ological and geographical discoveries\nhave widened the known area of human life on earth; it is seen that the\nhistory of man's development is more complicated than was formerly\nsupposed.\n\n+879+. We are still without a general survey of myths arranged in some\norderly fashion.[1533] The material for such a collection is scattered\nthrough a great number of publications, in which the mythical stories\nare not always treated critically. The most useful principle of\ntabulation, perhaps, would be an arrangement according to motifs, under\nwhich geographical or ethnological and geographical relations might be\nnoted. At the present time it would be possible only to make a beginning\nin such a work, since the obtainable material is not all recorded, and\nthe complicated character of many myths makes an arrangement by place\nand motif difficult. Still, even an incomplete digest would be of\nservice to students of mythology and would pave the way for a more\ncomprehensive work. The importance of the study of mythology for the\ngeneral history of religions is becoming more and more manifest. This\nstudy, in its full form, includes, of course, psychological\ninvestigation as well as collections of statistics; but the psychology\nfinds its material in the facts--we must first know what men believe,\nand then explain why they believe.\n\n+880+. It must, however, be added that myths have influenced mainly the\ndogmas and ceremonies of religion--their part in more intimate or\nspiritual worship, the converse of the worshiper with the deity, has\nbeen comparatively slight. Religious ceremonies are ordinary social\ncustoms and forms transferred to dealings with supernatural Powers.\nDogmas are quasi-philosophical expressions of conceptions concerning the\nnature of these Powers and their relations with men, and sometimes\ncontain mythical material which is then introduced into worship; if, for\nexample, a man is divinized and worship is paid him, the tone of the\nworship is affected by the divine character thus ascribed to him. But in\ngeneral, as men, in worship proper, approach a deity to get some\nadvantage from him, the appeal is to him directly without regard to\nceremonies or minute dogmas. Savages, though in theory they may make a\ngod to be an animal or a plant, come to him devoutly as a superior being\nwho can grant their requests. In higher religions the deity addressed is\nfor the moment an omnipotent friend standing apart from the stories told\nof him. Rival sects lose sight of their differences in the presence of\nneeds that drive them to God for help. Prayer is a religious\nunifier--communion with the Deity is an individual experience in which\nall men stand on common ground, where ritual and dogmatic accessories\ntend to fade or to disappear.\n\n+881+. Long after myths in their original forms have ceased to be\nbelieved they persist in the form of \"fairy tales,\" which retain\nsomething of the old supernatural framework, but sink into mere stories\nfor amusement.[1534]\n\nBut fairy tales are not the only form in which ancient myths persist.\nMyths have played their prominent part in the history of religion for\nthe reason that they embody the conception of the tangible supernatural\nin a vivid and dramatic way. To this personalization and socialization\nof the supernatural men have continued to cling up to the present time;\nthe mass of men demand not only the presence of the supernatural as\nprotection and guidance, but also the realization of it in objective\nform. This objectiveness was useful and necessary in early times, and\nthe demand for it remains in periods of advanced civilization. In the\nreigning religions of the world at the present day myths continue to\nhold their place and to exercise their influence,[1535] the more that in\nthe course of time they become fused with the constantly advancing\nethical and spiritual thought of the communities in which they exist.\nThe tendency appears to be to minimize, under the influence of general\nenlightenment, the crude supernatural parts of such combinations, to\nexalt the moral and spiritual, and to allegorize or rationalize the\nrest. But along with such process of rationalization the mythical form\nis maintained and continues to be a powerful element in the general\nstructure of religious opinion and life.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII\n\nMAGIC AND DIVINATION\n\n\n+882+. The regulation of relations with the superhuman world has been\nattempted by means of friendly social intercourse with supernatural\nPowers, and by studying their methods of procedure with a view to\napplying these methods and thereby gaining beneficial results. Friendly\nsocial intercourse is practical religion in the higher sense of that\nterm. The application and use of superhuman procedures takes two lines\nof action: the powers of superhuman agents may be appropriated and used\nindependently of them, or the object may be simply to discover their\nwill in order to be guided by it. The first of these lines is magic, the\nsecond is divination. While the two have in common the frank and\nindependent employment of the supernatural for the bettering of human\nlife, their conceptions and modes of procedure differ in certain\nrespects, and they may be considered separately.\n\n\nMAGIC[1536]\n\n+883+. The perils and problems of savage life, more acute in certain\ndirections than those that confront the civilized man, demand constant\nvigilance, careful investigation, and prompt action. So far as familiar\nand tangible enemies (beasts and men) are concerned, common sense has\ndevised methods of defense, and ordinary prudence has suggested means of\nproviding against excessive heat or cold and of procuring food. But\nthere are dangers and ills that in the savage view cannot be referred\nto such sources, but must be held to be caused by intangible, invisible\nforces in the world, against which it is man's business to guard\nhimself. He must learn what they are and how to thwart or use them as\ncircumstances may require. They could be studied only in their deeds,\nand this study involves man in the investigation of the law of cause and\neffect. The only visible bond between phenomena is that of sequence, and\non sequence the savage bases his science of causes--that which precedes\nis cause, that which follows is effect. The agencies he recognizes are\nspirits, gods, the force resident in things (mana), and human beings who\nare able to use this force.\n\n+884+. But belief in such agencies would be useless to man unless he\nalso believed that he could somehow determine their actions, and belief\nin the possibility of determining these appears to have come to him\nthrough his theory of natural law. The reasoning of savages on this\npoint has not been recorded by them, but the character of their known\nprocedures leads us to suppose that they have a sense of a law governing\nthe actions of superhuman Powers. Being conscious that they themselves\nare governed by law, they may naturally in imagination transfer this\norder of things to the whole invisible world; spirits, gods, and the\nmana-power, it is assumed, work on lines similar to those followed by\nman, only with superhuman breadth and force. The task before the\noriginators of society was to discover these modes of procedure in order\nto act in accordance with them. The discovery was made gradually by\nobservation, and there grew up thus in process of time a science of\nsupernatural procedure which is the basis of the practice of magic.\n\nThis science does not necessarily regard the superhuman power as\npurposely antagonistic to man. Rather its native attitude appears to\nhave been conceived of as one of indifference (as nature is now regarded\nas careless of man); it was and is thought of as a force to be guarded\nagainst and utilized by available means, which, of course, were and are\nsuch as are proper to an undeveloped stage of social growth.\n\n+885+. Magic is a science of sequences, but only of sequences supposed\nnot to be explicable from ordinary experience. When the savage puts his\nhand into the fire or receives a spear-thrust in his body he recognizes\nvisible and familiar causes of pain, and accepts the situation as a fact\nof life, calling for no further explanation. But when the pain comes\nfrom no familiar tangible source he is driven to seek a different sort\nof source. A cause there must be, and this cause, though superhuman,\nmust follow definite methods--it must have the will to act, and it must\nhave knowledge and skill to carry out its designs. To discover its\nmethods man must observe the processes of nature and imitate them, and\nmust at the same time have in mind familiar human modes of action. The\nsavage scientific explanation of mysterious facts is that superhuman\nPowers are intellectually akin to human beings; the question of motive\nin such Powers (except in the case of developed gods) seems not to be\nconsidered. The basis of magical procedure is imitation of nature and of\nman. This principle is supplemented by the conception of the unity of\nthe world, a feeling at first vague, that all things have the same\nnature and are bound together in a cosmos; animals and men, trees,\nstones and waters, and fragments of all these are parts of one great\nwhole, and each feels, so to speak, what is done to or by one of the\nothers. This feeling, derived from observation and reflection, is not\nformulated, but is influential in the construction of the unconscious\nphilosophy of the savage.\n\n+886+. The methods of man's magical procedure follow these principles;\nthey are as various as the sequences that savage man thinks he\nobserves.[1537] Many of them are suggested by natural phenomena. Since\nrain was observed to fall from the sky, it was held that in time of\ndrought it might be obtained by casting water into the air and letting\nit fall, or by dipping a stone in water and letting it drip; in general,\nby any process in which water falls on the ground. The wind might be\nraised by ejecting air from the mouth (as by whistling). Or ordinary\nhuman actions might be imitated: a stick thrown or pointed toward an\nenemy, it was believed, would cause a spear to enter his body;[1538] a\nhostile glance of the eye, indicating desire to inflict injury, might\ncarry ill luck.[1539] In such cases the fundamental conceptions are the\nsympathy that comes from unity and the activity of the pervasive mana.\nThese conceptions are visible in procedures in which action on a part of\nthe human body, or on an image or picture of it, was supposed to reach\nthe body itself. The possession of a piece of the bone, skin, hair, or\nnail of a man might enable one who had knowledge of superhuman laws and\nprocesses to affect the man with sickness or even to cause his death.\nContact of objects naturally suggests their unity, but the sympathy\nbetween them was not held to be dependent on contact; a man's bone\nremained a part of him, however far it might be separated from him. A\ndead body did not lose its virtues; the qualities of a dead warrior\nmight be acquired by eating his flesh. The mysterious unity of things\nseems to have resided, in savage thought, in the omnipresent mana, a\nforce independent of human limitations. Not that there was a definite\ntheory on the subject, but something of this sort seems to be assumed in\nthe ideas and usages of many low tribes.[1540]\n\nOn the other hand, a magical effect may be set aside by magic. A sick\nman, believing his sickness to be the work of a magician (the usual\nsavage theory of the cause of bodily ills), sends for another magician\nto counteract the evil work; and a magician, failing to cure his\npatient, ascribes his failure to the machinations of a powerful rival.\nIn all such cases the theory and the methods are the same; the magic\nthat cures is not different in principle (though it may differ in\ndetails) from the magic that kills.\n\n+887+. The facts observed by practicers of magic probably contributed to\nthe collections of material that furnished the starting-point for the\nscientific study of physical phenomena. The interest in the facts arose\nat first simply from their relation to magical procedure--it was from\nthem that certain laws of supernatural action were learned, and men thus\ngot control of this action. Magic is essentially a directive or coercive\nprocedure and differs in this respect from fully formed religion, which\nis essentially submissive and obedient.\n\n+888+. It is true that coercion of divine beings appears in\nwell-developed religions. A Babylonian goddess (Nana) was carried off by\nthe Elamites to their land that she might there do duty as divine\nprotector; restored to her proper home 1635 years later, she resumed her\nold functions.[1541] The Egyptians are said by Plutarch to have slain\ntheir divine animals if these failed to avert or remove calamity.[1542]\nPrometheus and certain Homeric heroes are victorious over gods. In some\nsavage tribes divine kings are put to death if they fail to do what is\nexpected of them. A god was sometimes chained or confined in his temple\nto prevent his voluntary or constrained departure. A recusant deity was\nsometimes taunted or insulted by his disappointed worshipers.[1543]\nThere is, however, a difference between the two sets of coercive acts.\nThe force used by developed religion is physical, that employed in magic\nis psychological and logical. When a god is chained or carried off, it\nis only his body that is controlled--he is left to his own thoughts, or\nit is assumed that he will be friendly to his enforced locus. Magic\nbrings the supernatural Power under the dominion of law against which\nhis nature is powerless. Religion, even when it employs force,\nrecognizes the protective function of the deity; magic is without such\nacknowledgment, without emotion or worship. While it has, on one side, a\nprofounder conception of cosmic force than appears in early religion, it\nis, on the social side, vastly inferior to the latter, to which it has\nnecessarily yielded in the course of human progress. Nevertheless, if\nreligion in the broadest sense includes all means of bringing man into\nhelpful relations with the supernatural world, then magic is a form of\nreligion.\n\n+889+. The much-discussed question whether magic was the earliest form\nof religion is not susceptible of a definite answer for the reason that\nwe have no account of man's earliest conceptions of his relations with\nthe world of invisible forces. There is some reason to hold, as is\nremarked above,[1544] that in the lowest stage of life known to us men\nwere logically indifferent spectators of the world, but in general stood\nin awe of phenomena, so that fear was their prevailing feeling. It may\nbe surmised that this feeling would engender a sense of antagonism to\nsuch superhuman Powers as came to be conceived of, on which would\nnaturally follow a desire to get control of them. Yet it is impossible\nto say at what stage of social development the necessity would be felt\nof establishing friendly relations with the Powers. The two lines of\neffort may have begun and gone on side by side, the two springing from\nthe same utilitarian impulse, but each independent of the other--a\ncoexistence that actually appears in many tribes; finally the coercive\neffort tends to yield to the kindly influences of organized society.\nThere is no ground for calling magic a \"disease of religion.\" The\npresumption, from the general law of progress, is that, when there is a\nchronological difference, the socially lower precedes the socially\nhigher. Religion and magic come to be mutually antagonistic, except in\ncases where religious authorities adopt magical procedures, giving them\na theistic and socially useful coloring. Magic has been a natural, if\nnot a necessary, step in the religious organization of society.[1545]\n\n+890+. Since religion and magic have in common the purpose to establish\nrelations with extrahuman Powers the dividing line between the two is in\nsome cases not easily fixed--the same procedure may be held to belong in\nthe one category or the other, according as it invokes or does not\ninvoke the aid of a god in friendly and submissive fashion. We may thus\nbe carried back to a time when a sharp distinction between the two did\nnot exist, as there was a time when such a distinction is not visible\nbetween \"gods\" (friendly divine members of the human community) and\n\"demons\" (unfriendly outside beings), both classes being regarded simply\nas agents affecting human life. Even when some fairly good form of\norganization has been reached it is often hard to say to which class a\nparticular figure belongs. The Hawaiian Pele (the \"goddess\" of the great\nand dangerous volcano) is often vindictive, and then differs little or\nnot at all from a demon that sends sickness and death.[1546] The\nBabylonians gave the same name (_shedu_) to a class of demons proper and\nto the divine or half-divine winged beings (to which, apparently, the\nHebrew cherubs are allied) that guarded the entrances to temples, sacred\ngardens, and palaces.[1547] The Navaho beings called _yei_ and _anaye_\nseem to hover on the border line between the divine and the demonic\nclasses.[1548] The difference between the two seems to be merely that\nthe one class (the gods) has been adopted (for reasons not originally\nethical) into the human community, while the other has not received such\nadoption.[1549] In such a case a given figure may easily pass from one\nclass into the other. According to the Thompson River folk-lore the sun\nwas once a cannibal but became beneficent.[1550] The early Christians\nconverted the Gr\u00e6co-Roman gods (_daimonia_) into \"demons.\"[1551] There\nbeing this fluid relation between supernatural beings, it is not strange\nthat such a relation should exist between procedures intended to act on\nthem.[1552]\n\n+891+. Magic, as we have seen, is based on the observation of sequences,\nand before the development of reflection and the acquisition of a\nknowledge of natural law the disposition of human beings is to regard\nall sequences as exhibiting the relation of cause and effect. A typical\nexample is that of the anchor driven ashore, a piece of which was broken\noff by a man who died soon after; the conclusion was that the anchor\ncaused his death and therefore was divine, and accordingly it received\nreligious worship.[1553] In the course of ages thousands of such\nsequences must have been observed, and these, handed down from one\ngeneration to another, would shape themselves into a handbook of magic.\nThey would, however, be constantly re\u00ebxamined and sifted under the\nguidance of wider experience and a better acquaintance with natural\ncauses, and this process, carried on by experts, would give rise to the\nscience of magic as we find it among lower tribes.\n\nMagic, like religion, is a social product. The two, as is remarked\nabove, may coexist in the same community. But when a State religion is\nestablished to which all citizens are expected to conform, the pursuit\nof magic assumes the aspect of departure from, and hostility to, the\ntribal or national cult. It is then under the ban, and can be carried on\nonly in secret[1554] (as is the case with prohibited religions also).\nSecrecy of practice is not of the essence of magic; among the Australian\nArunta, for example, magical ceremonies constitute the publicly\nrecognized business of the community acting through its accredited\nrepresentatives; the partial exclusion of women and uninitiated boys\nfrom these ceremonies (and from political councils) is due mainly to the\ndesire of the elders to keep the power in their own hands. The State\nreligion may sometimes be forced by public opinion to adopt particular\nmagical procedures.\n\n+892+. It was natural that the specific study of sequences and laws\nshould fall into the hands of special persons and classes of men. The\nhuman agent in the discovery of laws is the magician (sorcerer, shaman),\nwho, since he was generally a physician also, sometimes received the\nname of \"medicine man.\" As the office of chief arose for the direction\nof social culture and political affairs, so the office of magician arose\nnaturally for the direction of supernatural relations. He may have been\nthe earliest religious teacher and guide.[1555] He knows the will and\nnature of the supernatural Powers and is therefore a necessity to men.\nHe is specifically in charge of all that relates to the control of these\nPowers.\n\n+893+. In the course of time there arises a differentiation of\nfunctions, and, when religion becomes friendly, the office of priest is\ncreated. The priest, like the magician, understands the will of the\ngods, but his procedure is intended simply to propitiate them or to\ndiscover their will in particular cases.[1556] He is a development out\nof the magician in so far as friendly religion is a development out of\nmagical religion.[1557] The prophet also, in the r\u00f4le in which he\nappears among the Greeks, is a development out of the old magician; he\nknows the will of the gods and is thus able to predict events. This is\nthe character of the old Hebrew seer; the Hebrew prophet, originally a\nseer, assumed in the course of time a quite different character--he\nbecame a preacher of ethical religion.\n\n+894+. The office of magician, once established, became subject to all\nthe rules that govern official persons in barbarous, half-civilized, and\ncivilized societies. Of the way in which the position was attained in\nthe earliest times we have no information, but in relatively low tribes\nit appears that it is attained in various ways. There is sometimes a\nsuggestion of vocation in a dream or a vision.[1558] Among some tribes a\ncandidate for the office has to undergo a process of education, that is,\nof training in the signs by which the presence of superhuman Powers is\nrecognizable and of the way of dealing with disease and other\nevils.[1559] It is not unusual that the candidate is required to submit\nto a test, sometimes of physical endurance (as is required also in the\ncase of the young warrior), but chiefly of susceptibility to\nsupernatural influences and capacity of insight, and of the conduct of\nmagical operations.[1560] Generally in the lower tribes the office comes\nby free choice of the individual, or by choice of the body of magicians,\nwithout regard to the social position of the man. In West Africa, says\nMiss Kingsley, everybody keeps a familiar spirit or two for magical\npurposes; this is unlawful only when the spirit is harmful.[1561]\n\n+895+. In somewhat more advanced societies the office falls into the\nhands of families and descends from father to son, in which case the\nyounger man is instructed by the older in the secrets of the\nprofession.[1562] In some higher religions magical performances are in\nthe hands of certain clans or tribes. In most of these cases women as\nwell as men may be masters of the art. In the more advanced systems it\nis often the case that it is especially women who are considered adepts;\nso it was in Babylonia;[1563] in the Old Testament Saul seeks the woman\nof Endor;[1564] Thessalian witches were famous;[1565] women who tie\nmagical knots are provided against in the Koran by a special form of\nprayer;[1566] in Europe, medieval and later, the practicers of magic\nhave generally been women.\n\n+896+. The grounds for the ascription of magical superiority to\nwomen--whether from their supposed greater susceptibility to demoniac\ninfluence, or for some other reason--are not clear. In the lowest tribes\nsorcerers are commonly men[1567]--the profession is an influential and\nhonored one, and naturally falls into the hands of leading men; the\nmagician is often the most powerful man in the community.\n\n+897+. Reputation for magical power appears sometimes to attach to a\ntribe or other body of persons as the representatives of a religion\nwhich is adopted by a lower community. Possibly this is the explanation\nof the r\u00f4le ascribed at an early period to the Mazdean Magi.[1568] The\nMagi (apparently Median of origin) formed the priestly tribe of the\nMazdean religion, and we do not know that they played originally any\npart as sorcerers. But it seems that they were so considered in Greece\nas early as the fifth century B.C.,[1569] and after the Moslem conquest\nof Persia and the suppression of Zoroastrianism a fire-worshiper or\nMagian is especially a representative of magic.[1570] On the other hand,\nit sometimes happens among adjoining tribes that the lower become the\nspecial practitioners of magic,[1571] which is then considered to be a\nmysterious art, alien to the official religion, and therefore proper to\nthe ministers of the old mysterious cults.\n\n+898+. The power exercised by the magician extends over the whole world\nof men and things, and is generally considered to be practically without\nlimit. He guards men against diseases, noxious beasts, and all other\nforms of injury; he destroys one's enemies and guards one against plots\nof enemies, including other magicians; he is able to induce or destroy\nlove, to give physical strength, to inflict disease, to kill, and to\nrestore to life; he ascends to heaven or descends into the world below;\nhe is able to coerce the gods themselves; in fact, he does everything\nthat a god is commonly supposed to do--the tendency was to identify the\nmagician and the god.[1572] Such identification is natural or necessary\nin early faiths, inasmuch as it was held that there was no difference of\nnature between men and gods. A god was as a rule the stronger. But how\ngods arose and how they gained their superior strength was not clear,\nand it might thus easily happen that a man should acquire powers equal\nto those of divine beings.[1573]\n\n+899+. The methods employed by the magician to effect his purpose are\nvarious. In early times it is usual for him to fall into an ecstatic\nstate; by drinking intoxicating liquors, by violent movements, or by\ncontemplation he gets out of himself and comes into relations with the\nmysterious potencies. In such a condition he acts as his imagination\nsuggests.[1574] But in the organized forms of magic long experience has\ndevised various means of producing results beyond the power of ordinary\nmen. Certain objects are magically charged with supernatural power\n(charms), and these worn on the person guard the possessor against\nmalign influences. Various formulas are employed which are supposed to\ncoerce the Powers; these are sometimes names of ordinary objects\nregarded as sacred, the name of some plant or animal.[1575] Names of\ndivine persons have special potency. The name of a god was supposed to\ncarry with it his power, and the utterance of his name secured all that\nhe could secure; thus, in the early Christian times the tetragrammaton\nYHWH (Yahweh) had absolute power against demons.\n\n+900+. Similar efficacy attached to sacred compositions, prayers,[1576]\nand the like. The Mazdean petition, Honover (Ahuna-Vairya), was so\nemployed, and in Christian circles even the Lord's Prayer. Charms or\nincantations often took rhythmical form--verses, couplets, or quatrains\nwere widely used. All such methods were the product of ages of\nexperience.[1577] They were handed down from generation to generation,\noften in families or classes of magicians, were modified or enlarged\nfrom time to time, and thus came at last to form a literature.\n\n+901+. In the great civilized religions magical practice gradually\nassumed a tone somewhat different from that of the earliest times. It\ncontinued to be coercive toward evil Powers, but in regard to the good\nPowers it assumed rather to discover their modes of action. It was not\nanti-religious; it remained alongside of the official religious systems\nin friendly relations. It relied on the assistance of the good gods and\nnot on that of the demons. There was good magic and bad magic, white\nmagic and black magic, as these came to be called. A procedure of white\nmagic can thus, from the point of view of religion, hardly be\ndistinguished from prayer to a deity. The difference between the two\nappears to be that the magic produces abnormal or violent effects, which\nexperience taught could not reasonably be expected from the deity. It is\nthe old crude science brought (as the lesser divine Powers were brought)\ninto a relation of subordination to the chief god of the community.\n\n+902+. Elaborate magical systems are found in some of the ancient\nnational religions. In India the Atharva-Veda, though it contains a mass\nof crude old material, is nevertheless recognized as one of the sacred\nbooks, standing by the side of the Rig-Veda, though of less authority\nand significance than that. The Atharvan was originally a priest of\nfire, but in this work he becomes simply a magician; the immense number\nof magical procedures in the book provided for all emergencies of\nlife.[1578] The Babylonian magical formulas also go back to an early\ntime, but they were preserved by the priests and recognized as a\nlegitimate element in the religious practice.[1579] The old Egyptian\nstories introduce a number of magical proceedings, and the formulas have\nbeen preserved in treatises.[1580] Of the earliest periods of the\nMazdean religion we have unfortunately no records; in the time of the\ndecadence of the national religion, especially in the Thousand and One\nNights, the fire-worshiper or Magian is commonly a wicked magician, as\nwas natural since he belonged to a faith hostile to Islam, and the\npracticer of good magic is generally a Moslem.[1581] The early Greeks\nand Romans appear not to have been greatly interested in magical\npractices, though these existed.[1582] But a great outburst of magic\noccurred in the Gr\u00e6co-Roman world in the first and second centuries of\nour era, the magician being, however, generally not Greek or Roman, but\nof an inferior alien race.[1583] Among the old Hebrews we have no\ndetails of magical procedure except in the invocation of the dead;[1584]\nthis procedure was denounced by the prophets as hostile to the worship\nof the national god, but it continued among the people a long\ntime.[1585] The practice of magic existed abundantly among the early\npeoples of Europe, the Teutons, and others. The primacy, however, in\nmagic belongs to the Finns and Lapps, alien races regarded as inferior\nin civilization.\n\n+903+. The hold of magic on the minds of men is shown by the fact that\nit has persisted up to the present day. Its basis is a belief in occult\npowers and the conviction that man may attain to mastery over them.\nCertain forms of this belief, called theosophical, are held by many at\nthe present day; it is supposed that men are capable of transcending the\nordinary limitations of humanity. In general, however, the whole system\nof magic yielded gradually to the organized religions, the essence of\nwhich was a friendly and rational relation with the deity. Religion has\norganized itself in accord with the general organization of human social\nsystems. It has seen the necessity of getting rid of force, of depending\non humane feeling, cultivating simply friendly relations, attempting a\nunity of work, a co\u00f6peration of divine and human forces. All this has\nworked against magic. In addition to these tendencies the constantly\ngrowing belief in the domination of natural forces has made it\nimpossible in civilized societies to accept the powers called\nmagical.[1586]\n\n+904+. To sum up: magic is a means of securing superhuman results by\nadopting the methods of the superhuman Powers.[1587] It may be coeval\nwith religion proper or may have preceded it in human religious\norganization. In any case it has been, up to the present day, the rival\nof religion, though more and more driven to take a secondary place. It\nhas collected physical facts which have served as a basis for the study\nof physical science and have indirectly furthered the cause of religion\nby leading men to recognize natural law and also by necessitating a\ndistinction between theistic and other superhuman results.[1588] In the\nabsence of distinct religious systems it has been a bond of social\nunion, and to that extent has been a civilizing influence. On the other\nhand, it has fostered belief in a false science of sequences and thus\nhelped to introduce confusion into thought and the conduct of life. The\naim of religion has been, and is, to banish magic from the world.[1589]\n\n\nDIVINATION\n\n+905+. Divination is the science that seeks to discover the will of the\nsupernatural Powers by means of the observation of phenomena. Men desire\nto learn the causes of present and past misfortunes and the story of the\nfuture, that they may know at any moment what is the best course to\npursue. The underlying supposition is that these things are indicated by\nthe appearances and movements of the various objects of the world. It is\nin these phenomena that the purposes of superhuman forces become visible\nto man; the gods, it is held, cannot but so reveal themselves (for they\nproduce all phenomena), and man's task is to discover the laws of\nphenomenal revelation. The question of the motive in this revelation is\nnot distinctly raised, but it is taken for granted that the Powers are\nwilling to help man by guiding his uncertain footsteps; their attitude\nis so far friendly--they belong in feeling to the human community.[1590]\n\nDivination has in common with magic the assumption of the unity of the\nworld and its control by law, and the search for divine activity in the\nfacts of life. But the two differ essentially in their aims. Divination\nseeks to learn the divine will in order to be guided; magic studies\ndivine action in order to imitate it and accomplish divine results.\nDivination is an inquirer, and its virtue is obedience; magic is an\ninvestigator, and its virtue is achievement. Both are self-seeking, but\ndivination is the more reverent and allies itself more easily with\nreligion. But both tend to become corrupt and decadent, and their r\u00f4les\nare determined from time to time by the conditions of the communities in\nwhich they are found.[1591]\n\n+906+. The organization of divination resembles that of magic in several\nrespects. It comes to have its special functionaries, into whose hands\nall its authority falls. The divinatory power (like the magical) comes\nto a man sometimes as a gift of nature (that is, of a god) or in some\nmysterious external way, sometimes as a result of a course of training\nin which the significance of the various signs is learned. It is\nsometimes a property of a clan or a family and descends from father to\nson, always, however, under the condition of instruction of the young by\nthe old. The diviner, like the magician, sometimes performs various\nceremonies for the purpose of bringing himself into relation with the\ngods, and his utterances are frequently given in an ecstatic condition.\nIn this condition he is said in some instances (as among the\nTodas[1592]) to speak a language not his own, with which in his ordinary\nstate of mind he is unacquainted, or to utter words that are not\nunderstood either by himself or by others. Ecstasy means possession by\nthe deity; the interpretation of the diviner's words, which, in the\necstatic condition, are the words of a spirit or a god, is sometimes\nleft to the bystanders, or, if unintelligible to them, must be recovered\nby the seer himself when he returns to his normal condition.\n\n+907+. The highest development of ecstasy is found in the prophet\nproper. Originally the prophet was a foreteller and acted under the\ninspiration of a god, a divine seizure that was allied to madness. The\nravings of the savage shaman[1593] are repeated in the ravings of\nCassandra and in the excited utterances and bodily exhaustion of the\nearly Hebrew prophets.[1594] A nobler use of ecstasy is exhibited in the\nyouth of Byblos, who rescued an unfortunate Egyptian envoy from insult\nand secured him honorable treatment.[1595] The more advanced thought\ntended to abandon the abnormal state of the diviner and make him simply\na recipient of divine knowledge by the favor of a god--the gods came to\nchoose thoughtful men instead of beasts as their intermediaries.[1596]\nThe Hebrew prophets whose utterances have been preserved, from Amos\nonward, are men of insight, essentially critics of the national life,\nand moral watchmen; but features of the old conception of divinatory\npower continue for some time to attach to them.[1597]\n\n+908+. The differentiation of functions between magician, diviner, and\npriest appears to have taken place at a comparatively early period,\nthough it is probable that in the earliest times all these characters\nmight be united in a single person. As soon as an organized religion is\nestablished the priest acquires his specific function as intermediator\nbetween men and gods, often, however, retaining the power of discovering\nthe will of the deity.[1598] Magic, as we have seen, tends to become an\nunsocial and hostile thing, and the magician is in later times punished\nor discountenanced by public opinion. The diviner, on the other hand,\nhas generally retained possession of his public for the reason that he\nis in sympathy with the gods of the community and his work is held to be\nwholly friendly. In all stages of religious development, except the very\nhighest, he has been recognized by public opinion and by law as a part\nof the religious constitution of society and has often attained great\ncivil and political power.[1599] Among civilized peoples he comes to be\na man of learning, acquainted with many things besides the mere signs of\nthe will of the gods.\n\n+909+. Divinatory signs may be grouped in various classes according as\nthey belong to the outer world or to men's inward experiences, and\naccording as they present themselves without or with preparation by man.\nOutward signs in ordinary occurrences which, so far as human initiative\nis concerned, are accidental may be called, for convenience, \"omens.\"\nUncommon occurrences may be called, if they appear in the forms of men\nand animals, \"prodigies,\" and if they are seen in the physical world,\n\"portents.\" These designations are arbitrary, and sometimes two or more\nof them may be appropriate for the same event. Inward signs are dreams,\nrevelations in the ecstatic state, and prophetic inspirations.[1600] We\nmay begin with divination from the observation of external objects, and\nconsider first such as are accidental (omens, prodigies, portents).\n\n+910+. Omens, prodigies, and portents are to be regarded as the product\nof ages of experience. The observations of early men seem to them to\nshow that certain appearances are followed by certain events, and the\ndetails of experience, handed down and interpreted by successive\ngenerations, are in the course of time sifted, systematized, and\nformulated. In savage and half-civilized communities divinatory signs\nare usually simple, drawn from appearances of familiar objects and\noccurrences. They become more complicated in civilized times--they are\nmingled with elaborate astrological ideas. Divination becomes a science\nfor the practice of which a technical education is required. Belief in\nomens and other signs survives among the highest civilized peoples long\nafter the conceptions on which they rest have been abandoned. The origin\nof signs among savage peoples may often be traced with more or less\nprobability; in the case of such as survive in periods of high culture\nthe origin is necessarily obscured by the lapse of time and can be\nsurmised only by comparison with earlier conceptions.\n\nThe belief in such signs may be traced over a great part of the world.\nIt is found among the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Hindus,\nChinese, Hebrews, Greeks, Romans, Arabians, and at a later time among\nthe Celtic, Slavic, and Teutonic peoples.[1601] At the present day it\noccurs most highly developed in Polynesia, Northern Africa, Southern\nIndia, and Central Asia; it is relatively unimportant in Western and\nCentral Africa, North America, South America, and Australia. One\ndifference between divination and magic thus appears to be that the\nlatter is vigorous in savage communities that pay little attention to\nthe former. Further collections of facts may require a modification of\nthis statement; but, in general, it would seem that an organization of\nsigns, demanding, as it does, orderly reflection on phenomena, is proper\nto communities that have advanced beyond the hunting and nomadic stages.\nFor the rest, there are few objects or occurrences that have not been\nregarded at some time by some people as indications of divine will in\nrespect to present, past, or future events.\n\n+911+. A fair illustration of the early belief in omens is afforded by\nthe divinatory system that prevails in Samoa and the neighboring group\nof islands.[1602] It appears that all omens are derived either from the\nmovements of animals that are regarded as incarnations of deities,[1603]\nor from phenomena that are held to be produced immediately by deities.\nThe flight of owls, bats, or rails, according to its direction,\nindicates the result of a battle or a war; the howling of a dog is a\nsign of coming misfortune; if a centipede crawls on the top of a mat it\nis a good omen, if on the bottom of a mat it is bad; it is unfortunate\nwhen a lizard crosses one's path; if a basket be found turned upside\ndown in a road, this is a sign of evil; the way in which sacred stones\nfall to the ground is an indication of the future. The animals mentioned\nabove (and there are many other such) are all regarded as incarnations\nof deities. So as to portents: loud thunder, taken to be the voice of\nthe great god Tangaloa, is a good sign; the significance of lightning\n(which also is sent by the god) depends upon the direction taken by the\nflash. An eclipse is regarded as a presage of death. A similar system of\ninterpretation of signs is found elsewhere. The Masai and the Nandi draw\nomens from the movements of birds.[1604] In Ashantiland the cry of the\nowl means death.[1605] When in Australia the track of an insect is\nbelieved to point toward the abode of the sorcerer by whom a man has\nbeen done to death, the conception is probably the same. The modern\nAfghans hold that a high wind that continues three days is a sign that a\nmurder has been committed.[1606] Examples from Brazil, Borneo, New\nZealand, Old Calabar and Tatarland are given by Tylor.[1607] In the\nearly Hebrew history it appears that a rustling in trees was looked on\nas a sign of divine intervention.[1608]\n\n+912+. In ancient Babylonia and Assyria an elaborate system of\ninterpretation of ordinary occurrences prevailed--the movements and\nappearances of various species of birds, of bulls, of dogs of all colors\nare noted, with minute interpretations.[1609] The Greeks recognized\nomens in the acts of various animals, especially in the flight and cries\nof birds; so important were these last that the words for 'bird' came to\nbe employed for 'omens from birds' and even simply for 'omens';[1610]\nAristophanes, laughing at the Athenians, declares that they called every\nmantic sign 'bird'.[1611] Skepticism, however, appears in Hector's\npassionate rejection of the signs of birds and his declaration that the\nbest omen is to fight for one's country.[1612] A similar mantic\nprominence of birds appears in ancient Rome where the terms for the\nobservation of birds (_auspicium_, _augurium_) came to signify 'omens'\nin general. The pre\u00ebminence thus accorded to birds was due perhaps to\nthe fact that they move in a region above the earth, the larger species\n([Greek: oi\u00f4nos]) seeking the sky near the abode of the gods, as well as\nto the frequency and variety of their actions.[1613] The feeling of\ndirect contact with the deity appears in the significance attached to\nthe movements of a sacrificial animal: if it approached the altar\nwillingly, this, showing accord with the deity, was a good omen, and\nunwillingness was a bad omen.[1614] Among the later Romans the entrance\nof a strange black dog into a house, the falling of a snake through the\nopening in the roof, the crowing of a hen were unfavorable signs which\nprevented the immediate undertaking of any new affair;[1615] these were\nall unusual and therefore uncanny occurrences. Some of the animals that\nfurnish omens are totems, and in such cases the totemic significance\ncoalesces with that of the omen; the animal that appears to the young\nSioux candidate as his manitu has both characters--it is the sign of\ndivine acceptance and the embodiment of the divine patron.[1616]\n\n+913+. Prodigies connected with the birth of children are numerous. The\ncomplete or incomplete character of the infant's body, various marks and\ncolors, and the number produced at a birth have been carefully noted by\nmany peoples. The birth of twins seems to have been more commonly\nregarded in savage and half-civilized communities either as a presage of\nmisfortune (as being unusual and mysterious) or as a sign of conjugal\nunfaithfulness (as indicating two fathers, one of whom might be a god).\nInterpretations of births are given in Babylonian records.[1617]\nEverywhere monstrous births, misshapen forms, and abnormal colors in the\nbodies of men and beasts have been regarded as indications of divine\ndispleasure.\n\n+914+. That the stars early attracted the attention of man is shown by\nthe fact that constellations are recognized in some lower tribes--for\nexample, in the New Hebrides Islands, among the Todas, the Masai, the\nNandi, and elsewhere.[1618] Since all heavenly bodies were regarded\noriginally as divine, and later as controlled by divine beings,\nsometimes also as the abodes of the dead or as the souls of the dead, it\nwas natural that astral movements should be looked on as giving signs of\nthe will of the gods. Astronomy appears to have been pursued in the\nfirst instance not from interest in the natural laws governing the\nmovements of sun, moon, and stars, but from belief in their divinatory\nsignificance. How far this study was carried on all over the ancient\nworld we have no means of knowing; but, as far as the records go, it\nwas the Babylonians that first reduced astral divination to the form of\na science,[1619] and it is probable that from them it spread over\nWestern Asia and India, and perhaps into Europe. Babylonian and Assyrian\ndocuments contain many accurate statements of the appearances of\nheavenly bodies; and in the third or second century B.C., as we learn\nfrom the Book of Daniel, the term 'Chaldean' was synonymous with\n'magician.' While astronomy was pursued by the Egyptians with great\nsuccess, whereby they made a notable construction of the calendar, they\nseem not to have cultivated astrology, though they associated certain\nstars with certain gods and with lucky or unlucky days.[1620]\n\n+915+. Of all divinatory methods astrology has played the greatest r\u00f4le\nin human history, and is still believed in and studied by not a few\npersons. It derived its prominence originally, no doubt, from the\nsplendor and mystery of the sidereal heavens; the identification (by the\nBabylonians) of certain planets with certain deities gave it more\ndefinite shape. It was necessarily a learned pursuit, and, falling\nnaturally into the hands of priestly bodies, was developed by them in\naccordance with the needs of the situation. Rules of interpretation were\nestablished that became more and more specific. In the early period of\nastrology it was concerning matters of public interest that information\nwas sought--crops, wars, and the fortunes of the king as the head of the\nnation.[1621] At a later time, but before the beginning of our era, in\naccordance with the growth of ethical individualism, the stars were\ninterrogated for the destinies of private individuals;[1622] the aspect\nof the heavens at the moment of birth, the horoscope, announced the fate\nof the nascent man.[1623]\n\nIn the hands of the Chaldeans astrology remained exclusively or largely\na science of omens. An advance toward a higher conception, however, was\nmade by their identification of certain planets with certain\ngods,[1624] whereby the regularity and certainty of movement of the\nastral world were carried over to the world of divine Powers. When, in\nthe centuries just preceding and following the beginning of our era,\nChaldean astrology was adopted by the Greeks and Romans, it was\norganized by them in accordance with their philosophy, and it entered\ninto alliance with all the higher religious tendencies of the period. In\nthe unchangeableness of stellar movements the Stoics saw a principle\nsubstantially identical with their doctrine of fate. Along various lines\n(in Judaism and Christianity, and in the mysteries of Mithra and Isis)\nmen were moving toward the conception of a single supreme ruler of the\nworld, and astrology fell into line with this movement. The starry\nuniverse was held to be the controller of human life, worthy of worship,\nand able to call forth emotion. Thus astrology became a\nreligion[1625]--it was adopted by learned and unlearned, its ethical and\nspiritual quality being determined by the character and thought of the\nvarious groups that professed it. For some centuries it was a religious\npower in the world; as a religious system it gave way gradually to more\ndefinite constructions, but it survived as a science long after it had\nceased to be believed in as a life-giving faith.\n\nThe persistence of faith in it as a science is an additional\nillustration of men's demand for visible signs of the intervention of\nthe deity in human affairs;[1626] as often as certain supposed\nembodiments of the supernatural are discarded, others are taken up. The\nearlier philosophical views of the relation of the heavenly bodies to\nhuman life are now generally abandoned, and such belief in this relation\nas now exists has no scientific basis, but is founded on vague desire.\n\nIn savage and in civilized times eclipses, comets, the appearance of a\nnew star, and earthquakes have been regarded as indications of the\nattitude of the deity--sometimes favorable, sometimes unfavorable.\n\n+916+. The words and actions of men and their normal peculiarities of\nbodily form have furnished comparatively few divinatory signs, the\nreason being, probably, that in early times animals and other nonhuman\nthings arrested the attention of observers more forcibly, while in later\ntimes such acts and forms were more readily explained from natural\nconditions and laws. The palpitation of the eye, which seems sometimes\nto uneducated man to be produced by an external force, has been taken as\na presage of misfortune. A burning sensation in the ear is still\nbelieved by some persons to be a sign that one is being talked about; in\nearly stages of culture the sensation was regarded as a warning sent by\nthe guardian spirit or some other superhuman being. Sneezing was once\nlooked on as a happy omen: when Telemachus gave a resounding sneeze\nPenelope interpreted it as a sign that news of his father was at\nhand.[1627] An act performed without ulterior purpose may be taken to\nsymbolize some sort of fortune. When the Calif Omar sent an embassy to\nthe Persian King Yezdegird summoning him to embrace Islam, the angry\nking commanded that a clod of earth should be brought and that the\nambassadors should bear it out of the city, which they accordingly did;\nand this act was taken both by Arabs and by Persians as a presage of\nMoslem victory--the invaders had a portion of Persian soil.[1628] An\nelement of magic, however, may have entered into this conviction; the\nbit of soil was supposed, perhaps, to carry with it the whole land. A\nchance word has often been seized on as an indication of the future, or\na proper name taken as a presage.\n\n+917+. The belief in the sacredness or divinity of the human body has\nled to the search for divinatory signs in its parts. But it is only the\nhand that has been extensively employed in this way. The hand has\noffered itself as most available for divination, partly, perhaps,\nbecause of the variety and importance of its functions, partly because\nof the variety of lines it shows and the ease with which it may be\nexamined. Chiromancy, or palmistry, has been developed into a science\nand has maintained itself to the present day; but it has largely lost\nits divinatory significance and has become a study of character, which\nis supposed to be indicated by the lines of the hand. In its divinatory\nr\u00f4le it has often been connected with astrology.\n\n+918+. The preceding examples deal with occurrences that present\nthemselves without human initiation. In certain cases the materials for\ndivination are arranged by men themselves. In such methods there is\nalways an appeal to the deity, a demand that a god shall intervene and\nindicate his will under the conditions prepared by men, the assumption\nbeing that the god has prepared the event or thing in question, and\nthat, when properly approached, he will be disposed to give his\nworshipers the assistance desired. The casting of lots and similar\nrandom procedures have been common methods of divination the world over.\nThe African Kafir diviner detects criminals by the fall of small objects\nused as dice. The Ashanti discover future events by the figures formed\nwhen palm wine is thrown on the ground, and from the nature of the\nnumbers, whether even or odd, when one lets fall a handful of nuts. In a\ndispute the Yoruban priest holds in his hand a number of grass stalks,\none of which is bent, and the person who draws the bent stalk is\nadjudged to be in fault.[1629] The Hebrews had the official use of\nobjects called \"urim and thummim\" (terms whose meaning is unknown to\nus), which were probably small cubes, to each of which was somehow\nattached an answer \"yes\" or \"no,\" or the name of a person. Thus, when\nDavid inquired whether he was to attack the Philistines, the answer\nseems to have been \"yes.\"[1630] When it was a question who had violated\nthe taboo announced by Saul, the urim and thummim first decided that it\nwas not the people but the royal family; and then, as between Saul and\nJonathan, that it was the latter who was guilty.[1631] According to the\nBook of Ezekiel the Chaldean King Nebuchadrezzar drew lots by arrows to\ndetermine what road he should take in a campaign.[1632] The old Arabs\nemployed a species of divination by arrows, which, when thrown down, by\ntheir position indicated the will of the gods; and in the division of\nthe flesh of a beast slaughtered by a clan or group, the portions to be\nassigned to various persons were determined by the drawing of\narrows.[1633] Divination by lot was also largely employed by the Greeks\nand the Romans.[1634] The method called \"sortes vergilianae\" is still in\nvogue; it was and is a custom among pious persons, Christian or Moslem,\nto learn the course that they are to take in an emergency by opening a\nBible or a copy of the Koran at random and accepting the first words on\nwhich the eye falls as an indication of the divine will, the deity being\nsupposed to direct the eye.[1635]\n\n+919+. One of the commonest and most important methods of divination in\nantiquity was the examination of the entrails of animals\n(haruspication). Of this system there are a few examples among savage\npeoples,[1636] but it has attained special significance only among the\ngreat civilized nations and especially among the Babylonians, the\nEtruscans, and the Greeks and Romans. The slaughtered animal was\ngenerally held to be itself sacred or divine, and, as it was offered to\nthe deity, it was a natural belief that the god would indicate his will\nby the character of the inward parts, which were supposed to be\nparticularly connected with the life of the animal. Of these animal\nparts the liver was regarded as the most important. The liver was for\nthe Babylonians the special seat of thought, whether from its position\nor its size or from some other consideration we have no means of\nknowing. The explanation of the form and appearance of the liver became\nitself a separate science, and this science was developed with\nextraordinary minuteness by the Babylonians. The whole structure of the\nliver, together with the gall, bladder, and the ducts, was analyzed, and\nto every part, every line, and every difference of appearance a separate\nsignificance was assigned. Thus hepatoscopy, demanding long training and\ninfluencing political action (and, doubtless, calling for ingenuity and\ntact in interpretations), assumed great importance in Babylonia and\nAssyria; and it was hardly less important among the Etruscans, the\nGreeks, and the Romans.[1637] It is held by some scholars that Babylonia\nwas the original home of the developed science, whence it passed into\nGreece and Italy.[1638] It may be recognized in Babylonia in the third\nmillennium B.C., and there is no improbability in the supposition that\nBabylonian influence was felt in Asia Minor and Eastern Europe; but, in\nview of the number of possibly independent centers of culture in this\nregion in ancient times and the paucity of data, the question may be\nleft open.\n\n+920+. Other parts of the animal bodies also were employed in\ndivination. Tylor[1639] mentions the examination of the bones of the\nporcupine among North American Indians, the color giving indications as\nto the success of hunting expeditions. The shoulder blade, when put into\nthe fire, showed by splits in it various kinds of fortune. The heart was\nof less significance in ancient thought than the liver, it being of less\nsize, and its function in the circulation of the blood not being known.\nThe brain also did not come, until a comparatively late period, to be\nregarded as the seat of the intellect.[1640]\n\n+921+. From these external signs we may now pass to consider divinatory\nfacts derived from men's inward experience.\n\n_Dreams._ The importance attached all over the world to dreams as\npresages is a familiar fact. It would appear that among savage peoples a\ndream is regarded as representing an historical fact, the actual\nperception of an occurrence or a situation. It is believed that the\nmysterious inward thing, the soul, endowed with peculiar power, is\ncapable, during sleep, of leaving the body and wandering to and\nfro;[1641] why, then, in its journeys, should it not be able to see the\nplans of friends and enemies, and in general to observe the course of\nevents? We do not know the nature of savage logic in dealing with these\nvisions of the night, but some such line of reasoning as this, it seems\nprobable, is in their minds. The soul, they hold, is an entity,\npossessing intellectual powers like those of the ordinary living man--it\nsees certain things, and its knowledge becomes the possession of the man\nwhen he awakes. Thus the soul in dreams is a watchman, on the lookout\nfor what may help or harm the man. Perhaps there is, even in low tribes,\na vague feeling that it has extraordinary powers of perception; whether\nsuch a feeling, if it exists, is connected with a belief that, during\nsleep, the soul is freed from the limitations of the everyday corporeal\nman we are not able with our present data to say.[1642] Savages often\nfollow the suggestions made in dreams[1643] (particularly when they are\nvivid) and are confirmed in their faith by occasional fulfillments of\npredictions; the mind, working during sleep on the observations made by\nday, may sometimes fall on situations that afterwards really appear, and\na few such realizations are sufficient to establish a rule or creed.\n\n+922+. This na\u00efve conception of dreams as products of the soul's\nperception of realities survives to a greater or less extent among\nhigher tribes and nations, but finally gives way, when some sort of\ntheistic construction is reached, to the view that they are sent\nimmediately by deities. An approach to this view appears in North\nAmerica when, for example, a Pawnee Indian sees in a dream some being\nwho gives him important information, though in the folk-tales nothing is\nsaid of the source of the dream.[1644] A step in advance appears in the\nbelief of the Ashanti, according to which the existence of a tutelary\nfamily deity is indicated in a dream;[1645] it is, however, not clear\nwhether or not they hold that the tutelary deity has himself suggested\nthe dream. In the higher religions a dream is often sent by a patron\ndeity as a prediction or for guidance in a coming emergency. Doubtless\nit was only in the case of specially distinct dreams and such as related\nto important matters that attention was paid to them--the deity\nintervened only in affairs that called for his special direction.\nExamples are numerous in the history of the great nations of antiquity.\nThe Egyptian King Merneptah in a time of great danger had a dream in\nwhich the god Ptah appeared to him and bade him banish fear;[1646] and\nthe Hebrew Yahweh is represented as having sent dreams to a king of\nEgypt (probably in the interests of the Hebrews) to warn him of a coming\nfamine.[1647] The Assyrian Ashurbanipal was favored with special\ncommunications from Ishtar, and the god Ashur in a dream ordered Gyges,\nKing of Lydia, to submit to the Assyrian king.[1648] In some documents\nof the Pentateuch Yahweh regularly announces his will in dreams to both\nHebrews and non-Hebrews;[1649] and a Hebrew writer of a later time (the\nthird or second century B.C.) represents the God of Israel as giving\nNebuchadrezzar an outline of the history of the rise and fall of the\nkingdoms of Western Asia and Greece.[1650] A god might employ a dream\nfor a less worthy purpose: Zeus sends a dream to Agamemnon to mislead\nhim and thus direct the issue of the war.[1651] So important for life\ndid the Greeks conceive the dream to be that, as it would seem, they\npersonified it.[1652]\n\n_Incubation._ Divine direction by dreams was not always left to chance.\nThe custom arose of sleeping near a shrine (_engkoimesis_, incubation)\nwhere, doubtless, after appropriate ritual preparation the god was\nexpected to signify his will in a dream (his generally friendly feeling\nwas assumed and the dream would be of the nature of an answer to\nprayer). This was one of the means employed by Saul when he desired to\nlearn what would be the issue of the impending battle with the\nPhilistines.[1653] In Greece, and later in Italy, the most famous shrine\nof incubation was that of Asklepios (Aesculapius), which was widely\nresorted to and came to exert a good moral influence.[1654] The renown\nof the shrine was doubtless increased by the fact that Asklepios was a\ngod of healing.[1655]\n\n+923+. As a dream was often obscure the services of a trained\ninterpreter became necessary in order that the dream might be effective.\nThe interpreters were magicians, priests, or sages[1656]--men in\nintimate association with deities and acquainted with their modes and\nvehicles of revelation;[1657] dreams thus became equivalent to oracular\nresponses. An interpreter would become famous in proportion to the\nnumber of fulfillments of his interpretations, and his god would share\nin the glory of his renown.[1658] Of the particular conditions through\nwhich certain men and certain shrines attained special fame we have few\ndetails.\n\nOneiromancy, in unorganized form, was studied in very early periods of\nreligious life. It shared in the general advance of thought, and in the\ncourse of time a traditional science of the explanation of dreams arose.\nThere were records of experiences, particularly of notable fulfillments,\nand it became possible to make lists of dreams with\ninterpretations;[1659] these were written down and passed on from\ngeneration to generation, increasing in volume as they went. Such\nmanuals have played no inconsiderable part in the life of the\npeople.[1660]\n\n+924+. _Ordeals._ Divination has played an important part in civil life\nas a means of determining the guilt or innocence of an accused person.\nFrom very early times ordeals of various sorts have been devised for\nsecuring a judicial opinion when ordinary means of investigation have\nfailed. One of the simplest methods is to require an accused person to\nswear that he is innocent, the belief being that the god will avenge\nfalse swearing with immediate and visible punishment.[1661] This method\nis employed by the Ashanti:[1662] the accused is required to drink a\ncertain decoction; if he is made sick by it this is proof of his\ninnocence;[1663] and if there be a question between two men, and one\nafter drinking is made sick, the other is regarded as guilty, and\nexecuted. On the Lower Congo the accused swallows a pill made of a bark\nsaid to be poisonous; if he soon vomits it he is declared innocent, if\nnot, he is adjudged guilty.[1664] A similar procedure was employed in\nSamoa:[1665] standing in the presence of representatives of the village\ngod, the suspected person laying his hand on the object wishes that if\nhe is guilty he may speedily die. Among the Hill people of Ceylon also\nthis custom exists. Ordeals in Loango are described by Purchas.[1666]\n\n+925+. Among the ancient nations the earliest example of an ordeal\noccurs in the code of Hammurabi (about 2000 B.C.). Here the accused is\nthrown into the sacred water, and if not drowned is declared innocent;\nhe is protected by the deity.[1667] The same principle appears in the\nold Hebrew ordeal: when a woman was accused of unfaithfulness to her\nhusband the accused was made to drink sacred water; if she was innocent\nno bad consequences followed; if she was guilty she died.[1668] In\nIndia, where various tests by fire, water, and food have been and are\nemployed, the decision is sometimes as in the Hebrew procedure;\nsometimes (when the accused is thrown into the water) the principle\n(found elsewhere abundantly) is recognized that it is the innocent\nperson that suffers and the guilty that is uninjured.[1669] The ordeal\nas a civil process continued in Europe until the Middle Ages. In the\nsubmersion in water of a woman suspected of being a witch the principle\nof decision was the same as is now practiced in Ashantiland and\nIndia--if the woman was drowned it was a sign that she was innocent, but\nif she rose unharmed from the water she was adjudged guilty and was put\nto death.[1670]\n\n+926+. The imprecation is similar to the ordeal. A man invokes the curse\nof the deity on his enemy, and it is supposed that such curse will bring\nits punishment.[1671] A curse was regarded as an objective thing, which\nreached its object quite independently of guilt or innocence.[1672] In\nMorocco a conditional curse is pronounced and is supposed to become\neffective if the wrong complained of is not righted.[1673] These ordeals\nand imprecations were sometimes effective in fixing guilt; the dread of\nincurring the wrath of the deity sometimes forced a guilty person to\nconfess, or his dread of the punishment produced signs of guilt. On the\nother hand, it is probable that just as often innocent persons were\nconvicted and punished through such tests.\n\nWith all such systems of signs may be compared the Chinese quasi-science\ncalled Fung-Shui ('Wind and Water'), which determines proper sites for\ngraves and for temples and other buildings by observations of the\ninfluences of the sky (moisture, warmth, wind, thunder), of waters and\nhills, and of the earth, and by the study of various magical\ncombinations. Thus, it is held, it is possible in important undertakings\nto obtain the favor and support of the good Powers of the world. The\nsite of a grave, affecting the future of the dead, is of especial\nsignificance, and the Fung-Shui interpreters, regularly trained men,\nlevy what contributions they please from surviving relatives, sometimes\npurposely prolonging their investigations at a ruinous cost to the\nfamily of the deceased.[1674] The system sprang from the Chinese\nconception of heaven and earth as the controlling Powers of the world;\nbut, neglecting the higher side of this conception, it has sunk into a\nfraudulent trade.[1675]\n\n+927+. _Oracles._ As men went to the tents or palaces of chiefs or kings\nfor guidance in ordinary matters, so they went to the dwelling places of\nsuperhuman Powers for direction in matters that were beyond human ken.\nSuch appeal to divine or quasi-divine beings began early in religious\nhistory. In Borneo and the islands of Torres Straits the abodes of\nskulls are places from which responses are obtained;[1676] speaking\nheads are found there and elsewhere. The Sunthals of West Bengal have\nthe ghost of a specially revered ancestor as a dispenser of superhuman\nknowledge.[1677] When local gods arose every local shrine, it is\nprobable, contained an oracle.[1678] The shrines of the great gods\nnaturally acquired special prominence, their oracles were consulted by\nkings and other leaders on affairs of importance, and thus came to exert\na great influence on the course of events.[1679] The stars also, though\nthey had no earthly habitations, were consulted through their\ninterpreters. Such astrological oracles, as used by men like Posidonius,\nthe teacher of Cicero, might be morally inspiring; but when, at a later\ntime, the consultation of heavenly bodies fell into the hands of\nwandering \"Chaldeans\" (who might be of any nation) it became a system of\ncharlatanry, and thus morally debasing.[1680]\n\nThe greater nations of antiquity differed considerably among themselves\nin regard to the part played in their lives by oracles. In general, the\norganization of oracular shrines grew in proportion to the rise of\nmanlike gods--deities whose relation to men was socially intimate. In\nEgypt such shrines were not of prime importance;[1681] the functions of\nthe gods were mainly governmental--the most human of them, Osiris,\nbecame an ethical judge rather than a personal friend. The\npre-Mohammedan Arabs did not create great gods, and their resort to\nlocal divinities was commonly in order to ask whether or not a proposed\ncourse of action was desirable; the answer was \"yes\" or \"no.\"[1682] The\nfamous warrior and poet, Imru'l-Kais, desiring to go to war to avenge\nhis father's death, received at a shrine three times a negative answer,\nwhereupon, hurling abusive epithets at the god, he exclaimed, \"If it\nwere your father, you would not say 'no.'\" Such independence was\nprobably rare; most men would have accepted the divine decision. The\nanswer of the Hebrew oracle was, as among the Arabs, \"yes\" or \"no\" (by\nurim and thummim)--the gods were remote, and the oracle, whose minister\nwas a priest, gradually yielded to the prophet, the human interpreter\nof the deity.[1683] The Philistines appear to have had well-organized\noracles; when King Ahaziah was sick he sent to inquire of Baalzebub, god\nof Ekron, whether or not he should recover.[1684] Many Babylonian and\nAssyrian deities gave oracular responses;[1685] it is not known whether\nthe shrines were resorted to by the people at large, and their\nimportance was probably diminished by the great r\u00f4le played by the\npriestly interpretation of omens, whereby the will of the gods was held\nto be clearly revealed. The Romans under the republic were practically\nindependent of oracles at shrines: in household affairs they had a\nfamily god for every department and every situation, and for State\nmatters they found the Sibylline oracles sufficient.[1686] Later, with\nthe widening of the horizon of religion, the resort to Greek and other\noracular shrines became general--a departure from the old Roman\nconstitution.[1687] The greatest development of oracular service took\nplace in Greece. The Greek gods, with their anthropomorphically\nemotional characters, entered intimately and sympathetically into human\nlife, communal and individual. The great shrines of Zeus at Dodona and\nApollo at Delphi were centers of Hellenistic religious life, and there\nwere others of less importance.[1688] Zeus, as head of the pantheon,\nnaturally took a distinguished place as patron of oracles; and Apollo's\nrelation to music and inspiration may account in part for the\npre\u00ebminence of his oracular shrine. In many cases, however, the grounds\nof the choice of a particular deity as oracle-giver escape us.\n\nThe human demand for divine guidance long maintained the influence of\noracles everywhere, and it is not improbable that in general they\nfurthered what was good religiously and socially. They were bonds of\nunion between communities, and their authoritative r\u00f4le would naturally\nforce on them a certain sense of responsibility. As to the character of\nthe mouthpieces of the gods and the material on which they based their\nanswers to questions we have not the means of forming a definite\nopinion. There can be little doubt that the official persons were\nsometimes sincere in the belief that they were inspired--such is the\ntestimony of observers for both savage and civilized communities--and\nmany modern instances bear out this view. On the other hand, there is\nreason to suppose that pretense and fraud often crept into the\nadministration of the oracles. When the questions were known beforehand\nthe responses may have been based on information that came from various\nquarters and on insight into the particular situation about which the\ninquiry was made. When the questions were not known beforehand we are in\nthe dark as to the source of the answers. Sometimes, doubtless, they\nwere happy or unhappy guesses; sometimes they were enigmatical or\nambiguous in form, so that they could be made to agree with the events\nthat actually occurred. In most cases the authorities would know how to\nexplain the issue in such a way as to maintain the credit of the oracle.\nThe best-known and the most impressive of the utterers of oracles is the\npriestess of Apollo at Delphi, the Pythia. She occupied a commanding\nposition in the Hellenic world (and beyond it), such as was enjoyed by\nfew persons of the time.[1689] She was invested with special sanctity as\nthe dispenser of divine guidance to the Western world (to nations and\nindividuals). It was required of her that she be morally and\nceremonially pure, and she had to undergo a special preparation for the\ndelivery of her message. The manner of her revelation did not differ\nfrom that of similar officials in noncivilized communities--she spoke in\na condition of ecstasy; she is the best representative of the intimate\nunion of the diviner and a great god, a union that tended to give\ndignity and wisdom as well as authority to the oracular utterance.[1690]\nShe was, thus, in the best position for exerting a good influence on the\nworld of her time. How far the oracles of Apollo and other deities\nfurthered the best interests of religion it may be difficult to say--the\ndata for an exact answer are lacking. Socially they were useful in\nmaintaining a certain unity among peoples, and they may sometimes have\nupheld justice and given judicious advice, but they were always exposed\nto the temptation of fraud.\n\n_Necromancy._ While in ancient times the dead were everywhere placated\nby gifts and were sometimes worshiped, the consultation of them for\nguidance seems to have been relatively infrequent. The attitude of\nexisting lower tribes toward ghosts varies in different places,[1691]\nbut the predominant feeling seems to be fear; these tribes have not\naccomplished that social union between themselves and the departed\nwithout which, as it appears, the living do not feel free to apply to\nthe latter for information concerning things past, present, and\nfuture.[1692] Savage and half-civilized peoples depend for such\ninformation on divination by means of common phenomena (omens) and on\nthe offices of magicians and soothsayers, and references in published\nreports to necromantic usages among them are rare and vague. But among\ncivilized peoples also application to the dead is not as frequent as\nmight be expected; there is still fear of ghosts, and the part assigned\nin early times to spirits in the administration of human life has been\ngiven over to gods--family divinities and the great oracular deities\nsupply the information that men need. There are few signs of dependence\non necromancy in China, India, Persia, and Rome. The Babylonian mythical\nhero Gilgamesh procures (through the aid of an Underworld god) an\ninterview with his dead friend Eabani in order to learn the nature of\nthe life below;[1693] this story points, perhaps, to necromantic\nusages, but in the extant literature there are no details of such\nusages. Application to the dead is certified for the old Hebrews not\nonly by the story of Saul's consultation of Samuel (which, though a\nfolk-story, may be taken to prove a popular custom) but by a prophetic\npassage condemning the practice.[1694] Teraphim were employed, probably,\nfor divination, but there is no proof that they were connected with\nnecromancy.[1695] After the sixth century B.C. we hear nothing of\nconsultation of the dead by the pre-Christian Jews. Among the Greeks\nalso such consultation seems not to have enjoyed a high degree of favor.\nThere were oracles of the dead (of heroes and others), but these were\ninferior in importance to the oracles of the great gods[1696] and\ngradually ceased to be resorted to. Where the practice of incubation\nexisted, answers to inquiries were sometimes, doubtless, held to come\nfrom the dead, but more commonly it was a god that supplied the desired\ninformation.\n\nThe stages in the history of necromantic practice follow the lines of\ngrowth of psychical and theistic beliefs. There was first the era of\nspirits when men were doubtful of the friendliness of ghosts, and held\nit safer in general to trust to soothsayers for guidance in life. Then,\nwhen the gods took distinct shape, they largely displaced ghosts as\ndispensers of knowledge of the future, and these latter, standing\noutside of and in rivalry with the circle of State deities, could be\napproached only in secret--necromancy became illicit and its influence\nwas crippled. And when, finally, in the earlier centuries of our era,\nthe old gods disappeared, the rise of monotheistic belief was\naccompanied by a transformation of the conception of the future of the\nsoul; it was to be no longer the inert earthly thing of the old theories\nbut instinct with a high life that fitted it to be the companion of\ndivine beings and the sharer of their knowledge and their ideals.[1697]\nThis conception led to the belief in the possibility of a nonmagical\nfriendly intercourse with the departed, who, it was assumed, would be\nwilling to impart their knowledge to their brethren on earth. Saints\nhave thus been appealed to, and it has been attempted in recent times to\nenter into communication with departed kin and other friends.\n\n+928+. The office of diviner, though it has always been an influential\none, has followed in its development the general course of social\norganization, becoming more and more specialized and defined. In the\nsimplest religions the positions of magician and diviner are frequently\nunited in one person. In Greenland the Angekok, acting as the\ninterpreter or mouthpiece of a supernatural being from whom men learn\nhow they may be fortunate, foretells the condition of the weather and\nthe fortunes of fishing.[1698] A similar combination of the offices is\nfound among the Ainu, and apparently among the Cakchiquels, among whom\nthe divining function is said to have related particularly to war.[1699]\n\n+929+. There was, however, as is remarked above, a tendency to invest\nthe priest with the function of divination. The Arabian _kahin_ was a\nsoothsayer, the Hebrew _kohen_ was a priest.[1700] The Yorubans have a\nspecial god of divination whose priest is the soothsayer of the\ncommunity. In Ashantiland priests and priestesses, who are exceedingly\ninfluential and powerful, owe a great deal of their importance to their\nability to explain signs and omens, especially to discover guilt and to\nforetell events.[1701] In the elaborate divinatory ceremonies of the\nAhoms of Southeastern Asia, the conductors, who are highly considered in\nthe community, are priests; these people are partly Hinduized, but\nprobably retain much of their ancient religious forms.[1702] A\nnoteworthy specialization of functions is found among the Todas of\nSouthern India, who distinguish the diviner from the magician, the\nprophet, and the dairyman. The diviner is inspired by a god, gives his\nutterances in an ecstatic state, and for the most part limits himself\nto the explanation of the origin of misfortunes.[1703] It would be a\nmatter of interest to trace, if it were possible, a history of this\nspecialization, but the early fortunes of the Toda religion are without\nrecords and can only be surmised. In ancient Gaul the diviner, it is\nsaid, was distinguished from the priest and the prophet.[1704] Where\ndivination is the duty of the priestly body, there is sometimes a\ndifferentiation within this body, some persons devoting themselves\nspecifically to soothsaying; so among the Babylonians, where this\nfunction was most important.[1705]\n\n+930+. Among the old Hebrews the soothsaying function is connected not\nonly with priests but also with prophets.[1706] The priest was the\nofficial diviner, employing the urim and thummim. Prophets and dreamers\nare mentioned together as persons of the same class and as sometimes\nemploying their arts for purposes contrary to the national religion;\nvarious classes of diviners are mentioned as existing among the\nIsraelites in the seventh century B.C., but the distinctions between\nthem are not given.[1707] From a statement in Isaiah ii, 6, it may\nperhaps be inferred that some form of divination was imported into\nIsrael in the eighth century or earlier from the more developed\nPhilistines and from the countries east of the Jordan;[1708] and the\npassage just referred to in Deuteronomy probably reveals Assyrian\ninfluence. While the Egyptian documents have much to say of magic, they\ngive little information with regard to the existence of a class of\ndiviners; but it appears, according to a Hebrew writer,[1709] that the\nart of divination might belong to any prominent person--Joseph is\nrepresented as divining from a cup.\n\n+931+. The greatest development of the office of the diviner in ancient\ntimes was found among the Greeks and Romans.[1710] The Greek word\n_mantis_ appears to have been a general term for any person, male or\nfemale, who had the power of perceiving the will of the gods. The early\ndistinction between the _mantis_ and the _prophetes_ is not clear.\nPlato, indeed, distinguishes sharply between the two terms:[1711] the\n_mantis_, he says, while in an ecstatic state cannot understand his own\nutterances, and it is, therefore, the custom to appoint a _prophetes_\nwho shall interpret for him; some persons, he adds, give the name\n_mantis_ to this interpreter, but he is only a _prophetes_. We find,\nhowever, that the terms are frequently used interchangeably; thus the\nPythia is called both _mantis_ and _prophetis_. Whatever may have been\nthe original sense of these terms, the office of diviner in Greece was\nin the main separate from that of priest. It is found attached to\nfamilies and was hereditary. It was recognized by the State from an\nearly time and became more and more influential. According to Xenophon\nSocrates believed in and approved divination.[1712] Plato held that it\nwas a gift of the gods, and that official persons so gifted were to be\nheld in high esteem.\n\n+932+. In Rome, in accordance with the genius of the nation, soothsaying\nwas at a comparatively early period organized and taken in charge by the\nState. There were colleges of augurs,[1713] standing in various\nrelations to political and social life, having their heads (chief\naugurs)--thus in their organization similar to the priesthood, but\nstanding quite apart from this. The same sort of organization was\nestablished in the Etruscan office of _haruspex_[1714] when this was\nintroduced into Rome. The members of these colleges were at first\nEtruscans and, as such, looked down on; but gradually Roman youth of\ngood family and education were trained for the duty, and in the time of\nthe Emperor Claudius the social difference between augurs and haruspices\nseems to have been almost eliminated.[1715]\n\n+933+. _Sibyls._ In the old Gr\u00e6co-Roman world inspired women played a\ngreat r\u00f4le.[1716] The belief in such personages goes back to the old\nconception of the possession of human beings by a supernatural being,\nwhich, as we have seen, was common in early forms of religion. This idea\nassumed various shapes in Greece, and in the course of time the inspired\nwomen were connected with various deities. In the Dionysus cult the\norgiastic rites (in which women took a chief part) seem to have grown up\nfrom old agricultural ceremonies in which the spirit or god of\nvegetation was invoked to give his aid. Such ceremonies naturally\ncoalesced here as elsewhere with the license of popular festivities. The\nlegends connected with the Dionysus cult introduced savage features into\nthe rites, as, for example, in the story of Pentheus.[1717] But whatever\nmay have been the case in Thrace, whence the cult came to Greece, it was\nnot so in historical times in Greece, where the celebrations were\ncontrolled by the State. These exhibit then only the natural frenzy of\nexcited crowds without the element of divination.\n\n+934+. The development of the r\u00f4le of women as representatives of\ndeities is illustrated by the character of the priestesses of oracular\nshrines.[1718] These, like the Dionysiac devotees, are seized and\npossessed by the god, and speak in a state of frenzy. But their frenzy\nis controlled by civilized conditions. It exists only as a preparation\nfor divination; it is the movement of the god in them laboring to\nexpress himself, and his expression is couched in intelligible human\nlanguage. The priestess is a part of an organized and humanized cult\nand, as such, represents to a certain extent the ideas of a civilized\nsociety. The Dionysiac woman yields to an excess of animal excitement,\nwithout thought for society; the priestess feels herself responsible to\nsociety. A similar progress in civilized feeling appears among the old\nHebrews; the incoherency of the earlier prophets[1719] gives way to the\nthoughtful discourses of the ethical leaders.[1720] The manner and the\nexpression of revelation always conform to existing social usages.\n\n+935+. Of a still different character is the figure of the Sibyl,\ncreated by the Greeks and adopted by the Romans.[1721] She, too, is\npossessed by a god and sometimes, at least, raves in ecstasy; but she\ndoes not officiate at a shrine and is not controlled by any official\nbody. She dwells in a cave or a grotto, has her life in the open air,\nand gives her answers on the leaves of the forest. She represents the\ndivine voices that are heard by early men everywhere in the world; in\nthe myth, when she displeases Apollo she is condemned to fade finally,\nafter a long life, into a voice.[1722] She is not, like the Pythia, an\nactual human being--she is never seen except in legends and myths. She\nis a creature of Greek imagination, the embodiment of all the divine\nsuggestions that come to man from the mysterious sounds around him.\n\n+936+. The historical origin of the fully developed figure of the Sibyl\nis obscure.[1723] In the literature she appears first in the sixth\ncentury B.C. along with the Pythia, but she was then thought of as well\nestablished and ancient. She is not mentioned by Homer or Hesiod, but\ntheir silence is not proof positive that the conception of the character\ndid not exist in their time; they may have had no occasion to mention\nher, or the figure may have been so vague and unimportant as not to call\nfor special mention. For such a figure it is natural to assume a long\ndevelopment, the beginnings of which are, of course, enveloped in\nobscurity. However this may be, the Sibyl appears to have received full\nform under the religious impulse of post-Homeric times, under conditions\nthe details of which are not known to us.\n\n+937+. In the scant notices of the figure that have been preserved the\nindications are that there was originally only one Sibyl--she was the\nmythical embodiment of divine revelation, as the muse was the embodiment\nof intellectual inspiration. At a later time many sibyls came into\nbeing; Varro reckons ten and other authors give other numbers.\nApparently a process of local differentiation went on; when the idea of\nthe revealer was once established and the historical beginnings of the\nfigure were unknown, many a place would be ambitious to have so noble a\nfigure domiciled in its midst. One line of tradition referred the\noriginal Sibyl to the Ionian Erythr\u00e6, and when the Sibylline Books were\nburned in the year 83 B.C., it was to Erythr\u00e6 that the Romans sent to\nmake a new collection of oracles. Whatever the original home of the\nfigure, one of the most famous of the Sibyls was she of Cum\u00e6.[1724] She\nwas regarded as being very old, and she was probably a permanent diviner\nof that place. It was from Cum\u00e6, according to the legend, that the\nSibylline Books came to Rome. The story of how they were first offered\nto King Tarquinius Priscus, who refused to pay the price, how three of\nthem were destroyed and then three more, and how finally the required\nprice was paid for the remaining three, points to a belief that the\nmaterial of the oracles had once been larger than that which came to\nRome. There is also the assertion that the utterances of the Sibyl were\nat that time recorded in books. This fact suggests that oracular\nresponses had long been known at Cum\u00e6, and that some persons, of whose\ncharacter and functions we know nothing, had from time to time written\nthem down, so that a handbook of divination had come into existence.\n\n+938+. In whatever manner the oracles were first brought to Rome it is\ncertain that they were accepted by the Romans in all good faith, and\nthey came to play a very important part in the conduct of public\naffairs. They were placed in the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus under the\ncharge of two men (_duumviri_), and later a college was established for\ntheir guardianship. They were used in Rome especially for guidance in\nnational calamities: when the existence of the city was threatened by\nthe victorious career of Hannibal, it was the Sibyl who prescribed the\nimportation of the worship of the Phrygian Great Mother. It is certain\nthat the books were manipulated by political and religious leaders for\ntheir own purposes, old dicta being recast and new ones inserted as\noccasion required;[1725] but probably this procedure was unknown to the\npeople--it does not appear that it affected their faith. Even Augustine\nspeaks of the theurgi as d\u00e6mones, and cites a passage from the Erythr\u00e6an\nSibyl as a prediction of Christ.[1726]\n\n+939+. To the poetical books which have come down to us under the name\nof Jewish Sibylline Oracles no value attaches for the history of the\nSibyl except so far as they are an indication of the hold that the\nconception kept on men's minds.[1727] They are a product of the passion\nfor apocalyptic writing that prevailed among the Jews and Christians in\nPalestine and Alexandria, from the second century B.C. into the third\ncentury of our era. The fame of the Gr\u00e6co-Roman Sibyl was widespread,\nand to the Jews and Christians of that time it seemed proper that she\nshould be made to predict the history of Judaism and Christianity;\npossibly it was believed that such a prophetess must have spoken of this\nhistory. Naturally the Jewish Sibyl has a Biblical genealogy--she is the\ndaughter of Noah.\n\n+940+. Her utterances, given in heavy Greek hexameters, have been\npreserved for us in a great mass of ill-arranged fragments, with many\nrepetitions, indicating them as the work of various authors. What we\nhave is clearly only a part of what was produced, but the nature of the\nwhole body of pseudo-predictions is easily understood from the material\nthat has been preserved. They follow the history down to the author's\ntime, giving it sometimes an enigmatical form, and the future is\ndescribed in vague phrases that embody the guesses or hopes of the\nwriter. It seems certain that all of the existent material of these\noracles is from Jewish and Christian hands. Even when Greek mythical\nstories are introduced, as in the euhemeristic description of the origin\nof the Greek dynasties of gods in the third book, the whole is\nconceived under the forms of Jewish or Christian thought. The Sibyllines\nare quoted by Josephus and by many Christian writers from Justin Martyr\nto Augustine and Jerome and later. They give a picture of certain Jewish\nand Christian ideas of the period and of the opinions held concerning\ncertain political events, but otherwise have no historical value. An\nillustration of the fact that the belief in them as real inspired\nprediction continued to a late time is found in the hymn _Dies Irae_, in\nwhich the Sibyl is cited along with David as a prophet of the last\njudgment. The whole history of the figure is a remarkable illustration\nof the power of a written record, held to be a divine revelation, to\nimpress men's minds and control their beliefs and actions.\n\n+941+. While divination has played a great part in the religious history\nof the world, it has rarely brought about important political or\nreligious results.[1728] The exceptions are the great Greek oracles of\nDodona and Delphi and the Roman Sibylline Books; to these last, as is\nobserved above, the Roman people owed the introduction of some important\nreligious cults. But for ordinary procedures priests and other\nofficiators everywhere were disposed to give favorable responses,\nespecially to the questions of prominent men; and military and other\npolitical enterprises were usually in such form that they could not\nconveniently be modified in accordance with unfavorable omens--the omen\nhad to be favorable. There were exceptions, but this was the general\nrule. The science of divination, however, did good service in fostering\nthe observation of natural phenomena, and especially in the development\nof astronomy and anatomy. In connection with these observations it\ncalled into being bodies of men--corporations that in process of time\nbecame centers of general culture.\n\n+942+. On the ethical side it may be doubted whether divination has been\nan advantage to society. It has produced much deceit, unconscious and\nconscious. Whether diviners believed or did not believe in their\nscience, the result was bad. If they did not believe, they fostered a\nsystem of deceit. Whether there was real belief or not, the practice of\ndivination encouraged false methods and turned men's minds away from\nimmediate appeals to the deity, and in general from a spiritual\nconception of religion. On the other hand, it helped to maintain the\nexternal apparatus of religion, which for ancient life was an important\nthing. Like all great institutions its effects have been partly good,\npartly bad. It belongs to a lower stage of human thought and tends to\ndisappear gradually before enlightenment.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX\n\nTHE HIGHER THEISTIC DEVELOPMENT\n\n\n+943+. The preceding survey of early religious customs and institutions\ndiscloses a recognizable unity in diversity. Everywhere we find the same\nclasses of sacred objects and the same methods of approaching them.\nWhether the supernatural Powers are conceived of as animals or as plants\nor as what we call inanimate things, or, in more advanced thought, as\nghosts or spirits or gods, they are held to be factors in human life,\nare regarded with awe, are dreaded and avoided, or are welcomed as\nhelpers, and in any case are propitiated by gifts and other marks of\nrespect. The potency inherent in things is the object of observation,\nits laws are studied, and it is used for purposes of life. The\ndiversities in the form of ceremonies, in the conception of the\ncharacters of the Powers, and in the general tone and coloring of\nworship arise from economic and cultural differences, and are as\nnumerous as the tribes of men; the unity of cults is a result of the\npsychological unity of the human race--the religious needs of men in all\nstages of culture are the same; there is nothing in the highest\nreligious systems that is not found in germ in the lowest.\n\n+944+. The earliest expression of religious feeling, as is pointed out\nabove,[1729] is in the form of ceremonies. But ceremonies tend to group\nthemselves round the persons of divine beings. Gods, as the controllers\nof human fortunes here and hereafter, naturally become the centers of\nreligious thought. Their characters and functions reflect the ideals of\ntheir worshipers, and all ritualistic and other usages and all doctrines\nconcerning the relations between gods and men and, in general, all ideas\nconcerning the physical and moral constitution of the world attach\nthemselves perforce to the divine embodiments of these ideals. Thus, in\none sense, the history of the gods is the history of religion. From the\nearliest times up to the present the efforts of men have been directed\ntoward defining the divine Powers that have been supposed to stand\nbehind all phenomena. The problem of harmonizing diverse divine\nactivities has always been a serious one, and its solution has been\nsought in various ways. Gods have been locally limited, every one to his\nown human tribe, district, or nation; or, when they dwell together and\ntheir spheres of influence are larger, they have been given free scope\nof action, and the resulting contradictions in human affairs have been\naccepted as a part of the mysterious nature of things; or order has been\nsought in simplification--headship has been ascribed to some one deity,\nand the relation between him and the subordinate divinities has been\nsomehow explained or has been left unexplained. The process of\nsimplification has gone steadily on with the result that the great\nreligious systems of the world fall into groups distinguished from one\nanother by their conceptions of the divine government of the world,\nwhether as pluralistic or as unitary. The development of these different\nconceptions may be traced here in outline, though the absence of exact\ndata and the variety and complexity of the formative influences\n(economic, philosophical, political, and other) necessarily make it\ndifficult or impossible to account satisfactorily for all details. The\ngroups to be considered are polytheism, dualism, and monotheism, to\nwhich may be added brief mention of systems that do not recognize a\npersonal divine ruler of the world.\n\n\nPOLYTHEISM\n\n+945+. The first stage in the final theistic history of the world up to\nthe present day, polytheism, appears in all the great civilized nations.\nThe great polytheistic systems have much in common: for example,\nprotection of civil order and morality by a god; prominence of the god\nof a ruling tribe or family or of a great city; disposition to embody\ncertain general facts, as war, love, learning, in divine figures;\ntendency to make some god universal. On the other hand, they differ\namong themselves in certain regards: in the degree of specialization and\ndifferentiation of divine functions, and in the stress that they lay on\nthe various departments of human life. Their agreements and\ndisagreements seem to be in some cases independent of racial relations\nand climatic conditions; their roots lie so far back in history that we\nhave no means of tracing their genesis and development.\n\n+946+. The Egyptian and the Semitic peoples were parts of the same\noriginal stock,[1730] and their systems of social and political\norganization were substantially identical--the government in its\ndeveloped form was monarchical, but tribal and other locally isolated\nforms of organization maintained themselves to a certain extent--and\ntheir literary and artistic outputs do not differ materially. We might,\nthen, expect their religions to be in the main identical. In fact they\nagree in having a relative meagerness of theistic differentiation, but\nin some important points they are far apart. The Semites were\nindifferent to the future life, the Egyptians constructed it elaborately\n(in this point taking precedence among the ancients); the Semites were\naverse to divinizing human beings, for the Egyptians kings were divine.\nIn this last point Egypt resembles China, but in other respects is at a\nworld-wide remove from it. Other peoples thought of their gods as having\nrelations with beasts; the Egyptians alone, among civilized nations,\nworshiped the living animal.[1731] Some Greek writers regarded Egypt as\nthe religious mother of Greece, but Hellenic cults show little\nresemblance to Egyptian.\n\n+947+. The Hebrews had the general Semitic theistic and cultic scheme,\nbut in their capacity (in their higher development) to content\nthemselves with one deity, and in their elaboration of ritualistic forms\nand institutions, were more closely akin to the Aryan Persians than to\nany Semitic community, and borrowed freely from them. The resemblance\nbetween the two cults, however, was confined to these two points; in\nother respects they were very different.\n\n+948+. The linguistic identity of the Indo-European peoples does not\ncarry with it theologic identity. The theistic scheme of India is more\nnearly allied, in the disposition to grant equality of significance to\nall gods, to the Egyptian and Semitic than to the Persian and the Greek,\nyet the tone and color of the Hindu deities do not resemble the tone and\ncolor of the Egyptian and Babylonian divinities.\n\nEven between Greece and Rome the religious differences are great. Greece\nstands alone in its artistic creation of divine forms. Rome rather\nresembles the Hebrews in its sobriety of theistic creations, and\nparticularly is like the Chinese in the purpose to make religion\nsubservient to the interests of the family and the State; Roman\nreligion, like Chinese, might be described as a body of public and\nprivate ceremonies to which gods were attached.[1732] The Roman gods,\nhowever, are much more definite figures than the Chinese; the latter are\neither unimportant folk-gods or powers of nature.\n\n+949+. The contrast between Mexico, with its considerable number of\ndepartmental gods, some of them savage, and Peru, whose\nquasi-monotheistic system is relatively mild, is striking. But the\norigin of these two peoples (who perhaps are made up of different sets\nof tribes) is involved in obscurity, and it is uncertain whether or not\nwe should expect a greater resemblance between their cults.\n\n+950+. The differentiation in the theistic scheme of the Teutons,\nespecially the Scandinavians, is noteworthy. Several of their deities,\nparticularly Wodan (Odin), Thor, and Loki, are well-developed persons,\nand these and some others do not differ materially in character from the\nearlier corresponding Hindu and Greek gods. A comparison between the\nTeutonic figures and the Celtic and Slavic would be pertinent if we knew\nmore of the character of these last; but the information about them is\nslight.[1733]\n\n+951+. The extent of the anthropomorphization of gods in any system may\nbe measured by the richness and refinement of its mythology. When the\ngods live apart from men, being conceived of mainly as transcendent\nPowers, or when they are not fully developed men, there is little room\nfor the play of social emotions and for the creation of biographies of\nindividual deities. It is the humanized god that has emotional life, and\nit is in this mythical life that the religious feeling of the worshiper\nis expressed with greatest fullness of detail.\n\n+952+. The development of mythology through all its gradations of\nfullness and fineness can be traced in the religious systems of the\nworld.[1734] Where there is no recognizable worship there is, of course,\nno mythology. This is the case in Australia, in Pygmy lands, in Tierra\ndel Fuego, in parts of New Guinea, and perhaps elsewhere.[1735] Scarcely\nabove these are parts of Central and Southern Africa, the countries of\nthe Bantu, the Hottentots, and the Bushmen.[1736] A feeble mythological\ninvention appears among the Zulus, whose conception of gods is\nindistinct;[1737] and the Masai and the Nandi, who are somewhat farther\nadvanced in the construction of deities, show mythopoeic imagination\nin a single case only (the famous myth of the embrace of the earth and\nthe sky), and this is perhaps borrowed.[1738] Along with these we may\nplace the Todas whose theogonic conceptions appear to have been cramped\nby their buffalo cult, and their mythical material is small and\nvague.[1739]\n\n+953+. A somewhat higher stage of mythopoeic development is represented\nby peoples of Oceania and North America. The myths are still\nprevailingly cosmologic and sociologic, but the beginning of\nbiographical sketches of supernatural Powers is visible. The Melanesian\nQat and the Polynesian Maui are on the border line between\nculture-heroes and gods, but they are real persons, and their\nadventures, while they describe origins, are also descriptions of\ncharacter. Hawaii and Borneo have departmental gods and a body of\nstories about them.[1740] Certain tribes of Redmen have not only divine\ngenealogical systems but also narratives resembling the Melanesian in\ncharacter, the line between myth proper and folk-lore being often hard\nto trace.[1741] The stories fall into more or less well-defined groups,\nand of the Coyote and, less definitely, of certain other personages\nbiographies might be written.\n\n+954+. The half-civilized peoples of Madagascar, West Africa (Dahomi,\nAshanti, Yoruba), the Malay Peninsula, and Southern India (Khonds) have\nmore coherent figures and stories of divine personages.[1742] Here\nsomething like living human beings appear, though there is crudeness in\nthe portraiture, and the interest is chiefly in the history of origins.\nThe Malayan and Khond figures are especially noteworthy, but are not\nfree from the suspicion of influence from higher religions.\n\n+955+. True literary mythology is found only in civilized peoples, and\namong these a gradation is recognizable. We have first the stage of\nculture represented by the Japanese, the Finns, the Mexicans, and the\nPeruvians, with fairly well-developed gods, who have emotions and\nhistories. In this group Japan takes the lowest place;[1743] it is\nchiefly in the figures regarded as deified men that definiteness of\ncharacter and human warmth are found. Japanese theogony was depressed by\nthe interest of the people in family and State organization; the gods,\nthough civilized, are vague personalities. The Finnish literary mythical\nmaterial, given in the Kalevala, has a highly humanized coloring and is\nworked up into a coherent story; the social system revealed in the myths\nis superior in many regards to that of the Redmen, but the theistic\nscheme is crude.[1744] The few Mexican myths that have come down to us\n(probably only the remains out of a large mass) show reflection and\nportray human experiences.[1745] Both in Mexico and in Peru the Spanish\nconquest appears to have destroyed no little material that, if\npreserved, would have illustrated the mythical constructions of these\nlands. In Peru, further, it may be that the monotheistic tinge of the\nState religion had the effect of banishing subordinate deities and the\nstories connected with them. For whatever reason little is known of its\nmythical material, but the little that is known shows a certain degree\nof refinement. South America, excluding Peru, has no mythical\nconstructions of interest.[1746]\n\n+956+. Of the great religions the Chinese may be passed by in the\npresent sketch; its form leaves no place for mythology; its virtual\nmonotheism excludes lesser supernatural figures as actors in the drama\nof human life.[1747]\n\n+957+. The Persian cosmogonic myths are merely statements of great facts\nwithout biographical features. In the hands of late writers they shaded\ninto legendary accounts of the origin of the kingdom, and the whole was\ncolored by the developed Mazdaism. We thus have theological\nconstructions rather than true myths.[1748] The few mythical stories\nthat have survived play an insignificant part in the religious system--a\nsort of result that is to be expected whenever a substantially definite\nmonotheistic conception has been reached.\n\n+958+. Egypt produced a couple of myths of great interest.[1749] The\nstory of Ra's anger with men, and his act of wholesale destruction,\nbelongs in the group of myths (in which flood stories and others are\nincluded) the motif of which is antagonism between gods and men. The\nconception of such antagonism seems to go back to the early opinion\nthat all misfortunes were caused by supernatural beings; in civilized\ntimes some great calamity would be singled out as a special result of\ndivine anger, and imagination would construct a history of the event,\nwhy the god was angry, and how he was appeased. What particular\noccurrence this Egyptian story refers to is unknown.\n\nThe Osiris myth has better literary form and more cultic\nsignificance.[1750] The slaying of Osiris by Set, Isis's search for the\nbody of her husband, and the r\u00f4le of the young Horus as avenger of his\nfather make a coherent history. Osiris had the singular fortune of being\nthe most widely popular god in Egypt, the hero of a romantic episode,\nand the ethical judge of men in the Underworld. The motif of the myth is\nthe cosmic struggle between life and death; the actors are made real\npersons, and the story is instinct with human interest. No great cultic\nassociation like the Eleusinian mysteries was created in connection with\nit, but the echo of the conception appears in the great r\u00f4le later\nassigned to Isis.\n\n+959+. All Semitic myths of which we have records are cosmogonic or\nsociologic or, in some late forms, theological constructions. It is\nBabylonia that has furnished the greater part of the material, perhaps\nall of it.[1751] The stories preserved give little or no portraiture of\ndivine persons--it is always cosmic phenomena that are described, and\ngods and heroes are introduced simply as actors. The purpose in the two\ncosmogonic poems--to explain the reduction of the world to order and the\nexisting constitution of earth and sky--is one that is found everywhere\nin ancient systems of thought. The Gilgamesh epic, a collection of\npopular usages and tales without definite unity, is contaminated with\nlegend; Gilgamesh is now a god, now a national hero; at the end,\nhowever, there is a bit of speculation concerning the future state of\nmen. Ishtar's descent to the Underworld is a pure nature myth; Ishtar\nand the goddess of the Underworld are real persons, yet merely\nattachments to the fact. The seizure of the tablets of fate from Bel by\nthe storm-god Zu represents some natural phenomenon (perhaps the reign\nof winter), possibly, also, a transference of headship from one deity to\nanother. The story of Adapa is in part an explanation of how men came to\nlose immortality. There is, thus, in these myths a fairly full history\nof the origin of the large facts of human life, with little interest in\nthe personalities of the divine actors.\n\nHebrew mythical material is in general identical with Babylonian; its\nOld Testament form has been more or less revised by late monotheistic\neditors. The two cosmogonies in Genesis, the flood story, and the dragon\nof chaos (a late figure in the Old Testament[1752]) are merely\ndescriptions of cosmic or local facts. The dispersion at Babel (not now\nfound in Babylonian records, but paralleled elsewhere) deals with a\nsociological fact of great interest for the Hebrews, marking them off,\nas it did, from all other peoples.[1753] The heroes of the early\ntime[1754] belong to folk-lore, probably a mixture of myth and legend.\nThe explanation of various human experiences in the Eden story[1755]\nappears to be of Hebrew origination; it is, however, rather a late\ntheological theory than a myth. The Syrian and Palestinian Tammuz\n(Adonis) myth is identical in general form with the Babylonian myth of\nTammuz and Ishtar.[1756]\n\n+960+. The Indo-European mythical material shows an advance over the\nEgyptian and Semitic in distinctness and fullness of life corresponding\nto the distincter individuality of the Indo-European divine personages.\nThese are not mere powers in the world, more or less identified with\nnatural forces and phenomena, nor a collection of deities substantially\nidentical in character and functions; they have grown into persons,\ndiffering, indeed, in the degree of individualization, but all\npronounced personalities.\n\n+961+. Hindu myths, though less numerous and less highly elaborated\nthan the Greek, still reflect fairly well the characters of certain\ndivinities, especially Indra, Agni, the A\u00e7vins, the Maruts, and some\nothers.[1757] Indra, particularly, is portrayed in detail, so that he is\nas distinct a person as Ares or Mars. Krishna and other figures in the\nepics live human lives with all human virtues and vices.\n\n+962+. The full literary form of the myth is found only in Greece. As\nZeus, Apollo, Athene, Aphrodite, and others are well-defined\npersonalities, each with certain intellectual and moral characteristics\nand with a unity of development, so the stories about them recount\nadventures and acts that form biographical unities; and, as these\nstories are of diverse nature, some reflecting barbarous periods, others\nmarked by refinement, they exhibit, when brought together and arranged\nin order of moral or intellectual excellence or according to their\ngeographical or ethnical origin, not only the history of the gods, but\nalso the development of Greek religious feeling. Being the embodiment of\nhuman experiences, they lend themselves readily to processes of\nallegorizing and spiritualizing.[1758]\n\n+963+. Roman gods, homely figures, occupied with agriculture and affairs\nof State, have no adventures and no biographies. The practical Roman\nmind was concerned with the domestic functions of divine beings, and the\nRoman genius was not of a sort to conceive gods as individuals leading\nlives filled with human passions. Myths do not figure in the Roman\nreligious scheme except as they are borrowed from Greece or from some\nother land.\n\n+964+. Teutonic mythology is largely cosmogonic or cosmologic, not\nwithout shrewd portraitures and attractive episodes, but never reaching\nthe point of artistic roundness and grace.[1759] The adventures of Odin,\nThor, Loki, and other divine persons reflect for the most part the\ndaring and savagery of the viking age, though there are kindly features\nand an occasional touch of humor.[1760] Loki in some stories is a\ngenuine villain, and the death of Balder is a real tragedy. The great\ncosmogonic and eschatological myths are conceived in grandiose style.\nThe struggle between gods and giants is in its basis the widespread\nnature myth of the conflict of seasons. The overthrow of the old divine\ngovernment (the Twilight of the Gods) and the rise of a new order appear\nto have a Christian coloring, but the belief that the world is to be\ndestroyed may be old Teutonic.[1761]\n\nThe history of theistic movements in civilized peoples shows that the\neffectiveness of a polytheistic system as a framework of religious life\nis in proportion to the extent of its anthropomorphization of deities,\nthat is, it is in proportion to their humanization that gods enter into\nintimate association with human experiences. On the other hand, it is\ntrue that the tendency toward a unitary conception of the divine\ngovernment of the world is in inverse proportion to such humanization;\nthe more definitely aloof from men the gods have stood (as among the\nHebrews and the Persians), the easier it has been for the people to\nattach themselves to a single deity as all-sufficient. The Romans form\nno exception to this general rule, for though, while they did not create\ngreat anthropomorphic deities, there was yet no native Roman movement\ntoward monolatry, the place of such deities in worship was taken by a\nmultitude of minor divine patrons who presided over all the details of\nprivate and public life and satisfied the demand for divine guidance.\n\nWhile polytheism has assumed various forms, differing from one another\nin elaboration of deities and in general cultural character, it has had,\nas a system, a distinctly marked place in human experience.\n\n+965+. _General r\u00f4le of polytheism._ Polytheism has played a great r\u00f4le\nin the religious history of the world. Representing in general a\nthoughtful protest against the earlier shapeless mass of spirits, it\nexpressed more definitely the belief in the intellectual and moral\ndivine control of all things. It flourished at a time when there was no\ngeneral demand in human thought for co\u00f6peration in supernatural Powers.\nThe sense of variety in the world was predominant, corresponding to the\nabsence of co\u00f6peration among the tribes and nations of the world; the\napparently isolated character of natural phenomena and the independence\nof the nations, each of the others, seemed to men to demand a number of\nseparate divine agencies. These were all made to accord with the\nexternal and internal condition of their worshipers and met the demands\nof life in that they represented redemption, salvation, and, in general,\nall blessings. They were not offensive ethically to the people for the\nreason that they embodied the ethical conceptions and usages of their\ntime. Thus they furnished the framework for religious feeling--they\nsecured the union of divine and human in life, brought the divine,\nindeed, into most intimate contact with the human, and so supplied the\nmaterial for the expression of pious feeling. When the gods were\nrepresented by idols, these tended to become merely the symbols and\nreminders of their divine originals. The elastic character of this\ntheistic system permitted the widest variety of cults, with the\npossibility of bringing any new social tendency or idea into immediate\nconnection with a divine patron, so that human life became religious\nwith a degree of intelligence and intensity that has perhaps not existed\nunder any other system.\n\n+966+. The great civilizations of the ancient world arose and were\ndeveloped under polytheism--many noble human characters and customs and\ninstitutions were created under the dominance of this system in\nBabylonia, Egypt, Greece, Rome, and elsewhere--that is to say, human\ninstincts and aspirations developed freely under a theistic organization\nthat satisfied in general the intellectual and moral needs of the time.\nThe different polytheistic cults of the world differed considerably in\nintellectual and moral value. These differences pertain to the diversity\nof characteristics among the nations of the world and are to be studied\nin connection with the histories of the various peoples. Here it is\nsufficient to note the general position which polytheism has occupied in\nthe whole religious development of the world.[1762]\n\n+967+. At a relatively early time, however, dissatisfaction arose with\nthe discordances of the polytheistic conception. It raised many problems\nand failed to account for many phenomena, and efforts were made to\nsystematize and simplify the conceptions of the divine government of the\nworld. These efforts took the shape of dualism, monotheism, pantheism,\nBuddhism, Confucianism, and later tended to regard the supernatural in\nthe world as Ultimate Force or as Moral Ideal. These tendencies may be\nexamined in the order just given.\n\n\nDUALISM\n\n+968+. In all the religious systems so far considered the existence of\nhuman suffering is assumed. The sole object of religious practices, in\nall cults except the highest, has been to secure extrahuman or\nsuperhuman aid and comfort in the ills of life. There has been the\nconviction, for the most part implicit, that man is not in harmony with\nhis surroundings. We have now to consider those systems of religious\nthought in which the existence of this disharmony is more or less\ndistinctly announced and the effort is made to discover its source.\n\nThe conception of two sets of Powers in the world, one helpful and the\nother harmful, is suggested by human experience and by the larger\nobservation of natural phenomena, and it is found all over the world,\namong low communities as well as high, perhaps in all tribes of\nmen.[1763] Possibly there are some low groups, such as the Fuegians and\nthe African Pygmies in which the conception does not exist; but as the\nreligious ideas of these low groups are yet imperfectly understood, we\ncannot say what their position on this point is. In general, for the\nlower tribes the world is peopled by spirits, which are the ghosts of\nthe departed or the embodiment of natural forces, and the feeling has\nbeen that these are sometimes friendly, sometimes unfriendly.[1764] In\nsome cases the hurtful spirits stand in contrast with a god who may be a\nstrict ruler and somewhat indifferent to men, but not hostile; in other\ncases there is a simple division of spirits into two classes, the\nfriendly and the unfriendly,[1765] and in the higher forms of savage\nlife there may be two such classes of deities.[1766] The double feeling\nof man respecting the attitude of ghosts toward living human beings is\nreferred to above.[1767]\n\n+969+. In certain higher forms of savage and half-civilized life we find\nthe conception of a definite contrast between the two sets of Powers.\nThe Hottentots are said to believe in two opposed supernatural beings,\nthe struggle between them ending to the advantage of the one who is\nbeneficent toward men.[1768] The Masai have two powerful beings, one\naccounted good, the other bad; the difference between them is not\nethical, but represents only the relation of their acts to man's\nwell-being.[1769] The Malays have a very elaborate system of good and\nevil spirits, but the system is colored by foreign influences.[1770] For\nthe Ainu snakes are an embodiment of merely physical evil, and other\nPowers are the dispensers of physical well-being.[1771] The Arab jinn\nrepresent the unwholesome and antagonistic conditions of nature, stand\nopposed to the gods, and are without ethical motives.[1772] Even the\nAndamanese, one of the lowest of human communities, have a division of\nPowers into one who is friendly and two who are unfriendly.[1773] In all\nthese cases we have to recognize simply the expression of the perception\nof two sets of physical agencies in the world. It is easy to exaggerate\nthe nature of these contrasts and to represent certain low tribes as\npossessing general divine embodiments of good and evil.\n\n+970+. Such a conception has been attributed to the American\nRedmen,[1774] but on insufficient grounds. The most careful recent\ninvestigations of the religious ideas of the Creeks, the Len\u00e2p\u00e9, the\nPawnees, and the Californian Shasta (four typical communities) fail to\ndiscover anything that can be called a real dualistic conception.[1775]\nDorsey mentions a Pawnee myth of the introduction of death into the\nworld by a member of the heavenly council of gods who felt himself\nslighted; but this isolated story does not prove the existence of a\ngeneral dualistic scheme--the act in question has parallels in savage\nsystems that recognize various unfriendly Powers.[1776] The reports we\nhave of two definite morally antagonistic deities in Redmen tribes\nresolve themselves on examination into misconceptions or exaggerations\non the part of the reporters; or, so far as the antagonism really\nexists, it is due to Christian influence. The Iroquois dualistic system\nas described by Chief Cusic (in 1825)--two brothers, Good Mind and Bad\nMind, the former the creator of all things good, the latter the creator\nof all things bad--appears in the version of Br\u00e9beuf (in 1636) as a\nsimple nature myth, the two deities in question being somewhat more\ndefinite forms of the friendly and unfriendly spirits met with in all\nlower communities.[1777] In like manner Winslow's two opposed Powers of\nthe New England Algonkins turn out not to be morally antagonistic to\neach other, in fact, according to Brinton, not antagonistic at\nall.[1778] These facts warn us to treat with caution the vague\nstatements of early travelers respecting dualistic views supposed to be\nheld by tribes in North America and South America.[1779]\n\n+971+. In West Africa the Ashanti embody the sources of physical\nmisfortune in several deities, who are malignant but do not stand in\nopposition to the friendly gods. A preliminary step to the conception of\na god of misfortunes is the assignment of a sort of headship to one of a\nmass of unfriendly or hurtful spirits--such a crude organization is\nnatural in a community in which there is a fairly developed form of\nsocial organization, and the head spirit easily grows into a god. A\nsimple headship over hurtful spirits appears to be found in the Ainu\nsystem, though this latter is in general not well developed.[1780]\n\n+972+. A definite antagonism of good and bad Powers is found in the\nreligion of the non-Aryan Khonds of Orissa: the earth-goddess Tari, the\ncreature but the opponent of the sun-god Bella Pennu, introduced sin and\ndeath into the world and contested (and, according to one native\naccount, still contests) with her creator the control of life. This\nexplanation of the origin of death is a higher form of stories that\noccur abundantly in savage lore, with the important difference that in\nthese death comes by accident, but here by malicious purpose. It is not\nclear whether or not the characters of Tari and Bella Pennu are\nconceived of ethically. The weapons (comets, winds, mountains) employed\nby the two deities indicate that the basis of the representation is a\nnature myth. Advanced eschatological thought appears in the opinion,\nheld by some natives, that the good god was victorious in the\ncontest.[1781]\n\n+973+. In the great ancient religions, with the exception of\nZoroastrianism, no dualistic scheme appears. An Egyptian god may be\nangry, as, for example, Ra, who in a fit of resentment causes men to be\nslain but soon repents; and Set, the enemy of Osiris, a nature god,\nseemed at one time to be on the way to become an embodiment of evil, but\nthe Egyptian cult rejected this idea and Set gradually\ndisappeared.[1782] The Babylonian cosmogonic myth, in which Tiamat is\nthe enemy of the gods of order, has no cultic significance; the great\nmass of demonic beings was not organized into a kingdom of evil, and the\nUnderworld deities, nature gods, while subject to ordinary human\npassions, are not hostile to the gods of heaven and earth. The Hebrews\nadopted the Babylonian cosmogonic myth,[1783] but it became a mere\nliterary attachment to the conception of the supreme god Yahweh, and was\notherwise ineffective.\n\n+974+. The same thing is true of certain cosmogonic myths of the Greeks,\nsuch as the war of the Titans against Zeus and similar episodes. Ate and\nthe Erinyes are embodiments of man's own evil nature or represent the\npunishment that overtakes guilt, but they do not represent a formal\nopposition to goodness nor are they organized into a definite\nbody.[1784] The Roman Furies are practically identical in function with\nthe Erinyes. In the old Teutonic religion the only figure who approaches\nessential badness is Loki; but he, though at times malignant and\ntreacherous (as a human chieftain might be), remains a recognized member\nof the assembly of gods. As a nature god he may represent the elements\nof darkness and unhappiness in life, just as the various evil spirits in\nthe world do, but he never approaches the position of an independent\ncreator of evil.[1785] The Celtic deities Llew and Dylan are said to\nstand over against each other and to represent good and bad tendencies\nand elements of life; but they are not very distinct and are probably\nnothing more than somewhat developed local deities.[1786] In the Chinese\nand Japanese cults there is no indication of a conflict; evil spirits\nthere are in abundance, but no cosmic antagonism.\n\n+975+. In India the cosmogonic myths are to be interpreted in the same\nway as those mentioned above. Soma and Indra, as slayers of the demon\nVritya, represent order as against disorder, but Vritya never had cultic\nsignificance; he appears only as a bodily demonstration of the power of\nthe great gods. The asuras are not essentially different from the\nharmful spirits of savages, though it is true that they come into\nconflict with the friendly gods. Rahu, who causes eclipses by swallowing\nthe sun, is only a nature deity of great might. In the Mahabharata there\nare powerful demons, and the \u00c7ivaite cult includes the worship of dread\nbeings, but such worship only reflects the fear of the unfriendly\nelements of physical nature.[1787] Nor do we find in the persons of\nDurga, Kali, and the Yakshas, unpleasantly savage as these are, a\nconception of evil as an organized force directed against the good gods;\nthey are rather the embodiment of evil human dispositions. The\nunderground demons are punishers of sin, but not themselves morally\nevil. There is, it is true, in the Hindu religious scheme the general\nantithesis of light and darkness, which are connected with right and\nwrong--an antithesis that appears abundantly in other religious\nsystems;[1788] but the powers of darkness are not organized against the\npowers of light, and there is no complete dualism, though we have here,\nperhaps, the starting-point for such a conception.\n\n+976+. While thus a vague sense of duality has existed all over the\nworld, and in certain cases, as it seems, there were vague attempts at\norganization, it is only in Zoroastrianism that the decisive step has\nbeen taken. We have to recognize in this system a distinct movement\ntowards a unitary conception of the world; but the sense of difference\nin human experiences was so great in the mind of the creators of the\nsystem that they were led to a unification in two divisions.[1789] The\norigin of the movement lies far back at a time when there were no\nrecords of thought and social movements, and it is impossible now to say\ndefinitely what were the original elements of the cult. We may surmise\nthat there was an Indo-Iranian conception of a general contrast between\nlight and darkness, and that this was the starting-point or the basis of\nthe developed Iranian theological system. The old Indic and the old\nIranian religions seem to have been independent developments from a\ncommon original mass of material; but we do not know what determined the\ndifferences in the two developments. The constructions were the work,\ndoubtless, of successions of reformers, but the details of these\nlong-continued efforts have not come down to us.[1790] The essential\npoint is that the evil mass in the world was conceived of as a unity by\nthe Iranians and assigned a head, Angro Mainyu. This name does not occur\nin the Ach\u00e6menian inscriptions, but it is mentioned in the Gathas and by\nAristotle,[1791] so that it appears to belong to an early stratum of the\nIranian religion. The present state of the world is regarded as the\nresult of a constant series of antagonisms between the two creators,\nSpenta Mainyu (Ahura Mazda) and Angro Mainyu, these being attended each\nby a circle of helpers. A polytheistic interpretation of the helpers is\navoided by making them abstractions (though with a tendency toward\npersonification), the representatives of various features or elements in\nthe government of the world or in the experiences of men.[1792]\n\n+977+. A strictly dualistic system recognizes only two Powers in the\nworld. The Avestan religion, however, admits other deities besides Ahura\nMazda and Angro Mainyu; Mitra, Anahita, and others are objects of\nworship. The ancient national faiths, that is, were not content with a\nsimple division of things between two divine beings. An approach to such\na view was made by Judaism, which, partly under Persian influence,\nproduced the figure of the Satan, a quasi-independent being hostile to\nthe Supreme Deity.[1793] Christianity, adopting this conception from\nJudaism, elaborated it into the person of the Devil, the veritable head\nof a kingdom of evil, called in the New Testament \"the god of this\nage.\"[1794] Though doomed to final defeat, as Ahriman in the Avesta is\ndoomed, the Devil in the orthodox Christian system is practically\nomnipresent and is powerful enough to defeat the plans of God in many\ncases. In modern enlightened Christian feeling, however, he has become\nlittle more than a name. Though he is credited in theory with suggesting\nevil and alluring men to sin, this dogma has small force in the better\nminds against the strong conviction of individual freedom and\nresponsibility. Current Christianity, in its highest forms, is\ntheoretically, but not really, dualistic. The Satan is taken more\nseriously by Islam, which has adopted the conception from Christianity\nand Judaism.[1795] For the ordinary Moslem he belongs in the category of\nevil spirits and is as real as one of the jinn; he may be cursed and\nstoned and driven away,[1796] but he does not affect the Moslem belief\nin the oneness of God.\n\n+978+. From the conquest of Persia by Alexander to the fall of the\nParthian dynasty (a period of over five hundred years) little is known\nof the history of Mazdaism beyond the fact that it seems to have been\nadopted by the Parthians in a debased form; but about the time of the\nPersian revival under the Sassanians (226 A.D.) it passed the bounds of\nits native land and made its way into the Roman Empire in the shape of\nManich\u00e6ism, a mixture of dualistic and Christian Gnostic conceptions.\nThat Manich\u00e6ism had a certain force is shown by the fact that it\nattracted such a man as Augustine, and its survival for several\ncenturies in spite of persecutions attests its vitality. It may be\ndoubted whether its attractiveness lay so much in its dualism as in its\ngnosticism, though the former element maintained itself in some minor\nChristian sects. However this may be, it gradually faded away, leaving\nno lasting impression; it was a form of faith not suited to the peoples\nwho professed Christianity.[1797]\n\n+979+. The modern philosophic proposals to recognize two deities instead\nof one are as yet too vague to call for discussion. Dualism, though it\naccounts in some fashion for the twofold character of human experiences,\nraises as many problems as it solves; in particular it finds itself\nconfronted apparently by a physical and psychological unity in the world\nwhich it is hard to explain on the hypothesis of conflicting\nsupernatural Powers.[1798] On the moral side the record of dualistic\nschemes is in general good. The ethical standard of Mazdaism is high,\nand the ethical practice of Mazdean communities hardly differs from that\nof other prominent modern religious bodies. Though the Manich\u00e6ans were\naccused of immoral practices, it does not appear that Mani himself or\nany prominent disciple of his announced or favored or permitted such\npractices.\n\n\nMONOTHEISM\n\n+980+. The preceding survey has shown that the theory of dualism has not\nproved in general acceptable to men. It was adopted by one people only,\nand even by them not in complete form, and its character as a national\ncult was destroyed by the Moslem conquest of Persia in the seventh\ncentury. The Zoroastrian system was indeed carried by a body of\nemigrants to India and has since been professed by the Parsis there; but\nit has been converted by them into a practical monotheistic cult, so\nthat a consistent dualism now exists nowhere in the world. The thought\nof the great civilized nations has turned rather to a unitary view of\nthe divine government of the world.\n\n+981+. The history of the movement which has elevated monotheism to the\nhighest place among the civilized cults extends over the whole period of\nman's life on the earth. It is pointed out above[1799] that very\ngenerally in low tribes a local supernatural personage is invested with\ngreat power: he is creator, ruler, and guardian of morals; where a\ntolerably definite civil and political organization exists he has\nvirtually the position and performs the functions of the tribal chief,\nonly with vastly greater powers and privileges; where there is no such\norganization he is simply a vaguely conceived, mysterious man who has\ncontrol of the elements and of human fortunes, and punishes violations\nof tribal custom. Such a personage is, however, at best only the highest\namong many supernatural Powers. It is immaterial whether we regard such\na figure as developed from a spirit or as the direct product of\nreligious imagination. He is always crudely anthropomorphic and,\nnotwithstanding his primacy, is limited in power by his own nature, by\nother supernatural Powers, and by men. Frequently, also, he tends to\nbecome otiose and virtually loses his supremacy;[1800] that is to say,\nin the increased complexity of social life a god who was once sufficient\nfor the needs of a simpler organization has to give way to a number of\nPowers which are regarded as the controllers of special departments of\nlife. Such an otiose form may sometimes indicate a succession of divine\nquasi-dynasties, somewhat as in the Greek sequence of Ouranos, Kronos,\nZeus. Handed down from a former generation, he becomes dim and is\nneglected. That he is not worshiped is a result of the fact that other\ndivine beings, standing nearer to existing human interests, have come to\nthe front.\n\n+982+. The theory has been held in the past, and is still held, that\nmonotheism was the primitive form of religion and that the worship of\nmany spirits or many gods is a corruption of primitive thought due to\nman's intellectual feebleness or to his moral depravity. It is urged\nthat such a monotheistic system was the natural one for unsophisticated\nman. The view has been widely held also that it was the result of a\nprimitive divine revelation to men. It is obvious that neither of these\nopinions is susceptible of proof on a priori grounds; the question can\nbe settled only by a survey of the phenomena known to us. When the facts\nare clearly stated, it is then allowable to deduce from them such\nconclusions as may seem legitimate.\n\n+983+. As a matter of fact, it does not appear that real monotheistic\nbelief exists or has existed among savage and half-civilized communities\nof whose history we have any knowledge. Where a certain supernatural\nbeing is described by observers as \"the god\" or \"the supreme god\" of a\ntribe, it turns out on inquiry that he is at most, as is remarked above,\na very prominent divine figure, perhaps the most prominent, but never\nstanding alone and never invested with those physical, intellectual, and\nmoral capacities that are necessary for a complete monotheistic faith.\n\n+984+. While, however, this conclusion is generally admitted for the\nmajority of cases,[1801] it has been held, and is still held, that there\nare found in savage cults certain \"self-existent, eternal, moral\" beings\nwho satisfy all the conditions of a monotheistic faith. Among the\nexamples cited are the American gods described by Strachey and Winslow\nas supreme in power and ethically good.[1802] But, even in the curt and\nvague accounts of these early observers (who were not in position to get\naccurate notions of Indian beliefs), it appears that there were many\ngods, the supposed supreme deity being simply the most prominent in the\nregions known to the first settlers. The \"Great Spirit\" of the Jesuit\nmissionaries is found, in like manner, to be one of many supernatural\npatrons, locally important but not absolute in power.[1803] The Zulu\nUnkulunkulu is revered by the natives as a very great being, morally\ngood according to the standards of the people, but he is of uncertain\norigin and is valueless in the existing cult.[1804] The much-discussed\nAustralian figures, Baiame, Bunjil, and Daramulun, appear not to differ\nessentially from those just mentioned. The reports of the natives who\nhave been questioned on the subject are often vague and sometimes\nmutually contradictory, and exact biographical details of these divine\npersonages are lacking; but careful recent observers are of opinion that\nthey are nothing more than supernatural headmen, having such power as\ntribal chiefs or headmen possess, and credited in different regions with\ndifferent moral qualities.[1805]\n\n+985+. In the systems of many other low tribes there are quasi-divine\nbeings who are credited with great power and are revered without being\nthought of as eternal or as standing alone in the government of the\nworld. A specially interesting example is the Andaman Puluga, a sort of\ncreator who receives no worship; his abode is a mountain or the sky, and\nhe seems to have been originally a local supernatural figure who is\ntraditionally respected but is no longer thought of as an efficient\npatron.[1806] The mysterious Ndengei of Fiji is judge of the dead, but\none of many gods and not all-powerful.[1807] In many tribes there is no\none great divine figure; the control of things is divided among hosts of\nspirits and gods. This is the case with the Ainu, the Maoris, the\nGreenlanders, the Kwakiutl of Northwest America,[1808] and is probably\nthe rule in most of the lower communities.\n\nThe terms 'self-existent' and 'eternal' are not found in savage\nvocabularies and seem to have no representatives in savage thought.\nSavage cosmology carries the history of the world back to a certain\npoint and stops when there is no familiar hypothesis of genesis.[1809]\nAs a rule spirits (as distinguished from ghosts) are not thought of as\nhaving a creator; they are a part of the system of things and are not\nsupposed to need explanation, and so it seems to be with simple clan\ngods. Nor is there any reason, in savage theory, why gods or spirits\nshould die; death is an accident for human beings, not an essential\nfeature of their constitution; but such an accident is not usually\nsupposed to occur in the case of gods. What takes the place of the\nconception of 'eternal' in savage thought is an existence that is\nsupposed to continue for the reason that its cessation does not come\ninto consideration. As to creation, there is no need, in a low\ncommunity, to suppose more than one originator of the world, and\ncosmogonic theory may stop at that point, though this is not an\ninvariable rule. The title \"father\" for persons of distinction, human or\ndivine, is found among many undeveloped peoples, and a headman or patron\nmay be called, by a natural extension of thought, \"all-father,\" a title\nthat is not essentially different in signification from the simple\n\"father,\" and does not carry with it the refined sense of later times.\nThe question of savage monotheism need present no difficulty if the\nconditions are clearly defined.[1810] It is true that there is in some\ncases a monarchical conception of the divine control of a clan or a\ntribe, and that this simple system is followed by a more or less\nelaborate theology. In both civil and religious systems the increasing\ncomplexity of social life has called forth correspondingly complex\norganizations, but this movement away from simplicity does not denote\nfalling off in civil and religious purity and wisdom. A true monotheism\nhas never arisen except as a criticism of polytheism.\n\n+986+. It is obvious that the popular cults of the great nations of\nantiquity were far removed from monotheism. The Egyptians, the\nBabylonians and the Assyrians, the Phoenicians, the Hebrews, the\nArabs, the Hindus, the Greeks and the Romans, down to a late period,\nworshiped a multitude of gods and were not disturbed by any feeling of\nlack of unity in the divine government of the world. The proof that such\nwas the case among the ancient Hebrews down to the sixth century B.C. is\nfound in the Old Testament writings: the historical books from the\nentrance of the Hebrew tribes into Canaan down to the destruction of\nJerusalem by the Chaldeans and the prophetical writings of the eighth,\nseventh, and sixth centuries represent the people generally as addicted\nto the worship of a great number of gods. In Persia also, since the\nMazdean system recognized a considerable number of deities, it cannot be\ndoubted that the people were polytheistic, not to speak of the\nprobability that there were survivals of a lower form of religion which\npreceded Mazdaism. In the modern nations of the east of Asia, China and\nJapan, the popular worship is anything but monotheistic: in China the\nlocal spirits play a very great part in the life of the people, and in\nJapan the old gods are still objects of worship. It may be added that\namong the masses in some nominally Christian countries, particularly\namong the peasants of Southern Europe, the old polytheism continues in\nthe form of the worship of saints and the Madonna.\n\n+987+. While the popular cults in the civilized world have held somewhat\npertinaciously to pluralistic views, there has been a general tendency\nin advanced circles everywhere toward a unitary conception of the\ngovernment of the world. As this tendency has been general it must be\nreferred to the general progress of thought, the demand of the human\nmind for unity or simplicity. The particular lines of the movement have\nvaried among different peoples according to the peculiarities of their\nculture, and the unitary feeling has varied in its degree of\ndefiniteness. In some cases the political predominance of a city or\nregion has secured pre\u00ebminence for its deity, or national attachment to\nthe national god has elevated him above all other gods; where a people\nhas cultivated poetry or philosophy, the idealizing thought of the one\nor the scientific analysis of the other has led in the same direction.\n\n+988+. First, then, we may note the disposition to give substantial\nabsoluteness to some one god, the choice of the deity being determined\nby the political condition as is suggested above, or by local\nattachments, or possibly by other conditions which do not appear in the\nmeager records of early times. Examples of this form of thought are\nfound in several of the great nations of antiquity. The hymns to the\nEgyptian gods Ra, Amon, Amon-Ra, Osiris, and the Nile describe these\ndeities as universal in attributes and in power. At the moment the poet\nconceives of the god whom he celebrates as practically the only one--if\nRa does everything, there is no need of any other deity. At another\nmoment, however, the same poet may celebrate Osiris with equal\nenthusiasm--these high gods are interchangeable. The suggestion from\nsuch fluid conceptions of the divine persons is that the real thought in\nthe mind of the poet was the supremacy of some divine power which is\nincorporated now in one familiar divine name, now in another. It does\nnot, however, quite reach the point of well-defined monotheism, for\nthese gods remain distinct, sometimes with separate functions and\nduties.\n\n+989+. But this mode of conceiving of the supernatural Power would\nnaturally pave the way for monotheism, and it is not surprising that\nvery early in Egypt a definite monotheistic view was developed. King\nAmenophis IV, or to give him the name that he adopted in conformity with\nhis later cult, Khuen-Aten, made a deliberate attempt to elevate the\nsun-god Aten to the position of sole ruler and object of worship. Though\nthe nature of his belief in this deity is not stated in the documents\nwith the fullness and precision that we should desire, it seems clear,\nfrom the fact that he ordered the destruction of the shrines of the\nother deities in the land, that he regarded the worship of this one god\nas sufficient. The movement was not a successful one in so far as the\nnational religion was concerned--it lasted only during his lifetime and\nthat of his son, and then a counter-revolution swept Aten away and\nreinstated the Theban Amon in all his former dignity and powers--but its\nvery existence is a testimony to the direction of thought of educated\nminds in Egypt about the year 1400 B.C. The Aten revolution appears to\nhave been distinctively Egyptian--there is no trace of foreign influence\nin its construction. It has been suggested that Amenophis got his idea\nfrom Semites of Western Asia or particularly from the Hebrews. But\nneither the Hebrews nor any other Semitic people of that period were\nmonotheistic, nor do we find in Egyptian history at the time such social\nintercourse as might produce a violent upturning of the religious usage.\nWe can only suppose that Amenophis was a religious genius who put into\ndefinite shape a conception that was in the air, and by the force of his\nenthusiasm made it for the moment effective. Such geniuses have arisen\nfrom time to time in the world, and though the revolution of this\nEgyptian king may seem to us to have sprung up with abnormal abruptness,\nit is more reasonable to suppose that the way had been prepared for it\nin Egyptian thought. He was a man born out of due time; but it cannot be\nsaid that his attempt was without influence on succeeding generations.\n\n+990+. Passing now to the oldest Semitic civilizations, we find in\nBabylonia and Assyria many local deities, one or another of whom comes\nto the front under the hegemony of some city or state. Here we are met\nby the fact already referred to that the gods are interchangeable--it is\npractically a matter of indifference whether one deity or another is\nelevated to headship. In the great empires the gods of the capital\ncities naturally became pre\u00ebminent; so Marduk in Babylonia and Ashur in\nAssyria. The royal inscriptions speak of these gods as if they were\nall-powerful and all-controlling. In both countries the goddess Ishtar\nappears as the supreme director of affairs, and other deities are\nsimilarly honored. What might have been the issue if the later\nBabylonian kingdom had continued for a long time it is impossible to\nsay, but the impression made by the words of the devout king\nNebuchadnezzar II (605-562 B.C.) is that he would have been content with\nMarduk as the one object of worship. Babylonia produced no such radical\nreformer as the Egyptian Amenophis--there is no formulation of\nmonotheism; but the general tone of the Babylonian religion of the sixth\ncentury is not very different from that of the Hebrew religion of the\nsame time.\n\n+991+. The religious point of view of the Vedas belongs in the same\ncategory with the early Egyptian. Varuna, Agni, and Indra appear in the\nhymns, each in his turn, as supreme. The r\u00f4le of Varuna seems to be\npractically identical with that of the Iranian Ahura, but unlike the\nlatter he does not succeed in expelling his brother divinities. This\ndifference of development between the Hindu and the Iranian people we\ncannot hope to explain. India moved not toward monotheism, but toward\npantheism. But the Vedic hymns prove the existence of a certain sense\nof oneness in the world, held by the poets, though not by the mass of\nthe people, and destined to issue in a very remarkable religious system.\n\n+992+. It has been by a very different line that China has reached its\nunitary conception of the world. The details of the movement are\nobscure, but its general course is clear.[1811] As with many other\npeoples it is the objects of nature to which Chinese worship is mainly\npaid, but the Chinese mind, impressed by the power of these objects, is\ncontent to rest in them in their visible form; no proper names are\nattached to them, and they have a more or less vague personality which\nvaries in definiteness at different times and with different persons.\nThe theistic system is a reflection of the social system. The eminently\npractical Chinese mind lays the chief stress on the earthly life: in the\ncommon everyday life the family is the unit; but the general course of\naffairs is controlled by the great natural Powers of earth and sky,\nwhence arise the two great divisions of Chinese worship. The State is a\nlarger family in which the duke or emperor or other chief political\nofficer occupies the same position that is occupied by the father in the\nsmaller social circle; the government is patriarchal, with gradations\nwhich correspond to those of the family. Life, it is held, is controlled\nby the heavenly bodies, by the mountains and rivers of the earth, and by\ndeceased members of families. To these the people sacrifice, the\nprincipal part being taken by the civil heads of the larger and smaller\nconstituent parts of the empire; there is thus no place for priests. As\nthe emperor (or other head of the State) is supreme on earth, so Heaven\nand Earth, Sun and Moon occupy the highest positions in the divine\nhierarchy, and ancestors are influential and entitled to worship\naccording to the rank of the families they represent.[1812] From an\nearly time, long before Confucius, the headship of the divine Powers, it\nwould seem, was assigned to Heaven--not the physical sky, but, at least\nin the thinking circles of the nation, the Power therein residing. Thus\narose the conception of an imperial divine government in which Heaven,\nthough it does not stand alone, is recognized as supreme. The larger\ntheistic conception is embodied in the annual sacrifices conducted by\nthe emperor,[1813] especially at the winter and summer solstices when\nsacrifices are offered to Heaven and Earth, Sun and Moon, the Four\nQuarters and the mountains and rivers of the empire and to his\nancestors, whose worship includes the interests of the whole State. Thus\nwith a vast number of objects of worship (spirits of all departments of\nlife, and a few gods proper) the Chinese religion has attained and\nmaintained a general unitary conception of the divine government of the\nworld.[1814]\n\n+993+. Some resemblance to the Chinese system appears in the religion of\nPeru, so far as this can be understood from the accounts that have come\ndown to us.[1815] The supreme position given to the Sun in Peru and to\nthe Inca as child of the Sun is parallel to the supremacy of Heaven in\nChina and the headship of the emperor as the son of Heaven. The Peruvian\ncult appears not to have reached the distinctness of the Chinese. There\nwere, in fact, in Peru a considerable number of tolerably well-formed\ndivinities along with a vast crowd of spirits. Yet it appears that the\nsun was regarded, at least by the Inca and his circle, as supreme ruler\nof the world. The Sun, as god, has no proper name in Peru, as in China\nHeaven, as god, has no proper name. In both countries, it would seem,\nthe imagination of the people was overpowered by the spectacle of the\nmajesty of a great natural object. The two religions differ in their\nritual development: while the Inca, like the Chinese emperor, was the\nreligious head of the nation, the Peruvians created an elaborate system\nof worship, with temples and ministrants, which is wanting in\nChina.[1816] The remarkable character of the Peruvian system makes it\nall the more regrettable that the data available do not enable us to\ntrace its growth from the simplest beginnings.\n\n+994+. Still another line of theistic development is furnished by the\nHebrew system. The Hebrews are remarkable among ancient peoples as\nhaving had, so far as our information goes, only one national god. This\ngod they brought with them into Canaan from the wilderness over which\nthey appear to have roamed with their flocks for a period and under\nconditions not definitely known to us. Arrived in Canaan, the masses\nwere attracted by the local Canaanite deities (whose worship represented\na higher civilization than that of the nomadic Hebrews), and later, in\nthe seventh century B.C., a great part of the people of the little\nkingdom of Judah adopted the Assyrian astral cult; but a group of\nIsraelites had always remained faithful to the national deity Yahweh\n(Jehovah) and vigorously opposed all foreign worship. It was naturally\nthe more thoughtful and ethically better-developed part of the community\nthat took this uncompromising position, and their spokesmen, the writing\nprophets whose discourses are preserved in the Old Testament, became\npreachers of morality as well as champions of the sole worship of\nYahweh. It does not appear that they denied the existence of other gods,\nbut they regarded their own god as superior to all others in power,\nstanding in a peculiarly close relation to his people and bound to them\nby peculiarly intimate ties.\n\n+995+. This attachment to one deity proved to be the dominant sentiment\nof the nation. As time went on and the people were sifted by the\nAssyrian and Babylonian deportations, the higher moral feeling of the\nbest men attached itself more and more definitely to the national god.\nThus was established a monolatry which was practically monotheism,\nthough a theory of absolute monotheism was never formulated by the\npre-Christian Jews. It must be added, as is remarked above, that, from\nthe third or second century B.C. on, the somewhat undefined range of\nactivity attributed to Satan produced a sort of dualism, yet without\nimpairing the practically unitary conception of the divine government of\nthe world.[1817] The course of their national fortunes and the\nremarkable power of self-contained persistence of the Jews brought\nabout a segregation of the people and, finally, their organization into\na community governed by a law held to be divinely revealed. This\ncapacity of social religious organization was the distinctive\ncharacteristic of the Jewish people and, supported by their unitary\ntheistic system and a high moral code, gave the example of popular\nmonotheism which, through the medium of Christianity, finally imposed\nitself upon the Roman world.\n\n+996+. In the ancient world the most thorough investigation of the\ntheistic problem was made by the Greeks, whose leading thinkers, like\nthe Hebrews, moved steadily toward a unitary conception of the divine\npower, but, unlike the Hebrews, did not succeed in impressing their\nviews on the people at large. What the theistic conception in the\npre-Homeric times was we are unable to say definitely, but presumably in\nevery separate community there was a local deity who had practically the\ndirection of affairs. In process of time, through conditions not known\nto us, Zeus came to be recognized throughout the Hellenic world as the\nprincipal deity. In the Homeric poems and in Hesiod we find a political\nor governmental organization of the gods which followed the lines of the\nsocial organization of the times. As Agamemnon is the head chief over a\ngroup of local chiefs, so Zeus, though not absolutely supreme, is a\ndivine king, the head over a considerable number of deities who have\ntheir own preferences and plans, and in ordinary matters go their own\nway and are not interfered with so long as they mind their own business;\nbut at critical points Zeus, like Agamemnon, intervenes, and then no god\ndisputes his decisions.\n\n+997+. This conception of the divine government appears, therefore, to\nrest on the Greek demand for political organization; the world was\nthought of as divided into various departments which had to be brought\ninto a unity by the ascription of a quasi-supreme authority to some one\npersonage. Necessarily, however, larger intellectual and ethical ideas\nwere incorporated in this political view. Though the popular\nanthropomorphic conceptions of the deities appear throughout the Homeric\npoems (the gods being sometimes morally low as well as limited in\nknowledge and power), yet on the other hand they are said to know\neverything. To Zeus in particular lofty qualities are ascribed; he is\nthe father of men and their savior and the patron of justice. How it\ncame about that these two sorts of conceptions of a supreme deity are\nmingled in the poems is a question that need not be discussed here; a\nsimilar mingling of contradictory ideas is found in the Old Testament,\nin which the unmoral god of the people stands alongside of the highly\ndeveloped ethical Yahweh of the great prophets.\n\n+998+. In Homer and Hesiod, however, the conception of headship is\ncomplicated by the introduction of the idea of fate. In the Iliad Zeus\nis sometimes ignorant of the future and has to employ the scales of\ndestiny, and in Hesiod appear the three Fates who control the lives of\nmen independently of the gods. The conception of a controlling fate may\nbe regarded as an effort to reach an absolutely unitary view of the\nworld. Above all the divine powers that regulate affairs, after the\nmanner of the government by a king with his attendant chieftains and\nofficers, there is a sense of a dim and undefined power of unknown\norigin, mysterious, absolute, universal. The question whether this\nconception was a reflection of a sense of the controlling power resident\nin the universe itself, or merely an endeavor to rise above the\nvariations of anthropomorphic deities, is important from the point of\nview of the genesis of ideas, but its decision will not affect the fact\njust stated.[1818] Obviously in the Homeric world there appears this\ngeneral conviction that men and gods are bound together in unity and\nthat some force or power controls all things.[1819]\n\n+999+. This sense of the governmental unity is further developed by the\nlater great poets who infused into it higher and more definite moral\nelements. The polytheistic view continues; to the thinkers of the time\nthere was no more difficulty in conceiving of a single headship along\nwith many deities of particular functions than was felt by Hebrew\nprophets who recognized the existence of foreign deities, with Yahweh\nas a superior god, or by the modern Christian world with its apparatus\nof angels, saints, and demons alongside of the supreme God. For Pindar\nZeus is lord of all things and is far removed from the moral impurities\nof the popular conception. \u00c6schylus represents him as supreme and in\ngeneral as just, though not wholly free from human weaknesses. A real\nunity of the world is set forth by Sophocles: there is a divinely\nordered control by immutable law, and the will of Zeus is unquestioned.\nThe unitary conception is found also in Euripides notwithstanding his\nskeptical attitude toward the current mythology. The sense of symmetry\npotent in the poets forced them to this unitary conception of\ngovernment, and the natural progress of ethical feeling led them to\nascribe the highest ethical qualities to the deities.\n\n+1000+. Similar motives appear in the speculations of the Greek\nphilosophers: Greek philosophy in seeking to discover the essential\nnature of the world moved definitely toward the conception of its\nunity--so, for example, as early as the sixth century, in Xenophanes and\nParmenides. The conception of a supreme spiritual ruler of the world\nappears in Heraclitus and Anaxagoras (fifth century). To these and other\nGreek thinkers the unity of the world and the dominance of mind or\nspirit appeared to be necessary assumptions. The most definite\nexpression of these conceptions is found in Plato and Aristotle.\nAccording to Plato (in the Tim\u00e6us) God, the eternal Father, created the\nworld (for nothing can be created without a cause), brought order out of\ndisorder and made the universe to be most fair and good, so that it\nbecame a rational living soul, the one only-begotten universe, created\nthe gods and the sons of the gods, and framed the soul to be the ruler\nof the body. Aristotle, in simpler phrase, represents the ground of the\nworld as self-sufficient Mind, an eternal Power ([Greek: dunamis]), from\nwhich all action or actuality ([Greek: energeia]) proceeds.[1820]\n\n+1001+. There are certain apparent limitations, it is true, to this\nconception of unity. Both Plato and Aristotle recognize the existence of\na host of subordinate deities (created but immortal) to whom is\nassigned a share, by direction of the supreme God, in the creation of\nthings; yet essentially these deities are nothing more than agents or\nintermediaries of the divine activity, and may be compared to the\nnatural laws and agents of modern theism and, more exactly, to the\nHebrew angels through whom, according to the Old Testament, God governed\nthe world. Plato has also a somewhat vague notion of a something in the\nnature of the material of the world that limits or constrains the divine\ncreative power--a \"necessity\" that forces the deity to do not the\nabsolutely best but the best possible. Perhaps this is a philosophical\nformulation of the old \"fate,\" perhaps Plato is merely trying to account\nfor certain supposed inconcinnities and inadequacies in the world. He is\nnot quite consistent with himself, since he represents the creation of\nthe universe as resulting from the fact that necessity yielded to the\npersuasion of mind, which thus became supreme.[1821] In spite of this\nvagueness his view is unitary, and the unitary conception is continued\nby the Stoics, its best Stoic expression being found in the famous hymn\nof Cleanthes to Zeus: \"Nothing occurs on earth apart from thee\" and \"We\nare thy offspring.\"[1822]\n\n+1002+. In the last centuries before the beginning of our era the Jews,\npartly under Persian and Greek influence, clarified their theistic view,\nattaining a practically pure monotheism, only retaining their apparatus\nof angels and demons. This theistic scheme passed over in complete form\nto early Christianity, in which, however, greater prominence was given\nto the chief demon, the Satan; his larger r\u00f4le arose from the fact that\nhe was brought into sharp antagonism with the Christ, the head of the\nkingdom of God. When Christianity was adopted by the Gr\u00e6co-Roman world,\nthe doctrine of the Trinity was worked out and formulated in accordance\nwith Greek and Roman philosophic thought, but was held not to impair the\nmonotheistic view since the three Persons were regarded as being in\nsubstance one. Islam adopted the Jewish form of monotheism, with its\nSatan and angels, retaining also the old Arabian apparatus of demonic\nbeings (the jinn).\n\n+1003+. A certain tendency to a practically unitary view is discernible\nin the cults of Isis and Mithra, which were widely diffused in the Roman\nEmpire.[1823] In both these cults the main interest of the worshipers\nwas centered in a single deity, though other deities were recognized.\nThe unifying impulse was devotional, not philosophic.\n\nSo far as a unitary conception of the divine government of the world\nexisted it must be referred to the spirit of the age which had outgrown\nthe old crude polytheism. Such modern monotheistic movements as the\nBrahma-Samaj and the Parsi in India, the Babist in Persia, and the\nreformed Shinto in Japan owe much to European influence, though\ndoubtless some part of them is the outcome of natural progress in\nintellectual and moral conceptions.\n\n\nPANTHEISTIC AND NONTHEISTIC SYSTEMS\n\n+1004+. The systems of theistic thought considered above all make a\nsharp separation between God and the world. Plato and Aristotle regarded\nmind or spirit as a force that dominated matter. The Persian, Hebrew,\nand Christian theologies conceive of the deity as transcendent, standing\noutside of and above the world and entering into communication with it\neither by direct revelation or through intermediaries. To certain\nthinkers of ancient times this dualistic conception presented\ndifficulties--an absolute unity was held to be incompatible with such\nseparation between the world and God. The precise nature of the\nreflections by which the earliest philosophers reached this conclusion\nis not clearly set forth, but it may be surmised that in general there\nwere two lines of thought that led to this inference: first, a\nmetaphysical conception of unity as something that was demanded by the\nsense of perfectness in the world; and, secondly, observation of facts\nthat appeared to characterize the world as a unit. Among several\ndifferent peoples, and apparently in each independently, the idea arose\nthat the divine manifests itself in the world of phenomena and is\nrecognizable only therein. Such a view appears in India in the Vedanta\nphilosophy, and in Greece a little later it is more or less involved in\nOrphic theories and in the systems of several philosophers. The tendency\nto deify nature appears even in writers who do not wholly exclude gods\nfrom their schemes of the world--in the sayings of Heraclitus, for\nexample: \"All things are one,\" \"From all comes one, and from one comes\nall.\" A similar view is attributed to Xenophanes by Aristotle,[1824] and\ntraces of such a conception appear in Euripides.[1825] For the modern\nforms of pantheism, in Spinoza and other philosophers, reference must be\nmade to the histories of philosophy.\n\n+1005+. Pantheism has never commended itself to the masses of men. It is\ndefinitely theistic, but the view that the divine power is visible only\nin phenomena and is to be identified practically with the world is one\nthat men in general find difficult to comprehend. The demand is for a\ndeity with whom one may enter into personal relations--the simple\nconception of a god who dwells apart satisfies the religious instincts\nof the majority of men. The ethical questions arising from pantheism\nseem to them perplexing: how can man be morally responsible when it is\nthe deity who thinks and acts in him? and how can he have any sense of\nloyalty to a deity whom he cannot distinguish from himself? Nor do men\ngenerally demand so absolute a unity as is represented by pantheism.\nSuch questions as those relating to the eternity of matter, the\npossibility of the existence of an immaterial being, and the mode in\nwhich such a being, if it exists, could act on matter, have not seemed\npractical to the majority of men. Man demands a method of worship, and\npantheism does not permit organized worship. For these reasons it has\nremained a sentiment of philosophers, though it has not been without\neffect in modifying popular conceptions of the deity: the conception of\nthe immanence of God in the world (held in many Christian orthodox\ncircles), when carried to its legitimate consequences, it is often hard\nto distinguish from pantheism.\n\n+1006+. _Nontheistic systems._ A further attempt to secure a complete\nunity of the world appears in those systems of thought which regard the\nworld as self-sufficient and, therefore, dispense with extramundane\nagency. These start either from the point of view of man and human life\nor from contemplation of the world. In China the sense of the sole\nimportance of the moral life and the impossibility of knowing anything\nbeyond mundane life led Confucius practically to ignore divine agency.\nHe did not deny the existence of Powers outside of men, but he declined\nto speak of them, regarding them as of no practical importance. This\nsort of agnosticism appears in Greece as early as the fifth century\nB.C., when Protagoras's view that \"man is the measure of all things\"\nmakes extrahuman Powers superfluous. Epicurus reached a similar\npractical atheism apparently from a scientific view of the construction\nof the world. According to him there are gods, but they are\notiose--living a life of happy ease, they are to be thought of as a\npleasant phenomenon in the world, but ineffective as regards human\nfortunes, and men may go their ways certain that if they obey the laws\nof the world the gods will not interfere with them.\n\n+1007+. The Sankhya philosophy of India dispenses completely with gods,\nholding that the primordial stuff is eternal, but it also holds that\nsouls have a separate existence and are eternal. Thus a species of\ndualism emerges. Buddhism goes a step further, ignoring the soul as well\nas gods. It is agnostic in that, admitting the world to have a cause, it\nholds that it is impossible to know this cause. Its practical aim--to\nget rid of suffering by getting rid of desire, and thus to pass into a\nblissful state of existence in which apparently there is to be no effort\nas there is to be no pain--has enabled it to establish a vigorous\norganization, a sort of church, in which the undefined universe takes\nthe place of a personal god, and character takes the place of soul, this\ncharacter (Karma) passing from one being to another without the\nassumption of identity in the beings thus united in destiny.[1826]\n\n+1008+. In Greece pure materialism (similar in essence to the Sankhya)\ntook the shape of the assumption of an original and eternal mass of\natoms whence have come all forms of being (so Democritus in the fifth\ncentury B.C.), and this conception was adopted by Epicurus and expounded\nat length by Lucretius.[1827] The necessary qualities and movements\nbeing attributed to the atoms, the conclusion was that nothing else was\nrequired in order to explain the world. With this may be compared the\nview of Empedocles (fifth century) that love and hate (in modern phrase,\nattraction and repulsion) are the creative forces of the world. The\nsimplicity of this scheme has commended it to many minds in modern as in\nancient times. Man, it is said, can know nothing outside of phenomena,\nand, so far as regards the origin of things, it is as easy to conceive\nof an eternal self-existent mass of matter as of an eternal\nself-existent deity. The nobler part of man, it is held, is not thereby\nsurrendered--reason and all high ethical and spiritual ideals have grown\nnaturally out of the primordial mass. In such systems there is often the\nhypothesis of an original force or life resident in matter, and this\nforce or life, being credited with all that has issued from it, may be\nregarded as having the elements of personality, and in that case becomes\npractically a deity. Such a deistic materialism approaches pantheism\nnearly.\n\n\nGENERAL SURVEY OF THE THEISTIC DEVELOPMENT\n\n+1009+. The theistic conceptions of men have followed the general line\nof social development. All systems and shades of thought are faithfully\nreflected in the various ideas that men have formed for themselves of\nthe gods. Human nature is the highest thing known to men, and their\nconception of supernatural forces has been based on ideals derived from\nexperience. The sphere of divine activity has been determined for men by\ntheir systems of physical science; the moral character of the gods is a\nreflection of human ethical conceptions; the internal activity of the\ndeity in man's mind is defined by man's spiritual experience.\n\n+1010+. From the earliest times the extent to which the gods were\nsupposed to intervene in human affairs has been fixed by scientific\nobservation, by the knowledge of natural law--the gods have been called\non to intervene only when it was necessary because ordinary powers\nfailed. When finally the conception is reached that all nature is\ngoverned by natural law, the theistic view assumes that the deity works\nthrough ordinary natural means, and the supposition of particular\ninterventions is rejected by the mass of scientific thinkers. It was\nnatural in early times to suppose that reward and punishment were\nadministered by the deity in this world in accordance with the\nprinciples of right, that the good prospered and the bad failed; but\nthis view has vanished before observation, and, by those who demand an\nexact accordance between conduct and fortunes, the final compensations\nof life have been relegated to the other world.\n\n+1011+. The belief in miracles, however, has never completely vanished\nfrom the world. A miracle is an intervention by the deity whereby a\nnatural law is set aside. No a priori reasoning can ever prove or\ndisprove the possibility of miracles--such proof or disproof would\ninvolve complete knowledge of the universe or of the divine power in the\nuniverse, and this is impossible for man. The indisposition to accept a\nmiracle has arisen from the conviction that the demand for interventions\nthat set aside the natural order is a reflection on the wisdom of the\nCreator's arrangement of the world, and further from long-continued\nobservation of the dominance of natural law, and, when appeal is made to\nalleged miraculous occurrences, from the arbitrary way in which,\naccording to the reports, these have been introduced. In the records of\npeoples we find that miracles increase in number and magnitude in\nproportion as we go back to dim times without exact historical\ndocuments. They appear, it is held, in connection usually with\ninsignificant affairs while the really great affairs in later times are\nleft without miraculous elements.[1828] The history of the world, so\nhistorical science holds, receives a satisfactory explanation from the\ncharacter of the general laws of human nature, and the principle of\nparsimony demands that no unnecessary elements of action be introduced\ninto affairs. The exclusion of miracles from the world does not exclude\ndivine agency and government; it only defines the latter as being in\naccordance with man's observation of natural law.\n\n+1012+. Philosophy constructs the constitution of the deity and the\nrelation of divine elements to the world. Whether the deity stands\noutside of the world or within it, whether the divine power is unitary\nor dual or plural, or whether there is any need to assume a power\noutside of physical nature--these are the questions that are discussed\nby philosophy, whose conclusions sometimes favor a religious view of the\nworld, sometimes oppose it. Few persons are able to follow elaborate\nphilosophic lines of thought--the majority of men accept the simple\ndoctrine of a personal god who is generally supposed to stand outside of\nthe world. The controlling consideration here is that everything must\nhave a cause--a line of reasoning in accordance with common sense, but\nnot always, in its crude form, regarded by philosophers as decisive.\n\n+1013+. The moral character of a deity is always in accordance with the\nmoral ideas of his worshipers. Religions have sometimes been divided\ninto the ethical and the nonethical; but so far as the character of the\ndeity is concerned no such division holds, for there never has been a\nsupernatural Power that has not reflected the moral ideas of its time\nand place. A cannibal god is not only natural in a cannibal society, but\nhe represents moral ideals, namely, the attempt to acquire strength by\nabsorbing the physical substance of men. The deity who deceives or is\nvindictive arises in a society in which deceit and vindictiveness are\nregarded as virtues. The pictures of what we regard as immoralities in\nthe deity as given in the Iliad and in the Old Testament were not\nregarded as immoral by the writers. The progress in the characterization\nof the deity has been not by the introduction of an ethical element, but\nby the purification and elevation of the already existing ethical\nelement.[1829]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X\n\nSOCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF RELIGION\n\n\n+1014+. Religion is social because man is a social animal. This does not\nexclude individual religion--in fact religion must have begun with\nindividuals, as is the case with all social movements. Morality, indeed,\nunderstood as a system of conduct among human beings, could not exist\nexcept in a society which included at least two persons; but if we could\nimagine a quite isolated rational being, he might be religious if, as is\nperfectly possible, he conceived himself as standing in relation with\nsome supernatural being or beings. This question, however, is not a\npractical one--there is no evidence of such isolation, and no\nprobability that there ever has been a time when man was not social.\n\n+1015+. It is generally agreed that men lived at first in small detached\ngroups, gradually forming tribes and nations, and finally effecting a\nsocial fusion of nations. Religious worship has followed these changes.\nReligion is simply one line of social growth existing along with others,\nscience, philosophy, art; all these, as is remarked above,[1830] go on\ntogether, each influencing and influenced by the others. Human life has\nalways been unitary--no one part can be severed from the others; it is a\nserious error, impairing the accuracy of the conception of religion, to\nregard it as something apart from the rest of human life.\n\n+1016+. The external history of religion, then, is the history of social\ngrowth in the line of religious organization; that is, it has been\ndetermined by religious outward needs in accordance with the growth of\nideas. In the consideration of this history we have to note a growth in\nritual, in devotional practices, and in the organization of religious\nusages, first in tribal or national communities and then in religious\ncommunities transcending national and racial boundaries.\n\n\nEXTERNAL WORSHIP\n\n+1017+. We assume a human society recognizing some supernatural or\nextrahuman object or force that is regarded as powerful and as standing\nin some sort of effective relation with human life. It is possible that\nsocieties exist that do not recognize any such object or force or,\nrecognizing them, do not employ any means of entering into relation with\nthem. Such cases, if they exist (and their existence has not been fully\nestablished), we may pass by with the remark that the absence of worship\nneed be taken to show only that ritual has been a slow growth.\n\nOur information regarding the least-developed communities indicates that\nwith them religion, when it exists, is an affair of custom, of tradition\nand usage, handed down during a period the history of which we have no\nmeans of knowing. Worship as it first appears consists of ceremonies,\ngenerally, perhaps always, regarded as having objective\neffectiveness.[1831] The ritual act itself, in the earliest systems, is\npowerful, in a sort magical, but tends to lose this character and take\non the forms of ordinary human intercourse.\n\n+1018+. The precise ways in which extrahuman Powers were first\napproached by men it is not possible now to determine--these procedures\nlie far back in a dim prehistoric time. Coming down to our first\nknowledge of religious man it may be assumed that the superhuman Powers\nrecognized by him were of varying sorts: a quasi-impersonal energy\nwhich, however, must probably be ascribed ultimately to a personal\nbeing; animals; ghosts; spirits resident in objects; anthropomorphic\nbeings. With all these it was necessary to establish relations, and\nwhile the methods employed varied slightly according to the nature of\nthe object of worship, the fundamental cultic principle appears to have\nbeen the same for all. Several different methods of approaching the\nPowers appear in the material known to us, and these may be mentioned\nwithout attempting exact chronological arrangement.\n\n+1019+. One of the earliest methods of establishing a relation with the\nPowers is by certain processes--acts or words. The most definite\nexample of a mere process is that found among the Central Australians,\nthe nature of which, however, is not yet well understood. They perform\nceremonies intended to procure a supply of food. It is not quite clear\nwhether these ceremonies are merely imitations of animals and other\nthings involved, or whether they contain some recognition of a\nsuperhuman Power. In the former case they are magical, not religious in\nthe full sense of the term. But if they involve a belief in some force\nor power with which man may enter into relation, however dim and\nundefined this conception may be, then they must be regarded as\nbelonging definitely in the sphere of religion. A certain direct effect\nis in many cases supposed to issue from ritualistic acts, a belief that\nis doubtless a survival of the old conception of mana.[1832]\n\n+1020+. In many cases efficacy is attached by savages to singing--the\nword \"sing\" is used as equivalent to \"exert power in a superhuman way.\"\nIt is not the musical part of this procedure that is effective--the\nsinging is simply the natural tendency of early man--the power lies in\nthe words which may be regarded as charms. A charm is primarily a form\nof words which has power to produce certain results with or without the\nintervention of the gods.[1833] In the form of an invocation of a deity\nthe charm belongs to a comparatively late stage of religion; but where\nits power lies wholly in its words, it involves merely some dim sense of\nrelation, not necessarily religious. Obviously the idea of law underlies\nall such procedures, but the law may be a sort of natural law and the\ncharm will then not be religious. Religious charms are to be sharply\ndistinguished from prayers; a prayer is a simple request, a charm is an\ninstrument of force.[1834] The history of the growth of savage charms it\nis impossible for us to recover; it can only be supposed that they have\ngrown up through a vast period of time and have been constructed out of\nvarious signs and experiences of all sorts that appeared to connect\ncertain words with certain results. There is no evidence that they came\noriginally or usually from prayers that had lost their petitionary\ncharacter, petrified prayers, so to speak, of which there remained only\nthe supposition that they could gain their ends, though bits of prayers,\ntaken merely as words, are sometimes supposed to have such potency.\nCharms and prayers are found side by side in early stages of religion;\nthe former tend to decrease, the latter to increase. Charms are allied\nto amulets, exorcism, and to magic in general.[1835]\n\n+1021+. Certain processes and words are supposed to have power to summon\nthe dead and to gain from them a knowledge of the future. This is a case\nof coercion by magical means. Nonmagical coercion belongs to a\nrelatively late period in religious history and may be passed over at\nthis point. It is not in itself incompatible with religion; a god is\nsubject to caprice and ill humor, and may have to be controlled, and we\nknow that coercion of the gods has been practiced by many peoples, with\nthe full sanction of the religious authorities.[1836] But coercive\nprocedures do not accord with the general line of social development.\nThe natural tendency is to make friends with the gods, and coercive\nmethods have died out with the growth of society.\n\n+1022+. The methods of establishing friendly relations with the\nsupernatural Powers are the same as those which are employed to approach\nhuman rulers, namely, by gifts and by messengers or intermediaries.\n\n_Gifts._ The custom of offering gifts to the dead is universal.[1837]\nAmong low tribes and in highly civilized peoples (the Egyptians and\nothers) things are placed by the grave which it is supposed the spirits\nof the dead will need. Food and drink are supplied, and animals and\nhuman beings are slain and left to serve as ministers to the ghosts in\nthe other world. Possibly these provisions for the dead are sometimes\nsuggested by sentiments of affection, but more commonly the object in\nmaking the provision appears to be to secure the favor of the deceased:\nghosts were powerful for good or for evil--they were numerous, always\nhovering round the living, and the main point was to gain their good\nwill. For a similar reason such gifts were made to spirits and to gods.\nIt was a common custom to leave useful articles by sacred trees and\nstones, or to cast them into rivers or into the sea. The food and drink\nprovided was always that in ordinary use among the worshipers: grain,\nsalt, oil, wine, to which were often added cooking and other utensils.\nIt was common also to offer the flesh of animals, as, for example, among\nthe Eskimo, the American Indians (the Pawnees and others), the Bantu,\nthe Limbus, and the Todas of Southern India.[1838] It was supposed that\nthe god, when he was in need of food, sometimes used means to stimulate\nhis worshipers on earth to make him an offering.\n\n+1023+. Since it was obvious that the food set forth for the spirit or\ndeity remained untouched, it was held that the gods consumed only the\nsoul of the food. This conception, which is found in very early times,\nwas natural to those who held that every object, even pots and pans, had\nits soul. The ascending smoke carried with it the essence of the food to\nspirits and deities--they smelled the fragrance and were\nsatisfied.[1839] The visible material part of the offering, thus left\nuntouched by the god, was often divided among his worshipers, and\ngenerally it furnished a welcome meal. These communal feasts are found\nin various parts of the world, among the Ainu of the Japan Archipelago,\nthe American Indians, and others.[1840] They were social and economical\nfunctions. It was desirable that the good food not consumed by the deity\nshould be utilized for the benefit of his worshipers. There was also the\nnatural desire and custom of eating with friends. To this was added the\nbelief that the bodies of such animals possessed powers which the\nworshiper might acquire by eating. The powers and qualities of the\nanimal were both natural and sacred, or divine. The devotion of the dog,\nthe courage and physical power of the bear, the cleverness of the\nfox--all such natural powers might be assimilated by the worshiper; and\nsince the animal was itself sacred, its body, taken into the human body,\ncommunicated a certain special capacity. Thus the virtue of the communal\nfeast was twofold: it placated the supernatural Power, and it procured\nfor the worshiper a satisfactory meal and probably also an infusion of\nsuperhuman power. The favor of the deity was gained simply by the\npresents offered him; in these early times there is no indication of the\nbelief that there was a recognized sacramental sharing of sacred food by\nthe gods and their worshipers.\n\n+1024+. _Messengers._ The supernatural Power was sometimes approached by\na messenger who was instructed to ask a favor. The messenger was an\nanimal regarded as sacred, akin to men and to gods, and therefore fitted\nto be an intermediary. Examples of such a method of approaching a deity\nare found among the Ainu, in Borneo, and among the North American\nIndians. The Ainu, before slaying the bear who is to serve as messenger,\ndeliver to him an elaborate address in which he is implored to represent\nto his divine kinsfolk above how well he has been treated on earth and\nthus gain their favor; he is also invited to return to earth that he may\nbe again captured and slain. His flesh is eaten by the worshipers, and\nhis head is set up as an object of worship. Thus, he is after death a\ndivine Power and a portion of his own flesh is offered to his head, but\nthis is simply to gain his good will, and there is no suggestion of a\njoint feast of gods and men.[1841] Somewhat like this is the procedure\nin Borneo, where on special occasions when some particular favor is\ndesired, a pig is dispatched with a special message to the gods.[1842]\nIn America the sacred turtle, regarded as a brother to the tribe and\naffectionately reverenced by his human brethren, is dispatched with\ntears to the other world to join his kinsmen there and be an ambassador\nand friend.[1843] A similar conception is to be found perhaps in the\ngreat Vedic animal sacrifice in which the victim was likewise made ready\nby ceremonies to go to the heavenly court and there stand as the friend\nof the worshipers.[1844]\n\n+1025+. In all these cases there was a certain identification of the\nvictim with men on the one side and gods on the other. This is simply a\npart of the general belief in the kinship existing between all forms of\nbeing. Early men in choosing animal gifts for the gods, or an animal as\nmessenger to them, could not go astray, for all animals were sacred. The\neffective means of procuring the favor of the supernatural Powers is\nalways a friendly gift or a friendly messenger. When animals lost their\nreligious prestige, their ambassadorial function gave way to the\nmediatorial function of gods and men.\n\nIncense, tobacco, and other such things that were burned before the\ndeity are also to be regarded as food, though in the course of time,\nwhen the recollection of this primitive character was lost, a\nconventional significance was attached to the act of burning. A more\nrefined period demanded more refined food for the gods, such as ambrosia\nand nectar, but these also were finally given up.\n\n+1026+. Food was conveyed to the gods either by simply laying it down at\nsome sacred place (where it was devoured by beasts, but more generally\ntaken by official ministers of the god), or by burning it.[1845] In the\nbody of the victim the blood came to play the most important part as an\nexpiatory force. Early observation, as is pointed out above,[1846]\nshowed that the life was in the blood, and so a principle of economy\nnaturally suggested that it would be sufficient to offer the blood to\nthe deity, though this was generally supplemented by some choice portion\nof the flesh. Thus, the opinion arose that blood had a special\nexpiatory power, and this conception remained to a late period.[1847]\nBut the expiatory power rested finally on the fact that the blood was a\ngift of food to the gods. The gift was most effective, apparently, when\nthe whole of the animal was burned, since thus the greatest honor was\nshown the deity and the most ample satisfaction of his bodily needs was\nfurnished. The holocaust proper appears in religious history at a\ncomparatively late stage, but the essence of it is found in all early\nprocedures in which the whole of any object is given to the deity.\n\n+1027+. _Human sacrifice._ That taste for human flesh on the part of men\nis not unnatural is shown by the prevalence of cannibal customs in many\nparts of the world. When such customs existed, it was natural that the\nflesh of human beings should be offered to the supernatural Powers.\n\nThe slaying of human beings at the graves of deceased clansmen or\nfriends has prevailed extensively, though apparently not among the\nlowest tribes; it represents a certain degree of reflection or\nintensity; it is found in the midway period when religious customs were\nfairly well organized and when manners were not yet refined. Not every\nslaughter at a grave, however, is an act of religious offering to the\ndead. It is sometimes prompted by the spirit of revenge, to ease the\nmind of the slayer, or perhaps by desire to do honor to the\ndeceased--doubtless there was a sentiment of piety toward the dead.\n\n+1028+. The slaughter of slaves and wives to be the attendants of the\ndeceased in the other world is of the nature of an offering--it is\nintended to procure the good will of the ghost. The self-immolation of\nwidows and other dependents was in some cases a selfish act. It was\nsupposed that the persons thus offering themselves up would procure\ncertain advantages in the other world, while at the same time they would\nthere minister to the manes of their husbands or lords.\n\nAs there was no practical difference between ghosts and spirits or gods\nin respect of power and influence in human life, the offering of human\nbeings to these last came as a matter of course. Their bodily appetites\nwere the same as those of men--they were fond of human flesh. Wherever\nit was necessary to invoke their special aid this sort of offering was\npresented: for the success of crops; to insure the stability of houses\nand bridges[1848]; to avert or remove calamities, such as pestilence and\ndefeat in battle.\n\n+1029+. While in the simpler societies human sacrifice was simply an\noffering of food to the Powers, in later times it came to be conceived\nof as the devotion of an object to the deity, and thus as a sign of\nobedience and dependence. The offering of first-born children was a\nrecognition of the fact that the god was the giver of children as of\ncrops. The sacrifice of the dearest object, it was supposed, would\nsoften the heart of the deity. In some cases the person who was supposed\nto be the occasion or source of misfortune was offered up. In general,\nhuman sacrifice followed the lines of all other sacrifices and\ndisappeared when it became repugnant to humane and refined feelings.\n\n+1030+. The testimonies to its existence are so numerous that we may\nsuppose it to have been universal among men.[1849] There is a trace of\nits early existence in Egypt.[1850] In the Semitic region it is known to\nhave been practiced by the Phoenicians, Carthaginians, Moabites,\nHebrews, Arameans, and some Arabs.[1851] There is no evidence of the\npractice in Babylonia; an indication of its existence in Assyria is\npossibly found in an Old Testament passage.[1852] Its existence in early\ntimes in India is held to be implied in the Rig-Veda.[1853] It appears\nin the Brahmanic period also: a man (who had to be a Brahman or a\nWarrior) was bought, allowed liberty and the satisfaction of all his\ndesires (except that sexual intercourse was forbidden) for one year, and\nthen ceremonially slain.[1854] It is only recently that the sacrifice of\nchildren in the New Year festival at the mouth of the Ganges has been\nabolished; and it is doubtful whether, in spite of the efforts of the\nBritish Government, it has been completely put down among the wild\ntribes, as the Gonds and the Khonds.[1855] The records of China, from\nthe eighth century B.C. onward are said to prove the existence of human\nsacrifice.[1856] Among the ancient Scandinavians and Germans it was\nfrequent.[1857] In more recent times the practice is known either to\nexist or to have existed in Polynesia (Fiji, Samoa), Melanesia (Florida\nIslands), Borneo (formerly),[1858] and North America (the Iroquois, the\nNatchez, the Florida peninsula, and the Southwest coast).[1859] Nowhere\ndoes it appear on so large a scale as in Mexico; and it existed also in\nPeru.[1860] In Africa it was practiced to a frightful extent in\nAshantiland and Dahomiland and more guardedly in Yoruba.[1861]\n\n+1031+. Its gradual disappearance (a result of increasing refinement of\nfeeling) was marked by the substitution of other things for human\nvictims or of aliens for tribesmen. In early times indeed it seems to\nhave been slaves and captives taken in war that were commonly\nsacrificed. In more civilized times the blood of a tribesman, as more\nprecious than other blood, was regarded as being more acceptable to the\ndeity, and it was then a sign of advance when aliens were substituted\nfor tribesmen. Lower animals were sacrificed in place of men: in India,\nwhere the recently sown fields had been fertilized with human blood, it\nbecame the practice to kill a chicken instead of a human being; and so\nin the story of Abraham (Gen. xxii) a ram is substituted for the human\nbeing.[1862] Elsewhere paste images are offered to the deity as\nrepresenting men; an interesting development is found in Yoruba, where\nthe proposed victim, instead of being sacrificed, becomes the protector\nof the sacrificer; that is, he is regarded as substantially divine, as\nhe would have been had he been sacrificed.[1863]\n\n+1032+. Along with gifts, which formed perhaps the earliest method of\nconciliating divine beings, we find in very early times a number of\nprocedures in honor of the deity, and intended in a general way to\nprocure divine favor. Among these procedures dances and processions are\nprominent. The dance, as is observed above,[1864] is simply the\ntransference to religious rites of a common social act. It is, however,\noften supposed to have been communicated supernaturally, and in some\ncases it attains a high religious significance by its association with\nstories of divine persons. This organized symbolic dance has been\ndeveloped to the greatest extent among certain North American Indian\ntribes.[1865] Here every actor and every act represents a personage or\nprocedure in a myth, and thus the dance embodies religious conceptions.\nThis sort of symbolism has been adopted also in some sections of the\nChristian church, where it is no doubt effective in many cases as an\nelement of external worship.\n\n+1033+. While human sacrifice continued to a comparatively late period,\nit was the ordinary sort of sacrifice that constituted the main part of\nthe ancient religious bond of society.[1866] In the course of time the\napparatus of sacrifice was elaborated--altars, temples, priests came\ninto existence, and an immense organization was built up. Sacrifices\nplayed a part in all the affairs of life, took on various special\nshapes, and received different names. They were all placatory--in every\ncase the object was to bring men into friendly relations with the god.\nThey were _expiatory_ when they were designed to secure forgiveness for\noffenses, whether by bloody or by unbloody offerings, or by anything\nthat it was supposed would secure the favor of the deity. They were\nperformed when it was desired to procure some special benefit, for on\nsuch occasions it was necessary that the deity should be well disposed\ntoward the supplicant; such _supplicatory_ or _impetratory_ sacrifices\nhave been among the most common--they touch the ordinary interests of\nlife, the main function of religious exercises in ancient times being to\nprocure blessings for the worshiper. These blessings secured, it was\nnecessary to give thanks for them--_eucharistic_ sacrifices formed a\npart of the regular worship among all civilized peoples. When the crops\ncame in, it was felt to be proper to offer a portion, the first fruits,\nto the deity, as among the Hebrews and many others, and, this custom\nonce established, the feeling naturally arose that to partake of the\nfruits of the earth before the deity had received his part would be an\nimpious proceeding likely to call down on the clan or tribe the wrath of\nthe god. When a gift was made to a temple, since it was desirable that\nthe deity should accept it in a friendly spirit, a sacrifice was proper.\nIn the numerous cases in which some person or some object was to be\nconsecrated to the deity a sacrifice was necessary in order to secure\nhis good will; the ordination of temple-ministers, or the initiation of\nthe young into the tribe, demanded some _consecrative_ sacrifice. And,\non the other hand, there was equal necessity for a sacrifice, a\n_deconsecrative_ or _liberative_ ceremony, when the relation of\nconsecration was to be terminated (as in the case of the Hebrew\nNazirite) or when a person was to be relieved from a taboo--in this\nlatter case the ceremony of cleansing and of sacrificing was intended to\nsecure the approval of the deity in whose name and in whose interest the\ntaboo had been imposed.\n\n+1034+. Sacrifices might be individual or communal, occasional or\nperiodical. The early organization of society into clans made the\ncommunal sacrifice the more prominent[1867]--the clan was the social\nunit, the interests of the individual were identical with those of the\nclan, and there was rarely occasion for a man to make a special demand\non the deity for his individual benefit. Such occasions did, however,\narise, and there was no difficulty in an individual's making a request\nof the tribal god provided it was not contrary to the interests of the\ntribe. If the petitioner went to some god or supernatural Power other\nthan the tribal god, this was an offense against tribal life.\n\n+1035+. The great communal sacrifices were periodical. They were\ndetermined by great turning-points in the seasons or by agricultural\ninterests. Sowing time; when the crops became ripe; harvest time;\nmidsummer and midwinter--such events were naturally occasions for the\ncommon approach of the members of the tribe to the tribal deity. The\nsame thing is true of military expeditions, which were held to be of\nhigh importance for the life of the tribe. War was, as W. R. Smith calls\nit, a \"holy function,\"[1868] and its success was supposed (and is now\noften supposed) to depend on the supernatural aid of the deity. The\nparticular method of conducting the ceremonies in such cases varied with\nthe place and time, but the purpose of the worshiper and the general\nmethods of proceeding are the same among all peoples and at all times.\nOccasions connected with the individual, such as birth, initiation,\nmarriage, death, and burial, are also affairs of the family or clan, and\nthe same rule applies to sacrifices on such occasions as to the great\ncommunal periodical offerings.\n\n+1036+. It was inevitable that the ritual, that is, the specific mode of\nprocedure, should receive a great development in the course of history.\nAs colleges of priests were established, ceremonial elaborateness would\nbecome natural, and precise methods of proceeding would be handed down\nfrom generation to generation. Thus in many cases the worshiper had to\nbe prepared by purificatory and other ceremonies, and the priest had to\nsubmit to certain rules before he could undertake the sacrifice. The\nvictim was selected according to certain prescriptions: it had to be of\na certain age or sex, of a certain color, generally free from impurities\nand defects, and sometimes it was necessary that it should show itself\nwilling to be sacrificed.[1869] These details do not at all affect the\nessence of the sacrifice. They are all the result of the ordinary human\ntendency to organization, to precise determination of particulars, and\nwhile certain general features are easily understood (those, for\nexample, relating to the perfectness of the victim) others are the\nresult of considerations which are unknown to us. It would be a mistake\nto seek for the origin of sacrifice in such ritualistic details.\n\n\nTHEORIES OF THE ORIGIN OF SACRIFICE\n\n+1037+. Up to a very recent time the institution of sacrifice was\ngenerally accepted either as a natural human custom, due to reverence\nfor the gods, or as of divine prescription. In very early documents, as,\nfor example, in the Iliad and in certain parts of the Old Testament, it\nis assumed that the material of sacrifice is the food of the gods--a\nfact of interest in the discussion of the origin of sacrifice, never,\nhowever, in ancient times formulated as a theory. In the Gr\u00e6co-Roman and\nlater Jewish periods sacrifices seem to have been conceived of in a\ngeneral way as a mark of respect to the deity and fell more and more\ninto disuse as the ethical feeling became distincter. In the New\nTestament there is a trace of the view that the victim is a substitute\nfor the offerer: in the Epistle to the Hebrews it is said that the blood\nof bulls and goats could never effect the remission of sin--a nobler\nvictim was necessary.[1870] A similar conception is found in the later\nGreek and Roman literature, but there is still no distinct theory. In\nthe third century of our era Porphyry, who was greatly interested in\nreligious matters and, doubtless, represents a considerable body of\nthoughtful current opinion, says simply that sacrifices are offered to\ndo honor to a deity or to give thanks or to procure favors.[1871] The\nearly Christian writers make no attempt to explain the origin of the\ncustom, nor do we find any such attempt in the European philosophy of\nthe seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It was not until the spirit of\nhistorical inquiry had entered the sphere of religious investigation\nthat the question as to the historical beginning and the significance of\nsacrifice was fairly put.\n\n+1038+. In discussions of this question a distinction is sometimes made\nbetween bloody and unbloody offerings--they are supposed to differ in\nplacatory or expiatory virtue, and one or the other of them is held to\nprecede in order of time. The facts seem, however, not to warrant this\ndistinction. Everywhere the two sorts of offering have equal power to\nplease and placate the deity; the special prominence that may be given\nto the one or the other is due to peculiar social conditions that do not\naffect the essential nature of the rite.[1872] As to precedence of one\nor the other in time the available data offer nothing definite beyond\nthe fact that choice between them is determined by the circumstances of\na community--the material of an offering is whatever (food or other\nthing) seems natural and appropriate in a particular place and at a\nparticular time, and this may vary, of course, in the same community at\ndifferent stages of culture.\n\n+1039+. Current theories of the origin and significance of sacrifice\ndivide themselves into two general groups, the one laying stress on the\nidea of gift, the other on the idea of union with the deity. Both go\nback ultimately to the same conception, the conviction, namely, that\nman's best good can be secured only by the help of the supernatural\nPowers; but they approach the subject from different points of view and\ndiffer in their treatment of the rationale of the ritual.\n\n+1040+. The conception of an offering as a gift to a deity is found in\nvery early times and is common in low tribes. In Greece the word for\n\"gift,\" as offering, occurs from Homer on, and in Latin is frequent, and\nsuch a term is employed in Sanscrit. The common Hebrew term for\nsacrifice (_min[h)]a_) has the same sense; it is used for both bloody\nand unbloody offerings, though from the time of Ezekiel (sixth century\nB.C.) onward it became a technical term for cereal offerings.[1873] The\ndetails of savage custom are given by Tylor,[1874] who proposes as the\nscheme of chronological development \"gift, homage, abnegation.\" This\norder, which is doubtless real, embodies and depends on growth in social\norganization and in the consequent growth in depth and refinement of\nreligious feeling. The object of a gift is to procure favor and\nprotection; homage involves the recognition of the deity as overlord,\nand, in the higher stages of thought, as worthy of reverence--always,\nhowever, with the sense of dependence and the desire for benefits;\nabnegation is the devotion of one's possessions and, ultimately, of\none's self; this idea sometimes assumes a low form, as if the deity were\npleased with human loss and suffering, or as if human enjoyment were\nantireligious,[1875] sometimes approaches the conception of the unity of\nthe worshiper with the object of worship.[1876]\n\n+1041+. A special form of the gift-theory, with a peculiar coloring, is\nthat which holds that some object is substituted for the worshiper who\nhas fallen under the displeasure of the deity and is in danger of\npunishment. This conception, however, is found only in the most advanced\nreligions. The cases in which an animal is substituted for a human\nvictim[1877] are of a different character--they are humane\nreinterpretations of old customs. In early popular religion the only\nexamples of a deity's deliberately inflicting on innocent persons the\npunishment of another's wrongdoing are connected with the old conception\nof tribal and national solidarity--OEdipus, Achan, David, and others,\nby their crimes, bring misfortune on their peoples; when the guilty have\nreceived their punishment the innocent are relieved. A real vicarious\nsuffering is not found in these cases or in any ancient sacrificial\nritual--the victim is not supposed to bear the sin of the\nsacrificant.[1878] It is only in comparatively late theological\nconstructions that vicarious atonement occurs. Some Jewish thinkers were\ndriven to such a theory by the problem of national misfortune. The pious\nand faithful part of the nation, the \"Servant of Yahweh,\" had shared in\nits grievous sufferings, and, as the faithful did not deserve this\npunishment, the conclusion was drawn that they suffered for the\niniquities of the body of the people;[1879] their suffering, however,\nwas to end in victory and prosperity. In this conception the theory of\nsolidarity is obvious, but it differs from the old tribal theory in that\nthe suffering of the innocent brings salvation to the whole mass. In the\nprophetic picture there is no explanation of how this result was to be\nbrought about--there is no mention of a moral influence of the few on\nthe many--only there is the implication that the nation, taught by\nsuffering, would in future be faithful to the worship of the national\ndeity. It does not appear wherein the ethical and religious significance\nof the unmerited suffering of the pious consisted; apparently the object\nof the writer is merely to account for this suffering and to encourage\nhis countrymen. In another passage,[1880] suffering is represented as\nhaving in itself expiatory power; the view in this case is that a just\ndeity must punish sin, forgives, however, when the punishment has been\nborne.\n\n+1042+. The view that the efficacy of sacrifice is due to the fact that\nit brings about a _union between the deity and the worshiper_ has been\nconstrued in several different ways according as the stress is laid on\none or another of the elements of the rite. One theory represents\natonement, the reconciliation of god and man, as effected by the\nphysical act of sharing the flesh of a sacred animal; another finds it\nin the death of an animal made sacred and converted into an intermediary\nby a series of ceremonies; a third holds that union with the divine is\nsecured by whatever is pleasing to the deity.\n\n+1043+. _Reconciliation through a communal meal._ Meals in which the\nworshipers partook of the flesh of a sacred animal (in which sometimes\nthe dead animal itself shared) have probably been celebrated from an\nimmemorial antiquity. Examples of such customs among savages are given\nabove.[1881] A familiar instance of a communal meal in civilized society\nis the Roman festival in which the shades of the ancestors of the clan\nwere honored (the _sacra gentilicia_)--a solemn declaration of the unity\nof the clan-life.[1882] A more definite act of social communion with a\ndeity seems to be recognizable in the repasts spread in connection with\nthe Eleusinian mysteries, which appear, however, to have been merely a\nsocial attachment to the mysteries proper.[1883] In the feasts of the\nMithraic initiates, in which mythological symbolism is prominent, a more\nspiritual element becomes visible: the participant absorbs something of\nthe nature of the god--power to overcome evil, with hope of\nimmortality.[1884]\n\n+1044+. In the ancient records of these ceremonies there is no theory of\nthe means by which man comes into friendly relations with the deity. The\nmeal is an act of friendly intercourse--it doubtless involves the\nancient belief that those who eat together thus absorb a common life and\nare bound together by a strong tie. In the earliest and simplest\ninstances the feeling apparently is that the communion is between the\nhuman participants--the divine animal is honored as a brother; but, even\nwhen, as among the Ainu,[1885] he receives a part of the food, the tie\nthat binds him to them rests on the fact of original kinship rather than\non the communal eating. Later the view that the god was pleased and\nplacated by the nourishment offered him assumed more definite\nform;[1886] but it is doubtful whether on such occasions man was\nregarded as the guest of the deity.[1887]\n\n+1045+. However this may be, it is the effect of the food on the god\nthat has been made by W. Robertson Smith the basis of an elaborate\ntheory of sacrifice;[1888] his view is that the assimilation of the\nflesh and blood of the kindred divine animal strengthens the deity's\nsense of kinship with his worshipers, and thus, promoting a kindly\nfeeling in him, leads him to pardon men's offenses and grant them his\nprotection. Smith's argument is mainly devoted to illustrating the\nancient conception of blood-kinship between gods, men, and beasts. He\nassumes that sacrifice is the offering of food to the deity (the blood\nof the animal, as the seat of life, coming naturally to be the most\nimportant part of the offering), the sacredness of the victim, and the\nidea of communion, and further that the victim is a totem--the existence\nof totemism in the Semitic area, he holds, though not susceptible of\nrigid proof, is made practically certain by the wide diffusion of the\ntotemic conception elsewhere.[1889] As evidence that the effective thing\nin sacrifice is the sharing of sacred flesh and blood, he adduces a\ngreat number of offerings (such as the shedding one's own blood and the\noffering of one's hair) in which there is no death of a victim, and no\nidea of penal satisfaction of the deity. In the Israelite ritual he lays\nspecial stress on the common clan-sacrifice (the _zeba[h.]_) in which a\npart of the victim is given to the god and a part is consumed by the\nworshiper; this he contrasts with offerings that are given wholly to the\ngod, and, leaving aside piacula and holocausts, this distinction he\nmakes correspond to that between animal and vegetable offerings, the\nlatter, he holds, being originally not conciliatory. Thus, he concludes,\nthe expiatory power lies in the sharing of animal flesh. Here the theory\nis confronted by the holocaust and the piaculum, expiatory sacrifices in\nwhich there is no communal eating. Smith meets this difficulty by\nsuggesting that these two sorts of sacrifice belong to a relatively late\nperiod, when, in the progress of society, the original conception had\nbecome dim. As time went on, he says, the belief in kinship with animals\ngrew fainter. Sacrificial meals became merely occasions of feasting, and\nat the same time the establishment of kingly government familiarized men\nwith the idea of tribute--so sacrifice came to be regarded as a gift and\nthe victim was wholly burnt (holocaust); the same result was reached\nwhen the feeling arose that the victim was too sacred to be eaten--it\nmust be otherwise disposed of (piaculum). The piacula he refers to times\nof special distress, when recourse was had to the sacrifice of ancient\nsacred animals, old totems (Hebrew: \"unclean\" animals), supposed to have\nspecial potency.[1890] It is true that in the course of time certain old\nconceptions grew dim, but this does not set aside the fact that\nexpiatory power was supposed to attach to animal sacrifices in which\nthere was no communal eating; though some of these were late, they\ndoubtless retained the old idea of the nature of the efficacy of\nsacrifice.\n\n+1046+. In Smith's theory there is confusion between the two ideas of\ncommunion and expiation or placation. All the facts adduced by him go to\nshow only that the earliest form of animal sacrifice took the form of\ncommunal eating; and in such repasts, as in the savage feasts on the\nbodies of warriors and others, the prominent consideration seems to have\nbeen the assimilation of the qualities of the thing consumed--in this\ncase a divine animal. There is not a word of proof of the view that the\nplacation of the deity was due to his assimilation of kindred flesh and\nblood. Such a view is not expressed in any ancient document or\ntradition, and, on the other hand, placation by gifts of food (animal or\nvegetable) and other things appears in all accounts of early ritual.\nEven in the sacramental meals of later times, Eleusinian, Christian, and\nMithraic, there is no trace of the theory under consideration. In the\n\"Teaching of the Twelve Apostles\" (ix f.) the conception of the\neucharistic meal is simply symbolical. The origin of the Australian\ncustom[1891] (in which the food brought in by a clan is not eaten till\nthe old men have first tasted it) is obscure; but there is no hint that\nthe food was supposed to be shared by a supernatural being.[1892]\nPiacula arose under the influence of a deep sense of individual relation\nto the deity, and sometimes in connection with voluntary associations in\nwhich a special sanctity was held to accrue to the initiates through the\nmedium of a cult in which special sacrifices were prominent It was\nnatural that peculiarly solemn or dreadful offerings should be made to\nthe deity in times of great distress; the placating efficacy in such\ncases seems to have been due to the pleasure taken by the deity in the\nproof of devotion given by the worshipers. In general, the communal meal\nlost its early significance as time went on, and came at last to be\ncelebrated merely as a traditional mark of respect to the deity, or as a\nsocial function; the belief in its efficacy, however (and sometimes\nbelief in its magical power), survived into a relatively late period.\n\n+1047+. In one point, the death of the god, J. G. Frazer, while\naccepting Smith's theory in general, diverges from his view. Smith\nregards the death of the god as having been originally the sacrificial\ndeath of the divine totem animal, with which later the god was\nidentified. Frazer[1893] (here following Mannhardt[1894]) finds its\norigin in the death of the vegetation-spirit (the decay of vegetation),\nwhich was and is celebrated in many places in Europe, and furnishes an\nexplanation of the myths of Adonis, Attis, Osiris, Dionysus, Demeter and\nProserpine, and Lityerses. This explanation is adopted and expanded by\nHubert and Mauss.[1895] So far as the mere fact of the sacrifice of a\ndivine being is concerned it might be accounted for by either of these\ntheories; but the numerous points of connection between the deities in\nquestion and the ancient ideas concerning the death of vegetation make\nthe view of Mannhardt and Frazer the more probable. The kernel of the\noriginal custom is not expiation but celebration or worship; the myths\nare dramatic developments of the simple old idea. Frazer suggests that\nthe spirit or god, supposed to be enfeebled by age, was slain by the\nworshipers in order that a more vigorous successor might infuse new life\ninto the world--an explanation that is possible but cannot be considered\nas established or as probable.[1896] However this may be, it was at a\nrelatively late period that the conception of communion was introduced\ninto ceremonies connected with the death of a deity. Originally the\ngrain, identified with the god, was eaten in order to acquire his\nstrength;[1897] such seems to be the purpose in the Mexican ceremonies\nin which paste images of the deity were eaten by all the people. With\nthe growth of moral and spiritual conceptions of worship such communal\neating came naturally to be connected with a sense of union of soul with\nthe deity, as we find in the higher religions, but still without the\nfeeling that reconciliation and unity were effected through the\nabsorption, by god and man, of the same sacred food.\n\n+1048+. In some forms of Christianity the sacramental eating is brought\ninto connection with the atoning death of a divine person, but this\nlatter conception came independently by a different line of thought. Its\nbasis is the idea of redemption, which is an element in all sacrifice\nproper. And, as the death of the divine victim is held to rescue the\nworshiper from punishment for ill doing, the conclusion is natural that\nthe former stands in the place of the latter. In the higher forms of\nthought such substitution could only be voluntary on the part of the\nvictim. Traces of the self-sacrifice of a god have been sought in such\nmyths as the stories of the self-immolation of Dido and Odin; but the\nform and origin of these myths are obscure[1898]--all that can be said\nof them in this connection is that they seem not to contain expiatory\nconceptions.[1899] The higher conception of a divine self-sacrifice is a\nlate historical development under the influence of convictions of the\nmoral majesty of God and the sinfulness of sin.\n\n+1049+. _Union with the divine through a sanctified victim._ The\nconception of sacrifice as bringing about a union of the divine and the\nhuman is reached in a different way from that of Smith by MM. Hubert and\nMauss, and receives in their hands a peculiar coloring.[1900] They hold\nthat the numerous forms of sacrifice cannot be reduced to \"the unity of\na single arbitrarily chosen principle\"; and in view of the paucity of\naccurate accounts of early ritual (in which they include the Greek and\nthe Roman) they reject the \"genealogical\" (that is, the evolutionary)\nmethod, and devote themselves to an analysis of the two ancient rituals,\nthe Hindu and the Hebrew, that are known in detail and with exactness.\nThey thus arrive at the formula: \"Sacrifice is a religious act which, by\nthe consecration of a victim, modifies the state of the moral person who\nperforms it, or of certain objects in which this person is interested.\"\nThe procedure in sacrifice, they say, consists in establishing a\ncommunication between the sacred world and the profane world by the\nintermediation of a victim, that is, of a thing that is destroyed in the\ncourse of the ceremony; it thus serves a variety of purposes, and is\ndealt with in many ways: the flesh is offered to hostile spirits or to\nfriendly deities, and is eaten in part by worshipers or by priests; the\nceremony is employed in imprecations, divination, vows, and is\nredemptive by the substitution of the victim for the offender; the soul\nof the beast is sent to join its kin in heaven and maintain the\nperpetuity of its race; all sacrifices produce either sacralization or\ndesacralization--both offerer and victim must be prepared (for the\nvictim is not, as Smith holds, sacred by nature, but is made sacred by\nthe sacrifice), and, the ceremony over, the person must be freed from\nhis sanctity (as in the removal of a taboo); all sacrifice is an act of\nabnegation, but the abnegation is useful and egoistic, except in the\ncase of the sacrifice of a god.\n\n+1050+. The essay of MM. Hubert and Mauss is rather a description of the\nmode of procedure in Hindu sacrifice than an explanation of the source\nof its power. A victim, it is said, sanctified by the act of sacrifice,\neffects communication between the two worlds, but we are not told\nwherein consists this sanctifying and harmonizing efficacy. The rituals\nchosen for analysis are the product of many centuries of development and\nembody the conceptions of theological reflection; it does not appear why\nthey should be preferred, as sources of information concerning the\nessential nature of sacrifice, to the simple rites of undeveloped\ncommunities. The authors of the essay, though they deny the possibility\nof finding a single explicative principle chosen arbitrarily,\nthemselves announce a principle, which, however, amounts simply to the\nstatement that sacrifice is placatory. In thus ascribing the virtue of\nthe ceremony to the act itself it is possible that they may have been\ninfluenced by the Brahmanic conception that sacrifice had power in\nitself to control the gods and to secure all blessings for men; it was\ncredited by them with magical efficacy, and the efficacy depended on\nperforming the act with minutest accuracy in details--the slightest\nerror in a word might vitiate the whole proceeding.[1901] The developed\nHindu system thus embodied in learned form the magical idea that is\nfound in many early procedures, and in some other cults of civilized\ncommunities. So far as regards the variety of functions assigned by MM.\nHubert and Mauss to sacrifice, they may all be explained as efforts to\npropitiate supernatural Powers; and the obligation on priests and\nworshipers to purify themselves by ablutions and otherwise arises from a\nsense of the sacredness of the sacrificial act, which is itself derived\nfrom the feeling that the sacredness of supernatural beings communicates\nitself to whatever is connected with them. The view that the victim is\nnot in itself sacred is contradicted by all the phenomena of early\nreligion. Though the essay of MM. Hubert and Mauss formulates no\ndefinition of the ultimate efficient cause in sacrifice, passing remarks\nappear to indicate that they look on the offering as a gift to\nsuperhuman Powers, and that their object is to show under what\nconditions and circumstances it is to be presented.\n\n+1051+. _Sacrifice as the expression of desire for union with the\nInfinite._ Professor C. P. Tiele, dissatisfied with existing theories of\nthe significance of sacrifice, contents himself with a general\nstatement.[1902] After pointing out that the material of sacrifice in\nany community is derived from the food of the community, he passes in\nreview briefly the theories of Tylor (gifts to deities), Spencer\n(veneration of deceased ancestors), and Robertson Smith; all these,\nthough he thinks it would be presumptuous to condemn them hastily, he\nfinds insufficient, most of them, he says, confining themselves to a\nsingle kind of offering, whereas every kind should be taken into\naccount, gifts presented, objects and persons consecrated, victims slain\nwith or without repasts, possessions and pleasures renounced, acts of\nfasting and abstinence, every kind of religious self-denial or\nself-sacrifice. The question being whether one and the same religious\nneed is to be recognized in all the varieties, he finds the root of\nsacrificial observances in the yearning of the believer for abiding\ncommunion with the supernatural Power to which he feels himself akin,\nthe longing of finite man to become one with the Infinity above him.\n\n+1052+. Tiele here has in mind the highest form of the religious\nconsciousness, which he carries back to the beginnings of religious\nthought. He is justified in so doing in so far as all later developments\nmust be supposed to exist in germinal form at the outset of rational\nlife; but such a conception tells us nothing of the historical origin of\ncustoms. The idea of the relation between the finite and the infinite is\nnot recognizable in early thought; to trace the history of such an\ninstitution as sacrifice we desire to know in what sort of feeling it\noriginated, and we may then follow its progress to its highest\ndefinition. All the details mentioned by Tiele are included under the\nhead of gift except acts of abstinence and self-sacrifice, and these\nlast belong properly not to what is technically known as \"sacrifice,\"\nbut to man's endeavor to bring himself into ethical harmony with an\nethical deity. With equal right prayer and all moral conduct might here\nbe included; Tiele thinks of \"sacrifice\" as embracing the whole\nreligious life. In the earliest known cults the \"yearning for union with\nthe Infinite\" takes the form of desire to enter into friendly relations\nwith superhuman Powers by gifts, in order to derive benefit from them;\nwhen old forms have been outgrown the conviction arises that what is\nwell-pleasing to God is the presentation of the whole self, as a \"living\nsacrifice,\" in service in accordance with reason (Rom. xii, 1).\n\n+1053+. The various theories of the origin and efficacy of sacrifice\n(omitting the ambassadorial conception) are thus reducible to three\ntypes: it is regarded as a gift, as a substitution, or as an act\nsecuring union (physical or spiritual) with the divine. These have all\nmaintained themselves, in one form or another, up to the present day.\nThe old ritual slaughter of an animal and the presentation of vegetables\nand other things have, indeed, vanished. The movement of thought against\nanimal sacrifice began in the Western world (among the Greeks and the\nHebrews) probably as early as the fourth century B.C.[1903] In Greece\nthe formulation of philosophic thought and the rise of individualism in\nreligion (embodied, for example, in the great Mysteries) brought larger\nand more spiritual ideas into prominence. Rational law and inward\nimpulse took the place, in the higher circles, of ritual offerings. The\nobject of law, says Plato, is the encouragement of virtue of all kinds\nand the securing of the highest happiness; but, he holds, there is\nsomething higher than law: the good Athenian is above other men, for he\nis the only man who is freely and genuinely good by inspiration of\nnature, and is not manufactured by law.[1904] The Mysteries assumed that\nevery man, with suitable inward preparation, was fitted to enter into a\nspiritual union with the deity. The later Jews showed equal devotion to\ntheir law, held to be divinely given, laying the stress on the moral\nside;[1905] jurists became more important than priests, and the\nsynagogue (representing individual worship) more influential than the\ntemple-ritual. In certain psalms[1906] sacrifice is flatly declared not\nto be acceptable to God; this attitude had been taken by the earlier\nprophets,[1907] but is emphasized in the psalms in the face of the later\nopinion that the sacrificial ritual was of divine ordination (so in\nExodus, Leviticus, Numbers). In the Gospels the sacrificial ritual is\npractically ignored. In India the Brahmanic and Buddhistic movements\ntoward rational conceptions of religion showed themselves as early as\nthe sixth century B.C. Thus, over a great part of the civilized world\nintellectual and moral progress took the form of protest against the old\nidea of sacrifice.\n\n+1054+. Yet old customs are long-lived, and the ancient theories, as is\nremarked above, still have a certain power. The crudest of them--that\nthe deity may be propitiated by gifts--shows itself in the belief that\nill-doing may be atoned for by the support of charitable and religious\ninstitutions--by the building of churches and hospitals, by the\nmaintenance of religious worship, and by aid to the poor. Society has\nbenefited largely by this belief, especially in medieval Europe and to\nsome extent in Buddhistic and Moslem communities; it has formed a\ntransition to higher conceptions, by which it has now been in great\nmeasure replaced. The same thing is true of ascetic observances. The\nidea of sacrificial substitution, which has been prominent in organized\nChristianity from an early period (though it has no support in the\nteaching of Jesus), might seem to be prejudicial to religion for the\nreason that it tends to depress the sense of individual responsibility\nby relegating the reconciliation with the deity to an external\nagency--and such has often been its effect; but this unhappy result has\nbeen more and more modified, partly by the natural human instinct of\nmoral responsibility and the ethical standard of the Christian\nScriptures, partly by the feeling of gratitude and devotion that has\nbeen called forth by the recognition of unmerited blessing. The third\ntheory of sacrifice, according to which its essence is union with the\ndivine, has passed gradually from the sphere of ritual to that of moral\nculture. In mystical systems, Christian and Moslem, it has lent itself\nsometimes to immorality, sometimes to a stagnant, egoistic, and\nantisocial quietism; but in the main it has tended to avoid or abandon\nmechanical and mystical features, and confine itself to the conception\nof sympathetic and intelligent co\u00f6peration with what may be regarded as\nthe divine activities of the world.\n\n+1055+. _Further external apparatus of religion._ Along with the growth\nof sacrifice there has been a natural development of everything that was\nnecessary to give permanent form to public worship--ritual, priests,\ntemples, idols, and whatever was connected with the later church\norganizations.\n\n\nRITUAL\n\nApart from magical procedures the earliest known public religious\nworship consisted simply in the offering of an animal, a vegetable, a\nfluid, or other object to a superhuman being, the offering being\nperformed by any prominent person and without elaborate ceremonies.\nInevitably, however, as the social organization grew more complex and\nthe conception of sanctity more definite, the ceremonial procedure\nbecame more elaborate. The selection and the handling of the victim came\nto be objects of anxious care, and the details increased in importance\nas they increased in number. It was believed that minute accuracy in\nevery ritual act was necessary for the success of the offering. Various\nelements doubtless entered into this belief: often a magical power was\nattributed to the act of sacrifice; and there was a feeling, it may be\nsurmised, that the deity was exacting in the matter of ceremonies--these\nwere marks of respect, such as was paid to human potentates, and\nwell-defined court rituals (on which the religious ritual was probably\nbased) appear in early forms of society. Thus ritual tended to become\nthe predominant element in worship, serving first the interests of unity\nand order in religion, and later always in danger of becoming a\nmechanical and religiously degrading influence.\n\n+1056+. In most savage and half-civilized communities sacrifice is a\nsimple affair, and the details of the ceremonies of worship are rarely\nreported by travelers and other observers.[1908] An exception exists in\nthe case of the Todas of Southern India, who have elaborate ceremonies\nconnected with the milking of buffaloes.[1909] The ordinary buffaloes of\na village are cared for by some prominent man (never by a woman), who is\nsometimes a sacred person and while carrying on his operations performs\ndevotional acts (prayer and so forth), but without a fixed ritual. A\nhigher degree of sanctity attaches to the institution called _ti_, which\ncomprises a herd of buffaloes belonging to a clan and provided with\ndairies and grazing-grounds; each dairy has appropriate buildings, and\nthe _ti_ is presided over by a sort of priest called a _palol_. The\nmigration of the buffaloes from one grazing-ground to another is\nconducted as a sacred function. In the case of an ordinary herd the\nprocession of animals is accompanied by a religious official who\ncarries the dairy implements; on reaching the destination the new dairy\nis purified, the sun is saluted, and prayer is offered. In a _ti_\nmigration the procedure is more elaborate: the milking of the buffaloes\nis accompanied by prayers for the older and the younger members of the\nherd, and every act of the _palol_ is regulated by law. The same thing\nis true of the animal sacrifices: the slaughter of the victim and the\ndisposal of the various parts are accomplished in accordance with\ndefinite rules that are handed down orally from one generation to\nanother. The Todas are a non-Aryan people, hardly to be called\nhalf-civilized: if the buffalo-ritual is native with them, the natural\ninference will be that the custom is ancient. Rivers adduces a\nconsiderable number of similarities between Toda institutions and those\nof the Malabar coast (such as polyandry and other marriage\ninstitutions), and this agreement, as far as it goes, may point to a\ncommon culture throughout a part of Southern India;[1910] the early\nhistory of these tribes is, however, obscure. It is possible that the\nTodas have borrowed some customs from the Hindus. They have certainly\nadopted some Hindu gods, and Rivers suspects Hindu influence in their\nrecognition of omens and lucky and unlucky days, in certain of their\nmagical procedures, and in their use of pigments and ashes in some\nsacred ceremonies. There seems, however, to be no proof that the\nbuffalo-ritual has been borrowed from the Hindus. On this question,\nwhich is of importance as bearing on the early history of ritual, it is\nto be hoped that further information will be got.\n\n+1057+. Various nonsacrificial rituals (dances and so forth) are\nreferred to above.[1911] Magical processes should be here included so\nfar as they involve a recognition of superhuman agents; they are then to\nbe regarded as religious. Definite magical ritual is found in many of\nthe lower tribes, and there are ceremonies in which a shaman is the\nconductor--these are governed by fixed customs as to dress, posture,\nacts, and words.[1912] They differ from magical processes in that they\nare assemblies of the people, religious because there is communication\nwith spirits. In the Californian tribes and others they become occasions\nof merrymaking; a peculiar feature of these gatherings among the Maidu\nand other tribes is the presence of a clown who mimics the acts and\nwords of the dancers and performs knavish tricks; the origin of this\nfeature of the dances is not clear. In all such ceremonies the tendency\nto regulate the details of religious performances is apparent, and such\nregulation is found in so many parts of the world that it may be\nregarded with probability as universal.\n\n+1058+. For the ancient national religions we have the fullest details\nin the case of the Hindus and the Hebrews. The Hindu sacrificial ritual\nis described by MM. Hubert and Mauss;[1913] the Hebrew procedure is\ngiven in the later sections of the Pentateuch.[1914] The Egyptian ritual\nalso appears to have been elaborate, including much music.[1915] These\nshow methods similar to those described above, and probably the same\ngeneral modes of procedure were followed in Babylonia and Persia, though\nof the ritual in these countries only slight notices have been handed\ndown.[1916] The great Chinese Imperial sacrifices are described by H.\nBlodget.[1917]\n\n+1059+. These national systems exhibit a gradual quiet enlargement of\nthe ritual resulting from increasing specialization in the conception of\nsin and forgiveness and in the functions of religious officials. A\ndifferent sort of development appears in the rites of the cults that\nsprang up on the ruins of the old faiths--Greek Mysteries, Mithraism,\nIsisism, Christianity. These were all redemptive religions, highly\nindividualistic and intense, efforts to infuse into old forms the ideas\nconcerning moral purity, union with the deity, immortality, and future\nsalvation that had arisen in the Gr\u00e6co-Roman world by the natural\ngrowth of thought and the intermingling of the various existing schemes\nof religious life. They are all marked by a tendency toward elaborate\norganization, a sharp differentiation from the national cults, and\npurificatory and other ceremonies of initiation. The differentiation was\nmost definite in Christianity, the ritual was most highly developed in\nthe other movements. In the Greek public Mysteries[1918] and in those of\nMithra[1919] there were (besides ablutions) the old communal meals,\nprocessions, striking dramatic performances, and brilliant effects of\nlight and music, and in Mithraism trials of courage for the neophyte\nafter the manner of the old savage initiations. The ceremonies in the\nIsis cult were less sensational, more quiet and dignified.[1920] In all\nthese cults there was symbolism, and the moral teaching was of a lofty\ncharacter.\n\n+1060+. Christian ritual was at first simple,[1921] but rapidly grew in\nelaborateness. The liturgy and the eucharistic ceremonies were expanded\ninto great proportions, and came to be the essence of worship. This\nmovement went on throughout Christendom (with variations here and there)\nup to the rise of Protestantism, and after that time continued in the\nGreek and Roman Churches. Protestantism, in its recoil from certain\ndoctrines of the Church of Rome, threw off much of its ceremonial, which\nin the minds of the people was associated with the rejected dogmas.\nSince the separation, however, especially in the last hundred years, the\nviolent antagonism having largely quieted down, there has been in some\nProtestant bodies a slow but steady movement in the direction of\nritualistic expansion; procedures that three centuries ago would have\ncalled forth earnest protest are now accepted and interpreted in\naccordance with Protestant ideas. Doubtless the temperament of a people\nhas something to do with the amount of ceremonial it favors in religious\nservice.\n\n+1061+. The history of ritual thus shows that it tends to grow in\nelaborateness and importance as social forms become more elaborate and\nimportant--the mode of approaching the deity imitates the mode of\napproaching human dignitaries, postures are borrowed from current\netiquette.[1922] Form was especially sought after under the old\nmonarchies, Egyptian and Assyrian.[1923] The exaggerated Oriental court\netiquette, introduced into Roman life as early as the time of\nDiocletian, was maintained and developed under the Byzantine\nemperors.[1924] These usages may have affected the growth of the Greek\nand Roman Church liturgies.[1925] In modern China, under the imperial\ngovernment, divine worship was substantially identical in form with the\nworship of the emperor. In some cases it may be doubtful in which\ndirection the borrowing has been.\n\nThe expansion of liturgical forms has often been accompanied by the\neffort to interpret them symbolically. Intelligent reflection has led to\nthe conviction that forms without religious meaning are valueless, and\nit has been easy, after ceremonies were established, to attach spiritual\ndefinitions to their details. This relieves their materialism, and gives\na certain realness and force to religious feeling.\n\n\nPRIESTS[1926]\n\n+1062+. A priest is a person commissioned by the community or its head\nto conduct the sacrificial service and related services connected with\nshrines. Such a person differs in two respects from the religious\nofficial of the simplest times, the magician (shaman, or medicine man):\nthe latter acts in his own name and by his own authority, and the\nmethods he employs are magical--they are based on the belief that the\nsupernatural Powers are subject to law and may be controlled by one who\nknows this law; the priest acts in the name and by the authority of the\ncommunity, and his methods are dictated by the friendly social relation\nexisting between the community and the Powers. He differs, further, from\nthose religious ministrants (chiefs of clans, fathers of families, and\nother prominent men) who acted by virtue of their social or political\npositions in that his functions are solely religious and are in that\nregard distinct from his civil position. He represents a differentiation\nof functions in an orderly nonmagical religious society. Such an office\ncan arise only under a tolerably well-organized civil government and a\nfairly well-defined sacrificial ritual. It is doubtless a slow growth,\nand there may be, in a community, a period of transition from one grade\nof religious ministers to another when the distinction between the\npriest and the magician or between the priest and the headman is hardly\nrecognizable; the distinction comes, however, to be well marked, and\nthen indicates an important turning-point in religious history. It may\nbe, also, that at certain times under certain circumstances the civil\nruler may have priestly functions or the priest may exercise civil\nauthority; but these exceptional cases do not affect the specific\ncharacter of the sacerdotal office.\n\n+1063+. The priest is a sacred person, and is affected by all the\nconditions pertaining to the conception of \"sacred.\" In early times he\nhas to be guarded against contamination by impure or common (profane)\nthings, and care has to be taken that his quality of sacredness be not\ninjuriously communicated to other persons or to any object.[1927] The\nparts of his person, such as hair and nail-parings, must not be touched\nby common folk. The dress worn by him when performing his sacred duties\nmust be changed when he comes out to mix with the people. He must keep\nhis body clean, and the food that he may or may not eat is determined by\ncustom or by law. His sexual relations are defined--sometimes he is\nforbidden to marry or to approach a woman, sometimes the prohibition\nextends only to marriage with a certain sort of woman (a foreigner, a\nwidow, or a harlot). In some cases he is forbidden to engage in warfare\nor to shed human blood;[1928] the ground of this prohibition was\nphysical, not moral.[1929]\n\n+1064+. Similar rules in regard to food, marriage, chastity applied to\npriestesses.[1930] Women were often, in ancient times, the ministrants\nin the shrines of female deities--there was a certain propriety in this\narrangement; they were, however, in some cases attached to the service\nof male deities.[1931] Their duties were in general of a secondary\ncharacter: they rarely, if ever, offered sacrifice;[1932] they were\noften in charge of the temple-music; the function of soothsaying or of\nthe interpretation of oracular sayings was sometimes assigned them. On\nthe other hand, female ministrants in temples, who were closely\nconnected with temple duties, were sometimes considered as wives of the\ngod, and in some cases had sexual relations with priests and worshipers,\nand became public prostitutes.[1933] This custom does not exist among\nthe lowest tribes, and it attained its largest development in some of\nthe great civilized cults. It seems not to have existed in Egypt.[1934]\nThe consecrated maidens described in the Code of Hammurabi appear to\nhave been chaste and respected;[1935] the relation between these and the\nharlots of the early Ishtar cult is not clear. A distinction may be made\nbetween priestesses proper and maidens (hierodules) consecrated to such\na deity as Aphrodite Pandemos; Solon's erection of a temple to this\ngoddess, which he supplied with women, may have been an attempt to\ncontrol the cult of the het\u00e6r\u00e6. The thousand hierodules at Corinth[1936]\nwere probably not priestesses, and the same thing may be surmised to be\ntrue of the women devoted to the Semitic prototype of Aphrodite, the\nSyrian Ashtart (Astarte), and to the Babylonian Ishtar.[1937]\n\n+1065+. The origin of temple prostitution is not clear. In many cases\n(in Greece, Rome, Mexico, Peru, and elsewhere) the consecrated women\nwere required to be virgins and to remain chaste--this higher conception\nis obviously the natural one in a civilized community in which the\npurity of wives and daughters is strictly guarded. The old idea that\nsexual union was defiling may have originated or strengthened the demand\nfor chastity. The institution of the lower class of women does not seem\nto have originated in a society in which this regard for purity is\nlacking, for the hierodulic class is rarely if ever found in existing\nsocieties of this sort. The origin of the class is not to be sought in a\nlow valuation of woman, nor, on the other hand, is it to be found in a\ndesire to secure fruitfulness; fruitfulness is generally secured by\nofferings to the gods, and though the belief has doubtless existed that\nit could be secured by commerce with a supernatural being,[1938] there\nis no trace of this belief in the accounts of the lives of the\nhierodules; the benefit would be restricted also to a small number of\nwomen. Probably the custom was developed gradually and, like other such\ncustoms, had its ground in simple needs. Women were required for the\nmenial work of shrines.[1939] Once established in service, they would\nacquire a certain sanctity and power by their relation to sacred things,\nand at the same time would, as unattached, be sought by men. Their\nprivileges and license would grow with time--they would become an\norganized body, and would seek to increase their power. In the course of\ntime current religious ideas, low or high, would attach to them. They\nwould be supposed to be in the confidence of the deity, able to\ninterpret his will, and endowed with the power of cursing or\nblessing.[1940] With the growth of refinement they would be thought of\nas servants of the deity, belonging to him and to no other, and might\nbe described, as in fact they are sometimes described, as his wives. The\ntitle \"wife\" would be compatible with purity in the higher religious\nsystems, but in the lower systems would be connected with license.\n\n+1066+. _Theories of the origin of religious prostitution._ The license\njust referred to is a part of a widespread custom of the prostitution of\nsacred persons, of which various explanations have been offered.[1941]\nThe existence of the custom is attested for the larger part of the\nancient civilized and half-civilized world, and for many more recent\npeoples. In old Babylonia, Canaan, Syria, Phoenicia, Asia Minor,\nArmenia, Greece, and now in West Africa and India, we find officially\nappointed \"sacred\" women a part of whose religious duty it was or is to\noffer themselves to men.[1942] The service in ancient times was not\nregarded as degrading; on the contrary, maidens of the noblest families\nwere sometimes so dedicated, and the r\u00f4le of devotee might be continued\nin a family for generations.[1943] Such service was sometimes a\nnecessary preliminary to marriage. This seems to be the case in the\ncustom reported by Herodotus[1944] that every native Babylonian woman\nhad, once in her life, to sit in the temple of Mylitta (Ishtar) and wait\ntill a piece of money was thrown into her lap by a stranger, to whom she\nmust then submit herself--this duty to the goddess accomplished, she\nlived chastely. In Byblos a woman who refused to sacrifice her hair to\nAshtart on a certain festival day had to yield herself to a\nstranger.[1945]\n\nOfficial male prostitutes also there were in some ancient cults; but\ninformation about such persons is scanty, and they seem not to have been\nnumerous.[1946] The most definitely named case is that of the Hebrew\nofficial class called _kedeshim_, that is, persons devoted to the\nservice of the deity and therefore sacred[1947] (as it is said in Zech.\nxiv, 20 ff., that bells on horses and temple-vessels shall be sacred to\nYahweh). These, together with the female devotees, _kedeshot_\n(\"prostitutes\"), are denounced as abhorrent to Yahweh; both were\nfeatures in the ritual of the Jerusalem temple of the seventh century\nB.C. and apparently earlier.[1948] The female devotee is called a\n\"harlot\" and the male a \"dog\" (_kalb_). The original religious sense of\nthe latter term is uncertain. In the Old Testament it occurs, in this\nsense, only in the passage cited above. In a Phoenician inscription of\nLarnaca (in Cyprus)[1949] the plural of the word designates a class of\nattendants in a temple of Ashtart, and there are proper names in which\nthe term is an element (and therefore an honorable title). It is not\nimprobable that it meant originally simply a devotee or minister of a\ngod in a temple,[1950] the bad sense having been attached to it in the\nOld Testament from the license sometimes practiced by such ministers.\n\nThe sentiment of chastity is a product of the highest civilization. In\nmany savage and half-civilized tribes the obligation on a woman to keep\nherself pure is not fully recognized, and in the case of married women\nthe opposition to unfaithfulness sometimes springs from the view that it\nis a violation of the husband's right of property in the wife. In some\nancient civilized communities a god's right to a woman seems to have\nbeen taken for granted.[1951] Ordinary prostitution seems to have\nexisted in the world, in all grades of civilization, from the earliest\ntimes. This attitude toward the custom being so widespread, it is not\nstrange that it has established itself in religious organizations.\n\nTwo types of organized religious prostitution have to be\nconsidered:[1952] there is the Babylonian (Mylitta) type, in which every\nwoman must thus yield herself before marriage; and there is the\nattachment of a company of official public women to a temple permanently\nor for a considerable time. The explanations that have been offered of\nthese institutions fall into two classes, one tracing their origin to\nsome nonreligious custom, the other regarding them as originally\nreligious (these classes are, however, not necessarily mutually\nexclusive).\n\n_Secular explanations._ It has been held that all such customs go back\nto a period of sexual promiscuity,[1953] which has been modified in the\ncourse of ages. It is doubtful whether such a period ever existed,[1954]\nbut it is certain that prenuptial license has been common, and this\nlaxity may have prepared the way for organized prostitution. More\nparticularly, reference is made to puberty defloration ceremonies, when\nthe girl is handed over to certain men no one of whom can, by tribal\nrule, be her husband--that is, before marriage she becomes sexually the\nproperty of the tribe through its regularly appointed representatives,\nand is thus prepared for membership; then, it is added, at a later\nperiod, when religious service has been established, the girl is given\nover or devoted not to the tribe but to the tribal god, in whose shrine\nshe must submit to defloration, in accordance with rules fixed from time\nto time. The act thus becomes religious--it is a recognition of the\nsovereignty of the deity, and procures divine favor. Such may be a\npossible explanation of the procedure in the temple of Mylitta and at\nByblos.[1955] But the meaning of the condition imposed at these places,\nnamely, that the man to whom the woman yields herself must be a\nstranger, is not clear. It is hardly probable that an outsider was\ncalled on to perform what was regarded as a dangerous duty--a stranger\nwould not be likely to undertake what a tribesman feared to do.[1956]\nNor is the power of a stranger to confer benefits so well established\nthat we can regard his presence as intended to bring a blessing to the\ngirl.[1957] More to the point, in one respect, is the conjecture that we\nhave here an attenuated survival of the exogamic rule--the girl must\nmarry out of her social group;[1958] the old social organization having\ndisappeared, the \"stranger\" takes the place of the original functionary,\nand the deity the place of the clan. This explanation has much in its\nfavor; but, as it is hardly possible to establish an historical\nconnection between the older and the later custom, it cannot be said to\nbe certain, and the origin of the \"stranger-feature\" remains obscure.\n\n_Religious explanation._ Sacred prostitution is supposed by many writers\nto have sprung from the cult of the goddess who represented the\nproductive power of the earth[1959] (Mother Earth, the Great Mother).\nWhile such a figure is found in many of the lower tribes, it is only\namong civilized peoples, and particularly in Western Asia, that the cult\nacquired great importance. By the side of the female figure there\nsometimes stands a male representative of fertility (Tammuz by the side\nof Ishtar, Attis by the side of Kybele) who is regarded as the husband\nor the lover of the goddess, but occupies a subordinate position. In\nearly times the goddess is represented as choosing her consorts at will,\nbut this is merely an attribution to her of a common custom of the\nperiod. All deities, male and female, might be and were appealed to for\nincrease of crops and children, but a Mother goddess would naturally be\nlooked on as especially potent in this regard. Prayer would be\naddressed to her, and that, with offerings, would be sufficient to\nsecure her aid; simply as patroness of fertility she would not demand\nprostitution of her female worshipers--some special ground must be\nassumed for this custom, and it is held that, as fertility was produced\nby the union of the goddess with her consort or her lovers, this union\nmust be imitated by the women who sought a blessing from her.[1960] The\nprobability of such a ground for sacred prostitution is not obvious.\nThere are communities of temple-courtesans (in West Africa and India)\nwhere such an idea does not exist. If the license was in imitation of\nthe goddess, this feature of her character requires explanation, and the\nnatural explanation is that such a figure is a product of a time of\nlicense. In the ancient world it was only in Asia Minor and the adjacent\nSemitic territory that religious orgies and debauchery existed--they\nseem to have been an inheritance from a savage age. Or, if the\nprostitution is explained as a magical means of obtaining\nchildren,[1961] this also would go back to a religiously crude period.\nMagical rites, many and of various sorts, have been performed by women\ndesiring offspring--imitations and simulations.[1962] But the giving up\nof the body is not imitation or simulation--it is the procreative act\nitself.\n\nOrganized official sacred prostitution must be regarded as the outcome\nof a long period of development. License, starting at a time when sexual\npassion was strong and continence was not recognized as a duty or as\ndesirable, found entrance into various social and religious customs and\ninstitutions, accommodating itself in different places and periods to\ncurrent ideas of propriety. Appropriated by organized religion, it\ndiscarded here and there its more bestial features, adopted more refined\nreligious conceptions, its scope was gradually reduced, and finally it\nvanished from religious usage. The objections urged to such a process of\ngrowth are not conclusive.[1963] Explanations of communities of\ntemple-courtesans and male prostitutes and of customs affecting\nindividual women are suggested above.[1964] Many influences, doubtless,\ncontributed to the final shaping of the institution, and we can hardly\nhope to account satisfactorily for all details; but the known facts\npoint to an emergence from savage conditions and a gradual modification\nunder the influence of ideas of morality and refinement.\n\n+1067+. _Organization and influence of the priesthood._ In accordance\nwith the law of natural human growth the priests in most of the greater\nreligions came to form an organized body, hierarchical grades were\nestablished, many privileges were granted them, and they exercised great\ninfluence over the people and in the government. In Egypt they were\nexempt from taxes and had a public allowance of food; the temples at the\ncapitals, Memphis and Thebes, became enormously wealthy; the priests\nexercised judicial functions (but under the control of the king); they\ncultivated astronomy and arithmetic, and controlled the general\nreligious life of the people; as early as the thirteenth century B.C.\nthey had attained a political power with which the kings had to reckon,\nand still earlier (ca. 1400 B.C.) the Theban priests were able to\noverthrow the religious reformation introduced by Amenhotep IV; the\ndepartments of sacerdotal functions were multiplied, and the high priest\nof the Theban Amon, whose office became hereditary, controlled the\nreligious organization of the whole land, set himself up as a rival of\nthe Pharaoh in dignity, and finally became the head of a sacerdotal\ntheocracy.[1965]\n\n+1068+. While the Babylonian and Assyrian priesthoods were not so highly\norganized as the Egyptian, and never attained great political power,\nthey were nevertheless very influential. Astronomy and astrology, the\ninterpretation of omens and portents, the science of magic and\nexorcisms, the direction of the religious life of kings and people were\nin the hands of the priests; the great temples were rich, there were\nvarious classes of temple-ministers, all well cared for, and the chief\npriest of an important shrine was a person of great dignity and power.\nThe interpretation of sacrificial phenomena was made into a science by\nthe priests, and, passing from them to Greece and Italy, exerted a\ndefinite influence on the religious life of the whole Western\nworld.[1966]\n\n+1069+. The process of organizing the Hebrew priesthood began under\nDavid and Solomon, at first, under Solomon (who favored the Zadok\nfamily), affecting only the Jerusalem temple. In the Northern kingdom\n(established about 930 B.C.) there seems to have been a similar\narrangement. As long as the old royal governments lasted (the Northern\nkingdom fell in the year 722 B.C., the Southern in 586) the priests were\ncontrolled by the kings. On the building of the Second Temple (516) and\nthe reorganization of the Judean community they became, under Persian\nrule, independent of the civil government and finally, in the persons of\nthe high-priests, the civil heads of the Palestinian Jews. The Maccabean\nuprising resulted in the establishment of the Asmonean priest-dynasty,\nin which the offices of civil ruler and religious leader were united.\nAfter the fall of this dynasty (37 B.C.) the priestly party (the\nSadducees, that is, the Zadokites), forming an aristocracy, conservative\nof ritual and other older religious customs and ideas, was engaged in a\nconstant struggle with the democratic party (the Pharisees), which was\nhospitable to the new religious ideas (resurrection, immortality,\nlegalism). The latter party was favored by the people, and with the\ndestruction of the temple (70 A.D.) the priests disappeared from\nhistory. From the beginning they appear to have been not only religious\nministrants and guides but also civil judges; their great work was the\nformulation of the religious law, as it appears in the Pentateuch, and\nit is probable that the shrines (especially that of Jerusalem) were\ncenters of general literary activity. The national development turned,\nhowever, from sacerdotalism to legalism--the later religious leaders\nwere not priests but doctors of law (Scribes and Pharisees).\n\n+1070+. In India the priests formed the highest caste, were the authors\nof the sacred books (which they alone had the right to expound),\nconducted the most elaborate sacrificial ceremonies that man has\ninvented, and by ascetic observances, as was believed, sometimes became\nmore powerful than the gods.[1967] Ritual propriety was a dominant idea\nin India, and the influence of the priesthood on the religious life of\nthe people was correspondingly great. Priests did not attempt to\ninterfere in the civil government, but their religious instruction may\nsometimes have affected the policy of civil rulers. On the other hand,\nthe Hindu priesthood, by its poetical productions and its metaphysical\nconstructions, has become a permanent influence in the world.\n\n+1071+. The early (pre-Zoroastrian) history of the Mazdean priesthood is\nobscure. In the Avestan system, however, a great r\u00f4le is assigned the\npriests, as is evident from the vast number of regulations concerning\nceremonial purity, of which they had charge.[1968] It does not appear\nthat the early sacerdotal organization was elaborate or strict. There\nwere various classes of ministrants at every shrine, but they differed\napparently rather in the nature of their functions than in rank.\n\n+1072+. The Greek priestly class had the democratic tone of the Greek\npeople.[1969] There was little general organization: every priest was\nattached to a particular deity except the Athenian King Archon, who had\ncharge of certain public religious ceremonies. The mutual independence\nof the Greek States made the creation of a Hellenic sacerdotal head\nimpossible. In Sparta the priestly prerogatives of the king were long\nmaintained; usually, however, there was a separation of civil and\nreligious functions. Generally in Greece priests were chosen by lot, or\nwere elected by the priestly bodies or by the people, or were appointed\nby kings or generals. They were usually taken from good families, were\nheld in honor, and were housed and fed at the public expense (their food\ncame largely from sacrificial offerings). It was required that they\nshould be citizens of the place where they officiated, and should be\npure in body and of good conduct. They seem to have been simply citizens\nset apart to conduct religious ceremonies, and their influence on the\ngeneral life was probably less than that of civil officers, poets, and\nphilosophers. Greek educated thought moved at a relatively early period\nfrom the conventional religious forms toward philosophical conceptions\nof the relation between the divine and the human.[1970]\n\n+1073+. The minute details of the Roman ritual might seem to give great\nimportance to priests;[1971] and the flamens (the ministers of\nparticular deities) were of course indispensable in certain sacrifices.\nBut the organization of Roman society was not favorable to the\ndevelopment of specifically sacerdotal influence. Religion was a\ndepartment of State and family government. For the manifold events of\nfamily life there were appropriate deities whose worship was conducted\nby the father of the family. The title _rex_ (like the Greek\n_basileus_), in some cases given to priests, was a survival from the\ntime when kings performed priestly functions. Later the consul was\nsometimes the conductor of public religious ceremonies. There was hardly\na religious office, except that of the flamen, that might not be filled\nby a civilian. In the Augustan revival membership in the College of the\nArval Brothers was sought by distinguished citizens. It was thought\ndesirable that the Pontifex Maximus, the most influential of the\npriests, should be a jurist; and the office was held by such men as\nJulius C\u00e6sar and Augustus. The increase of temples and priests by\nAugustus did not materially change the religious condition. The adoption\nof foreign cults was accompanied by ideas that did not belong to the\nRoman religion proper. In general, if we except the augurs, who\nrepresent the lowest form of the sacerdotal office, the priest was\nrelatively uninfluential in Rome.[1972]\n\n+1074+. The minimum of priestly influence is found in the national\nreligion of China, in which there is no priestly class proper.[1973] In\nthe worship of ancestors, which satisfies the daily religious needs of\nthe people, every householder and every civil official is a ministrant.\nThe great annual sacrifices to the heavenly bodies have been conducted\ntill recently by the emperor in person.[1974] Public religion is, in the\nstrictest sense, a function of the State. Society, according to the\nChinese view, is competent to manage relations with the supernatural\nPowers--it needs no special class of intermediaries. This thoroughgoing\nconception of civic autonomy in religion connects itself with the\nsupreme stress laid on conduct in the Confucian system, which represents\nthe final Chinese ideal of life:[1975] man constructs his own moral\nlife, and extrahuman Powers, while they may grant physical goods, are\nchiefly valued as incidents in the good social life. The great\nspeculative systems of thought, Confucianism and Taoism, gradually gave\nrise to definite sacerdotal cults; but the priests of the Confucian\ntemples serve mainly to keep before the people the teaching of the\nMaster, and the Taoist priests have become largely practicers of magic\nand charlatans. Chinese religious practice remains essentially\nnonsacerdotal.\n\n+1075+. The Peruvian cult presents a remarkable example of a finely\norganized hierarchy closely related to the civil government.[1976] The\npriests were chosen from the leading families; the highpriest was second\nin dignity to the Inca only. The functions of the priests were strictly\nreligious; and as the masses of the people were devoted to the worship\nof local deities and natural objects, it seems probable that the\nsacerdotal influence was merely that which belonged to their supervision\nof the State religion. Details on this point are lacking.\n\nPriests played a more prominent part in Mexico, entering, as they did,\nmore into the life of the people.[1977] On the one hand, the numerous\nhuman sacrifices, of which the priests had complete control, kept the\nterrible aspect of religion constantly before the mind of the public;\nand, on the other hand, the milder side of the cult (for the Mexican\nreligion was composite) brought the priests into intimate relations with\nadults and children. As the priests, apart from their monstrous\nsacrificial functions, appear to have been intelligent and humane, it is\nnot unlikely that their general moral influence was good.\n\n+1076+. The influence of the priesthood on religion (and on civilization\nso far as religion has been an element of civilization) has been of a\nmixed character. On the one hand, while not the sole representative of\nthe idea of the divine government of the world (for soothsayers and\nprophets equally represented this idea), it has stood for friendly\neveryday intercourse between man and the deity, and has so far tended to\nbring about an equable and natural development of the ordinary religious\nlife; it was involved in the sacerdotal functions that the deity might\nbe placated by proper ceremonies, whence it followed that the priest,\nwho knew the nature of these ceremonies, was a benefactor, and, more\ngenerally, that man had his salvation in his own hands. The business of\nthe priest was to maintain the outward forms of religion, to order and\nelaborate the ritual, to organize the whole cultus.[1978] This was a\nwork that required time and the co\u00f6peration of many minds. Priests were,\nin fact, naturally drawn together by a common aim and common\ninterests--with rare exceptions they lived in groups, formed societies\nand colleges, had their traditions of policy, gathered wealth.[1979] For\nthis reason they were in general opposed to social changes--they were a\nconservative element in society, and in this regard were the friends of\npeace.\n\n+1077+. On another side they did good work; they were to some extent the\nguardians of morals. In ancient popular life ethics was not separated\nfrom religion--religion adopted in general the best moral ideas of its\ntime and place and undertook to enforce obedience to the moral law by\ndivine sanctions. Priests announced, interpreted, and administered the\nlaw, which was at once religious and ethical; they were teachers and\njudges, and this function of theirs was of prime importance,\nparticularly where good systems of popular education did not exist.\nFurther, as a leisured class they often turned to literary occupations;\nexamples of their literary work are found in India (poetry and\nphilosophy), Babylonia (the history of Berossus), Palestine (Old\nTestament Psalter, the works of Josephus). They offered a place of rest\nin the midst of the continual warfare of ancient times.\n\n+1078+. On the other hand, the priesthood has been generally\nconservative of the bad as well as of the good. It has maintained\ncustoms and ideas that had ceased to be effective and true, and in order\nto preserve them it has resorted to forced interpretations and has\ninvented accounts of their origin. It has thus in many cases been\nobscurantive and mendacious. It has tended to make the essence of\nreligion consist in outward observances, and has not infrequently\ndegraded the placation of the deity to a matter of bargaining--it has\nsold salvation for money. Priests have not always escaped the danger\nthat threatens all such corporations--that of sacrificing public\ninterests to the interests of the order. They have drifted naturally\ntoward tyranny--the enormous power put into their hands of regulating\nmen's relations with the deity has led to the attempt to regulate men's\ngeneral thought, though in most of the great religions their power in\nthis regard has been partly controlled by the civil authority and by the\ngeneral intelligence of the community. When they have not been\ncontrolled, they have often succumbed to the temptations that beset\nwealth; they have fallen into habits of luxury and debauchery.\n\n+1079+. In a word the history of the priesthood has been like that of\nall bodies of men invested with more or less arbitrary power. Its r\u00f4le\nhas varied greatly in different places and at different times. It has\nnumbered in its ranks good men and bad, and has favored sometimes\nrighteous, sometimes unrighteous, causes. It is not possible to define\nits influence on religion further than to say that it has been a\nnatural element of the organization of religion, taking its form and\ncoloring from the various communities in which it has existed, embodying\ncurrent ideas and thus acting as a uniting and guiding force at a time\nwhen higher forces were lacking. It has formed a transitional stage in\nthe advance of religious thought toward better conceptions of the\nrelation of man to the deity.\n\n+1080+. Islam has no priesthood, as it has no provision for atonement\nfor sin except by the righteous conduct of the individual; its cultic\nofficials are preachers or leaders of prayer (imams) in the mosque\nworship, and jurists or scholars (ulamas) who interpret the Koran.\nJudaism has had no priests since the destruction of the Second Temple\n(70 A.D.); its synagogue services are conducted by men trained in the\nstudy of the Bible or the Talmud (rabbis). In Christianity the\nconception of a sacrificial ministrant has been retained in those\nchurches (the Greek and the Roman) which regard the eucharistic ceremony\nas a sacrifice. In the West the \"presbyter\" (such is the New Testament\nterm), the head of the congregation, took over the function of the old\npriest as conductor of religious worship, and the word assumed the form\n\"priest\" in the Latin and Teutonic languages. Among Protestants it is\nemployed only in the Church of England, in which, however, for the most\npart it has not the signification of 'sacrificer.'\n\n\nWORSHIP\n\n+1081+. _Places of worship._ The simplest form of early worship is the\npresentation of an offering to the dead or to some extrahuman object of\nreverence. Such objects were held to exist in all the world, in the sky,\nin rocks, streams, woods, caves, hills and mountains, and beneath the\nsurface of the earth; but it was chiefly in places of human resort that\ntheir presence was expected. On some natural object or at some spot\nregarded as sacred, particularly where, it was believed, a spirit or\ndeity had manifested himself (in some remarkable natural phenomenon, or\nin some piece of good fortune or ill fortune), the worshiper would place\nhis offering. Sometimes it was left to be disposed of by the deity or\nspirit or dead person at his pleasure. When the offering was an animal,\nthe blood, as food, was often applied to the grave or to the stone or\nother object connected with a superhuman Power. In the course of time,\nit may be supposed, it would be found convenient to erect a table or\nsome other structure on which an animal could be slain. Such a structure\nwould be an altar. At first simple, a heap of stones, a pile of dirt, a\nrough slab, it was gradually enlarged and ornamented,[1980] and itself,\nby association, became sacred.\n\n+1082+. Places where the presence of the divine was recognized were\nsacred. In them worship was paid to the deity, and in the course of time\nthey were marked off and guarded against profane use. At first, however,\nthey were merely spots on hills or in groves, by streams or in the open\ncountry, needing no marks or watches, for they were known to all and\nwere protected by the reverence of the people.[1981] When the land came\nto be more thickly populated and religion was better organized, such\nplaces were inclosed and committed to the care of official persons.\nWell-known examples are the Greek _temenos_ and the Arabian\n_haram_.[1982] Taboos and privileges attached themselves to such\ninclosures. Precautions had to be taken on entering them; the shoes, for\nexample, were removed, lest they should absorb the odor of sanctity and\nthus become unfit for everyday use. The spaces thus set apart were\nsometimes of considerable extent (as was and is the case at Mecca);\nwithin them no war could be waged and no fugitive seized. Sometimes they\nowed their sacredness to the buildings to which they were attached.\n\n+1083+. The necessity for a house of worship arose very early.[1983]\nWhere there was an image or a symbol of a god, or where the apparatus\nof sacrifice or of other ritual practice was considerable, buildings\nwere required for the protection of these objects and perhaps for the\nconvenience of the ministrants. The development of buildings followed\nthe course of all such arrangements--at first rude, they became\ngradually elaborate and costly. In many savage tribes and in the\nearliest period of civilized peoples (Egyptians, Hebrews, al.) a hut,\nconstructed like those of the people and therefore of a very simple\ncharacter, houses the image or other representative of the god. With the\nprogress of artistic feeling and skill abodes of men grow into palaces\nand abodes of deities into temples. It is on the temples that the\ngreatest labor has been expended, partly because they are the work of\nthe whole community, partly because it has been believed that the favor\nof the deity would be gained by making his dwelling-place\nmagnificent.[1984] The essential fact in a temple--its definition--is\n(in the lower cults) and was (in the great ancient cults) that it is or\nwas the home of a god, the specific place of approach to him, with the\npossibility of face-to-face intercourse and a greater probability of\ngaining the blessings desired. This local conception of the deity\ncontinued after larger ideas had arisen,[1985] and is to be found at the\npresent day in some Christian circles.\n\n+1084+. Temples have tended to grow not only in beauty and magnificence\nbut also in elaborateness of interior arrangements and of connected\nstructures. Anciently they were specifically places of sacrifice--the\nabodes of gods to whom sacrifice was offered--and this function\ngenerally determined their interior form. Sometimes they contained a\nsingle room in which stood an image and an altar; this was the simplest\narchitectural embodiment of the idea of divine sacredness. But the\nprogress of ritual forms was accompanied by the notion of grades of\nsanctity, and a special sanctity was indicated by a special room, an\nadytum, an inner or most holy shrine;[1986] where, as was often the\ncase, gradations in priestly rank existed, only the highest priest could\nenter the adytum. For the implements of service and for the priests\nthere were buildings attached to the temple. The people gathered in\ncourts adjoining the sacred structure; where ritual exactness was\ncarried very far (as in Ezekiel's plan and in Herod's temple), there\nwere gradations in the courts also.[1987] Usually an altar stood in one\nof the courts. The sacredness of the sanctuary communicated itself to\nthe vessels and other implements of the sacrificial service.\n\n+1085+. Temples, like sacred inclosures and altars, were often asylums,\nand doubtless in many cases served to protect innocent persons. The\nprivilege, however, was often abused, and it became necessary in Greece\nand Rome to restrain it.[1988]\n\n+1086+. As a factor in the development of art the temple has been\nimportant. It has called forth the best architectural skill of man, and\nthe statues that often adorned sacred buildings have stimulated\nsculpture. It does not appear that symbolism entered into the idea of\nancient temples.[1989] The Babylonian and Assyrian zikkurat (or\nziggurat) was a staged structure (resembling in this regard the Egyptian\npyramid), supposed by many scholars to be an imitation of the mountains\nwhence the predecessors of the Semites in Babylonia came, and on which\nthey worshiped;[1990] if this be so, there is no attempt at pointing\nupward to the abode of the gods. Nor is there any trace elsewhere in the\nancient world of a symbolic significance attached to temples beyond the\ndistinction of place, referred to above, between the sacred and the\nprofane and between different degrees of sacredness. The form of temples\nappears to have been determined by imitation of early nonreligious usage\nor by considerations of convenience;[1991] the ziggurat may have been\nsuggested by a high place, the adytum by a cave, but most temples were\nprobably copies of ordinary human dwellings or civic buildings (as in\nlate Latin, basilica is used in the sense of 'cathedral').\n\nAs abodes of priests temples were the centers of all priestly activities\nin the development of ritual and literature. Being strong and well\nguarded they were often used by kings as treasure-houses; but they were\nstripped of their wealth by native kings in times of need, and were\nfreely plundered by conquerors.\n\n+1087+. _Forms of worship._ The ancient forms of divine worship, as is\nremarked above,[1992] follow in a general way the modes of approaching\nhuman potentates. Ceremonies of worship reached a high degree of\nelaboration in the great religions, Egyptian, Babylonian-Assyrian,\nHebrew, Hindu, Greek, Roman.[1993] The central fact was the presentation\nof the offering, and with this came to be connected prayers and hymns,\nceremonies of purification, vows, imprecations, exorcisms, oracles; the\nfestivals also were religious functions. Prayer is spoken of\nbelow.[1994] Hymns sometimes consisted of or contained petitions, more\ngenerally were laudations of the power and benefactions of a deity. For\npoetical charm the first place is to be assigned to the Egyptian,\nHebrew, and Hindu hymns. The religious ideas expressed in such\ncompositions varied with time and place, but they show a general\ntendency toward a monolatrous or henotheistic point of view and toward\nhigher ethical and spiritual feeling. Many of the Egyptian hymns seem to\nbe substantially monotheistic, and the same thing is true of the\nBabylonian, the Assyrian, and the Vedic. The Babylonian hymns so far\nrecovered (belonging in their present form mostly to the seventh century\nB.C.) are chiefly penitential[1995] and show a close resemblance to some\nHebrew psalms. In the Veda traces of philosophical thought, pantheistic\nand other, are not lacking. The poems of the Old Testament Psalter vary\ngreatly in breadth and elevation of thought--some, dealing generally\nwith national affairs (occasionally with individual experiences), are\nnarrow and ethically low; others show exalted conceptions of the deity\nand fine moral feeling. The Avestan ritual is concerned largely with\nphysical details, but is not lacking in a good ethical standard; the\nGathas, particularly, though not free from national coloring, give a\nnoteworthy picture of the government of the world according to moral\nlaw. Of Greek ritual hymns we have few remains, and these are of no\ngreat interest.\n\n+1088+. Everywhere the temple-hymns, as is natural, deal chiefly with\nthe desires and hopes of the worshiper, and often do not rise above mere\negoism. Their object is to secure blessing, and the blessing is often,\nperhaps generally, of a nonmoral character--wealth, children, triumph\nover enemies. Desire for moral purity appears in some Hebrew hymns, and\nperhaps in some Babylonian. Of the modes of presenting liturgical poems\nto the deity we have few details. In the Second Temple at Jerusalem\nthere were choruses of ministrants (Levites), and some of the titles of\nthe psalms contain what seem to be names of musical instruments and\nmelodies; but of this temple-music nothing further is known than that it\nwas sometimes sung antiphonally, but without harmony.[1996] In some\nparts of Greece boys were trained to render hymns musically in the daily\nservice and on special occasions. The general character of old Greek\nmusic is indicated in the Delphian hymn to Apollo discovered in\n1893;[1997] the melody is simple but impressive--there is no harmony.\n\n+1089+. The temple-music doubtless tended to heighten devotional feeling\namong the worshipers, and possibly a similar popular effect was produced\nby the festivals that were common in the ancient world. Here the whole\npopulation took part, there were religious ceremonies, and the\nconsciousness of the presence of the deity was made more distinct not\nonly by visible and tangible representations, but often also by the fact\nthat these occasions were connected in current myths and legends with\nhistories of gods and ancient national experiences. Processions and\npilgrimages brought the people to sacred places to which stories were\nattached, and the religious life became a series of object lessons. The\nGreek and Roman calendars contain a great number of feast days, each\nassigned to some god.[1998] The Hebrews at a comparatively early date\n(eighth or ninth century B.C.) connected their great festivals with\nremote national events;[1999] examples of festivals attached to recent\nhistorical events are Purim,[2000] the Feast of Dedication established\nin commemoration of the rededication of the temple by Judas Maccab\u00e6us\n(December, 165 B.C.) after the Syrian profanation,[2001] and the \"Day of\nNicanor\" commemorating the victory of Judas over that general (March,\n161 B.C.).[2002] In the Hindu festivals (New Year's Day and during the\nspring months) stories of gods formed a prominent feature.[2003] The\nGreek Genesia, the season of mourning for the dead, came to be connected\nwith the victory of Marathon.[2004]\n\nAll such celebrations tend to become seasons of merrymaking, and the\nreligious element in them then receives less and less attention.[2005]\nThis remark holds of the festivals that Christianity took over from the\nold religions, adapting them to the new conditions.[2006] Such occasions\nlose their distinctive religious significance in proportion as the\nevents they commemorate recede into the past and become less and less\ndistinct. It is in very early times, when they are thought of as\nrepresenting realities, that they are religiously effective; in later\ntimes they give way to more reflective forms of devotion.\n\n+1090+. Vows, blessings, and curses may be considered to belong to\nworship in the regard that they contain petitions to the deity; the\ncurse or the blessing, however, sometimes rested on a baldly objective\nconception of the power of words, sometimes was held to be magical: once\nuttered, the word, beneficent or maleficent, went to its object, person\nor thing, did its work, and could not be recalled; its effect could be\nset aside only by an utterance in the opposite direction.[2007] A\nmagician, by the power resident in him, could fix a curse or a blessing\non man or thing. An exorcism, also, might be effected by magic or by\ninvoking the aid of a deity; an evil spirit is a supernatural Power and\nhas to be considered--one does not worship such a being, but one may\nemploy religious means to circumvent him. Bad magic may be overcome by\ngood magic, and a deity, hostile and maleficent under certain\ncircumstances, may be placated by offerings. It is not always easy to\ndraw the line between worship proper and modes of defense against\ninjurious Powers. But in general true worship implies friendly relations\nbetween human and superhuman persons.\n\n+1091+. _Idols._ From an early time men have desired to have visible\nrepresentatives of the supernatural. So long as natural objects, trees,\nstones, mountains, were regarded as themselves divine or as the abodes\nof spirits, so long as a loose social organization and the absence of\ndefinite family life led men to spend their lives in the open air, there\nwas no need of artificial forms of the Powers. Such a need arose\ninevitably, however, under more advanced social conditions. Exactly at\nwhat stage men began to make images it is hardly possible to say,--the\nprocess was begun at different stages in different regions,--but it\nappears that in general it was synchronous with some fairly good form of\nsocial organization. Yet, where such forms exist, there are differences\nin the use of images. These are found--to take the lower peoples--in\nMelanesia and the Northern Pacific Ocean, in the northern part of South\nAmerica, in North America apparently only among the Eastern Redmen (as\nthe Len\u00e2p\u00e9 or Delawares),[2008] and on the western coast of Africa\n(Ashanti, Dahomi, Yoruba). Where the cult of beasts (whether totemic or\nnot) is a living one, idolatry does not find a place; it is only when\ncommunities have begun to be agricultural that they have artificial\nforms of gods; that is, idolatry comes in with the stage of culture\nconnected with the agricultural life.[2009]\n\nThe development in the form of images is familiar. The rude and, to\nmodern eyes, grotesque idols of the lower peoples gradually pass into\nthe more finished forms of the civilized nations.[2010] Really artistic\nforms, however, were produced only by some Semites (Babylonians and\nAssyrians) and in the Hellenic and Gr\u00e6co-Roman worlds. In Central\nAmerica, Mexico, and Peru images are anthropomorphic but lacking in\nsymmetry and grace. Hindu idols are often composite and grotesque,\nsometimes (especially images of Buddha) highly impressive.\n\n+1092+. The Hebrews appear to have had no anthropomorphic images of\ntheir national deity. Down to a late period there was a cult of\nhousehold gods,[2011] and of these, probably, there were images in\nprivate houses and in shrines, whether anthropomorphic or not is\nuncertain. In Solomon's temple (and in Ezekiel's proposed plan) figures\nof cherubs (originally divine beings) stood on the walls of the main\nroom and guarded the ark in the adytum; they were winged creatures, the\nforms derived immediately from Phoenicia, ultimately from Babylonia;\nthey appear only in the great public cult, probably did not enter into\nthe religious life of the people at large, and there is no evidence that\nthey ever received divine worship.[2012] The Hebrews had no plastic art\nof their own, seem to have had small disposition in their earlier\nhistory to make images, and later such forms were excluded by the\nantagonism of the prophets to foreign cults and by refined ideas of the\ndeity.[2013] The absence of images in the Zoroastrian cult may be\naccounted for in a similar way--from early lack of artistic impulse and\nlater elevated conceptions. In China there are images in household\nworship, but none in the great imperial religious ceremonies.[2014]\nThough the Koran does not expressly forbid the cult of images, yet, as\nthe old Arabian cults denounced by the prophet were all idolatrous,\nimages were identified with false religion (polytheism) and have been\navoided by the Moslems, whose strict monotheism left no place for them.\n\n+1093+. Images were credited in half-civilized times with a certain\npersonality, were flogged or destroyed when they failed to do what was\nexpected of them, or were bound in order to prevent their going\naway.[2015] In such cases the conception of the power of these objects\nwas probably a confused one; though they were known to be inanimate\npieces of wood or stone or other material, it was believed that they\nwere inhabited by spirits or deities, and it was held that in some\nundefined way the power of the divine agent was transferred to its\nphysical incasement--the two were practically identified. This sort of\nconception soon passed away and was succeeded by a symbolical\ninterpretation. Whatever the ultimate origin of the Egyptian,\nBabylonian, and Hindu divine and semi-divine forms (which are sometimes\nmonstrous),[2016] it is probable that for the more thoughtful worshipers\nthey represented divine powers and functions. Uncouth shapes may be\nsoftened or transformed by familiarity, and by association with higher\nideas--things in themselves repulsive may become vehicles of\ndevotion.[2017] In all religious worship objects associated with pious\nacts acquire sanctity and beauty.\n\n+1094+. That idolatry in ancient times was not a wholly bad feature of\nworship is shown by the excellence of the great religions in which it\nwas practiced. Its general function was to make the deity more real to\nthe worshiper, to make the latter more sharply conscious of the divine\npresence, to fix the attention, and so far to further a real communion.\nOn the other hand, it tended to produce a low physical conception of the\ndivine person, and to distract the mind of the worshiper from the\nethical side of worship. Its moral effect was dependent on the man's\ncharacter and thought. When the image was regarded as the symbol of an\nethically good Power, it was a re\u00ebnforcement of pure religious feeling;\nwhen it was regarded as in itself a source of physical benefit, it was a\ndegrading influence. This difference of effect exists in those Christian\nbodies that include images and pictures of the deity and of saints in\ntheir apparatus of worship.\n\n\nCHURCHES\n\n+1095+. The history of the social organization of religion is the\nhistory of the growth of churches--voluntary associations for worship;\nit is toward the Church that society has hitherto moved.[2018] Every\nancient community may be said to be an incipient church in the sense\nthat it contains the germs of the later ecclesiastical development. But\nthis later form exists in such communities only in germ--the most\nancient worship was communal, an affair of clan, tribe, or State. Men\nwere born into their religious faith and could no more change it, or\nthink of changing it, than they could change, or think of changing,\ntheir language or any other inheritance. It was inevitable, however,\nthat there should be a growth of individualism--instinct impelled men to\nthink for themselves in religion as in all other things. Religion was a\npart of the general social movement, affected by all other parts of that\nmovement. Independence of thought led to social aggregations, the\nmembers of which were drawn together by similarity of ideas and\naspirations. This is the familiar history of social movements, and that\nin religion such movements have been continuous will be evident from a\nbrief statement of the historical facts.\n\n+1096+. _Savage secret societies._ These societies are referred to\nabove;[2019] here we have only to notice their germinal ecclesiastical\ncharacter. They represent a partial break-up of tribal communal worship\nby assigning special duties and granting special privileges to certain\ninitiated persons. Totemic groups are sometimes (as in Central\nAustralia) charged with specific functions in the tribal life; but\nmembership in such groups is a matter of birth, and they everywhere tend\nto give way to secret societies. These latter often have charge of\ncertain religious rites, and from their secret proceedings and from a\nknowledge of their secret lore the rest of the tribe are excluded.\n\nThe extent to which religious organization and influence have been\ncarried is illustrated by the history of the Polynesian Areoi, the most\nremarkable of such fraternities.[2020] The Areoi created 'mysteries,'\nwith an elaborate ritual whose effectiveness was dependent on absolute\naccuracy in words; its members were chosen without regard to tribal\nposition and entered of their own free will; it was a voluntary\nassociation and made its own religious laws. It was restricted (as all\nsuch associations are) by the necessity of paying regard to existing\ncustoms, but within such limits it was independent of the tribe, and its\nmembers were held to be entitled to special honors and enjoyments in\nthis life and the next (a crude conception of salvation). It was\nessentially a church, and other societies, in Polynesia, Africa, and\nNorth America, approached this position more or less nearly. They all\ntended to become tyrannical--their social influence enabled them to\nimpose their authority on the tribe, and they did not hesitate to employ\nviolence in asserting their rights.[2021] To foreign influence they were\nnaturally hostile, since this generally diminished their power. Founded\nas they are on savage ideas they have disappeared, or are disappearing,\nbefore foreign civilizations. In their best form they doubtless gave a\ncertain unity to communities and were thus an element of order.\n\n+1097+. _Greek mysteries._ In Greece dissatisfaction with the current\ncults expressed itself in various ways, largely through poets and\nphilosophers, who asserted themselves, indeed, individually, but showed\nno power of organization. The task of organizing religious opinion fell\nto that new direction of thought (vaguely called \"Orphic\"[2022]) which,\nwhile it gave prominence to spiritual ideas and moral ideals, introduced\na lively emotional element into worship. In the Eleusinian and other\nmysteries this element was both external (dramatic representations,\nsongs, processions, ceremonies of initiation) and internal (the hope of\nsalvation). Without breaking with the popular religious forms the\nmysteries constructed their own forms, chose their members, and created\na religious _imperium in imperio_. They were voluntary associations for\nworship, ignored distinctions of social rank, had great ideas and\nimpressive rituals--apparently all the elements necessary to the\nestablishment of churches or of a national church. Yet they faded\ngradually away, and perished finally without leaving any definite\nimpression, as it seemed, on Greece or the world without.[2023]\n\n+1098+. The reasons of their failure are not far to seek. They did not\nreach the Hellenic mind for the reason that they were of foreign origin\nand much in them was opposed to the genius of the Hellenic religion.\nEven the Pythagorean reform movement of Southern Italy, with its\nstrenuous moral culture of the individual, seems to have had a foreign\n(Asiatic) coloring. It was, indeed, at one with the better Greek thought\nof the time (sixth century B.C. and later) in its elevated conception of\nthe deity and of worship, but with this it combined ascetic observances\nand, apparently, mystical ideas; it established what may be called a\nchurch, which had a great vogue in Southern Italy for several centuries\nbut did not, as an organization, penetrate into Greece. It attracted\nsome thoughtful men, but was too calm and restrained for the\nmasses.[2024]\n\n+1099+. It was different with the Dionysiac cult, whose wildness made\nit popular; of foreign origin, it was in time partly Hellenized and in\nAthens took its place in the regular national worship; some of its\nforeign features were taken up in the mysteries. These latter, with\ntheir enthusiasm and their half-barbaric ceremonies, excited the\ncontempt of most of the educated class.[2025] These cults were\nAsiatic--not Semitic--but probably a product of a non-Hellenic\npopulation of Asia Minor (Phrygia and other regions), developed during a\nperiod the history of which is obscure.\n\n+1100+. The Semites seem to have produced no mysteries--there is no\nrecord of such cults in Babylonia, Syria, Phoenicia, the Hebrew\nterritory, or Arabia; Semitic religion was objective, simple,\nnonmystical.[2026] The Syrian cult of Tammuz (Adonis), which was adopted\nby Hebrews in the sixth century B.C. (Ezek. viii, 14), was an old\nfolk-ceremony, not a mystery; it is allied to the Attis ceremonies of\nAsia Minor and to the mourning ceremony mentioned in Judges xi, 40\n(mourning for a dead deity, but there referred to Jephthah's daughter).\n\n+1101+. The Greek mysteries, then, derived their orgiastic side partly\nfrom Thrace, partly from Asia Minor. They chiefly attracted the lower\nclasses and particularly slaves, for they offered individual\nindependence in religion, freedom from the sense of social inferiority,\nand hope for the life to come. Thus they did not appeal to the Hellenic\nspirit, and did not, as organizations, survive the political decadence\nof the Greek States. But it is probable that their effects survived in\nthe recognition of the possibility of religious worship apart from the\ntraditional cults, and, more generally, in contributing to the\nestablishment of the principle of individualism in religion. An\nhistorical connection between the Greek mysteries and the later\nindividualistic cults is, indeed, not probable. Cumont believes that\nMithraism did not imitate the organization of the Greek secret\nsocieties.[2027] The New Testament use of the term 'mystery' in the\nsense of 'esoteric doctrine'[2028] may have come from the Asian cult;\nthe Mithraic worship was practiced in Tarsus, the native city of the\nApostle Paul, in the first century of our era. However this may be, it\nseems probable that the conception of a church existed in the\nGr\u00e6co-Roman world before the beginning of our era, and that its\nexistence was due in part to the Greek mysteries, whose members were\nscattered throughout the empire of Alexander.\n\n+1102+. The _philosophical systems_ that arose in Asia and Europe\nconcurrently with the Greek mysteries did not found ecclesiastical\norganizations. The disciples of philosophers formed schools, and the\nadherents of each school constituted a group the members of which were\nunited one with another by the bond of a common intellectual aim and a\ncommon conception of life and of the world; and there was also a\nscientific union between the various groups, the fundamental methods of\ninvestigation and lines of thought being the same everywhere. But the\nobject of thought was the discovery of truth by human reason, not the\nquest of salvation by worship of the divine. The emotional element\nessential to the formation of a church was wanting, and where\nphilosophical systems adopted devotional forms these were not the\ncreation of philosophy but were borrowed from current cults. They sought\nhappiness, but not through religious ritual. They did not always\nformally discard or condemn existing cults, but they ignored them as\nmeans of salvation; they sometimes recognized traditional gods and forms\nof worship, but interpreted them in accordance with their own ideas.\n\n+1103+. In India the Upanishads practically abolished the national\npantheon and the old Brahmanic ritual--knowledge, they taught, was the\nkey to bliss, and the knowledge was not that of the Veda, it came by\nreflection; emancipation from earthly bonds, absorption into the\nInfinite, was the goal of effort, but the effort was individualistic and\nled to no devotional organization. Ascetic observances, as a means of\nattaining perfection, were an inheritance from popular Brahmanism.[2029]\nIn China Taoism, originally a system of thought (based on the conception\nof all-controlling order) that appealed only to a certain class of\nphilosophic minds, became a religion by borrowing crude ideas and\nsensational methods from a debased form of Buddhism and other\nsources.[2030] Confucius steadily declined to teach anything about\ndivine worship; Confucianism remained merely an ethical system, dealing\nonly with the present life, until its founder, with disregard of his\nteaching, was divinized.\n\n+1104+. Many of the Greek philosophers, from Socrates and Plato on, were\ndefinitely (some of them warmly) religious, but their religion was\nchiefly valued as an aid to ethical life, and it did not respond to the\ndemand for communal worship. The Platonic and Stoic conceptions of the\ndeity were pure, but they remained individualistic--salvation was the\ncreation of the man himself. The noble hymn of Cleanthes to Zeus[2031]\nand the fine religious morality of Marcus Aurelius led to no church\norganization. The attempted combination of Platonism and Judaism by\nPhilo was equally resultless. Neo-Platonism also, though it had\nenthusiasm and some sense of brotherhood, showed itself unable to\nproduce a church. Plotinus, indeed, proposed to the Emperor Gallienus\nthe establishment in Campania of a city of philosophers, a Platonopolis,\nin which the ideal life should be lived, but the proposal came to\nnothing.[2032] The Neo-Platonic union with the deity was too vague a\nconception to bring about communal worship, and the deity had no\ndefinite r\u00f4le in securing the salvation of men.\n\n+1105+. Thus, in the period beginning about the sixth century B.C. and\nextending into the Christian era, all over the civilized world attempts\nwere being made to reconstruct life by ethical and philosophical\nsystems, by ascetic observances, and by mysteries. These attempts bear\nwitness to the prevailing sense of the insufficiency of current schemes\nof life. They differ according to differences of place and time, but\nagree in the search after something better; this better thing was always\nethical and in most cases religious. Their failure to construct\neffective organizations was due to the deficiencies pointed out above.\n\n+1106+. _Buddhism and Jainism._ The first churches produced by civilized\nmen arose in India in the sixth century B.C. out of the bosom of\nBrahmanism, whose failure to establish a church was due in part to its\ndependence on philosophical speculation. Of the protests against the\nBrahmanic orthodoxy the most important were Buddhism and Jainism.[2033]\nBuddhism discarded philosophy and asceticism, and came forward with a\nplan of salvation that was intelligible to all.[2034] Disciples gathered\nabout the Master and he became the object of enthusiastic devotion. All\ncomplete churches have owed their origin each to a single founder; this\nis due to the fact that the insight and constructive genius of the\nfounder have chosen out of the mass of the existing thought those broad\nprinciples that the times demanded and have presented them in incisive\nform and with freshness and enthusiasm.[2035] Buddha's followers quickly\nformed themselves into associations, the entrance into which was by free\nchoice. As his doctrine of salvation was nontheistic, so his church was\nnontheistic, but not therefore nonreligious. The ecclesiastical\norganization was simple, but effective. The original Buddhism has been\ndegraded, especially in Tibet, China, and Korea, but the church form\nremains everywhere more or less recognizable.[2036]\n\n+1107+. Jainism, while differing from its contemporary, Buddhism, in\nits metaphysical dualism and its asceticism, agreed with it practically\nin its method of salvation from the ills of life. It established a\nnontheistic church which has had experiences (polytheistic and other)\nlike those of Buddhism. Historically it is less important than the\nlatter; it still has a considerable following, but it has never passed\nout of India. Apparently its local features, metaphysical and ascetic,\nhave impeded its progress--it lacks the simplicity of Buddhism.\n\n+1108+. _Judaism._ Judaism stands on the border line--it was a cult that\napproached the position of a church, yet failed to reach it. Its line of\nmovement differed _in toto_ from those described above. It had no\nphilosophy, no asceticism, no secret societies, and it did not rely on\nits ethical code. It was essentially religious, in theory a theocracy,\nin form a national cult. The steps by which the old polytheistic\nIsraelite nation passed into the monotheistic Judaism can be traced\nhistorically, but the impulse to the movement was a part of the genius\nof the people and cannot be further explained. The leaders of the small\nbody of people that gathered at Jerusalem in the sixth century, after\nthe break-up of the year 586, were animated by a patriotic devotion to\nthe national deity; without political autonomy, merely a province of the\nPersian empire, the sole interests possible for the people were racial\nand religious, and these isolated them from the neighboring peoples.\nThose who remained in Babylonia (where they were prosperous and\ncomfortable) were similarly isolated, devoted themselves to their own\ndevelopment, and their religious attitude was the same as that of the\nPalestinian community. Distance from the temple led to gatherings in\nvarious places for worship (synagogues).\n\nThe Jews thus became a nation organized under religious law, with an\ninstitution devoted to voluntary communal worship, and offering\nsalvation, at first for this life only, but later (from the second\ncentury B.C. onward) for the future life also--these were elements of a\nchurch. But in two points this cult fell short of the complete church\nidea: the business of a church is wholly and solely religious, and the\nJewish nation was organized not only for religion, but also for\ncommerce, politics, and war;[2037] and the synagogue and the\ntemple-service were not free to all the world--only Jews and\nproselytes[2038] might take part in them. Any religious body, it is\ntrue, may properly define the conditions of entrance into it; but here\nthe restriction was national--the synagogal cult, individualistic and\nsimply devotional as it purported to be, was a part of the national\nsystem, and its membership depended almost exclusively on the accident\nof birth. Proselytes, indeed, formed an exception--they came in of their\nown choice--but they were numerically not important and did not affect\nthe general character of the cult.[2039] The Jews came as near the ideal\nof a voluntary religious association as was then possible under the\nhampering conditions of a racial organization and peculiar national\ncustoms. Their genius for the organization of public religion appears in\nthe fact that the form of communal worship devised by them was adopted\nby Christianity and Islam, and in its general outline still exists in\nthe Christian and Moslem worlds.\n\n+1109+. _Zoroastrianism_ resembled Judaism in its later practical\nmonotheism and its elaborate ritual, but was more isolated and less\nadvanced in the formation of assemblies for voluntary worship. Its\npre-Sassanian period produced no church, only a national cult, which was\nadopted by the Parthians and others in debased form, but otherwise did\nnot attract outsiders. On a sect that arose in Persia in Sassanian times\nsee below.[2040]\n\n+1110+. _Christianity._ The teaching of Jesus was directed toward a\npurification of the existing cult, the elimination of mechanical views,\nand the emphasizing of spiritual and ethical ideals.[2041] There is no\nindication that he purposed founding a separate organization.[2042] But,\nafter his death, his disciples were drawn together by their relation to\nhim, particularly when the new congregation became predominantly\nGr\u00e6co-Roman. For its administration the synagogue was the model--from it\nwere taken the titles and functions of some of its officers and the\nmethod of conducting public service.[2043] But the new ekklesia, the\nchurch, followed its own lines and speedily created a new cult. Its\nfundamental conception was salvation in the future through Jesus of\nNazareth, the Christ. In the beginning it was thoroughly individualistic\nand voluntary. It had no connection with the State, was not a _religio\nlicita_; its adherents joined it solely out of preference for its\ndoctrines; its activity was wholly religious. But this ideal\nconstitution of a church was not long maintained. The introduction of\ninfant baptism (toward the end of the second century) and the adoption\nof Christianity as the religion of the State by Constantine went far to\nmake membership in the Church an accident of birth or of political\nposition; in this regard Imperial and Medieval Christianity did not\ndiffer from the old national religions--it was a religion but not a\nchurch. At the present day in the greater part of Christendom one's\necclesiastical position is inherited precisely as the ancient clansman\ninherited his special cult.[2044] The word \"church\" has largely lost its\nearly signification of voluntary religious association, and has come to\nmean any Christian organization, or, by further extension, any religious\nbody.\n\n+1111+. The secularization of the Church, the failure to discriminate\nbetween its function and that of the State, is an inheritance from\nRoman Imperialism, which in its turn was derived from the primitive\nclan constitution of society in which the individual had no standing\napart from the community. From the Roman Empire it passed to Medieval\nEurope, and it has survived in the Christian world by force of inertia.\nIt is, however, not universal in Christendom (there are religious bodies\nin which individual freedom of choice is fully recognized), and in some\ncases where it exists formally or theoretically it is practically\nignored. Notwithstanding departures from the ideal the services of the\nChurch often represent voluntary worship; such worship, however, has\nbeen the rule in all religions from the earliest times to the present\nday and does not in itself distinguish Christianity from any other\nreligion.\n\n+1112+. The word \"church\" meant at first a local Christian congregation,\nbut was enlarged so as to designate the whole body of Christians. In\nthis body various tendencies of thought showed themselves from time to\ntime, and new organizations were formed that constituted new churches in\nthe sense that they had their own theological dogmas, ritual, and\nconditions of membership. Most of them had brief careers and offer\nnothing of interest for the history of the development of the\nchurch-idea. Gnosticism was a serious and noteworthy attempt to bridge\nover the gap between a good supreme God and an evil world, and was in\nform a church, but its philosophical and mystical sides had so much that\nwas fanciful and grotesque or ethically dangerous that it did not\ncommend itself to the mass, and soon ceased to exist as a separate\norganization, though its echoes long continued to be heard in certain\nChristian groups.[2045]\n\n+1113+. _Cults of Mithra and Isis._ The Mithraic communities were wholly\nvoluntary associations, without distinctions of birth or social\nposition, were recognized by the State, but received no pecuniary aid\nfrom it and had no official connection with it. Perhaps this\nindependence helped to nourish the enthusiasm that carried Mithraism\nfrom one end of the Roman Empire to the other; a church appears to\nflourish most on the religious side when it confines itself to\nreligion. A more important fact was that Mithraism was a religion of\nredemption. It does not appear that there was any general organization\nof the Mithraic associations; each of these was local, probably small,\nhad its own set of officers, and managed its own affairs.[2046] It was\nthus free from some of the perils that beset Christianity. It is not\nimprobable that some of its liturgical forms were adopted by the\nChristian Church, but it seems itself not to have borrowed from the\nlatter. Its weakness was its semibarbarous ritual and its polytheism; it\nyielded of necessity to the simpler and loftier forms of Christianity.\n\n+1114+. The cult of Isis, in spite of its ethically high character and\nits impressive ceremonies of initiation (as described by\nApuleius[2047]), did not give rise to associations like the Mithraic. It\nbelongs to the mysteries, but had not their organization of meetings and\nritual, had no brotherhoods (except those whose bond of union was\ndevotion to this cult) and no general organization embracing the Empire.\nThe reason for its failure in this regard appears to lie in its lack of\ndefiniteness in certain important points: it was in a sense\nmonotheistic, since the goddess was called the supreme controller of the\nworld of external nature and of men, but its monotheism was clouded by\nits connection with the old national cults and by current theological\nspeculations--for Apuleius, it would seem, Isis was rather a name for a\nvague Power in nature than for a well-defined divine person, and\nparticularly it offered no clear picture of the future and no clear hope\nof moral redemption, two things that were then necessary to the success\nof any system that aspired to supplant the popular faiths.[2048] Such\nlacks as these appear in the cult of Sarapis also, which never developed\nthe characteristics of a church.\n\n+1115+. _Manich\u00e6ism._ Of the religious movements that sprang from the\ncontact of Christianity with the East Manich\u00e6ism was the most important\non account of its great vitality. It possessed all the elements of a\nchurch, voluntary membership, independence of the State (it was always\npersecuted by the State), and the claim to a divine revelation of\nsalvation. Like Buddhism, Jainism, and Christianity, it owed its origin\nto a single founder. Its plan of organization and its ethical standards\nwere good. Like Mithraism its basis was Persian (its rise was\nsynchronous with the Sassanian revival of Mazdaism), but the two went\ndifferent ways: the former laid stress on mystical ceremonies, the\nlatter on moral and theological conceptions. The vogue that Manich\u00e6ism\nenjoyed was due, apparently, to its eclectic character: adopting the\nPersian dualism, it modified and expounded this by a Gnostic doctrine of\n\u00e6ons, which was intended to harmonize the goodness of God and the\nexistence of evil, and it added the figure of the highest \u00e6on, Christ,\nthe savior of men. On the other hand, its involved and fantastic\nmachinery led to its downfall.\n\n+1116+. Two theocratic bodies that failed to reach the full church form\nare _Islam_ and the _Peruvian cult of the sun_. The Islamic constitution\nis based on a sacred book, its theology and its form of public worship\nare borrowed from Christianity and Judaism, its private worship is\nindividualistic, and it offers paradise to the faithful. But Islam is in\nessence a State religion rather than a church. Its populations belong to\nit by descent; its head is the Calif (now the Sultan of Turkey). Its\ndiffusion, though due in certain cases to the superiority of its ideas\nand the simplicity of its customs,[2049] has yet come largely (as in\nEgypt, Syria and Palestine, Persia, and North Africa) from social and\npolitical pressure--in some cases it has been adopted by whole nations\nat a blow; Mohammed forced all the people of Arabia to accept it.\nIndividual choice recedes into the background, except (as in Judaism) in\nthe case of proselytes. Its conception of sin and salvation are largely\nexternal. It bears a great resemblance to the Judaism of the Hasmonean\ndynasty, a national cult with a priest-sovereign at its head.\n\nWithin Islam there have arisen organizations that imitate the form of a\nchurch in certain respects; such were the Morabits (Almoravides) and the\nMohads (Almohades),[2050] whose bond of union was in part theological,\nand such are the great fraternities in Africa and Asia, which are\ndevoted, among other things, to religious work, and have elaborate\norganizations and ceremonies of reception.[2051] But these are all\nlargely political and military. The Ismalic movement (from ca. 900 A.D.\non), the central doctrine of which was the incarnation of God in certain\nmen and finally in the Mahdi, was not Islamic and not Semitic; with a\nnominal acceptance of the Koran, it was in fact a mixture of Persian and\nBuddhistic ideas; from it came the Fatimide califate of Egypt, and from\nthis (ca. 1000 A.D.) the Druse sect, which began as a church, but has\nbecome merely a local religion.[2052]\n\n+1117+. It was in Peru that the most thoroughgoing identification of\nreligion with the State was effected.[2053] In the old national\nreligions the individual followed the custom of his country; in Peru the\nState, in the person of the Inca, determined every person's religious\nposition and duties. If Islam resembles Maccabean Judaism, the Peruvian\norganization resembled some forms of Medieval Christianity. The Inca was\na Pope, only with more power than the Christian Pope, since he acted on\nevery individual. The general ethical standard was good, in spite of\nsome survivals of savagery, but there was a complete negation of\nindividual freedom in religion.[2054]\n\n+1118+. _Modern Hindu sects._ The vast multiplication of sects in India\nis an indication of activity of religious thought;[2055] the movement\nhas been in general toward the formation of voluntary associations,\nthough with many variations and modifications. The reform sects, while\nthey may be considered as developments out of the old systems, Vedic,\n\u00c7ivaic, Vishnuic (Krishnaic), have been affected by foreign influence,\nMohammedan or Christian. Of the organizations influenced by Islam\n(followers of Kabir and Dadu) several have produced societies that for a\ntime had the form of a church, with voluntary membership and a plan of\nsalvation; but it has been hard for them to overcome the national\ntendencies to idolatry and to deification of founder or teacher. The\nSikhs, beginning (in the fifteenth century) as a purely religious body,\nbecame, by the eighteenth century, a powerful political and military\norganization. Along with theological reform these sects have been\nconstantly in danger of reverting more or less closely to the old\nnational type, and their church form has been only feebly effective.\n\n+1119+. The case has been different with the movements induced by\ncontact with Christian forms of belief. The organizations founded or\ncarried on by Rammohun Roy[2056] (early part of the eighteenth century)\nand later by Chunder Sen,[2057] Mozoomdar, and others are churches in\nthe full sense of the word, and, notwithstanding occasional individual\nlapses into old Hindu ideas, have so far maintained this character; but\nthey are not wholly native creations, and it remains to be seen what\ntheir outcome will be.[2058]\n\n+1120+. _Babism and Bahaism_,[2059] the transformation of Babism\neffected by Bah\u00e1u'llah, is a church in all essential points, though its\norganization consists merely in the devotion of its adherents to the\nteaching and the person of its founder; it has no clergy, no religious\nceremonial, no public prayers, no connection with any civil government,\nbut its dogma is well-defined and it offers eternal salvation to its\nadherents. Its chief source of inspiration is the belief that its\nfounder was an incarnation of God, the Manifestation of God announced\nby his forerunner, the Bab (the \"Gate\" to God and truth). That its lack\nof official ministers and public communal religious services is no bar\nto its effectiveness is shown by the favor it has met with not only in\nPersia and other parts of Asia but also in Europe and America. Possibly\nits success is due in part to its eclectic character and its claim to\nuniversality (it seeks to embrace and unite Buddhism, Hinduism,\nZoroastrianism, Judaism, and Christianity) as well as to the simplicity\nof its dogma (theism and immortality) and its admirable humanitarian\nspirit.[2060]\n\n\nMONACHISM\n\n+1121+. An effective outgrowth from the church is the monastic system,\nwhich is an _ecclesia in ecclesia_, emphasizing and extending certain\nfeatures of the parent organization.[2061] It sprang from a dualistic\nconception, the assumption of a relation of incompatibility or\nantagonism between God and the world--a feeling whose germ appears in\nsavage life (in taboos and other forms). It has assumed definite shape\nonly in the higher religions and not in all of these--it is foreign to\nSemitic, Persian, Chinese, and Greek[2062] peoples. Austerity there has\nbeen and abstention from certain things but not with the aim of\nministering to spiritual life.[2063]\n\n+1122+. The birthplace of monachism proper was India. In the Brahmanic\nscheme the highest sanctity and the most brilliant prospects attached to\nthe man who forsook the life of men and devoted himself to solitary\nmeditation in the forest.[2064] The seclusion was individual--the man\nwas an eremite. The organization into communities was made by\nBuddha[2065] and, apparently contemporaneously, by Mahavira, the founder\nof Jainism. It is this organization that has made the institution a\npower in religious history. Buddha's associations were open to all,\nwithout distinction of social position or sex. From India monachism\npassed into all the lands that were occupied by Buddhism.\n\n+1123+. In Egypt under the Ptolemies there arose a sort of monastic\nlife: after the cult of Sarapis was established men wishing to devote\nthemselves to religious meditation would go to the Sarapeum and shut\nthemselves up in cells.[2066] It is, however, not clear that there was\nan organization or any sort of communal life in connection with these\ngatherings. There is no evidence of foreign influence beyond a possible\nsuggestion from the fact that Sarapis was a foreign deity and his cult\nmay have imported foreign ideas into Egypt; but he was completely\ndomiciled in his new abode, was identified by the Greeks with their Zeus\nand by the Egyptians (by a popular etymology) with their Osir-Apis;\nthere was nothing foreign in his cult, and the claim, sometimes made,\nfor Buddhistic influence (through embassies sent by Asoka to Greek\nkings) has no definite historical foundation.[2067] Possibly Greek\n(Pythagorean) influence is to be recognized,[2068] but it cannot be\nconsidered strange that a practice of this sort should arise\nindependently in Egypt at a time when a practical monolatry with a good\nethical conception of the deity might dispose some men to solitary\nreflection.\n\n+1124+. The Egyptian Therapeutae, the \"Servants\" of God, described by\nPhilo,[2069] resemble these Sarapis monks in certain respects,\nparticularly in their habit of contemplation. Their kernel, however, was\nJewish--they had the Jewish Scriptures and observed the seventh day of\nthe week. On this Jewish substratum was imposed Greek thought; they\nadopted the Alexandrian allegorizing interpretation of the Scriptures,\nand Philo includes them in that group of persons who found it desirable\nto withdraw from the common life of men in order to cultivate\nphilosophical and ethical thought. Six days they lived each by himself;\non the seventh day they came together for a religious service. Women as\nwell as men were admitted into the association, but the place of general\nmeeting had two divisions, one for men, the other for women. The date of\nthe rise of the sect is uncertain, but it must probably be put in the\nPtolemaic period. Their monastic organization must be referred to some\ncurrent practice, Greek or Egyptian, or to a blending of various lines;\nthe details of their history are too sparse to build on with\ndefiniteness.\n\n+1125+. The similar sect of the Essenes, or Essaei, which was confined\nto Palestine, is better known.[2070] The Jewish features in their system\nare: acceptance of the Jewish Scriptures, observance of the Sabbath,\nrecognition of the temple by sending unbloody offerings, regard for\nceremonial purity. Non-Jewish features are: rejection of marriage, trade\nand (according to Philo) animal sacrifice, turning to the sun in prayer\n(or, according to Josephus, praying to the sun), the teaching that the\nsoul, when set free from the body, passes, if good, to a delightful\nregion across the ocean, and, if bad, to a dark den of ceaseless\npunishment. Foreign influence in these latter practices and beliefs is\nobvious, but its precise source is uncertain. There are suggestions of\nPythagoreanism and possibly of Zoroastrianism;[2071] it can only be said\nthat various ideas were in the air of Palestine, and that the Essene\nformulation was effected under conditions and at a time not known to\nus.[2072] The monastic constitution was clearly of foreign (non-Jewish)\norigin. Essenism seems not to have affected the Jewish religious ideas\nof the time. Jesus, though he may have taken from it the prohibition of\nswearing and possibly one or two other points, was in the main and on\nall important points (except ethical teaching, which was largely common\nproperty) the reverse of what Essenism stood for.\n\n+1126+. Christian monachism, which appeared first in eremitic form\n(second century) and later in organized communal form, may have been an\nindependent creation of Christian piety; but it is also possible that it\nwas suggested by the traditions of its birthplace, Egypt;[2073] definite\ndata on this point are lacking. Whatever its origin, it speedily overran\nthe Christian world, in which it has maintained itself up to the present\nday.[2074]\n\n+1127+. Monachism has rendered valuable aid to Buddhism and Christianity\nby training men and women, laity and clergy, who were devoted to the\nforms of religion represented by these organizations. It has done a\nhigher service by establishing communities that have often been beacon\nlights, representing, particularly in times of popular ignorance, ideals\nof conduct. Such communities have often been homes of beneficence and\nlearning. They have, on the other hand, injured religion by severing it\nfrom ordinary life. By assuming that the secluded life was holier than\nthat of the world they have tended to put a stigma of unholiness on the\nlatter. Buddhism taught that only the monk could attain the highest\nsanctity and receive the highest reward, and such has generally been the\nteaching in those forms of Christianity in which monachism exists.\nMonasteries and convents, further, have in many cases become rich in\nthis world's goods--a favorite form of devotion has been to build and\nendow or aid such communities (often with the belief that this atoned\nfor sin); with wealth has come worldlymindedness and corruption of\nmorals. Numerous examples of such decadence occur in Buddhistic and\nChristian history. There are, however, many examples of holy monastic\nliving. It is true in general of these institutions, as of all others,\nthat when moral supervision of them is exercised by society the\npossibilities of moral decline are greatly diminished; in an enlightened\nage they may be assumed to be generally exemplary. Their specifically\nuseful r\u00f4le in the development of religion, as refuges in times of\nturbulence and centers of charity and thought, belongs to an imperfectly\norganized form of society; with the growth of enlightenment they tend to\ndisappear.\n\n\nSACRED BOOKS\n\n+1128+. All churches and all bodies approaching nearly the church-form\nhave writings that embody their beliefs and are regarded as sacred. Such\nsacred Scriptures necessarily grow up with the organizations to which\nthey belong, since these latter originate in literary periods and claim\ndivine authorship. Great religious communities naturally produce a large\nnumber of such books, and at some time it becomes necessary (from the\ngrowth of heresies or rivals) to sift the whole mass and decide which\nworks are to be considered to have permanent divine authority; the\nprocess of sifting is performed in each case by its community under the\nguidance of leading men, and the result is a canon of sacred Scriptures.\nSuch canons are found in Buddhism, Judaism, Zoroastrianism,\nChristianity, and Islam, and in minor bodies like the Essenes, Mormons,\nand others, but not among the Chinese, Greeks, and Romans; Brahmanism\noccupies a middle ground--it regards the Veda and the accessory books as\nentitled to great reverence, but has never drawn the line between sacred\nand nonsacred writings so sharply as has been done in the group named\nabove.\n\n+1129+. While the general method of fixing the canons has been the same\neverywhere, the details of the process have differed in different lands.\nIn India the canon of Southern Buddhism (acknowledged formerly in India\nand now in Ceylon, Burma, and Siam) was settled in a series of councils\ncoming down to the middle of the third century B.C. or later (several\ncenturies after the death of Buddha), the object being to define the\nfaith against heresies; probably the reports of the Master's discourses\n(he left no writings) were examined, and those declared authentic were\nbrought together, but the date of the final settlement of the canon is\nnot certain, and the sacred books were not reduced to writing till the\nfirst century B.C. The canon of Northern Buddhism (accepted in Tibet,\nMongolia, Manchuria, China, Japan) is less definite and was fixed\nlater.[2075]\n\n+1130+. The development of the Jewish canon extended over a long period,\nand its history in outline is well known. While the discourses of the\nprophets were regarded with respect as giving divine revelations, there\nis no record of the recognition of an authoritative book before the\nfifth century B.C., when a sacred law was proclaimed by Nehemiah and\nEzra.[2076] Even then there seems to have been no definite collection of\nwritings. The Law was the national religious constitution, and in\nprocess of time prophetic books and others came to be regarded with\nreverence. The translator of Ben-Sira (Ecclesiasticus) into Greek (132\nB.C.) mentions three groups of national books (the law, the prophets,\nand \"other writings\"), but does not speak of them as divinely inspired.\nBut the intimate contact with the Greek world, and especially the\nMaccabean struggle, deepened the Palestinian Jewish reverence for the\nnational literature. A process of sifting and defining, at first\nunofficial, began, and this work naturally passed, with the growth of\nlegal learning, into the hands of leading doctors of law. Early in the\nfirst century of our era public opinion in Palestine had taken shape;\nthe standard established was a local national one--books illustrating\nthe national history and teachings, and written in Hebrew, were accepted\n(so, for example, the book of Esther, which is nonreligious but\nnational), others (as the Wisdom of Solomon) were rejected. For various\nreasons certain books (Ezekiel, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs)\nremained doubtful. After the destruction of Jerusalem the increasing\nliterary feeling, the establishment of rabbinical schools, and the\nnecessity of defining the Jewish position against growing Christianity\nand other heresies led to definite action[2077]--in the Synod of Jamnia\n(about 100 A.D.) the Palestinian canon, after hot debates, was finally\nsettled in the form in which the Hebrew Old Testament now appears.\nAlexandrian Judaism had a different standard and accepted, in addition\nto the Palestinian collection, a group of books (the Apocrypha) that the\nPalestinians rejected. Certain other books (as the various Enoch\napocalypses) were not accepted by either Jewish body, though they were\nhighly esteemed. Both canons were slow growths of national\nfeeling--books were chosen that accorded with prevailing ideas; but it\nis now impossible to recover all the critical views that determined the\nresults.[2078]\n\n+1131+. Young Christianity, at first a Jewish body, naturally adopted\nthe Jewish canons, but in the course of a century produced a\nconsiderable normative literature of its own. The Christian canon was\nsettled much in the same way as the Jewish. There was doubt about\ncertain books, there were differences of opinion in different quarters,\nthe growth of heresies called for the establishment of a definite\nstandard, and a final decision was reached in the West and announced\ntoward the end of the fifth century by Pope Gelasius; in the East the\naction was less definite, but the conclusion was about the same. The\nbooks of the Alexandrian canon that were rejected by the Palestinians\nwere largely used by early Christian writers, by whom some of them are\nconstantly cited as sacred Scripture, for they were found in the Greek\ntranslation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint), which was the Old\nTestament text used by Christians. So great was their popularity that\nJerome was led, against his judgment, to include them in his translation\n(the Latin Vulgate), and by the Council of Trent (1546) they were\nindorsed as deuterocanonical, and are still so regarded in the Roman\nChurch. In the Greek Church they were accepted as canonical in the\nbeginning and up to the early part of the nineteenth century, but are\nnow, it would seem, looked on only as useful for the instruction of\ncatechumens.[2079] By Protestants their canonical authority is generally\ndenied, though up to the early part of the nineteenth century they were\ncommonly printed in editions of the Bible; the Articles of the Church of\nEngland characterize them as instructive but not of authority for\ndoctrine, and lessons from them now appear in the Lectionary of the\nChurch.[2080]\n\n+1132+. The history of the collection of the Zoroastrian sacred books\nis involved in obscurity. A late tradition was that many such writings\nwere destroyed by Alexander. This points to a belief that the existing\nwritings were later than the fall of the old Persian empire. When a\nbeginning was made of committing Zoroastrian material to writing is\nuncertain. In the first century of our era Pliny had heard of verses\nascribed to Zoroaster,[2081] and, as Mazdean books were in existence at\nthe rise of the Sassanian dynasty, the probability seems to be that the\nreduction to writing had then been going on for a considerable time--how\nlong it is impossible to say. The material grew with the development of\nthe people and was ascribed to Zoroaster[2082] (as the Jews ascribed\ntheir legal material to Moses). An official collection of sacred\nwritings was made in the fourth century of our era--the exact extent of\nthis collection and the principle that governed its formation are not\nclear. It may be surmised that the appearance of strange teachings, such\nas that of Mani, and the spread of Christianity eastward, forced on the\nleaders the task of defining the orthodox faith.[2083] In making their\ncollection they would naturally take only such writings as were in\naccord with the spirit of the religion of their time. Thus they\nestablished (in the fourth century) a body of sacred writings; it does\nnot follow that no additions were later made to the canon--how far it is\nrepresented in the present Avesta it may be difficult to say.\n\n+1133+. The history of the Islamic canon is simple. The Koran enjoys the\ndistinction of being the only sacred canon produced by one man. There\nnever was any question of its sacredness, and there has been hardly any\nquestion of its content. Mohammed's discourses were taken down by his\nfollowers in his lifetime, were put into shape just after his death, the\ncollection was revised a few years later (under the Calif Othman), has\nsince been universally accepted in the Moslem world as the authoritative\ndivinely given standard of religious truth, and there is no reason to\ndoubt that it contains substantially all the teaching of the Prophet\nand only his teaching. The scribe Zayd, who acted as editor, may have\naltered or inserted a word here and there, but he would not have dared\nto change the thought. The traditions of extra-Koranic sayings ascribed\nto Mohammed (the _hadith_), so far as they may be supposed to be genuine\nutterances of his (most of them are spurious), do not add anything to\nhis doctrine.[2084]\n\n+1134+. As to the influence of sacred books on religion, it is obvious,\nin the first place, that they are always formulations of the ideas of\nthe places and times in which they originate, and that they vary in tone\nand in importance accordingly. It is true, however, that the canonical\ncollections of the great religions, having arisen in enlightened\ncircles, all have, along with local (social, mythological,\neschatological) features, generally high ethical and spiritually\nreligious standards. For this reason they have always been, as religious\nand ethical guides and sources of inspiration, important factors in the\ndevelopment of civilization as well as in the life of the churches.\nTheir teachings, generally representing the ideas of gifted men\nformulated under the pressure of great religious enthusiasm, have\nperpetuated high standards, holding them up in times of decadence and\ncorruption and clouded moral vision.\n\n+1135+. A specially noteworthy point in their influence is their r\u00f4le of\nhousehold monitors and comforters. As religious manuals, invested with\ndivine authority, they have found their way into families and other\nsmall and intimate circles, have been children's textbooks and parents'\nguides, and thus have entered in an extraordinary way into individual\nlife. They have reached wider circles through expositions and discourses\nheld in connection with stated religious services. They have been used\nas textbooks in schools, and in general have been the most widely read\nbooks in the world. They have thus been unifying forces, each in its\nspecial community.\n\nTheir influence, further, has not been confined to purely religious\nlife. Being regarded as containing the final truth, they have been\nobjects of study and occasions of the development of learning. The\nnecessity of explaining their use of words and grammatical\nconstructions, their historical and geographical statements and views,\ntheir pictures and theories of social life, their psychology and\nphilosophy, their theistic and eschatological ideas, have led to\ninvestigations of all these subjects. Early Moslem science sprang from\nthe study of the Koran, and the later Moslem discussions of free-will,\nimmortality and other points were called forth by Koranic statements.\nThe philosophical writings of Maimonides, produced under Greek influence\n(through Moslem translations of Aristotle), were directed to the\nelucidation of Old Testament ideas. The contributions of modern\nChristians, Jews, Moslems, and Parsis to knowledge, sacred books being\nthe occasions, are numerous and important.\n\n+1136+. Along with these beneficent influences there have been others\nless praiseworthy. As any sacred book belongs to a particular age, it\ninevitably, in the course of time, falls into disaccord with later ideas\non certain points. When this happens there are always some persons who,\nfailing to discriminate between the local and transitory and the\npermanent, unjustly reject the book _in toto_; others, making a\ndistinction, take it as a literary product, accept what they think\nvaluable, and treat the rest as an imperfect product of the past. Those\nwho accept the book as divinely inspired and therefore, as they think,\ninfallible either maintain literally all its statements (cosmological,\nhistorical, eschatological, and other) or else undertake to interpret\ncertain of them in accordance with current views. When such\ninterpretation is forced, it becomes intellectually and morally an\nevil--it accustoms the religious public to logical distortions, and it\nnourishes a disingenuousness that easily becomes immoral. The belief\nthat a sacred book is final authority often results in limitation of\nfreedom of thought--certain things are excluded from discussion. The\ninstinctive demand for freedom asserts itself, however, in various ways:\nsometimes, as described above, a desired sense is obtained by violence;\nsometimes a religious body that is regarded by its adherents as\nauthoritative interpreter changes its decision, in accord with the\nspirit of a new age, and grants liberty where it had previously refused\nit The treatment of sacred books follows the phases of general culture.\n\nThe dogmatic statements of these books are condensed into creeds, which\nbecome organic law.[2085] They express each the interpretation put by a\ngiven church on the words of its sacred Scriptures. The interpretations\nare the outcome of historical processes, the final result of which is a\nformulation of the ideas of its time; where the same sacred book is\naccepted by several churches, there may be several different creeds\nbased on the one book--that is, churches and creeds alike are subject to\nthe variations of human opinion that result from differences of\ntemperament, social surroundings, and general culture. Creeds are\nconvenient and effective manuals. They may be made to change their\nmeaning by processes of interpretation; elasticity in a creed is\nfavorable to permanence--it is thereby able to adapt itself to changing\nconditions--and the degree of elasticity depends largely on the persons\nwho are its authorized expounders, that is, on the area of public\nopinion that these persons represent.\n\n+1137+. _General influence of churches._ All organized religion has been\na potent factor in human life. In savage and half-civilized communities\nit enters into every detail of life, since, in the absence of knowledge\nof natural law, everything that happens is ascribed to supernatural\nagency. In the old national cults, in which other departments of thought\n(art, commerce, science, philosophy) became prominent, religion was\nsomewhat isolated--it received a particular representation in\nsacrifices, festivals, and other observances; but such ceremonies were\nso numerous, and so many ancient customs survived, that it still played\na conspicuous part in daily life.[2086] In the period in which churches\narose there was a still greater specialization of the activities of\nlife, and this specialization has become more pronounced in modern\ntimes, in which from various causes the tendency is to mass religious\nobservances in certain days and seasons and leave the rest of the time\nfree. This apparent banishment of religion from everyday affairs does\nnot, however, signify diminution of interest in religion itself--partly\nit is an economic arrangement, the assignment of a definite time to\nevery particular duty, but mainly it is the result of a better\nconception of what religion means, the feeling that, being an inward\nexperience, it is less dependent on external occasions.\n\n+1138+. Churches, as is remarked above, differ from the old national\nreligions mainly in the emphasis they lay on individualism and on the\nidea of redemption. They represent a profounder conception of the\nethical relation between man and God, or, as in Buddhism, between man\nand the ideal of perfection in the universe. They foster religion by\nholding public services and by the production of devotional works; they\nadvance learning by supplying men of leisure; socially they are in\ngeneral a conservative force, with the good and bad effects of\nconservatism. But their special function is to treat man as a spiritual\nbeing having immediate personal relations with the deity. Charitable and\neducational work (ethical and other) and social gatherings they share\nwith other organizations, and they are incompetent in themselves to deal\nwith economic and other scientific questions. That wherein they stand\napart from other organizations is the emotional element they introduce\ninto man's attitude toward the universe. According to this point of view\nman regards himself not merely as a part of the world but as bound to\nits author by ties of gratitude and affection. This sentiment may be\nindependent of all scientific theories, may be shared by the learned and\nthe unlearned; it is thus a great unifying force, and gives to life the\nglow of enthusiasm with the repose of trust.\n\n+1139+. The temptations to which churches are exposed are those that are\ntouched on above, and they may be briefly summed up here. There is the\ntendency to an excessive elaboration of the externals of religion,\nritual, and dogma. Something of these is doubtless necessary in churches\nas in all human organizations, but they may easily be carried so far as\nto obscure the essential things. The history of all churches exhibits\nthis tendency. There are protests from time to time, revolts against\nformalities and speculations, and then frequently in the new\norganizations the old movement is resumed. For our own times a\ndistinction may perhaps be made: while there seems to be a steady\ngeneral increase of ritual, there is in many quarters a disposition to\nminimize or curtail dogma.\n\n+1140+. However this may be, a more important tendency in churches is\ntoward the claim to absolute authority in religious matters. This\ntendency is universal in bodies that hold to the infallibility of\ncertain sacred books. It is obvious that absolute authority in an\norganized body and individual freedom are mutually incompatible,[2087]\nand that all that makes for freedom makes against the church influence\nin this direction. Finally, when churches enter into administrative\nalliance with the civil authorities, or assume civil and political\npower, they to that extent abdicate their spiritual rights and abandon\ntheir true function.\n\n\nUNIVERSAL RELIGIONS\n\n+1141+. So far only particular religions, belonging to particular\npeoples or regions, have been considered. In recent years the question\nhas been much discussed whether any of these may be called universal. A\nuniversal religion may be defined either as one that has been accepted\nby all peoples, or as one whose doctrines are such that it may be so\naccepted. The term is frequently used loosely to describe a religion\nthat has passed definitely beyond its birthplace and has been adopted by\ndifferent nations or districts. Obviously, if we take the stricter\ndefinition, the question at issue can be decided only by an appeal to\nfacts. Whether or not a given religion has actually been universally\naccepted can be determined from statistics, and the question whether it\nis fitted to be generally adopted must be answered by a similar appeal.\nIt may be held, and is held, of various religions that their standards\nare so high and their schemes of worship and conceptions of salvation so\nobviously suited to human nature that they cannot fail to be adopted\nwhen they are known; but such are the diversities of human thought that\nthis consideration cannot be regarded as decisive--a religious system\nthat seems to one set of men to be perfect may appear to others to be\nunsatisfactory,[2088] and it is only by trial that it can be determined\nhow far it is capable of conquering new territory. The test of actual\ndiffusion, then, must be applied to those religions for which the claim\nto universality has been made--these are Buddhism, Judaism,\nChristianity, Zoroastrianism, and Islam.[2089]\n\n+1142+. Buddhism has had a history full of vicissitudes.[2090] Beginning\nin Northern India as an Aryan faith, in the course of a few centuries it\noverran a great part of the peninsula, then began to decline, gradually\nlost its hold on the people, partly, it is said, by reason of the\ncorruption of its morals, chiefly, doubtless, because it was not suited\nto the character of the Hindu people, and finally, in the twelfth\ncentury of our era, left its native land, to which it has never\nreturned. Meantime it had established itself firmly in Ceylon and later\nin Burma and Siam and had been carried to China (not long after the\nbeginning of our era), whence it passed to Korea, Central Asia, Japan,\nand adjacent islands, and as early as the sixth century gained a footing\nin Tibet. It has maintained its conquests outside of India to the\npresent day, except that it has been driven out of a considerable part\nof Central Asia by Mohammedanism; in China and Japan it exists alongside\nof the native cults, its relations with which are friendly. It presents\nthe curious spectacle of a religion, originally Hindu Aryan, that now\nfinds a home exclusively (with one exception, Ceylon) among non-Aryan\npeoples; but among these peoples it has generally been degraded by the\ninfusion of low native elements, and has discarded its original essence.\nBy reason of its negative attitude toward life it has found no favor as\na system with Western Indo-Europeans, Persians, and Semites, except that\nit gave a coloring to certain Persian sects (the Ismailic) and has\nperhaps influenced Bahaism.[2091] As far as present appearances go there\nis no probability of its gaining general acceptance.\n\n+1143+. Judaism is too much encumbered with peculiar national usages to\ncommend itself to non-Jews. There was a time just before and just after\nthe beginning of our era when a considerable number of persons resorted\nto it for escape from the confusion of current religious systems, and\nsince that time there have been conversions here and there; but these\nhave been too few to affect the general character of religion in any\ncommunity. Even to Reform Judaism, which has discarded Talmudic usages\nand does not differ doctrinally from certain forms of Christianity,\nthere clings a racial tone that tends to isolate it, and it does not\nseem that this isolation is likely to cease soon.\n\n+1144+. Christianity, beginning as a Jewish movement, speedily became\nGr\u00e6co-Roman, and in this form took possession of the whole of Western\nAsia (except Jewish districts and parts of Arabia), Greece, Italy,\nEgypt, and the northern coast of Africa, and was adopted, under\nByzantine and Roman influence, by the Celtic, Slavonic, and Teutonic\ntribes. Most of its Asiatic and all of its African territory except\nAbessinia was taken from it by Mohammedanism in the seventh century, but\nsmall bodies of Christians remained in Armenia, Mesopotamia, Syria, and\nEgypt. With this exception it has since been the religion only of the\nWestern Indo-Europeans and of a few half-civilized peoples who have been\nChristianized either by missionaries (the Karens of Burma, a part of the\nTelugus of Southeastern India and others) or by contact with Westerners\n(Philippine Islands, tribes of North America and South America) or by\nboth these agencies (the Hawaiian Islands). Local peculiarities have\nbeen largely banished from its usages but not from its dogma. It is,\napparently, its dogma (in the orthodox form) that has prevented its\nacceptance by most Semites, by the peoples of Central and Eastern Asia,\nand by many undeveloped tribes of Africa and Oceania.\n\n+1145+. Zoroastrianism has never advanced to any important extent beyond\nthe boundaries of its native land. It has never recovered from the\ncrushing blow dealt it by Mohammedanism in the seventh century, and is\nnow professed by hardly more than 100,000 persons (mostly in Bombay).\n\n+1146+. Islam is now the religion of the Turkish empire (except the\nChristian groups in Europe, Syria, Mesopotamia, and Armenia), Persia,\nEgypt (except the Copts), and the North African coast, and has a large\nfollowing in Central Asia, China, India, the Malay peninsula, the Malay\nArchipelago, the Sudan, and a considerable representation on the east\nand west coasts of Africa. Its spread, as is remarked above, has been\neffected sometimes by force, but oftener by social pressure and through\ntraders and missionaries. Decadent Christianity in Palestine, Syria, and\nEgypt readily yielded to it; Persian Zoroastrianism made some effort to\nmaintain itself but succumbed to the combination of military pressure\nand the prospect of civil advancement and peace; after the fall of\nConstantinople conversions of Christians in Europe were numerous, and\nthe Moslem conquests in India were followed by a considerable accession\nof Hindus to the Islamic faith. At the present time it appears to be\nadvancing only among the half-civilized tribes of Central Africa, but it\nmaintains its position against Buddhism and Christianity.[2092]\n\n+1147+. There is, thus, now no religion that, so far as extent of\ndiffusion is concerned, can be called universal. Omitting the Jewish and\nParsi groups, the Brahmanic and other religions of India, and the\nChinese Confucian cult, three great religions have divided the world\namong them, Buddhism taking Eastern Asia, Islam Western Asia and\nNorthern Africa, and Christianity Europe and America. It is sometimes\nsuggested that the religion of the leaders of civilization, the\nChristian nations, must become the faith of the world. But, even if we\nmay look forward to a time when social fusion, under the control of the\npresent Christian nations, shall have brought about substantial unity of\nreligious thought in the world, it is impossible now to predict what\nthe nature of that thought will be, since Christianity has undergone and\nis now undergoing change, and may in the far future assume a different\nform from that of to-day; fundamentals may remain, but opinions differ\neven now as to what are fundamentals.\n\n+1148+. _Classification of religions._ A word may be added on proposed\nclassifications of religions.[2093] Certain resemblances and differences\nbetween religions are obvious, and groups may be made, geographical,\nritualistic, theologic, or soteriological, but it is difficult to find a\nprinciple of classification that shall bring out the essential\ncharacteristic or characteristics of every religion and yet distinctly\nmark every one off from all others. All have much in common, and the\nelements in all are so mixed that divisions necessarily cross one\nanother. Every religion is the product of some one community and\nrepresents its peculiar view of human life in its relation to the\nsupernatural; there may be borrowings and fusions, but the final outcome\nis shaped by the thought of the people to whom the religion specifically\nbelongs.[2094] The differences between various religions are the\ndifferences of thought between the communities involved, and the\ndifferences and the resemblances are often curious and sometimes defy\nexplanation.\n\n+1149+. Leaving aside ritual, which, so far as it is a merely external\nform of approach to the deity, does not touch the essence of religion,\nthe following points may be said to be common to all religions: (1) The\nsense of a supernatural control of life, and the conviction that the\nsupernatural Power must be placated or obeyed.[2095] (2) The belief that\nreligion deals with and controls the whole of life; this belief is\npronounced among savages, who know nothing of natural law, and is\nregarded as essential in more advanced communities, in which, from the\nreligious point of view, law, physical or mental, is taken to be an\nexpression of the will of the deity. (3) The creation of divine\npersonalities[2096] (representing popular ideals), and movements toward\na unitary view of the divine control of the world. (4) An ethical\nelement in the conception of the character of the supernatural Power and\nthe modes of pleasing this Power. The ethical side of religion\ncorresponds to the general ethical standard of the people--in savages it\nis low, but it exists. (5) The conception of salvation as the goal of\nreligious faith and service; the salvation looked for is at first\nphysical, is gradually moralized, and ultimately takes the form of\nspiritual union with the deity. These are the essential elements of\nreligion; they all exist in crude form in the lowest strata of society,\nand are purified in the course of social growth.\n\n+1150+. A classification naturally suggested by this enumeration of\nfundamentals would be one based on grades of general culture, savage,\nhalf-civilized, and civilized; but such a classification would not take\naccount of the differences of character in the members of the higher\ngrades. These differ from one another in the conception of the ultimate\nPower of the world and of the nature of salvation and the mode of\nattaining it, and in other less important points. They are so highly\ncomposite in structure that their interrelations are complicated, and\nthose that are brought together by one critical canon may be separated\nby another. Buddhism is allied on one side (the ignoring of deity) to\nConfucianism and Epicureanism, on another side (the hope of moral\nsalvation) to Christianity. Zoroastrianism touches the Veda in its\ntheistic construction, and is remarkably like Judaism in its\norganization. Christianity is Jewish on one side and Gr\u00e6co-Roman on\nanother. Islam has Christian and Jewish conceptions attached to the\nold-Semitic view of life.\n\n+1151+. A distinction of importance is that between national religions\nand those founded each by a single man (Buddhism, Christianity,\nIslam).[2097] This distinction may be pressed too far--all religions\nhave great men who have given new directions to thought, and no\nreligion can be said to be wholly the creation of an individual man,\nsince all, as is pointed out above, are outcomes of the ideas of\ncommunities.[2098] The distinction in question is not a satisfactory\nbasis for a general classification since it fails to note the\ntheological differences between the various religions. Nevertheless, it\nembodies a significant fact: in the course of the history of the world\nthe three religions above-named have come to divide the civilized world\namong them, that is, they have been selected as best responding to the\nreligious needs of men. No one of them is universal, but the three\ntogether practically include the civilized world.[2099] They are\nmodified in various ways by their adherents, but they have not been\nsuperseded. They have grown beyond the ideas of their founders, but\nthese latter nevertheless occupy a unique position. Moses and Zoroaster\nare dim figures whose work it is impossible to define, but the teachings\nof Buddha and Jesus, though they left no writings, are known with\nsubstantial accuracy, and Mohammed has expressed himself in a book. The\npersons of the three founders are the objects of a devotion not given to\nother leaders. These things justify us in putting Buddhism,\nChristianity, and Mohammedanism in a class by themselves, of which the\ndistinguishing note is the discarding of local national ideas and\nusages. These last are not wholly given up, but they are less prominent\nthan in Judaism and Zoroastrianism. It is to the insight of the\nindividual founders that this relative freedom from local features is\ndue. This characteristic does not necessarily carry with it superiority\nin ethical and general religious conceptions.\n\nA different line of cleavage is indicated by the designation \"religions\nof redemption.\" In one sense all religions come under this head,[2100]\nfor all have for their object the freeing man from the ills of life. In\na higher sense the term 'redemption' means deliverance from the power\nof sin and from its punishment, particularly in the world to come. This\nmeaning appears in definite form in Buddhism and Christianity, and\nsomewhat less distinctly in Mithraism and the later Judaism; in the Old\nTestament religion and Islam it is not clearly stated. As it appears in\ngerminal form in the lower cults, its development may be traced up to\nits culmination in the systems in which man is freed from moral taint\nthrough the agency of an individual savior or in accordance with a\ncosmic ethical law.\n\n+1152+. Unity exists among the lowest and among the highest religious\nsystems. Among savage and half-civilized cults there are no important\ndifferences--they all have the same ideas respecting the nature and\nfunctions of supernatural Powers and the ways of approaching them.[2101]\nIn the higher cults a process of differentiation goes on for a certain\ntime while each is developing its special characteristics, and then a\ncounter-movement sets in--they all tend to come together by suppressing\nlocal features and emphasizing general ideas.[2102] Thus at the present\nday there are groups of Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Jews, Christians, and\nMoslems that, without abandoning their several faiths, find themselves\nin substantial accord on some essential points. The unity of savages is\nthe uniformity of undeveloped thought; the later unity rests on\ndiscrimination between fundamentals and accessories.\n\n+1153+. Tabulated classifications of religions, it would seem, must be\narbitrary and misleading--they give undue prominence to some one\nreligious fact, they maim the individuality of cults, and they obscure\nthe relations between certain cults by putting these into different\ndivisions. The true relations between the various religious systems may\nbe brought out by comparisons. In this way individuality and unitary\ncharacter may be preserved in every case, while the agreements and\ndisagreements may be made clear by referring them to general principles\nof religious development.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI\n\nSCIENTIFIC AND ETHICAL ELEMENTS IN RELIGIOUS SYSTEMS\n\n\n+1154+. It is remarked above[2103] that the sphere of religion is wholly\ndistinct from that of science (including philosophy and art) and from\nthat of constructive ethics (the determination of rules of conduct),\nwhile it is true that the three, being coexistent and original\ndepartments of human nature, must influence one another, and must tend\nto coalesce and be fused into a unitary conception of life. This process\ngoes on in different degrees in different times and places, sometimes\none department of thought getting the upper hand and sometimes another,\nbut we cannot suppose that it ever ceases entirely. The relation between\nreligion and its two companions may become clear from a brief survey of\nthe facts given by historical records, this term being used to include\nall trustworthy sources of information.\n\n\nTHE SCIENTIFIC ELEMENT\n\n+1155+. Man is bound by his constitution to inquire into the nature of\nthings, to seek for the facts of the world, including the human soul.\nThis search is made by both religion and science, but their procedures\nare somewhat different. Religion demands only the fact of an ultimate\nmoral ground of the world; science observes all phenomena and endeavors\nto connect and organize them by a thread of natural causation or\ninvariable sequence; religion looks behind phenomena to what it regards\nas its source. This source is reached by some process of reasoning,\neither by acceptance, on grounds held to be satisfactory, of a divine\nrevelation, or by inference from the facts of the world (as the presence\nof design or of moral order); but, when it is reached, all other facts\nof science are treated as irrelevant. If, then, science confines itself\nto the observation of sequences, the relation between the two cannot be\none of permanent hostility, since their material is not the same. They\nclash when an old nonreligious belief, adopted by religion, is\nconfronted by an antagonistic scientific discovery; the first result is\na protest, but the mind demands harmony, and religion always ends by\naccepting a well-attested scientific conclusion,[2104] and bringing it\ninto harmony with its fundamental beliefs.\n\n+1156+. Certain phases in the relations between religion and science may\nbe distinguished, but an earlier or cruder phase may continue to exist\nalongside of a later and higher one. There is first the time when\nscience based on a recognition of natural laws does not exist. The\nexisting science is then one of imagination, the fanciful application of\ncrude observations to the explanation of all phenomena. The _verae\ncausae_ are supernatural agencies--science and religion are one.\nExplanations of phenomena take the form of what we call myths, what the\npeople of the time regard as true histories. There is no place for the\nconception of miracle; the supernatural agents are all-powerful, one\nthing is no harder than another, nothing is strange or inexplicable.\nThere is a crude conception of the unity of God and the world.\n\n+1157+. The period of the rise and decline of the great national\nreligions and the rise of monotheistic cults (along with which may be\nincluded Confucianism and Buddhism) is characterized by a great\ndevelopment of philosophy (in China, India, and Greece) and a beginning\nof scientific research properly so called (especially in astronomy,\nphysics, medicine, and chemistry, in Greece and by the Moslems of\nPersia). There is a revolt against the older conception of unity.\nDeities are highly personalized, stand outside of the world, and\nintervene in human affairs at crises. It is the age of\nmiracles--supernatural Powers, by reason of their intimate social\nrelations with their respective communities, are expected to come to\ntheir aid in all important matters, and, for most persons, there is no\ndifficulty in holding that they are able to change the course of nature,\nwhich is not regarded as being absolutely fixed. In certain\nphilosophical circles, however, this view is rejected, and nature, with\nits laws, is conceived of as a separate and independent existence,\naccompanied or not by gods. Science begins to define the nature of\ndeities, and to limit the sphere of their practical activities--this is\na precursor of the fall of the old divinities. The old myths are\nretained, but they are purified, humanized, and allegorized, and in some\ncases applied, to new persons and events, according to changes in\nreligious construction.\n\n+1158+. The next phase is the recognition by science of the absolute\ndomination of natural law in the world of phenomena. Religion, when it\naccepts this view, holds fast to the belief in the ultimate personal\nmoral Force, and conceives of this Force as working and expressing and\nmanifesting itself only in phenomena in accordance with natural\nlaw--that is, this law is regarded as the expression of the divine will.\nScience is thus given liberty to investigate phenomena to the fullest\nextent, and religion is freed from the incumbrance of physical,\npsychological, and metaphysical theories; the spheres of the two are\nsharply defined and kept separate. Such a conception is held to differ\nfrom \"naturalism\" or \"materialism\" in that it recognizes a Power\ndistinct from matter--to differ from what has been called \"humanism\"\n(which makes man the sole power in the world), or from positivism (which\nregards man as the only worthy object of worship), in that it ascribes\nto the will and activity of divine spirit the high position of humanity\nas the center and explanation of the life of the world--to differ from\npantheism in that for it God is a personal being who enters into\nrelations with a free humanity--and to differ from agnosticism in that\nit holds that God may be known from his works.\n\n+1159+. Whatever difficulties may attach to this conception are regarded\nby its adherents as not insuperable. In all religious systems except\nBuddhism and Positivism the personality of the ultimate ground of the\nworld is looked on as a necessary datum. In the view under consideration\nit is held that God exists for the world in which he expresses himself,\nas the world exists for him, its source and end. The world, with all its\nparts and incidents, is conceived of as a sacred thing, consecrated to\nGod, and ever striving to realize him in itself, and itself in him.\nUnder the guidance of exacter scientific thought the old crude idea of\nthe unity of the divine and the world is thus transformed into the idea\nof a unity of will and work. In this conception there is no place for\nmyths, and no need is felt for miracles: histories of the external world\nand of human society are held to rest on observation of facts, and\ngenerally the possibility of miracles is not denied, but they are\nregarded as unnecessary and improbable--they are thought unnecessary\nbecause the conception of the divine character and the religious life\nare not supposed to be dependent on them, and they are thought\nimprobable because they are held to be not supported by experience. This\nis the attitude of those persons who accept the conclusions of science;\nthere is, however, great difference of opinion in the religious world on\nthis point.[2105]\n\n+1160+. Certain scientific and philosophical positions discard religion\nas a department of human life. When it is held that man knows nothing\nand can know nothing but phenomena, or when, if something is assumed\nbehind phenomena, it is regarded as too vague to enter into personal\nrelations with men, religion as a force in life becomes impossible. In\nthese cases the two conceptions must stand side by side as enemies till\none or the other is proved, to the satisfaction of men, to be untenable.\nMeanwhile it appears that one result of scientific investigations has\nbeen to delimitate religion by making it clear that, while it belongs as\nan influence to all life, it cannot include scientific theories as a\npart of its content--a result that cannot be otherwise than favorable to\nits development.\n\n\nTHE ETHICAL ELEMENT\n\n+1161+. Conduct has always been associated with religion. Supernatural\nPowers have been regarded as members of the tribe or other society,\ndivine headmen part of whose function it is to see that the existing\ncustoms are observed, these customs being ethical as well as ritual.\nEven in such low tribes as the Fuegians and the Australians the anger of\nsome Power is supposed to follow violation of law. Instructions to\ninitiates often include moral relations.[2106] The connection of morals\nwith religion in the more advanced peoples is close. In this regard a\ndistinction is to be made between the creation and the adoption and\ntreatment of ethical ideals.\n\n+1162+. Ethical codes are never created by religion but are always\nadopted by it from current usages and ideas.[2107] Rules respecting the\nprotection of life, property, and the family are found everywhere--they\narise out of natural social relations, even the simplest, and grow in\ndefiniteness and refinement with the advance of society, so that things\nat one period lawful, and accepted by religious authorities, are at a\nlater period prohibited.[2108] Kindness to one's fellows is common in\nthe lowest tribes, and in higher civilizations is formulated as a golden\nrule (Confucius, Book of Tobit, New Testament, and virtually the\nEgyptian Ptahhotep, the Old Testament Book of Proverbs, Buddha).\nTruthfulness, fidelity, and justice have been generally recognized as\nthings to be approved--roughly defined and aimed at in rude communities,\nmore exactly defined and more clearly held up as ideals in higher\ncommunities. All these virtues are taken up more or less definitely into\nreligious codes.\n\n+1163+. Less praiseworthy customs and ideas also have been indorsed by\nreligious law. Where sexual license prevails it is made a feature in\nreligious ritual and other ceremonies after it has become a part of\nsocial usage and law. It is true that it is generally at first na\u00efve,\nand, being not illegal, is not a violation of rights and not immoral in\nthe sense in which a refined age regards it.[2109] But it tends, even\namong savages, to become socially bad, and, when it survives into times\nof higher standards, is a corrupting influence. In this bad form it was\nsanctioned by religious authorities in Canaan (even at one time among\nthe Hebrews),[2110] Greece, and Syria, and exists to-day in India as an\naccompaniment of religious worship. The records of religious cruelty are\nfamiliar. Wholesale slaughter, persecution, torture have been abundantly\npracticed in the name of religion.[2111] Many social institutions (such\nas slavery and polygamy) countenanced by a given age have been adopted\nin the religious codes of the age. These examples illustrate the fact\nthat religion does not undertake to fix the details of ethical\nconduct--its r\u00f4le is something different. This statement applies to the\ninstitution of taboo, as is remarked above[2112]--its ritual rules are\nnot moral, and its moral rules are adopted from social usage. It was\ninfluential in the organization of society, but not in the way of adding\nanything to the moral code. In modern economic and other social\nquestions that have an ethical side the details are left to science;\nreligion contents itself with insisting on moral principles as having\ndivine authority, and these principles, as moral, are already recognized\nby society.\n\n+1164+. Discrepancy between codes and conduct has always existed--few\nreligious persons live up to the standards that they regard as\nauthoritative. This failure concerns not the sincerity of the religious\nsociety in setting up its standard, but the conditions regulating actual\nconduct.\n\nA natural consequence of the coexistence of religion and ethics in human\nlife has been that each has influenced the other. Advance in the purity\nand clearness of social ethical ideals has had the effect of modifying\nnot only religious codes but also religious dogmas. The old belief\n(founded on the conception of social solidarity) that a family, tribe,\nor nation was punished by the deity for the sin of one of its members\nvanished before the recognition of individual responsibility. The\ndoctrines of eternal punishment and vicarious expiatory suffering are\nnow rejected by some religious bodies and circles as unjust. When they\nare maintained, it is on the ground that they are not unjust--the appeal\nis to an ethical principle. Apart from the fact of maintenance or\nrejection, the tendency is to try all doctrines by moral standards. If\nthey are rejected and yet stand, or seem to stand, in sacred books, then\neither the statements of the books are interpreted in accordance with\nthe moral standards, or the ethical authority of the books is set aside.\n\n+1165+. The influence of religion on ethics has been in the way not of\nmodifying codes but of enforcing existing ideas and customs and giving\nan impulse to moral life. It has commonly furnished supernatural\nsanctions--rewards and punishments in this life or in the other. How far\nthis conception has been effective in restraining men from actual\nill-doing, in furthering good conduct, and in developing inward loyalty\nto the right, may be a question. To answer this question would require\nsuch a collection of facts as has never been made and perhaps cannot be\nmade. We can see that the belief in divine rewards and punishments has\nsometimes been a real power, sometimes seems to have no effect. The\ncharacter of the sanctions varies with the growth of refinement,\nadvancing from the crude savage and later ideas of physical pains and\npleasures to the conception of moral degradation or salvation. The\nrecognition of rewards and punishments for one's self as incentives to\ngood living is not regarded as immoral if they are not made the chief\nmotive--the prevailing view is that it is legitimate to look for results\nof action, that, however, devotion to right must always be independent\nof results that affect only the actor. Whatever the general effect of\nbelief in supernatural sanctions, it must be concluded that the\nexistence of morality in the world is not dependent on this belief. The\ncommon social motives for practicing justice and kindness are so strong\nand so persistent that these virtues must always retain a certain\nsupremacy apart from men's religious creeds. The term 'supernatural' is\nused above in the more usual sense of 'opposed to natural,' but,\naccording to one religious point of view, all things are the direct work\nof God, so that there is no difference between 'natural' and\n'supernatural,' and the real sanctions of morality are all the\nconditions of life, external and internal.[2113]\n\n+1166+. The most important elements that religion (though only in its\nhighest form) has introduced into ethics are a grandiose conception of\nthe basis and nature of the moral life, and a tone of tenderness in the\nattitude toward the deity and toward men. The moral code it regards as\nthe will of God, conscience as the voice of God, morality as obedience\nto God, all activity as a coworking with God. Nobility is given to the\ngood life by making it a part of the eternal divine purpose of the\nworld. The conception of human life as an essential factor in the\nconstitution and history of the world is common to religion and\nphilosophy, but religion adds the warmth of personal relation with the\ndivine head of the world. Into the philosophical and ethical view of the\nunity of humanity religion infuses reverence and affection for the\nindividual as being not merely one of the component parts of the mass\nbut a creature of God, the object of his loving care, capable of\nredemption and union with God. Here again, while there is no addition to\nthe content of the ethical code, there is added intensity of feeling,\nwhich may be a spur to action.\n\n+1167+. In the sphere of religion, as in all spheres of human activity,\nideas and tendencies are embodied in human personalities by whom they\nare defined, illustrated, and enforced--not only in founders of\nreligious systems and other great leaders of thought, but in lesser\neveryday persons who commend religion, each to his limited circle, by\npurity of life. The special ethical figures contributed to history by\nreligion are those of the martyr and the saint. The martyr is one who\nbears witness passively to what he regards as truth at the cost of his\nlife; he thus differs from the hero, who is a man of action. The martyr\nspirit is found elsewhere than in religious history, but it is in this\nlatter that it has played its special ethical r\u00f4le--divergencies from\nestablished faiths always excite peculiarly sharp hostility. When it is\npure loyalty to convictions of truth, it is an ethical force of great\nmoment--a permanent inspiration.[2114] It is less valuable when it\nsprings from the hope of personal advantage, when a controlling\nconsideration is the belief that one goes directly from the stake (as\nMoslem warriors believed they went from death in battle) to celestial\nhappiness. There arose at times (for example, in the Decian and\nDiocletian persecutions of the third century, and in Cordova in the\nninth century, when there was no persecution) a fanatical desire for the\nhonors of martyrdom that had to be checked by the Church leaders.\n\n+1168+. The saint is related to the virtuous man as holiness to virtue.\nThe difference between them is one not of ethical practice but of motive\nand sentiment--holiness is virtue consecrated to the deity. The saint,\nlike the martyr, is often an ethical power. When the title is given\nofficially as an ecclesiastical honor, it may or may not carry with it\nmoral excellence. In Brahmanism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, and\nIslam saintship has sometimes been contaminated with physical and ritual\nideas and practices, and so far ceases to have ethical value.[2115]\n\n+1169+. The evil influence of the religious point of view on ethical\nlife has been of the general nature already referred to:[2116] embalming\nand sanctifying outgrown and injurious social institutions; substituting\nform for spirit; encouraging asceticism; drawing sharp lines of\ndemarcation between men on the basis of religious opinions, and so far\ncreating an antisocial spirit.\n\n+1170+. The development of the sense of obligation to do right\n(conscience) is due to so many different influences that it is hard to\nsay exactly what part any one of these has taken in the process. But\nobviously religion has been an important factor in the result so far\nreached. By its distinct connection of the favor of the deity with\nconduct it has tended to fix attention on the latter and to strengthen\nthe feeling that righteousness is the sovereign thing. Though such\nregard for right-doing is at first mainly egoistic, it easily becomes an\nideal, reverenced for its own sake, and more powerful because it is\nidentified with a person and colored by the sentiments of gratitude and\nlove that religion calls forth. Religion, especially in the earlier\nforms of society, though not only in them, has been a pedagogue to lead\nmen to the acknowledgment of the supremacy of the moral law. It differs\nfrom other such guides in the tone of mingled humility and enthusiasm\nthat it gives to this fealty.\n\n+1171+. As to the existence of moral evil in the world, religion can\nonly regard it as the work of supernatural Powers. In the savage period\nthe question does not come up--moral evil is taken as a part of the\nnature of things and is not curiously inquired into. In later times it\nis ascribed to some malevolent spirit or deity who is either independent\nof the supreme deity (as in certain half-civilized tribes) or is\ntolerated by him (Angro Mainyu, Satan), or to a subordinate employed by\nhim (lies put into the mouths of prophets by a deity),[2117] or to a\nquite separate divine Power, not necessarily malevolent (as in some\nphilosophical theories). Religion may adopt some philosophical\nexplanation--as that evil is only failure to reach the good, or only the\nlower step to which we look back from a greater height, or an inevitable\naccompaniment of a scheme of life characterized by struggle and intended\nto recognize the freedom of the will and to develop moral autonomy--but,\nfrom its own resources it can only say that it is a thing inexplicable\nby man, belonging to a divine plan that the devout soul accepts as right\nbecause God has ordained it.\n\n+1172+. The theory of man's native incapacity to do right (total\ndepravity), held by some religious bodies, is antimoral since it denies\nhuman freedom. The attempt to modify it by the supposition of divine\nimpartation of moral power is inadequate unless such power is held to be\ngiven to every person, and this amounts to an indirect affirmation of\nfreedom and denial of moral impotency. The theory is, however,\npractically innocuous, being rejected or ignored by the universal\nconsciousness of freedom.\n\n+1173+. To the questions, raised by philosophy, whether the world is\nessentially good or bad and whether life is worth living, theistic\nreligion gives a simple answer: a perfect God implies a perfect\nuniverse; this answer is germinal and confused in early religion, and is\ndefinitely stated only in the higher systems. The great theistic sacred\nbooks, Jewish, Christian, Mazdean, and Moslem, all teach that though\nthere are present limitations and sufferings, there is to be a happy\nissue for the faithful out of all distresses, and the Buddhistic view,\nthough nontheistic, is essentially the same as this; as for other\npersons, they are sometimes included in a final restoration, when moral\nevil is to disappear, sometimes are excluded from the happy outcome, but\nin both cases the scheme of the world is regarded as good. Leaving out\nof view the question as to the exact interpretation of the facts of\nlife, this optimism is ethically useful as giving cheerfulness and\nenthusiasm to moral life, with power of enduring ills through the\nconviction of the ultimate triumph of the right. It may pass into a\nstolid dogmatic ignoring or denial of the existence of evil, and then\ntends to become inhuman and therefore ethically bad.[2118] It is,\nhowever, commonly saved from such an unfortunate result by common sense\nand the instinct of sympathy. And it is so general a conception and its\ngoal is so remote that it cannot be a strong and permanent moral force\nfor most persons--immediate experiences are as a rule more powerful than\nremote expectations. But, so far as it is a living faith, religious\noptimism is in the main a healthy ethical factor in life.\n\n\n  FOOTNOTES:\n\n  [1] That is, phenomena regarded as special acts of a\n  superhuman Power; in the larger conception of religion all\n  phenomena are at once natural and divine acts.\n\n  [2] In early religion they are usually ghosts, beasts,\n  plants, or inanimate objects; rarely living men. Cf.\n  Marett's remarks on pre-animistic religion in his _Threshold\n  of Religion_.\n\n  [3] Appeal to the Powers carries with it a certain sense of\n  oneness with them, in which we may reasonably recognise the\n  germ of the idea of union with God, which is the highest\n  form of religion. This idea is not consciously held by the\n  savage--it takes shape only in highly developed thought\n  (Plato, the New Testament, Christian and other mysticism).\n  If the impulse to religion be thought to be love of life (so\n  Leuba, in the _Monist_, July, 1901), this is substantially\n  desire for safety and happiness.\n\n  [4] Spencer and Gillen, _Native Tribes of Central\n  Australia_, p. 170.\n\n  [5] Gen. xxviii, 20-22; Hos. ii; Ezek. xxxvi; and the\n  Psalter passim.\n\n  [6] The classic expression of this view is given by Statius\n  (_Th._ 3, 661): _primus in orbe deos fecit timor_. Cf. L.\n  Marillier, in _International Monthly_, ii (1900), 362 ff.\n\n  [7] For numerous examples of the belief in supernatural\n  birth see E. S. Hartland, _Primitive Paternity_.\n\n  [8] Modern civilised nations, after victories in war,\n  commonly assume that God has thus pronounced in favor of the\n  justice and right of their side, and sing Te Deums.\n\n  [9] This vagueness reappears in some systems of late\n  philosophic speculation. On the question whether a sense of\n  the divine exists anterior to conscious experience cf.\n  Marett, _Threshold of Religion_.\n\n  [10] This is only a particular application of the general\n  assumption that all human powers exist in germ in the lowest\n  human forms. Discussions of the sense of the infinite are\n  found in the _Gifford Lectures_ of F. Max M\u00fcller and Tiele,\n  and in Jastrow's _Study of Religion_. But early man thinks\n  only of the particular objects with which he comes into\n  contact; the later belief in an Infinite is a product of\n  experience and reflection.\n\n  [11] Cf. _Ann\u00e9e sociologique_, iii (1898-1899), 205 ff.\n\n  [12] On the Fuegians cf. R. Fitzroy, in _Voyages of the\n  Adventure and the Beagle_, ii (1831-1836), 179 ff.; on the\n  African Pygmies, A. de Quatrefages, _The Pygmies_ (Eng. tr.,\n  1895), p. 124 ff.; W. Schmidt, _Pygm\u00e4env\u00f6lker_, p. 231 ff.;\n  on Ceylon, T. H. Parker, _Ancient Ceylon_, iv; and on the\n  Guaranis and Tapuyas (Botocudos) of Brazil, Waitz-Gerland,\n  _Anthropologie_, iii, 418, and the references in Hastings,\n  _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics_, ii, 837 f. The\n  Fuegians are said to stand in awe of a \"black man\" who, they\n  believe, lives in the forest and punishes bad actions. On\n  the people of New Guinea see C. G. Seligmann, _The\n  Melanesians of British New Guinea_, chaps. 16, 25, 48, 55.\n\n  [13] Such relations exist between men and the vague force\n  variously called mana, manitu, wakonda; but the conception\n  of this force is scientific rather than religious, though it\n  is brought into connection with religious ideas and usages.\n\n  [14] The evidence is summed up in G. d'Alviella's _Hibbert\n  Lectures_. Cf. Brinton, _Religion of Primitive Peoples_, p.\n  30 ff.\n\n  [15] The question whether the religious sense exists in the\n  lower animals is discussed by Darwin, _Descent of Man_\n  (1871), p. 65 ff., 101 f., and others. The question is\n  similar to that respecting conscience; in both cases there\n  is in beasts a germ that appears never to grow beyond a\n  certain point. On the genesis of the moral sense see\n  (besides the works of Aristotle, Spinoza, Kant, and their\n  successors) G. H. Palmer, _The Field of Ethics_; L. T.\n  Hobhouse, _Morals in Evolution_; E. Westermarck, _Origin and\n  Development of the Moral Ideas_. In regard to religious\n  feeling we observe in certain animals, especially in the\n  domesticated dog, an attitude of dependence and devotion\n  toward the master as a superior Power that is similar to the\n  attitude of man toward a deity, only with more affection and\n  self-surrender. But in the animal, so far as we can judge,\n  the intellectual and ethical conceptions do not come to\n  their full rights--there is no idea of a Power possessing\n  moral qualities and controlling all phenomena. The beast,\n  therefore, is not religious in the proper sense of the term.\n  But between the beast and the first man the difference may\n  have been not great.\n\n  [16] The Central Australians, however, have an elaborate\n  marriage law with the simplest political organization and\n  the minimum of religion.\n\n  [17] Cf. L. M. Keasbey, in _International Monthly_, i\n  (1900), 355 ff.; I. King, _The Development of Religion_,\n  Introduction.\n\n  [18] _Cf._ Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, chap. xi f.\n\n  [19] Beasts, plants, and what we call inanimate objects,\n  also are held, in early stages of civilization, to have\n  souls--a natural inference from the belief that these last\n  are alive and that all things have a nature like that of\n  man.\n\n  [20] So Semitic _nafs_ 'soul,' _ruh_ 'spirit'; Sanskrit\n  _diman_ 'soul,' 'self'; Greek _psyche_, _pneuma_; Latin\n  _anima_, _spiritus_; possibly English _ghost_ (properly\n  _gost_ 'spirit'); and so in many low tribes. See Tylor,\n  _Primitive Culture_, i, 432 f.; O. Schrader, in Hastings,\n  _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics_, ii, 15.\n\n  [21] The expression 'to receive the last breath' (_\u00c6neid_,\n  iv, 684 f.), used by us to represent the last pious duty\n  paid to a dying man, was thus originally understood in a\n  strictly literal sense.\n\n  [22] So the Delaware Indians (Brinton, _The Len\u00e2p\u00e9_, p. 67).\n\n  [23] Cf. the name 'shade' (Greeks, Redmen, and others) for\n  the denizens of the Underworld.\n\n  [24] Photographs are now looked on by some half-civilized\n  peoples with suspicion and fear as separate personalities\n  that may be operated on by magical methods. A similar\n  feeling exists in regard to the name of a man or a god--it\n  is held to be somehow identical with the person, and for\n  this reason is often concealed from outsiders.\n\n  [25] Cf. Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, ii, 402; Fraser,\n  _Golden Bough_, 1st ed., i, 178 f.; article \"Blood\" in\n  Hastings, _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics_.\n\n  [26] So in the Old Testament, in the later ritual codes:\n  Deut. xii, 23; Lev. xvii, 14; Gen. ix, 4; and so Ps. lxxii,\n  14; cf. Koran, xcvi, 2 (man created of blood).\n\n  [27] _Iliad_, xiv, 518; xvii, 86; cf. W. R. Smith, _Religion\n  of the Semites_, 2d ed., p. 40 n. (Arabic expression: \"Life\n  flows on the spear-point\").\n\n  [28] R. B. Dixon, _The Northern Maidu_, p. 259.\n\n  [29] So friendly (fraternal) compacts between individuals\n  are sealed by exchange of blood, whereby the parties to the\n  covenant become one; many examples are given in H. C.\n  Trumbull's _Blood-Covenant_, 2d ed.\n\n  [30] In many languages (Semitic, Sanskrit, Greek, Latin,\n  English, German, etc.) the word for 'soul' is used in the\n  sense of 'person' or 'self.' But the conception of \"life\"\n  was in early times broader than that of \"person\" or that of\n  \"soul.\"\n\n  [31] An incorporeal or immaterial soul has never been\n  conceivable.\n\n  [32] For old-German examples see Saussaye, _Religion of the\n  Teutons_, p. 297; for Guiana, E. F. im Thurn, in _Journal of\n  the Anthropological Institute_, xi, 368; compare the belief\n  in the hidden soul, spoken of below, and article \"Animals\"\n  in Hastings, _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics_.\n\n  [33] So the bush-soul or beast-soul among the\n  E[\u00b4w]e-speaking peoples of West Africa (A. B. Ellis, _The\n  E[\u00b4w]e-speaking Peoples_, p. 103) and in Calabar (Kingsley,\n  _West African Studies_). Spirits (Castr\u00e9n, _Finnische\n  Mythologie_, p. 186) and demons (as in witchcraft trials)\n  sometimes take the form of beasts. For American Indian\n  examples see Brinton, _Myths of the New World_, p. 294.\n\n  [34] See the Egyptian representations of the soul as bird\n  (Ohnefalsch-Richter, _Kypros, the Bible and Homer_, pl. cvi,\n  2; cix, 4, etc.); Maspero, _Dawn of Civilization_, p. 183,\n  compare p. 109. Other examples are given by H. Spencer,\n  _Principles of Sociology_, i, 355 ff.; N. W. Thomas, in\n  Hastings, _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics_, i, 488. On\n  _siren_ and _ker_ as forms of the soul see Miss Harrison,\n  _Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion_, pp. 139,\n  197-217. Cf. Hadrian's address to the soul:\n\n     Animula vagula blandula\n     Hospes comesque corporis\n     Quae nunc abibis in loca\n     Pallidula rigida nudula\n     Nec ut soles dabis jocos?\n\n  [35] The body is spoken of as the person, for example, in\n  _Iliad_, i. 4; Ps. xvi, 9.\n\n  [36] Hence various means of preserving the body by\n  mummification, and the fear of mutilation.\n\n  [37] On the cult of skulls in the Torres Straits and Borneo\n  see Haddon, _Head-hunters_, chap. xxiv.\n\n  [38] J. H. Bernan, _British Guiana_, p. 134.\n\n  [39] See Old Testament passim, and lexicons of the various\n  Semitic languages.\n\n  [40] An elaborate account of the loci of qualities is given\n  by Plato in the _Tim\u00e6us_, 69 ff.\n\n  [41] On the importance attached to the liver as the seat of\n  life see Jastrow, _Aspects of Religious Belief and Practice\n  in Babylonia and Assyria_, p. 149 ff.\n\n  [42] Diels, _Fragmente der Vorsokratiker_, 2d ed., i, 101\n  f., quoted in Hastings, _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and\n  Ethics_, article \"Brain and Mind.\"\n\n  [43] _Ph\u00e6do_, 96 B; _Tim\u00e6us_, 44.\n\n  [44] _Tusc. Disp._ i, 9, 19; cf. Plautus, _Aulul._ ii, 1,\n  30.\n\n  [45] Arabic _dima[^g]_ appears to mean 'marrow,' but how\n  early it was employed for 'brain' is uncertain.\n\n  [46] Waitz, _Anthropologie_, iii, 225; cf. Roger Williams,\n  _Languages of America_, p. 86.\n\n  [47] _Journal of the American Oriental Society_, iv (the\n  Karens).\n\n  [48] Cranz, _Greenland_ (Eng. tr.) i, 184.\n\n  [49] Examples in Frazer, _Golden Bough_, chap. ii.\n\n  [50] \u00a7 25.\n\n  [51] For folk-tales of the hidden 'external' soul see\n  Frazer, _Golden Bough_, 2d ed., iii, 389 ff.\n\n  [52] The coyote (in _Navaho Legends_, by W. Matthews, p. 91)\n  kept his vital soul in the tip of his nose and in the end of\n  his tail.\n\n  [53] _Journal of the Anthropological Institute_, xviii, 310.\n\n  [54] Spencer and Gillen, _Native Tribes of Central\n  Australia_, p. 124. Andrew Lang (in _Anthropological Essays\n  presented to E. B. Tylor_) holds that this Australian view\n  comes not from ignorance but from the desire to assign a\n  worthy origin to man in distinction from the lower animals.\n  Some tribes in North Queensland think that the latter have\n  not souls, and are born by sexual union, but the human soul,\n  they say, can come only from a spiritual being. Decision on\n  this question must await further information.\n\n  [55] Spencer and Gillen, loc. cit.\n\n  [56] _Journal of American Folklore_, xvii, 4.\n\n  [57] Hopkins, _Religions of India_, p. 530 (the child is the\n  returned soul of an ancestor).\n\n  [58] Codrington, _Melanesians_, p. 154 (a spirit child\n  enters a woman); cf. _Journal of the American Oriental\n  Society_, viii, 297 (the Nusairi), and Lyde, in Curtiss,\n  _Primitive Semitic Religion To-day_, p. 115; Hartland,\n  _Primitive Paternity_, i, 50, and chap. 3 passim.\n\n  [59] A. B. Ellis, _The E[\u00b4w]e-speaking Peoples_, p. 15; _The\n  Tshi-speaking Peoples_, p. 18.\n\n  [60] For the belief that the soul of the child comes from\n  the shades see _Journal of American Folklore_, xiv, 83.\n  Further, Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, chap. xii; Lang, in\n  article cited above; Frazer, _Totemism and Exogamy_, ii. 96.\n\n  [61] Possibly a survival of the theory is to be recognized\n  in the custom, prevalent among some peoples, of naming a\n  male child after his grandfather; examples are given in\n  Gray, _Hebrew Proper Names_, p. 2 f. All such theories\n  appear to rest on a dim conception of the vital solidarity\n  of the tribe or clan--the vital force is held to be\n  transmissible; cf. the idea of _mana_, a force inherent in\n  things.\n\n  [62] Gen. ii, 7; cf. Ezek. xxxvii, 10.\n\n  [63] _Tim\u00e6us_, 34 f.\n\n  [64] _De Sen._ 21, 77; _Tusc. Disp._ v, 13, 38.\n\n  [65] The term 'sacred' in early thought has no ethical\n  significance; it involves only the idea that an object is\n  imbued with some superhuman quality, and is therefore\n  dangerous and not to be touched.\n\n  [66] On modes of burial, see article \"Fun\u00e9railles\" in _La\n  Grande Encyclop\u00e9die_. Other considerations, however\n  (hygienic, for example), may have had influence on the\n  treatment of corpses.\n\n  [67] In the Talmud the books of the Sacred Scriptures are\n  said to \"defile the hands,\" that is, they are taboo\n  (_Yadaim_, Mishna, 3, 5).\n\n  [68] The lower animals also are sometimes credited with more\n  than one soul: so the bear among the Sioux (Charlevoix,\n  _Nouvelle France_, vi, 28; Schoolcraft, _Indian Tribes of\n  the United States_, iii, 229).\n\n  [69] Williams, _Fiji_, i, 241; Tylor, _Primitive Culture_,\n  i, 434, cf. Brinton, _Len\u00e2p\u00e9_, p. 69; Cross, in _Journal of\n  the American Oriental Society_, iv, 310 (Karens); W. Ellis,\n  _Madagascar_, i, 393; A. B. Ellis, _The E[\u00b4w]e-speaking\n  Peoples_, p. 114, and _The Tshi-speaking Peoples_, p. 149\n  ff.; Kingsley, _West African Studies_, p. 200 ff.; Skeat,\n  _Malay Magic_, p. 50.\n\n  [70] _Journal of the American Oriental Society_, iv, 310.\n\n  [71] Cf. Hopkins, _Religions of India_, p. 530.\n\n  [72] See below, \u00a7 46 ff.\n\n  [73] See Maspero (1897), _Dawn of Civilization_, p. 108 f.;\n  W. M. M\u00fcller in _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_, article \"Egypt\";\n  Petrie, _Religion and Conscience in Ancient Egypt_, pp. 30\n  ff., 48 ff.; Breasted, _History of Egypt_, p. 63 f.; Erman,\n  _Handbook of Egyptian Religion_, pp. 86 f., 108; Wiedemann,\n  _Religion of the Ancient Egyptians_, p. 234 ff.\n\n  [74] R. H. Charles in his _Eschatology, Hebrew, Jewish, and\n  Christian_, p. 153, holds that the Hebrews made a\n  distinction between soul and spirit (the former being\n  \"living\" only when the latter is present), and that the\n  recognition of this distinction is necessary for the\n  understanding of the Old Testament conception of\n  immortality. His discussion is valuable if not convincing.\n\n  [75] 1 Kings xxii, 21 f.\n\n  [76] For the New Testament usage see 1 Cor. vi, 17; 2 Cor.\n  iv, 21; xii, 18; Luke ix, 53 (in some MSS.); Rev. xix, 10;\n  John vi, 63. Cf. Grimm, _Greek-English Lexicon of the New\n  Testament_, ed. J. H. Thayer, s. vv. _pneuma_ and _psyche_.\n\n  [77] Cf. Rohde, _Psyche_, 3d ed., i, 45 n.; ii, 141, n. 2.\n\n  [78] In philosophical thought the two are sometimes\n  distinguished: the _anima_ is the principle of life, and the\n  _animus_ of thinking mind (Lucretius, iii, 94-141).\n\n  [79] A curious resemblance to the cult of the 'genius' is\n  found in the E[\u00b4w]e (Dahomi) custom of consecrating a man's\n  birthday to his \"indwelling spirit\" (A. B. Ellis, _The\n  E[\u00b4w]e-speaking Peoples_, 105). Compare Horace's designation\n  of the genius as 'naturae deus humanae' (_Ep._ ii, 2, 188),\n  and Servius on Verg., _Georg._ i, 302.\n\n  [80] So in Plato and Aristotle, and in Brahmanism.\n\n  [81] The evidence for this belief is found in hundreds of\n  books that record observations of savage ideas, and it is\n  unnecessary to cite particular examples.\n\n  [82] Ellis, _The E[\u00b4w]e-speaking Peoples_, p. 108. Cf.\n  Hinde, _The Last of the Masai_, p. 99.\n\n  [83] D. Macdonald, _Africana_, i, 58 f.\n\n  [84] _Journal of the Anthropological Institute_, x, 283; cf.\n  Codrington, _Melanesians_, p. 277.\n\n  [85] Rink, _Tales of the Eskimo_, p. 36.\n\n  [86] See above, \u00a7 41.\n\n  [87] Thomas Williams, _Fiji_, i, 244. Cf. W. Ellis,\n  _Polynesian Researches_, i, 303.\n\n  [88] Gill, _Myths and Songs from the South Pacific_, p. 160.\n\n  [89] _Journal of the Anthropological Institute_, xix, 118 f.\n\n  [90] Jarves, _History of the Sandwich Islands_, p. 42. Cf.\n  Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, 2d ed., ii, 22 f., and\n  Codrington, _The Melanesians_ p. 256 ff.\n\n  [91] Hopkins, _Religions of India_, p. 530 f.\n\n  [92] Kingsley, _Travels_, p. 444.\n\n  [93] _Polynesian Researches_, p. 218.\n\n  [94] Maspero, _Dawn of Civilization_, pp. 112, 185.\n\n  [95] _Tailtiriya Brahmana_, 3, 11, 8, 5; _\u00c7atapatha\n  Brahmana_, 12, 9, 3, 12. Cf. Bloomfield, _Religion of the\n  Veda_, p. 253.\n\n  [96] The same remark holds of later conceptions of the\n  departed soul and of deities.\n\n  [97] Mariner, _Tonga_, pp. 328, 343. Gods also die, as in\n  the Egyptian religious creed (Maspero, _Dawn of\n  Civilization_, p. 111), in Greek myths and folk-beliefs (the\n  grave of Zeus, etc.), and in the Norse myth of the combat of\n  the gods with the giants.\n\n  [98] Jastrow, _Religion of Babylonia and Assyria_, chap.\n  xxv.\n\n  [99] 1 Sam. xxvii, 11 f.; Ezek. xxxii, 17 f.; Isa. xiv, 9 f.\n  Eccl. iii, 19 f., ix, 5, 6, 10, which are sometimes cited in\n  support of the opposite opinion, belong not to the Jewish\n  popular belief, but to a late academic system which is\n  colored by Greek skeptical philosophy. All other late Jewish\n  books (Apocrypha, New Testament, Talmud) assume the\n  continued existence of the soul in the other world.\n\n  [100] See above, \u00a7 43.\n\n  [101] Hopkins, _Religions of India_, pp. 130, 143 ff., 396;\n  Rhys Davids, _Buddhism_, p. 111 ff.; Spiegel, _Eranische\n  Alterthiunskunde_, ii, 161 ff.; Wiedemann, _Egyptian\n  Doctrine of Immortality_; De Groot, _Religion of the\n  Chinese_, chap. iii.\n\n  [102] On the Homeric usage see Rohde, _Psyche_, as cited\n  above, \u00a7 43.\n\n  [103] Several early Christian writers (Tatian, _Address to\n  the Greeks_, 13; Justin, _Trypho_, cap. vi) held that souls\n  are naturally mortal, but these views did not affect the\n  general Christian position.\n\n  [104] Such as Ezek. xviii, 4. This view appears in\n  _Clementine Homilies_, vii, 1.\n\n  [105] Cf. W. R. Alger, _Critical History of the Doctrine of\n  a Future Life_; Harvard Ingersoll Lectures on \"The\n  Immortality of Man.\"\n\n  [106] Cf. H. Spencer, _Principles of Sociology_, i, chap.\n  xv; article \"Blest, abode of the,\" in Hastings,\n  _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics_.\n\n  [107] Cf. Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, chap. xii f.\n\n  [108] Cf. Hartland, _Primitive Paternity_, i, 254, and chap.\n  iii.\n\n  [109] In _Primitive Culture_, chap. xii.\n\n  [110] In _La survivance de l'\u00e2me_, passim.\n\n  [111] See also the discussion of the subject in Alger, op.\n  cit. (in \u00a7 53), p. 62 f. This work contains a bibliography\n  of the future state (by Ezra Abbot) substantially complete\n  up to the year 1862.\n\n  [112] Cf. Saussaye, _Religion of the Teutons_, p. 295 f.\n\n  [113] M. Kingsley, _Studies_, p. 122; _Travels_, p. 445.\n\n  [114] Haddon, _Head-hunters_, p. 179 ff.\n\n  [115] Spencer and Gillen, _Native Tribes of Central\n  Australia_, Index, s.v. _Alcheringa_; id., _Northern Tribes\n  of Central Australia_, p. 271.\n\n  [116] A. B. Ellis, _Yoruba_, p. 128.\n\n  [117] Cf. especially the Central Australian conception.\n\n  [118] It is involved in all monistic systems. It appears\n  also to be silently made in the Old Testament: the lower\n  animals, like man, are vivified by the \"breath of God\" (Ps.\n  civ, 29, 30; cf. Gen. ii, 7; vii, 22), and are destroyed in\n  the flood because of the wickedness of man (Gen. vi, 5-7);\n  cf. also Rom. viii, 22.\n\n  [119] So in the Upanishads (but not in the poetic Veda); see\n  Hopkins, _Religions of India_, p. 227; Bloomfield, _Religion\n  of the Veda_, p. 257. Tylor (_Primitive Culture_, ii, 18)\n  points out that in this conception we have a suggestion of\n  the theory of development in organic life.\n\n  [120] So the Central Australians (Spencer and Gillen,\n  _Native Tribes of Central Australia_, p. 514), the\n  Californian Maidu (Dixon, _The Northern Maidu_, p. 246). Cf.\n  the cases in which precautions are taken against a ghost's\n  entering its old earthly abode.\n\n  [121] _Rig-Veda_, 15.\n\n  [122] Spencer and Gillen, loc. cit. and p. 516 f.\n\n  [123] Probably the Greek _ker_ ([Greek: k\u00ear]) and the\n  Teutonic 'nightmare,' French _cauchemar_ (_mara_, an\n  incubus, or succuba), belong in this class of malefic\n  ghosts.\n\n  [124] See below, \u00a7 92.\n\n  [125] Steinmetz, _Ethnologische Studien zur ersten\n  Entwicklung der Strafe_, i, 141 ff.\n\n  [126] For West Africa see above, \u00a7 43, n. 2; for the Norse\n  _fylgja_ ('follower') cf. Saussaye, _Religion of the\n  Teutons_, p. 292 ff.\n\n  [127] \u00a7 38, n. 2.\n\n  [128] A transitional stage is marked by the theory, in a\n  polypsychic system, that one soul remains near the body\n  while another goes to the distant land.\n\n  [129] So, perhaps, among the eastern Polynesians (W. Ellis,\n  _Polynesian Researches_, i, 303) and the Navahos (Matthews,\n  _Navaho Legends_, p. 38).\n\n  [130] Maspero, _Dawn of Civilization_, chap. iii, 183 ff.;\n  Teit, _Thompson River Indians_, p. 85; Rink, _Tales of the\n  Eskimo_, p. 40.\n\n  [131] _Odyssey_, xi (by the encircling Okeanos); Williams,\n  _Fiji_, p. 192; Brinton, _Myths of the New World_, p. 288\n  f.; Saussaye, _Religion of the Teutons_, p. 290; _Rig-Veda_,\n  x, 63, 10; ix, 41, 2.\n\n  [132] Breasted, _History of Egypt_, p. 65; Charon; Saussaye,\n  op. cit., p. 290; Rohde, _Psyche_, 3d ed., i, 306. For the\n  story given by Procopius (_De Bell. Goth._ iv, 20) see\n  Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, ii, 64 f.\n\n  [133] Saussaye, op. cit., p. 291.\n\n  [134] _Rig-Veda_, x, 154, 4, 5; Lister in _Journal of the\n  Anthropological Institute_, xxi, 51 (moon). Cf. Breasted,\n  _History of Egypt_, p. 64; Hopkins, _Religions of India_,\n  pp. 129, 206; Brinton, _Myths of the New World_, p. 284 ff.;\n  M\u00fcller, _Amerikanische Urreligionen_, i, 288 ff.; Saussaye,\n  op. cit., p. 291; Spencer, _Principles of Sociology_, i, 232\n  f.\n\n  [135] Matthews, _Navaho Legends_, p. 185 f.; Teit, _Thompson\n  River Indians_, p. 78.\n\n  [136] Turner, _Samoa_, p. 257; Lawes (on New Guinea), in\n  _Journal of the Anthropological Institute_, viii, 371;\n  Callaway, _Zulu Nursery Tales_, p. 316; Matthews, _Navaho\n  Legends_, p. 215; Rink, _Tales of the Eskimo_, p. 37; Sir G.\n  S. Robertson, _The Kafirs of the Hindu-Kush_, p. 380 f.\n\n  [137] _\u00c6neid_, vi.\n\n  [138] _Odyssey_, xi, 489; Isa. xxxviii, 10 ff.; Prov. iii,\n  16, etc.\n\n  [139] 1 Sam. xxviii, 14; Ezek. xxxii, 19-32; Isa. xiv, 9-15;\n  xxxviii, 18. For the early Babylonian conception of the\n  Underworld see the _Descent of Ishtar_ (in Jastrow,\n  _Religion of Babylonia and Assyria_, chap. xxv); S. H.\n  Langdon, \"Babylonian Eschatology,\" in _Essays in Modern\n  Theology and Related Subjects_ (the C. A. Briggs Memorial).\n\n  [140] Breasted, _History of Egypt_, p. 175.\n\n  [141] Cf. Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, ii, 83 ff.\n\n  [142] Spencer and Gillen, _Native Tribes of Central\n  Australia_; Callaway, _Amazulus_, pp. 12, 151 f.; W. Ellis,\n  _Madagascar_, i, 393 (cf. J. Sibree, _Madagascar_, p. 312);\n  A. B. Ellis, _The E[\u00b4w]e_, p. 107 f., and _The Tshi_, p. 156\n  ff.; M. Kingsley, _Travels_, pp. 461, 480; R. B. Dixon, _The\n  Shasta_, p. 469.\n\n  [143] Williams, _Fiji_, p. 194.\n\n  [144] Ezek. xxxii, 23, 27; Isa. xiv, 15.\n\n  [145] Jastrow, op. cit., p. 601; Ezek. xxxii.\n\n  [146] _Iliad_, xxiii, 71.\n\n  [147] Jastrow, op. cit., p. 602; _Iliad_, i, 3 ff.; 2 Sam.\n  xxi, 10; Prov. xxx, 17.\n\n  [148] Hence special desire for sons, who were the natural\n  persons to perform funeral rites for fathers.\n\n  [149] So also Plato, _Gorgias_, 80 (524).\n\n  [150] Hesiod, _Works and Days_, 110.\n\n  [151] Marillier, _La survivance de l'\u00e2me_.\n\n  [152] W. Ellis, _Polynesian Researches_, chap. ix.\n\n  [153] Marillier, op. cit.\n\n  [154] Smith, _Virginia_, p. 36.\n\n  [155] Will and Spinden, _The Mandans_ (_Papers of the\n  Peabody Museum of American Arch\u00e6ology and Ethnology_,\n  Harvard University), p. 133.\n\n  [156] So among the Betsileos and the Zulus (Marillier, op.\n  cit.)\n\n  [157] So in Madagascar. Cf. Ezek. xxxii, 18 ff.; Isa. xiv, 4\n  ff.\n\n  [158] _Journal of the American Oriental Society_, iv, 312 f.\n\n  [159] S. St. John, _The Far East_, 2d ed., i, 182 f.; cf.,\n  i, 184.\n\n  [160] Marillier, op. cit. Here suicide appears to be\n  regarded as a heroic act, and the women in question perish\n  in doing a service to the tribe.\n\n  [161] Dixon, _The Northern Maidu_, p. 261; Westermarck,\n  _Moral Ideas_, Index, s.v. _Future Life_; Hobhouse, _Morals\n  in Evolution_, ii, 271 ff.; Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, ii,\n  83 ff.\n\n  [162] Castr\u00e9n, _Finnische Mythologie_, p. 126; Turner,\n  _Samoa_, p. 259; Lawes, \"New Guinea,\" in _Journal of the\n  Anthropological Institute_, viii, 370; Rochas, _Nouvelle\n  Cal\u00e9donie_ (_Bulletin de la Soci\u00e9t\u00e9 d'anthropologie_, 1860),\n  p. 280; Lister, _Journal of the Anthropological Institute_,\n  xxi, 51; Dixon, op. cit., p. 262; M\u00fcller, _Amerikanische\n  Urreligionen_, p. 289 (Brazil).\n\n  [163] See Westermarck, loc. cit.\n\n  [164] Hawkins, _Creek Country_, p. 80.\n\n  [165] For details on this point see L. Marillier, _La\n  survivance de l'\u00e2me_.\n\n  [166] Williams and Calvert, _Fiji_, p. 193 f.\n\n  [167] _Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society_, 1842, p. 172,\n  and 1852, p. 211; Hopkins, _Religions of India_, p. 530 f.\n\n  [168] Sepulchral inscriptions of Tabnit and Eshmunazar, and\n  the inscriptions of Antipatros (_Corpus Inscriptionum\n  Semiticarum_, vol. i, part i, p. 9 ff.; Lidzbarski,\n  _Handbuch der nordsemitischen Epigraphik_, part ii, pl. iv,\n  1, 2; part i, p. 117; Rawlinson, _Phoenicia_, p. 394 f.).\n\n  [169] Breasted, _Egypt_, p. 173 ff.; Bloomfield, _Religion\n  of the Veda_, p. 252; Hopkins, _Religions of India_, pp.\n  336, 380, 443; _Texts of Taoism_, ed. J. Legge, ii, 6 f. (in\n  _Sacred Books of the East_, vol. 40); Legge, _Religions of\n  China_, p. 82; De Groot, _Religion of the Chinese_, pp. 6,\n  25, 54, 70 ff., 117; Spiegel, _Eranische Alterthumskunde_,\n  ii, 158 ff.; Plato, _Republic_, 614 (story of Er); Book of\n  Enoch passim.\n\n  [170] W. Ellis, _Polynesian Researches_, chap. xv; Will and\n  Spinden, _The Mandans_, p. 133; Dixon, _The Northern Maidu_,\n  p. 261; _Rig-Veda_, i, 356; vii, 104. Cf. article \"Blest,\n  abode of the\" in Hastings, _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and\n  Ethics_.\n\n  [171] Tartarus is as far below Hades as the earth is below\n  the sky (_Iliad_, viii, 16).\n\n  [172] Hopkins, _Religions of India_, p. 379 ff.\n\n  [173] Wiedemann, _Egyptian Doctrine of Immortality_, p. 50\n  f.; Maspero, _Dawn of Civilization_, p. 183 ff.; Breasted,\n  _History of Egypt_, pp. 64, 173 ff. Different conceptions,\n  however, appear in different stages of eschatological\n  thought. Probably the older view was that all the dead\n  descended to the Underworld. According to another view, the\n  good ascended to heaven and accompanied the sun on his daily\n  voyage over the heavenly ocean.\n\n  [174] _Revue arch\u00e9ologique_, 1903, and Reinach, _Orpheus_\n  (Eng. tr.), p. 88 f.\n\n  [175] _Gorgias_, 523-526; _Republic_, x, 614; _Laws_, x, 904\n  f.; _Ph\u00e6do_, 113 f.\n\n  [176] Isa. lxv, 17-21; lxvi, 24; Enoch, x, 12-22.\n\n  [177] Enoch, xxii.\n\n  [178] Enoch, civ, 6; xcix, 11.\n\n  [179] _Secrets of Enoch_, chaps. vii-x. For the third heaven\n  cf. 2 Cor. xii, 2-4. Varro also (quoted in Augustine, _De\n  Civ. Dei_, vii, 6) assigned the souls of the dead to a\n  celestial space beneath the abode of the gods.\n\n  [180] Matt. xxv, 46; 1 Thess. iv, 17; 2 Pet. ii, 4; iii, 13;\n  Rev. xx, 15; xxi, 1; 2 Cor. xii, 2-4.\n\n  [181] See, for example, the _Revelation of the Monk of\n  Evesham_, Eng. tr. by V. Paget (New York, 1909).\n\n  [182] _Republic_, x, 614.\n\n  [183] Herzog-Hauck, _Real-Encyklop\u00e4die_, Index, s.v.\n  _Fegfeuer_; _Jewish Encyclopedia_, article \"Purgatory.\"\n\n  [184] American Indians (H. C. Yarrow, _Introduction to the\n  Study of Mortuary Customs among the North American Indians_,\n  p. 5 ff.); Egypt (Wilkinson, _The Ancient Egyptians_, chap.\n  x); see article \"Fun\u00e9railles\" in _La Grande Encyclop\u00e9die_.\n  Grant Allen, in _The Evolution of the Idea of God_, chap.\n  iii, connects the idea of bodily resurrection with the\n  custom of inhumation and the idea of immortality with\n  cremation, but this view is not borne out by known facts.\n\n  [185] Frazer, _Golden Bough_, 2nd ed., i, 262, 278.\n\n  [186] The doctrine of reincarnation in India followed on\n  that of Hades, and stood in a certain opposition to it. Cf.\n  Hopkins, _Religions of India_, pp. 204 ff., 530 n. 3;\n  Bloomfield, _Religion of the Veda_, pp. 211, 252 ff.\n\n  [187] _Zoroastrian Studies_, p. 236. Prexaspes says that \"if\n  the dead rise again\" Smerdis maybe the son of Cyrus. He may\n  mean that this is not probable. Smerdis, he would in that\n  case say, is certainly dead, and this pretender can be the\n  son of Cyrus only in case the dead come to life.\n\n  [188] Diogenes Laertius in M\u00fcller, _Fragmenta Historicorum\n  Gracorum_, i, 289; cf. Plutarch, _Isis and Osiris_, 47, and\n  Herodotus, i, 131-140. See Spiegel, _Eranische\n  Alterthumskunde_, ii 158 ff.\n\n  [189] Occasional reincarnation in human form is found\n  elsewhere. The Mazdeans made it universal.\n\n  [190] There is no certain or probable reference to it in the\n  Old Testament before this. Ezek. xxxvii, 1-14, is obviously\n  a figurative prediction of national (not individual)\n  resuscitation, and the obscure passage Isa. xxvi, 19 seems\n  to refer to the re\u00ebstablishment of the nation, and in any\n  case is not earlier than the fourth century B.C. and may be\n  later.\n\n  [191] Dan. xii; 2 Macc. vii, 14; Enoch, xci, 10; xxii.\n\n  [192] 1 Cor. xv, 23; Rom. vi, 4; viii, 11; John vi, 54.\n\n  [193] Acts xxiv, 15; John v, 28 f.\n\n  [194] Apokatastasis (Col. i, 20; cf. Rom. xi, 32).\n\n  [195] Cf. Steinmetz, _Ethnologische Studien zur ersten\n  Entwicklung der Strase_.\n\n  [196] Westermarck, _Moral Ideas_, ii, 234, 245 f.\n\n  [197] See below, on necromancy, \u00a7 927.\n\n  [198] See \u00a7 360 ff. (ancestor-worship) and \u00a7 350 ff.\n  (divinization of deceased persons).\n\n  [199] In Egypt there grew up also an elaborate system of\n  charms for the protection of the dead against hostile\n  animals, especially serpents,--a body of magical texts that\n  finally took the form of the \"Book of the Dead\" (Breasted,\n  _History of Egypt_, pp. 69, 175; Steindorff, _Religion of\n  the Ancient Egyptians_, p. 153 ff.).\n\n  [200] _\u00c7atapatha Brahmana_, xii, 9, 3, 12. Cf. W. Ellis,\n  _Polynesian Researches_, i, 193 f.\n\n  [201] Breasted, op. cit., p. 249.\n\n  [202] 1 Cor. xv, 29.\n\n  [203] 2 Macc. xii, 40 ff. Possibly the custom came to the\n  Jews from Egypt. For later Jewish ideas on this point see\n  _Jewish Encyclopedia_, article \"Kaddish.\"\n\n  [204] Smith and Cheetham, _Dictionary of Christian\n  Antiquities_, article \"Canon of the Liturgy\"; Hughes,\n  _Dictionary of Islam_, article \"Prayers for the Dead.\"\n\n  [205] On savage logic cf. Jevons, _Introduction to the\n  History of Religion_, chap. iv.\n\n  [206] See \u00a7 18 ff.\n\n  [207] See \u00a7 635 ff.\n\n  [208] As to the efficiency of such tradition, compare the\n  way in which mechanical processes are transmitted by older\n  workmen to younger, always with the possibility of gradual\n  improvement. In literary activity, also, tradition plays a\n  great part; a young people must serve an apprenticeship\n  before it can produce works of merit.\n\n  [209] Spencer, _Principles of Sociology_, i, sec. 35;\n  Westermarck, _Human Marriage_, p. 43 ff.; Pridham, _Ceylon_,\n  i, 454 (Veddas); _United States Exploring Expedition_, i,\n  124 (Fuegians); Fison and Howitt, _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, p.\n  278 (Australian Grounditch); Fritsch, _Die Eingeborenen\n  S\u00fcd-Afrikas_, p. 328 (Bushmen); Schoolcraft, _Indian Tribes\n  of the United States_, i, 207 (North American Snake tribes);\n  Rivet, in _The American Anthropologist_, 1909 (\"The Jivaros\n  of Ecuador\").\n\n  [210] Cf. I. King, _The Development of Religion_, p. 66 ff.\n\n  [211] Even in higher forms of religion, as the Vedic,\n  sacrifice and other ceremonies are supposed to have a\n  magical power over the gods.\n\n  [212] This is a part of the belief in the mysterious energy\n  (_mana_) potentially resident in all things.\n\n  [213] See, for example, the bird dances described by Haddon\n  (_Head-hunters_, p. 358); compare W. Matthews, _Navaho\n  Legends_, p. 83 al. Dances are now often given for the\n  amusement of the public. Clowns often form a feature of such\n  ceremonies; see Matthews, _Navaho Legends_, p. 230; R. B.\n  Dixon, _The Northern Maidu_ (_Bulletin of American Museum of\n  Natural History_, xvii, part iii, p. 315 ff.).\n\n  [214] Howitt, in _Journal of the Anthropological Institute_,\n  xvi, 327 ff.\n\n  [215] Miss Fletcher, _Indian Ceremonies_, p. 263 n.\n\n  [216] Miss Kingsley, _Studies_, p. 126.\n\n  [217] E. F. im Thurn, _Indians of Guiana_, vii, iv, 5.\n\n  [218] E. F. im Thurn, op. cit., vi.\n\n  [219] Of the same simple festive nature as dances are the\n  plays or sports that are not infrequent among savages and\n  half-civilized tribes. In the Areoi dramatic performances\n  priests are ridiculed (W. Ellis, _Polynesian Researches_, p.\n  187).\n\n  [220] Miss Fletcher, \"Emblematic Use of the Tree in the\n  Dakotan Group\" (in _Proceedings of the American Association\n  for the Advancement of Science_, 1896).\n\n  [221] So among the hill tribes of North Arracan (_Journal of\n  the Anthropological Institute_, ii, 239) and the North\n  American Indians (Featherman, _Races of Mankind_, division\n  iii, part i, p. 37 etc.). Such dances are performed by the\n  Tshi women in the absence of the men (A. B. Ellis, _The\n  Tshi_, p. 226).\n\n  [222] See below, \u00a7 903, on imitative magic.\n\n  [223] Riedel, in _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Ethnologie_, xvii.\n\n  [224] Haddon, _Head-hunters_, p. 139.\n\n  [225] _Journal of American Folklore_, xvii, 32. Cf. the\n  dance for the benefit of a sick man (R. B. Dixon, \"Some\n  Shamans of Northern California,\" op. cit., xvii, 23 ff.).\n\n  [226] _Journal of American Folklore_, iv, 307. Cf. Will and\n  Spinden, _The Mandans_, pp. 129 ff., 143 ff. The gods\n  themselves, also, have their festive dances (W. Matthews,\n  _Navaho Legends_, p. 83), and are sometimes represented as\n  the authors of the sacred chants (ibid. p. 225).\n\n  [227] See W. Matthews, loc. cit.\n\n  [228] See, further, _Journal of American Folklore_, iii,\n  257; iv, 129; xii, 81 (basket dances); R. B. Dixon, _The\n  Northern Maidu_, p. 183 ff. (numerous and elaborate, and\n  sometimes economic); Robertson, _Kafirs of the Hindu-Kush_,\n  chap. 33; N. W. Thomas, _Australia_, chap. 7. Thomas\n  describes many Australian games, and Dixon (_The Shasta_, p.\n  441 ff.) Californian games. For stories told by the natives\n  of Guiana see above, \u00a7 106.\n\n  [229] 2 Sam. vi, 5.\n\n  [230] Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, ii, 133 f., 409 f.\n\n  [231] A. B. Ellis, _The Tshi_, p. 226.\n\n  [232] So, probably, the Old-Hebrew ark.\n\n  [233] See the references in article \"Circumambulation\" in\n  Hastings, _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics_.\n\n  [234] Westermarck, _Human Marriage_, 3d ed., p. 542. This\n  sexual instinct is carried back by Darwin (_Descent of Man_,\n  chap. xii) to the lower animals.\n\n  [235] Cf. Gen. iii, 7. There is no conclusive evidence that\n  the concealment of parts of the body by savages is prompted\n  by modesty (cf. Ratzel, _History of Mankind_, i, 93 ff.),\n  but it may have contributed to the development of this\n  feeling.\n\n  [236] Cf. Y. Him, _Origins of Art_, chap. xvi. For the Maori\n  usage see R. Taylor, _New Zealand and its Inhabitants_,\n  chap. xviii.\n\n  [237] Cf. Lucien Carr, \"Dress and Ornaments of Certain\n  American Indians\" (in _Proceedings of the American\n  Antiquarian Society_, 1897).\n\n  [238] Ratzel, op. cit., Index, s.v. _Tattooing_; Boas, _The\n  Central Eskimo_, p. 561; Frobenius, _Childhood of Man_,\n  chap. ii. Among some tribes (as the Fijians) untattooed\n  persons are denied entrance into the other world. Naturally\n  the origin of tattoo is by some tribes referred to deities:\n  see Turner, _Samoa_, p. 55 f.; _Journal of the\n  Anthropological Institute_, xix, 100 (New Zealand); xvii,\n  318 ff. (Queen Charlotte Islands and Alaska). The Ainu hold\n  that it drives away demons (Batchelor, _The Ainu_, p. 22).\n\n  [239] Turner, op. cit., p. 141.\n\n  [240] Spencer and Gillen, _Native Tribes of Central\n  Australia_, chap. vi.\n\n  [241] Frobenius, _Childhood of Man_, p. 31 ff.; cf. chap. i.\n\n  [242] Spencer and Gillen, op. cit., chap. vii.\n\n  [243] On a possible connection between tattoo marks and\n  stigmata cf. W. R. Smith, _Religion of the Semites_, 3d ed.,\n  p. 334.\n\n  [244] See \u00a7 23. Blood of men is sometimes drunk, simply to\n  assuage thirst, or as a curative (Spencer and Gillen,\n  _Native Tribes of Central Australia_, pp. 462, 464).\n\n  [245] Seligmann, _The Melanesians of British New Guinea_,\n  Index, s.v. _Art, decorative_; _Journal of American\n  Folklore_, vol. xviii, no. 69 (April, 1905).\n\n  [246] So the dress of the Jewish high priest (Ex. xxviii),\n  that of the Lamas of Tibet (Abb\u00e9 Huc, _Travels in Tartary,\n  Tibet and China_, ii, chap. ii; Rhys Davids, _Buddhism_, p.\n  250), and costumes in some Christian bodies.\n\n  [247] Of the same nature is Jeremy Taylor's view (_An\n  Apology for authorized and set forms of Liturgy_, Question\n  1, \u00a7 7 ff.) that, as earthly monarchs are not addressed in\n  the language of everyday familiar intercourse, so it is not\n  proper that the deity should be approached with other than\n  choice and dignified words--public prayers should be\n  carefully worded.\n\n  [248] Cf. A. C. Haddon, article \"Art\" in Hastings,\n  _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics_.\n\n  [249] A. de Quatrefages, _The Pygmies_, p. 157.\n\n  [250] Seligmann, _The Melanesians of British New Guinea_,\n  Index, s.v. _Hunting_.\n\n  [251] Batchelor, _The Ainu_ (the hunting of the bear); and\n  so many American tribes, and, in part, some half-civilized\n  peoples, as the Arabs of North Africa.\n\n  [252] Teit, in _Jesup North Pacific Expedition_, ii, 280.\n\n  [253] Seligmann, _The Melanesians of British New Guinea_, p.\n  291 ff.\n\n  [254] Hollis, _The Nandi_, p. 8 (cf. p. 24).\n\n  [255] Hollis (op. cit., p. 6 f.) relates that on a certain\n  occasion when his party was driven from its wagons by a\n  swarm of bees, a Nandi man appeared, announced that he was\n  of the bee totem, and volunteered to restore quiet, which he\n  did, going stark naked into the swarm. His success was\n  doubtless due to his knowledge of the habits of bees.\n\n  [256] So in the Tsimshian ceremony in eating the first fish\n  caught (Boas, in _Fifth Report of the British Association\n  for the Advancement of Science_, vol. lix, p. 51). Cf. the\n  Jewish rule (Ex. xii, 46), which may have had a similar\n  origin.\n\n  [257] Teit, in _Jesup North Pacific Expedition_, ii, 282. A\n  similar provision is mentioned in Ex. xvi, 16-20.\n\n  [258] Spencer and Gillen, _Native Tribes of Central\n  Australia_, p. 167 f., and _Native Tribes of Northern\n  Australia_, p. 308 etc.; Strehlow, _Die Aranda-und\n  Loritjast\u00e4mme in Zentralaustralien_, part ii, p. 39 etc.\n\n  [259] Dixon, _The Northern Maidu_, p. 285 f.\n\n  [260] Seligmann, _The Melanesians of British New Guinea_, p.\n  177 f.\n\n  [261] Dorsey, _The Skidi Pawnee_, p. 149.\n\n  [262] Seligmann, op. cit., p. 291 ff.\n\n  [263] Here again the taboos are precautions against\n  injurious supernatural influences.\n\n  [264] He is said also to imitate the cries of animals--that\n  is, he combines natural means with supernatural.\n\n  [265] Spencer and Gillen, and Strehlow, loc. cit.\n\n  [266] This feeling for the tribal life may be called\n  germinal public spirit. Cf. above, \u00a7 103.\n\n  [267] Frazer, _Golden Bough_, 2d ed., ii, 238 ff.\n\n  [268] Hopkins, _Religions of India_, p. 526.\n\n  [269] Frazer (_Golden Bough_, 2d. ed., ii, 43 ff.) refers to\n  B. Smyth, _Aborigines of Victoria_, ii, 311; Strachey,\n  _Historie_, p. 84; Krapf, _Travels_, p. 69 f.; Mone,\n  _Geschichte des Heldenthums im n\u00f6rdlichen Europa_, i, 119.\n  See, further, T. Williams and Calvert, _Fiji_, p. 181 f.; W.\n  Crooke, _Popular Religion and Folklore of Northern India_,\n  ii, 169.\n\n  [270] Ex. xxii, 29 [28]; xiii, 12, 13.\n\n  [271] Spencer and Gillen, op. cit., chap. vi.\n\n  [272] _Journal of the Anthropological Institute_, xxv, 104\n  ff.\n\n  [273] Frazer, _Golden Bough_, 2d ed., iii, 78.\n\n  [274] _Journal of the Anthropological Institute_, xxiii, 18;\n  xxvi, 30. Other examples are given by Frazer in his _Golden\n  Bough_, 2d. ed., i, 81 ff., 163; he cites cases of persons\n  (priests and kings) held responsible for rain, and put to\n  death if they failed to supply it.\n\n  [275] Turner, _Samoa_, p. 145. On certain Roman ceremonies\n  (that of the lapis manalis and others) that have been\n  supposed to be connected with rain making see Wissowa,\n  _Religion und Kultus der R\u00f6mer_, p. 106; W. W. Fowler,\n  _Roman Festivals of the Period of the Republic_, iii.\n\n  [276] Spencer and Gillen, _Northern Tribes of Central\n  Australia_, p. 23.\n\n  [277] Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, i, 454; Westermarck,\n  _Origin and Development of the Moral Ideas_, i, 52 ff.; ii,\n  532 ff.\n\n  [278] There is, of course, another side to the character of\n  ghosts--sometimes they are friendly.\n\n  [279] Ploss, _Das Kind_, 2d ed., i, chap. iv.\n\n  [280] Numb. xix.\n\n  [281] Frazer, _Golden Bough_, 2d ed., iii, 39 ff.\n\n  [282] J. J. M. de Groot, _Religion of the Chinese_, chap.\n  ii.\n\n  [283] Batchelor, _The Ainu_, new ed., p. 321 f.\n\n  [284] Josh. vii (story of Achan).\n\n  [285] Examples are given in Frazer's _Golden Bough_, loc.\n  cit.\n\n  [286] Lev. xiv, 1-9.\n\n  [287] Lev. xvi. Cf. the vision (Zech. v, 5 ff.) in which\n  wickedness (or guilt), in the shape of a woman, is\n  represented (in no brotherly spirit) as being transferred\n  from Jewish soil to Shinar (Chaldea).\n\n  [288] Miss J. E. Harrison, _Prolegomena to the Study of\n  Greek Religion_, p. 95 ff.\n\n  [289] Later the festival was certainly connected with the\n  driving forth of winter, but its earlier form was, probably,\n  as given above.\n\n  [290] W. W. Fowler, _Roman Festivals_, Index, s.v.\n  _Mamurius, Lupercalia_. The beating was supposed also to\n  have fertilizing power; cf. S. Hartland, _Primitive\n  Paternity_, i, 100 ff.\n\n  [291] Deut. xvi; Ex. xii.\n\n  [292] In some savage tribes the older men seem to have\n  nothing to do but arrange ceremonies.\n\n  [293] There is a faint survival, perhaps, in the use of\n  incense in churches.\n\n  [294] A. Wuttke, _Der deutsche Volksaberglaube der\n  Gegenwart_, ed. E. H. Meyer, Index; J. H. King, _The\n  Supernatural_, i, 111 ff.\n\n  [295] _Journal of the Anthropological Institute_, xii, 129\n  ff. (Andaman Islands); ibid. xxv, 188 (East Africa);\n  Frobenius, _Childhood of Man_, chap. iii; Frazer, _Golden\n  Bough_, 2d ed., iii, 422 ff.\n\n  [296] A. L. Kroeber, in _University of California\n  Publications in American Arch\u00e6ology and Ethnology_, ii,\n  viii; Westermarck, _Origin and Development of the Moral\n  Ideas_, chap. xliii (on homosexual relations).\n\n  [297] Frazer, _Golden Bough_, 2d ed., i, 326; iii, 204 ff.;\n  Hartland, _Primitive Paternity_, Index, s.v. _Puberty_;\n  Crawley, _The Mystic Rose_, p. 55.\n\n  [298] See below, under \"Taboo.\"\n\n  [299] Emasculation, of course, does not belong here; it is\n  not a custom of initiation proper.\n\n  [300] Cf. Crawley, _The Mystic Rose_, p. 135.\n\n  [301] _Journal of the Anthropological Institute_, xxvii, 406\n  (Omahas). On mutilation as a general religious rite see H.\n  Spencer, _Principles of Sociology_, i, 189, 290, and as\n  punishment, Westermarck, _Origin and Development of the\n  Moral Ideas_, Index, s.v. _Mutilation_.\n\n  [302] Roscher, _Lexikon_, articles \"Attis,\" \"Kybele.\" Origen\n  is a noteworthy example in Christian times; cf. Matt. xix,\n  12.\n\n  [303] For details of diffusion, methods, etc., see article\n  \"Circumcision\" in Hastings, _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and\n  Ethics_.\n\n  [304] This is an incision of the penis from the meatus down\n  to the scrotal pouch.\n\n  [305] Herodotus, ii, 37.\n\n  [306] Crawley, _The Mystic Rose_, p. 137 f.\n\n  [307] Ploss, _Das Kind_, 2d ed., i, 368 f.\n\n  [308] On phallic cults see below, \u00a7 388 ff.\n\n  [309] Gen. xxiv, 2 f.\n\n  [310] A. B. Ellis, _The Yoruba_, p. 66.\n\n  [311] J. G. Frazer, in the _Independent Review_, iv, 204 ff.\n\n  [312] Circumcision of females is the removal of the clitoris\n  and the labia minora; introcision is the enlargement of the\n  vaginal orifice by tearing it downwards; infibulation is the\n  closing of the labia just after circumcision. Cf. Ploss,\n  _Das Weib_, 2d ed., i, chap. v.\n\n  [313] Cf. also the great extent to which masturbation\n  prevails among savages. Cf. Westermarck, _Origin and\n  Development of the Moral Ideas_, chap. xliii.\n\n  [314] A rod is thrust through the glans of the penis; see\n  Roth, in _Journal of the Anthropological Institute_, xxii,\n  45 (the palang); cf. Ploss, _Das Weib_, 2d ed., i, chap. xi;\n  J. Macdonald, _Journal of the Anthropological Institute_,\n  xx, 116.\n\n  [315] Cf. the defloration of young women (by certain\n  officially appointed men) on the occasion of their arriving\n  at the age of puberty; Rivers, _The Todas_, p. 503; Spencer\n  and Gillen, _Native Tribes of Central Australia_, p. 93;\n  Crawley, _The Mystic Rose_, p. 347.\n\n  [316] Gen. xvii. Islam has no divine sanction for\n  circumcision; it is not mentioned in the Koran, doubtless\n  because Mohammed took it for granted as a current usage.\n\n  [317] 1 Sam. xvii, 26.\n\n  [318] Article \"Circumcision (Egyptian)\" in Hastings,\n  _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics_, and the literature\n  there cited.\n\n  [319] Deut. x, 16; Jer. ix, 25 f.; Rom. ii, 28 f.\n\n  [320] Article \"Brotherhood (artificial)\" in Hastings,\n  _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics_.\n\n  [321] Cf. H. C. Trumbull, _The Blood-Covenant_, passim; W.\n  R. Smith, _Religion of the Semites_, new ed., Index, s.v.\n  _Blood Covenant_.\n\n  [322] Frazer, _Golden Bough_, 2d ed., iii, 422 ff.; cf.\n  Gatschet, _Migration Legend of the Creeks_, p. 185 f.\n\n  [323] Alice Fletcher, _Indian Ceremonies_, p. 278.\n\n  [324] \u00a7\u00a7 533, 1095 ff., 1161 ff.\n\n  [325] _Journal of the Anthropological Institute_, xxv, 295\n  (South Australia); Howitt, _Native Tribes of South-East\n  Australia_, p. 531 f.\n\n  [326] _Journal of the Anthropological Institute_, xiii, 296\n  (Queensland); Howitt, loc. cit.; Spencer and Gillen, _Native\n  Tribes of Central Australia_, pp. 221, 223, and _Native\n  Tribes of Northern Australia_, p. 361.\n\n  [327] H. Webster, _Primitive Secret Societies_, chap. ii ff.\n\n  [328] The office of sponsor exists in embryonic form in many\n  savage communities; for boys the sponsor is the father or\n  other near relation, for girls an old woman. The duties of\n  savage sponsors usually continue only during the period of\n  initiation.\n\n  [329] Westermarck, _Human Marriage_; H. N. Hutchinson,\n  _Marriage Customs in Many Lands_; Ch. Letourneau, _The\n  Evolution of Marriage and of the Family_; Crawley, _The\n  Mystic Rose_; and the references in G. E. Howard's _History\n  of Matrimonial Institutions_, i, chaps. i-iv; cf. Hartland,\n  _Primitive Paternity_.\n\n  [330] See below, \u00a7 429 ff.\n\n  [331] Similar restrictions existed in Greece and Rome. An\n  Athenian citizen was not allowed to marry a foreign woman.\n  In Rome connubium held in the first instance between men and\n  women who were citizens, though it might be extended to\n  include Latins and foreigners. In India marriage came to be\n  controlled by caste. These local and national rules\n  gradually yielded to rules based on degrees of\n  consanguinity. Marriage between near relations was looked on\n  with disfavor in Greece and Rome and by the Hebrews, and the\n  Old Testament law on this point has been adopted (with some\n  variations) by Christian nations. For the Arab customs see\n  W. R. Smith, _Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_, chap.\n  iii.\n\n  [332] Cf. Crawley, _The Mystic Rose_, p. 462 ff.; W. R.\n  Smith, _Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_, 1st ed., p.\n  62 ff.; Hartland, _Primitive Paternity_, chaps. v, vi.\n\n  [333] In some cases, among the Todas of South India for\n  example, the defloration takes place shortly before the girl\n  reaches the age of puberty (Rivers, _The Todas_, p. 703);\n  more generally it is performed when she reaches this age.\n  This difference of time is not essential as regards the\n  significance of the ceremony.\n\n  [334] Cf. Frazer, _Golden Bough_, 2d ed., i, 224. For the\n  Old Testament Song of Songs see Budde's commentary on that\n  book.\n\n  [335] Sacrifices to local or other deities formed a part of\n  marriage ceremonies in Greece and Rome; Hera and Juno were\n  guardians of the sanctity of marriage. No religious ceremony\n  in connection with marriage is mentioned in the Old\n  Testament; a trace of such a ceremony occurs in the book of\n  Tobit (vii, 13).\n\n  [336] _The Mystic Rose_, p. 322, etc.\n\n  [337] Hughes, _Dictionary of Islam_, article \"Marriage.\"\n\n  [338] The danger might continue into early childhood and\n  have to be guarded against; for a Greek instance see Gardner\n  and Jevons, _Greek Antiquities_, p. 299.\n\n  [339] For details see Ploss, _Das Kind_, and works on\n  antiquities, Hebrew, Greek, and Roman.\n\n  [340] Cf. Frazer, _Totemism and Exogamy_, i, 72 ff.; iv, 244\n  ff.\n\n  [341] Dixon, _The Northern Maidu_, p. 228 ff.; and _The\n  Shasta_, p. 453 ff.; Rivers, _The Todas_, p. 313 ff.;\n  Hollis, _The Nandi_, p. 64 f.; D. Kidd, _Savage Childhood_,\n  p. 7; Lev. xii; article \"Birth\" in Hastings, _Encyclop\u00e6dia\n  of Religion and Ethics_.\n\n  [342] See above, \u00a7 55 f.\n\n  [343] Tylor (_Primitive Culture_, ii, 3 ff.) suggests that\n  such an idea may have been supposed to account for the\n  general resemblance between parents and children.\n\n  [344] R. H. Nassau, _Fetichism in West Africa_, p. 212.\n\n  [345] Haddon, _Head-hunters_, p. 353 ff.\n\n  [346] Turner, _Samoa_, chap. iii. In some Christian\n  communities the saint on whose festival day a child is born\n  is adopted as the child's patron saint. In the higher\n  ancient religions there were religious observances in\n  connection with the birth and rearing of children, special\n  divine care being sought; see, for example, the elaborate\n  Roman apparatus of divine guardians.\n\n  [347] Dixon, _The Northern Maidu_, p. 231; H. Webster,\n  _Primitive Secret Societies_, p. 40 f.\n\n  [348] For methods of burial see article \"Fun\u00e9railles\" in _La\n  Grande Encyclop\u00e9die_.\n\n  [349] Robertson, _The Kafirs_, chap. xxxiii; Batchelor, _The\n  Ainu_, chap. xlviii (the goddess of fire is asked to take\n  charge of the spirit of the deceased).\n\n  [350] The food and drink (of which only the soul is supposed\n  to be consumed by the deceased) are often utilized by the\n  surviving friends; such funeral feasts have played a\n  considerable part in religious history and survive in some\n  quarters to the present day.\n\n  [351] A. B. Ellis, _The E[\u00b4w]e_ (Dahomi), chap. viii; A. G.\n  Leonard, _The Lower Niger and its Tribes_, p. 160 f.;\n  Herodotus, iv, 71 f. (Scythians); v, 5 (Thracians). Cf. the\n  Greek Anthesteria and the Roman Parentalia.\n\n  [352] _Journal of the Anthropological Institute_, xxi, 121.\n\n  [353] Spencer and Gillen, _Native Tribes of Central\n  Australia_, p. 498.\n\n  [354] For elaborate Sioux ceremonies on the death of a child\n  see Miss Fletcher, _Indian Ceremonies_ (the Shadow or Ghost\n  Lodge).\n\n  [355] On the disposal of the corpse, by inhumation,\n  cremation, exposure, etc., see article \"Fun\u00e9railles\" cited\n  above; O. Schrader, in Hastings, _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion\n  and Ethics_, ii, 16 ff.\n\n  [356] This may be in part a hygienic precaution.\n\n  [357] Haddon, _Head-hunters_, p. 91. Cf. G. L. Kittredge,\n  \"Disenchantment by Decapitation,\" in _Journal of American\n  Folklore_, vol. xviii, no. 68 (January, 1905).\n\n  [358] De Groot, _Religion of the Chinese_, chap. iii.\n\n  [359] Cf. Westermarck, _Origin and Development of the Moral\n  Ideas_, chap. xxxvii ff.; Saussaye, _Science of Religion_\n  (Eng. tr.), chap. xviii; and the references given in these\n  works.\n\n  [360] See below, on removal of taboos.\n\n  [361] Fraser, _Golden Bough_, 2d ed., i, 306 f.\n\n  [362] Cf. Westermarck, _Origin and Development of the Moral\n  Ideas_, index, s.v. _Homicide_.\n\n  [363] See below, \u00a7 201; cf. the Athenian Anthesteria and\n  Thargelia.\n\n  [364] In Ex. iv, 24 f., Yahweh is about to kill Moses,\n  apparently for neglecting a ritual act.\n\n  [365] Examples in Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, ii, 429 ff.;\n  cf. Knox, _Religion in Japan_, p. 39.\n\n  [366] See the practices described by Rivers, in _The Todas_,\n  Index, s.vv. _Bathing_, _Purification_.\n\n  [367] Schneckenburger, _Proselytentaufe_; article\n  \"Proselyten\" in Herzog, _Real-Encyklop\u00e4die_.\n\n  [368] In the New Testament baptism is said to be \"for the\n  remission of sins\" (Acts ii, 38), and is called \"bath of\n  regeneration\" (Tit. iii, 3); a quasi-magical power is\n  attributed to it in 1 Cor. xv, 29.\n\n  [369] For the Mazdean use of urine see _Vendidad_, Fargard\n  v, 160; xvi, 27, etc.; for use of buffalo's dung, Rivers,\n  _The Todas_, pp. 32, 173 f., etc.\n\n  [370] Rivers, op. cit., p. 367.\n\n  [371] Compare, however, the use of natural pigments for\n  decorative and religious purposes; see above, \u00a7 115 ff.\n\n  [372] The Toda ceremony of burning a woman's hand in the\n  fifth month of pregnancy, and a child's hand on the occasion\n  of a funeral (Rivers, _The Todas_, pp. 315, 374), may be\n  purificatory, but this is not clear; cf. Frazer, in _Journal\n  of the Anthropological Institute_, xi.\n\n  [373] Lev. xv, 30; xvi, 15 ff.\n\n  [374] Hopkins, _Religions of India_, p. 196.\n\n  [375] Gruppe, _Griechische Mythologie_, p. 888 ff.; Jevons,\n  _Introduction to the History of Religion_, p. 375; Harrison,\n  _Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion_, p. 150 ff.\n\n  [376] Lev. xvi.\n\n  [377] Fowler, _Roman Festivals_, Index, s.v.\n\n  [378] The native name of the festival, _puskita_ (busk), is\n  said to mean 'a fast,' but the ceremonies are largely\n  purificatory; Gatschet, _Migration Legend of the Creeks_, p.\n  177 ff.\n\n  [379] Rivers, _The Todas_, p. 300 ff.\n\n  [380] _Odyssey_, iv, 730.\n\n  [381] Westermarck, _Origin and Development of the Moral\n  Ideas_, ii, 352; Dixon, _The Northern Maidu_, p. 269 f.\n\n  [382] H. Webster, _Primitive Secret Societies_, chap. ix; G.\n  Brown, _Melanesians and Polynesians_, pp. 60-78.\n\n  [383] Lev. viii; cf. Copleston, _Buddhism_, chap. xviii;\n  Lippert, _Priesterthum_ (see references in the headings to\n  the chapters).\n\n  [384] So in some Christian bodies.\n\n  [385] The details are given at great length by Westermarck,\n  op. cit., chap. xxxvii, with references to authorities.\n\n  [386] It is by nature nonsacred, and so remains so long as\n  it has not been made sacred by the special ceremonies that\n  abound in savage communities. We have here the germ of the\n  dualistic conception of man's constitution--the antagonism\n  between spirit and body.\n\n  [387] Hollis, _The Nandi_, pp. 58, 92.\n\n  [388] Cf. the danger to a common man of eating a chief's\n  food; see Frazer, _Golden Bough_, 2d ed., i, 321 f.\n\n  [389] Frazer, In _Journal of the Anthropological Institute_,\n  xv, 94, quoted by Westermarck.\n\n  [390] H. Spencer, _Principles of Sociology_, i, \u00a7 140.\n\n  [391] In Christianity in connection with the eucharistic\n  meal and other observances.\n\n  [392] The true principle is stated in Isa. lviii, 3 ff.\n\n  [393] Cf. article \"Calendar\" in Hastings, _Encyclop\u00e6dia of\n  Religion and Ethics_.\n\n  [394] For a series of dance seasons see Dixon, _The Northern\n  Maidu_, p. 283 ff.; cf. Basset, in Hastings, _Encyclop\u00e6dia\n  of Religion and Ethics_, ii, 513.\n\n  [395] Hollis, _The Nandi_, p. 94 ff.\n\n  [396] Hollis, _The Masai_, Index, s.v. _Moon_.\n\n  [397] Rivers, _The Todas_, Index, s.v. _Moon_.\n\n  [398] Hastings, _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics_, ii,\n  835.\n\n  [399] 1 Sam. xx, 6 (clan festival); Isa. i, 13; Numb.\n  xxviii, 11.\n\n  [400] Hastings, op. cit., ii, 555.\n\n  [401] Lev. xxiii, 33; Ps. lxxxi, 4 [3]. On the Sabbath as\n  perhaps full-moon day, see below, \u00a7 608.\n\n  [402] Hopkins, _Religions of India_, p. 449 ff.\n\n  [403] Buckley, in Saussaye's _Lehrbuch der\n  Religionsgeschichte_, 2d ed., p. 83.\n\n  [404] Jastrow, _Religion of Babylonia and Assyria_, p. 677\n  ff.\n\n  [405] Lev. xxiii, 23 f.; Numb. xxix, 1 ff. The Hebrew text\n  of Ezek. xl, 1, makes the year begin on the tenth day of\n  some month unnamed; but the Hebrew is probably to be\n  corrected after the Greek. Cf. Nowack, _Hebr\u00e4ische\n  Arch\u00e4ologie_, ii, 158 f.\n\n  [406] Fowler, _Roman Festivals_, p. 278.\n\n  [407] Cf. A. Mommsen, _Feste der Stadt Athen_ (1898), p. 55.\n\n  [408] J. W. Fewkes, \"The Winter Solstice Ceremony at Walpi\"\n  (in _The American Anthropologist_, xi).\n\n  [409] Prescott, _Peru_, i, 104, 127.\n\n  [410] A Saracen cult is described in _Nili opera qu\u00e6dam_\n  (Paris, 1639), pp. 28, 117.\n\n  [411] Hollis, _The Nandi_, p. 100; Rivers, _The Todas_, p.\n  593 ff.; cf. Dorsey, _The Skidi Pawnee_, p. xviii f.;\n  Hastings, _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics_, iii, 132 f.\n\n  [412] For some fasting observances in astral cults see\n  Westermarck, _Origin and Development of the Moral Ideas_,\n  ii, 312 f.\n\n  [413] As food is the most pressing need.\n\n  [414] Judg. ix, 27; Neh. viii, 10.\n\n  [415] A. Mommsen, _Feste der Stadt Athen_ (1898), Index,\n  s.vv.; Gardner and Jevons, _Greek Antiquities_, pp. 287 f.,\n  290, 292.\n\n  [416] Fowler, _Roman Festivals_, pp. 95 ff., 157 ff., 268\n  ff., 114, 124 ff., 241 ff.; cf. article \"Mars\" in Roscher,\n  _Lexikon_, col. 2416 f.\n\n  [417] Hopkins, _Religions of India_, p. 453 ff.\n\n  [418] Frazer, _Golden Bough_, 2d ed., iii, 78 f.\n\n  [419] A Babylonian festival of this sort (Sakea) is\n  mentioned by Athen\u00e6us (in _Deipnosophist\u00e6_, xiv, 639) on the\n  authority of Berosus, and \"Sakea\" has been identified with\n  \"zakmuk,\" the Babylonian New Year's Day (cf. the story in\n  Esth. vi); but the details of the festival and of the\n  Persian Sak\u00e6a (Strabo, xi, 8) are obscure.\n\n  [420] Lev. xxiii.\n\n  [421] see above, \u00a7 128.\n\n  [422] Hollis, _The Nandi_, p. 46 f.\n\n  [423] Gatschet, _Migration Legend of the Creeks_, p. 177 ff.\n\n  [424] Cf. the ceremony of the pharmakos in the festival of\n  the Thargelia (Miss Harrison, _Prolegomena to the Study of\n  Greek Religion_, p. 95 ff.).\n\n  [425] Frazer, _Golden Bough_ 2d ed., ii, 337 ff.\n\n  [426] This period has been generally held to be calendary.\n  Its calendary reality is denied by Legge (in _Recueil des\n  travaux_, xxxi) and Foucart (in Hastings, _Encyclop\u00e6dia of\n  Religion and Ethics_, article \"Calendar [Egyptian]\").\n\n  [427] A noteworthy instance of this persistence appears in\n  the history of the Bene-Israel, a body of Jews living in the\n  Bombay Presidency (article \"Bene-Israel\" in Hastings,\n  _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics_); they preserve the\n  Jewish religious festivals, but under Indian names.\n\n  [428] See above, \u00a7\u00a7 4, 7.\n\n  [429] The word \"fetish\" (from Portuguese _feiti\u00e7o_,\n  'artificial', then 'idol, charm,'), devised originally as a\n  name of charms used by the natives of the West African\n  coast, is often employed as a general name for early\n  religious practices. Its proper use is in the sense of a\n  dead object, as a piece of clay or a twig, in which, it is\n  held, a spirit dwells. The fetish is often practically a\n  god, often a household god; the interesting thing about it\n  is that the spirit, generally a tutelary spirit, can enter\n  the object or depart at will, may be brought in by\n  appropriate ceremonies, and may be dismissed when it is no\n  longer considered useful.\n\n  [430] Algonkin _manito_ or _manitu_ (W. Jones, in _Journal\n  of American Folklore_, xviii, 190); Iroquois _orenda_;\n  Siouan _wakonda_; Chickasa _hullo_ (_Journal of American\n  Folklore_, xx, 57); cf. the Masai _n'gai_, 'the unknown,\n  incomprehensible' (Hinde, _The Last of the Masai_, p. 99),\n  connected with storms and the telegraph. Other names perhaps\n  exist.\n\n  [431] Codrington, _The Melanesians_, Index, s.v. _Mana_.\n\n  [432] W. Jones, op. cit.\n\n  [433] It has therefore been compared to the modern idea of\n  force as inherent in matter.\n\n  [434] The American _manitu_ is an appellation of a personal\n  supernatural being. The Siouan _wakonda_ is invoked in\n  prayer (Miss Fletcher, _The Tree in the Dakotan Group_).\n\n  [435] Judg. xiv, 19; 1 Sam. xix, 23; Ezek. xxxix, 29. Fury\n  also is said to be poured out. Cf. Mark v, 30, where power\n  ([Greek: dynamis]) is said to go out of Jesus.\n\n  [436] Cf. the Greek _energeia_ and _entelecheia_.\n\n  [437] Cf. I. King, _The Development of Religion_, chap. vi.\n\n  [438] Examples in J. H. King, _The Supernatural_. Cf. T. S.\n  Knowlson, _Origins of Popular Superstitions_, etc.; T.\n  Keightley, _Fairy Mythology_.\n\n  [439] Cf. Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, 3d ed., ii, 229 ff.:\n  article \"Animals\" in Hastings, _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and\n  Ethics_.\n\n  [440] This may have been simply the transference to them of\n  human custom, or it may also have been suggested by the\n  obvious social organization of such animals as bees, ants,\n  goats, deer, monkeys.\n\n  [441] Turner, _Samoa_, pp. 21, 26.\n\n  [442] Batchelor, _The Ainu_, p. 27.\n\n  [443] W. R. Smith, _Religion of the Semites_, (new ed., see\n  p. 106) p. 128 f.\n\n  [444] A. Lang, _Myth, Ritual, and Religion_, i, 117 ff.\n\n  [445] Spencer and Gillen, _Native Tribes of Central\n  Australia_, pp. 389, 401. Some Australians believed in an\n  original gradual transformation of animals and plants into\n  human beings.\n\n  [446] On the conception of animals as ancestors see below, \u00a7\n  449 f.\n\n  [447] A demon may be defined as a supernatural being with\n  whom, for various reasons, men have not formed friendly\n  relations. Cf. W. R. Smith, _Religion of the Semites_, new\n  ed., p. 119 ff., on the Arabian jinn; De Groot, _Religion of\n  the Chinese_, p. 13 ff., for the Chinese belief in demonic\n  animals. On the origin, names, and functions of demons and\n  on exorcismal ceremonies connected with them see below, \u00a7 690\n  ff., and above, \u00a7 138 ff.\n\n  [448] So the Eskimo, the Ainu, the Redmen, and modern Arabs\n  in Africa; many other instances are cited by Frazer in his\n  _Golden Bough_, 2d ed., ii, 386 ff.\n\n  [449] Examples are found in many folk-stories of savages\n  everywhere.\n\n  [450] For other sacred animals see N. W. Thomas, article\n  \"Animals\" in Hastings, _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and\n  Ethics_.\n\n  [451] Turner, _Samoa_, p. 238.\n\n  [452] Frazer, _Golden Bough_, 2d ed., ii, 430 ff.; Thomas,\n  article \"Animals\" cited above; Shortland, _Traditions of New\n  Zealand_, iv; Marsden, _Sumatra_, p. 292; Schoolcraft,\n  _Indian Tribes_, i, 34; v, 652; Waitz, _Anthropologie_, iii,\n  190; Callaway, _Amazulus_, p. 196; A. B. Ellis, _The Tshi_,\n  p. 150; Mouhot, _Indo-China_, i, 252; J. Wasiljev,\n  _Heidnische Gebr\u00e4uche der Wotyaks_, pp. 26, 78, etc.; G. de\n  la Vega, _Comentarios Reales_, bk. i, chap. ix, etc. (Peru);\n  Miss Kingsley, _Travels_, p. 492.\n\n  [453] Turner, op. cit., p. 242; Castr\u00e9n, _Finnische\n  Mythologie_, pp. 106, 160, 189, etc.; Parkman, _Jesuits in\n  North America_ (1906), pp. 61 f., 66; Brinton, _Myths of the\n  New World_, pp. 3, 105, 127, 161, 175, 272; cf. Acosta,\n  _Historia de las Indias_, bk. v, chap. iv.\n\n  [454] So Zeus and bull, Artemis and bear, Aphrodite and\n  dove, and many other examples. In such cases it is generally\n  useless to try to discover a resemblance between the\n  character of the god and that of the associated animal.\n  There is simply, as a rule, a coalescence of cults, or an\n  absorption of the earlier cult in the later.\n\n  [455] The particular conditions that induced this cult in\n  Egypt escape us. See the works on Egyptian religion by\n  Maspero, Wiedemann, Erman, Steindorff, and others.\n\n  [456] On the curious attitude of medieval Europe toward\n  animals as legally responsible beings see E. P. Evans, _The\n  Criminal Prosecution and Capital Punishment of Animals_.\n\n  [457] Spencer and Gillen, _Native Tribes of Central\n  Australia_, chap. x. Two superhuman creators are said to\n  have transformed themselves into lizards (ibid. p. 389 ff.).\n\n  [458] Batchelor, _The Ainu_, p. 35 ff.\n\n  [459] Matthews, _Navaho Legends_, pp. 80, 223; Dixon, _The\n  Northern Maidu_, p. 263.\n\n  [460] Brinton, _Myths of the New World_, p. 269; cf. article\n  \"Animals\" in Hastings, _Encyclop\u00e6dia Of Religion and\n  Ethics_.\n\n  [461] See above, \u00a7 253, for the Egyptian cult.\n\n  [462] References to Stow's _Native Races of South Africa_\n  and Merensky's _Beitr\u00e4ge_ are given in Hastings,\n  _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics_, i, 522.\n\n  [463] Cushing, in _The Century Magazine_, 1883; Tylor,\n  _Primitive Culture_, ii, 243 f.\n\n  [464] Crooke, _Popular Religion and Folklore of Northern\n  India_, ii, 213.\n\n  [465] Hopkins, _Religions of India_, pp. 527, 539; Crooke,\n  op. cit.; Fewkes, \"The Winter Solstice Ceremony at Walpi,\"\n  p. 17 ff.\n\n  [466] For a fanciful connection between the sun-myth and the\n  spider see Frobenius, _Childhood of Man_, chap. xxiii.\n\n  [467] A somewhat vague Naga (snake) being of this sort is\n  noted (Hopkins, _Religions of India_, p. 539). The relation\n  between the Australian supernatural being Bunjil (or Punjil)\n  and the eagle-hawk is not clear. Cf. Howitt, _Native Tribes\n  of South-East Australia_, Index; Spencer and Gillen, _Native\n  Tribes of Central Australia_, Index.\n\n  [468] See below, \u00a7 635 f.\n\n  [469] A special form of man's relations with animals is\n  considered below under \"Totemism.\"\n\n  [470] For example, in Sumatra, offerings are made to the\n  \"soul of the rice\"; there is fear of frightening the\n  rice-spirit, and ceremonies are performed in its honor; see\n  Wilken, _Het Animisme bij de Volken van den Indischen\n  Archipel_; Kruyt, _De Rijstmoeder van den Indischen\n  Archipel_, 389. It has been suggested that the prohibition\n  of yeast in the Hebrew mazzot (unleavened bread) festival\n  may have come originally from fear of frightening the spirit\n  of the grain. It may have been, however, merely the\n  retention of an old custom (if the grain was eaten\n  originally without yeast), which later (as sometimes\n  happened in the case of old customs) was made sacred by its\n  age, was adopted into the religious code, and so became\n  obligatory.\n\n  [471] This conception survives in the expressions \"spirit of\n  wine,\" etc., and Cassio's \"invisible spirit of wine\" easily\n  passes into a \"devil.\"\n\n  [472] This distinction is made in a somewhat formal way by\n  the Ainu, a very rude people (Batchelor, _The Ainu_, chap.\n  xxxiii).\n\n  [473] W. R. Smith, _Religion of the Semites_, 2d ed., p. 132\n  f.\n\n  [474] Frazer, _Totemism and Exogamy_, Index, s.vv. _totems_,\n  _ancestors_.\n\n  [475] Spencer and Gillen, _Native Tribes of Central\n  Australia_, pp. 112, 116. Many other plant totems are\n  mentioned by Frazer in his _Totemism and Exogamy_.\n\n  [476] Turner, _Samoa_, pp. 32, 39, 43, 72.\n\n  [477] This relation was not necessarily totemic--it may have\n  been of a general character, of which totemism is a special\n  form.\n\n  [478] Frazer, _Golden Bough_, 2d ed., i, 179 ff.\n\n  [479] Cf. articles \"Asylum\" in Hastings, _Encyclop\u00e6dia of\n  Religion and Ethics_, and _Jewish Encyclopedia_.\n\n  [480] W. R. Smith, _Religion of the Semites_, 2d ed., pp.\n  133, 195; Hopkins, in _Journal of the American Oriental\n  Society_, xxx (1910), 4, p. 352.\n\n  [481] Miss Godden, in _Journal of the Anthropological\n  Institute_, xxvi, 186 ff.\n\n  [482] W. Crooke, _Popular Religion and Folklore of Northern\n  India_, new ed., ii, 85 ff.; cf. Hopkins, \"Mythological\n  Aspects of Trees, etc.,\" in _Journal of the American\n  Oriental Society_, September, 1910.\n\n  [483] _Rig-Veda_, ix al.; Muir, _Original Sanskrit Texts_,\n  v; Hillebrandt, _Vedische Mythologie_, i, 450; Hopkins,\n  _Religions of India_, p. 112 ff.\n\n  [484] Spiegel, _Eranische Alterthumskunde_, ii, 114 ff.;\n  Tiele-Gehrich, _Geschichte der Religion im Alterium_, ii,\n  ii, p. 234 ff.\n\n  [485] Mannhardt, _Baumkultus_ and _Antike Wald- und\n  Feldkulte_; Frazer, _Golden Bough_, Index, s.v.\n  _Corn-spirit_.\n\n  [486] Cf. below, \u00a7 751 ff.\n\n  [487] The connection between such posts and the\n  North-Semitic goddess Ashera is uncertain.\n\n  [488] Ward, _Seal-cylinders of Western Asia_.\n\n  [489] Cf. the suggestion of A. R\u00e9ville (in his _Prol\u00e9gom\u00e8nes\n  de l'histoire des religions_) that images arose in part from\n  natural woods bearing a fancied resemblance to the human\n  form.\n\n  [490] Boas, _The Kwakiutl_; Swanton, \"Seattle Totem Pole,\"\n  in _Journal of American Folklore_ vol. xviii, no. 69 (April,\n  1905).\n\n  [491] See below, \"Totemism,\" \u00a7 449 f.\n\n  [492] Crooke, _Popular Religion and Folklore of Northern\n  India_, ii, 115 ff.\n\n  [493] Pausanias, x, 31, 4; Roscher, _Lexikon_, article\n  \"Meleagros.\"\n\n  [494] Frazer, _Golden Bough_, 2d ed., iii, 391 ff.\n\n  [495] Gen. iii; cf. Hopkins, in _Journal of the American\n  Oriental Society_, September, 1910. Whether the golden\n  apples of the Hesperides had the life-giving quality is\n  doubtful.\n\n  [496] This appears from a comparison of Gen. iii, 3 with ii,\n  17.\n\n  [497] Gen. iii, 5, 22.\n\n  [498] He is, perhaps, a diminished and conventionalized form\n  of the old chaos dragon.\n\n  [499] On the various names and characters of this cosmic\n  tree see Saussaye, _Religion of the Teutons_, p. 347 ff.\n\n  [500] _Rig-Veda_, x, 81, 4.\n\n  [501] 2 Sam. v, 24.\n\n  [502] Judg. ix, 37.\n\n  [503] See below, \u00a7 935 ff.\n\n  [504] This is the case with all spirits that social needs do\n  not force man to give names to.\n\n  [505] Rhys Davids, _Buddhist India_, p. 232.\n\n  [506] See above, \u00a7 252 f.\n\n  [507] Ex. iii, 2 ff.; Deut. xxxiii, 16; Acts vii, 30, 35.\n\n  [508] See _Journal of the American Oriental Society_, xxx,\n  353 f., for possible examples.\n\n  [509] A list of such titles is given by C. Boetticher in his\n  _Baumkultus der Hellenen und R\u00f6mer_, chap. iv.\n\n  [510] Dionysos is a bull-god as well as a tree-god.\n\n  [511] _Dawn of Civilization_, p. 12.\n\n  [512] Hopkins, _Religions of India_, p. 533.\n\n  [513] On the Soma cult see above, \u00a7 270.\n\n  [514] \u00a7 271.\n\n  [515] Lev. xvi.\n\n  [516] Gruppe, _Culte und Mythen_; Roscher, _Lexikon_. Cf.\n  the developed cults of Vishnu and \u00c7iva.\n\n  [517] On Osiris and Isis see below, \u00a7 728 f.\n\n  [518] Some instances of worship are given in Frazer's\n  _Golden Bough_, 2d ed., i, 181, 189, 191. Frazer sometimes\n  uses the term 'tree worship' where all that is meant is\n  respect for trees as powerful things.\n\n  [519] See \u00a7 253 ff.\n\n  [520] See _Revue de l'histoire des religions_, 1881.\n\n  [521] So in Central Australia (Spencer and Gillen, _Native\n  Tribes of Central Australia_, pp. 123 f., 137).\n\n  [522] The rock whence came the stones thrown by Deucalion\n  and Pyrrha (the origin of the human race) also gave birth to\n  Agdistis _mugitibus editis multis_, according to Arnobius,\n  _Adversus Nationes_, v, 5. Mithra's birth from a rock\n  (Roscher, _Lexikon_) is perhaps a bit of late poetical or\n  philosophical imagery.\n\n  [523] For various powers of stones, involving many human\n  interests, see indexes in Tylor's _Primitive Culture_,\n  Frazer's _Golden Bough_, and Hartland's _Primitive\n  Paternity_, s.v. _Stone_ or _Stones_.\n\n  [524] Festus, p. 2; see the remarks of Marquardt, _R\u00f6mische\n  Staatsverwaltung_; Aust, _Religion der R\u00f6mer_, p. 121; and\n  Fowler, _Roman Festivals_, p. 232 f. On the relation between\n  the lapis and Juppiter Elicius, see Wissowa, _Religion und\n  Kultus der R\u00f6mer_, p. 106; cf. Roscher, _Lexikon_, article\n  \"Iuppiter,\" col. 606 ff.\n\n  [525] See above, \u00a7 97 ff.\n\n  [526] On processes of capturing a god in order to inclose\n  him in an object, or of transferring a god from one object\n  to another, see W. Crooke, \"The Binding of a God,\" in\n  _Folklore_, viii.\n\n  [527] In pre-Islamic Arabia many gods were represented by\n  stones, the stone being generally identified with the deity;\n  so Al-L\u00e2t, Dhu ash-Shara (Dusares), and the deities\n  represented by the stones in the Meccan Kaaba.\n\n  [528] Livy, xxix, 10 f.\n\n  [529] 1 Sam. iv.\n\n  [530] Head, _Historia Numorum_, p. 661.\n\n  [531] Tacitus, _Hist._ ii, 3; it was conical in shape.\n\n  [532] Fowler, _Roman Festivals_ p. 230 ff.; cf. above, the\n  \"lapis manalis,\" \u00a7 289.\n\n  [533] Herodian, v, 3, 10.\n\n  [534] Pausanias, vii, 22. Cf. Tylor, _Primitive Culture_,\n  ii, 160 ff.\n\n  [535] H. Spencer, _Principles of Sociology_, i, 335;\n  Saussaye, _Manual of the Science of Religion_ (Eng. tr.), p.\n  85 ff.\n\n  [536] Gen. xxviii, 18; cf. Smith, _Religion of the Semites_,\n  2d ed., p. 203 f.\n\n  [537] Hos. iii, 4.\n\n  [538] The reference in Jer. ii, 27, Hab. ii, 19 (stones as\n  parents and teachers), seems to be to the cult of foreign\n  deities, represented by images.\n\n  [539] On the interpretation of the masseba as a phallus or a\n  kteis see below, \u00a7\u00a7 400, 406.\n\n  [540] And so in Assyrian and Arabic.\n\n  [541] There is no Greek etymology for _baitulos_, and if it\n  came from without, a Semitic origin is the most probable.\n\n  [542] Eusebius, _Praeparatio Evangelica_, i, 10, 18.\n\n  [543] _Hist. Nat._, bk. xxxvii, chap. 51.\n\n  [544] Cf. F. Lenormant, in _Revue de l'histoire des\n  religions_, iii, 31 ff.; Gruppe, _Griechische Mythologie_,\n  p. 775 f.\n\n  [545] For Phoenician customs see Pietschmann, _Ph\u00f6nisier_,\n  p. 204 ff.\n\n  [546] Cf. Deut. x, 2; Ex. xxv, 16; 2 Chr. v, 10, where the\n  stone in the ark seems to have become two stone tables on\n  which the decalogue was written by the finger of Yahweh--an\n  example, if the view mentioned above be correct, of the\n  transformation of a thing originally divine in itself into\n  an accessory of a god.\n\n  [547] Cf. Hughes, _Dictionary of Islam_, s.v. _Kaaba_;\n  Wellhausen, _Reste arabischen Heidentumes_, pp. 99, 171.\n\n  [548] On the relation between the stone heaps and the Hermes\n  pillars cf. Welcker, _Griechische G\u00f6tterlehre_, ii, 455, and\n  Roscher, _Lexikon_, i, 2, col. 2382. With Hermes as guide of\n  travelers cf. the Egyptian Khem (Min), of Coptos, as\n  protector of wanderers in the desert, and perhaps Eshmun in\n  the Sardinian trilingual inscription (see Roscher,\n  _Lexikon_, article \"Esmun\"; _Orientalische Studien N\u00f6ldeke\n  gewidmet_).\n\n  [549] See below, \u00a7 1080.\n\n  [550] W. R. Smith, _Religion of the Semites_, 2d ed., pp.\n  202, 341; cf. Jevons, _Introduction to the History of\n  Religion_, chap. xi; article \"Altar\" in Hastings,\n  _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics_.\n\n  [551] Lev. xvi, 19.\n\n  [552] For some methods of such introduction see W. Crooke,\n  in _Folklore_, viii.\n\n  [553] Herodotus, ii, 44; he identifies Melkart with\n  Herakles.\n\n  [554] 1 Kings, vii, 15-22; Ezek. xl, 49.\n\n  [555] Perrot and Chipiez, _Histoire de l'art_, vol. iii; cf.\n  Pletschmann, _Ph\u00f6nizier_, p. 203 ff.; Rawlinson,\n  _Phoenicia_, p. 338.\n\n  [556] Cf. below, \u00a7 399 ff.\n\n  [557] W. R. Smith, _Religion of the Semites_, 2d ed., p. 487\n  ff.\n\n  [558] Strabo, iii, 5, 5.\n\n  [559] Those of Solomon's temple are described as being 27\n  feet in height, and without stairways. Cf. the structures\n  connected with the Hierapolis temple (Lucian, _De Syria\n  Dea_, 28).\n\n  [560] Desire for height appears also in the Egyptian pyramid\n  and the Babylonian ziggurat, but both these had means of\n  ascent to the higher levels. Cf. below, \u00a7 1085.\n\n  [561] Maspero, _Egyptian Arch\u00e6ology_, p. 100 ff.\n\n  [562] The movement from aniconic to anthropomorphic forms is\n  seen in the image of the Ephesian Artemis, the upper half\n  human, the lower half a pillar (Roscher, _Lexikon_, i, 1,\n  cols. 588, 595).\n\n  [563] Examples in Tylor's _Primitive Culture_, 2d ed., ii,\n  170 f.; cf. his _Early History of Mankind_, chap. vi.\n\n  [564] Spencer and Gillen, _Native Tribes of Central\n  Australia_, p. 188, etc.\n\n  [565] Matthews, _Navaho Legends_, index, s.v. _Mountains_;\n  article \"Bengal\" in Hastings, _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and\n  Ethics_; Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, ii, 260; Hollis, _The\n  Nandi_, p. 48.\n\n  [566] Hopkins, _Religions of India_, pp. 358 ff., 537, and\n  _Journal of the American Oriental Society_, September, 1910.\n\n  [567] On a general relation between gods and local hills see\n  Rivers, _The Todas_, p. 444.\n\n  [568] Jastrow, _Religion of Babylonia and Assyria_, pp. 541,\n  638; cf. Isa. xiv, 13. Many Babylonian temples, considered\n  as abodes of gods, were called \"mountains.\"\n\n  [569] Hopkins, in _Journal of the American Oriental\n  Society_, loc. cit., where the mythical mountains of the\n  Mahabharata are described.\n\n  [570] _Iliad_ viii, 2 al.\n\n  [571] Bastian, \"Vorstellungen von Wasser und Feuer,\" in\n  _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Ethnologie_, i; Tylor, _Primitive Culture_,\n  2d ed., ii, 209 ff., 274 ff.; W. R. Smith, _Religion of the\n  Semites_, lecture v.\n\n  [572] Polybius, vii, 9.\n\n  [573] Num. v.\n\n  [574] Job vii, 12.\n\n  [575] Herodotus, vi, 76.\n\n  [576] _Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society_, x, 179; Bell,\n  _Maldive Islands_, p. 73.\n\n  [577] In Titus iii, 5, the reference seems to be to baptism.\n\n  [578] De Groot, _Religion of the Chinese_, p. 10 f.; cf. the\n  German Lorelei.\n\n  [579] Frazer (in _Anthropological Essays presented to E. B.\n  Tylor_) sees a river-god in the figure mentioned in Gen.\n  xxxii, 24.\n\n  [580] Cf. John v, 4 (in some MSS.).\n\n  [581] This is W. R. Smith's contention in _Religion of the\n  Semites_, lecture v. See his account of Semitic water-gods\n  in general.\n\n  [582] Turner, _Samoa_, p. 345 f. Cf. the Roman lapis\n  manalis; see above, \u00a7 136.\n\n  [583] A large number of examples are given by Frazer in his\n  _Golden Bough_, 2d ed., i, 81 f., al.\n\n  [584] Brinton, _Myths of the New World_, p. 17; Spencer and\n  Gillen, _Native Tribes of Central Australia_, p. 189 f.\n\n  [585] One signification (not a probable one) proposed for\n  the name Yahweh is, 'he who causes (rain) to fall.'\n\n  [586] Examples of such gods, in Africa, America, and Asia,\n  are given in Tylor's _Primitive Culture_, ii, 259 ff.\n\n  [587] Hopkins, _Religions of India_, p. 99 ff.\n\n  [588] So in the _Secrets of Enoch_ (ed. R. H. Charles),\n  chaps. iv-vi, the treasuries of rain and dew in the lowest\n  heaven are guarded by angels.\n\n  [589] Jastrow, _Religion of Babylonia and Assyria_, Index,\n  s.vv.\n\n  [590] Matthews, _Navaho Legends_, p. 37; Dorsey, _The Skidi\n  Pawnee_, p. 8; Teit, _Thompson River Indians_, p. 56 f.; R.\n  Taylor, _New Zealand and its Inhabitants_, p. 130; Hopkins,\n  _Religions of India_, p. 168, n. 1; Roscher, _Lexikon_,\n  article \"Prometheus.\" Accounts of the original production or\n  the theft of fire are found in savage mythology the world\n  over; see Frobenius, _Childhood of Man_, chaps. xxv-xxvii;\n  Seligmann, _The Melanesians of British New Guinea_, p. 379;\n  Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, ii, 277 ff.; O. T. Mason,\n  _Origins of Invention_, chap. iii.\n\n  [591] So among the Todas (Rivers, _The Todas_, p. 437) and\n  the Nandi (Hollis, _The Nandi_, p. 85).\n\n  [592] On an identification of Agni with fire see Bloomfield,\n  _Religion of the Veda_, p. 158 ff.\n\n  [593] See Chap. VI.\n\n  [594] Shahrastani (12th century), _Kitab al-Milal\n  wa'l-Nihal_, a sketch of religions and philosophical sects,\n  Moslem and other (Germ. tr. by Haarbr\u00fccker, p. 298 f.).\n\n  [595] Hopkins observes (_Religions of India_, p. 105) that\n  originally fire (Agni), in distinction from sun and\n  lightning, is the fire of sacrifice. Cf. Bloomfield,\n  _Religion of the Veda_, p. 157.\n\n  [596] Rivers, _The Todas_, p. 437; cf. the ceremony\n  described on page 290 f.\n\n  [597] A. M. Tozzer, _Comparative Study of the Mayas and the\n  Lacandones_, p. 133.\n\n  [598] Prescott, _Peru_, i, 106 f.\n\n  [599] Plutarch, _Aristides_, 20.\n\n  [600] The Hebrew expression, rendered in the English version\n  \"cause to pass through fire,\" means simply 'devote by fire.'\n\n  [601] Ex. xix, 18; Ezek. i, 4; Ps. xviii, 9 [604];\n  _Rig-Veda_, iii, 26, 7 (Indra).\n\n  [602] Rivers, _The Todas_, p. 437. In Gen. i, 3, light\n  appears before the creation of the heavenly bodies.\n\n  [603] So in Carinthia, the Tyrol, and neighboring districts\n  (Wuttke, _Der deutsche Volksaberglaube der Gegenwart_, p.\n  86).\n\n  [604] Dorsey, _The Skidi Pawnee_, p. xix.\n\n  [605] See below, \u00a7 662, etc.\n\n  [606] Ps. xviii, 11 [10]; civ, 3 f.\n\n  [607] _Iliad_, xxiii, 194 ff.\n\n  [608] Spencer and Gillen, _Native Tribes of Central\n  Australia_, chap. xviii; Rivers, _The Todas_, p. 595.\n\n  [609] W. Matthews, _Navaho Legends_, pp. 80, 223.\n\n  [610] Breasted, _History of Egypt_, p. 55; Taylor, _New\n  Zealand_, p. 119; Hollis, _The Masai_, p. 279; cf. Turner,\n  _Samoa_, p. 283.\n\n  [611] Teit, _Thompson River Indians_, p. 55 (the present sun\n  is the daughter of a man sun).\n\n  [612] See examples in Tylor's _Primitive Culture_, i, 290\n  ff.\n\n  [613] On the position of the sun and moon in the later cults\n  see below, Chap. VI.\n\n  [614] Teit, op. cit., p. 54.\n\n  [615] See the elaborate Pawnee history of gods (Dorsey, _The\n  Skidi Pawnee_).\n\n  [616] See Chap. VI f.\n\n  [617] On the genesial (urano-chthonic) conception of the\n  world in Polynesia see Tautain, in _Anthropologie_, vii\n  (1896).\n\n  [618] Hollis, _The Nandi_, p. 113.\n\n  [619] Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, i, 363; ii, 262.\n\n  [620] Ps. xxix, 3; xviii, 14, 15 [13, 14].\n\n  [621] _Iliad_, viii, 76 f.; xxi, 198, etc. The thunderbolt\n  of Zeus is said in Hesiod, _Theogonia_, 140 f., to be forged\n  by the Cyclops.\n\n  [622] Bastian, _Beitr\u00e4ge_; H. Spencer, _Principles of\n  Sociology_ and _Principles of Ethics_; Grant Allen,\n  _Evolution of the Idea of God_; Waitz-Gerland,\n  _Anthropologie der Naturv\u00f6lker_; Lippert, _Allgemeine\n  Geschichte des Priesterthums_; Tylor, _Primitive Culture_;\n  Codrington, _The Melanesians_; Frazer, _Golden Bough_;\n  Wilken, _Handleiding voor de Vergelykende Volkenkunde van\n  Nederlandsch-Indi\u00eb_; Steinmetz, _Ethnologische Studien zur\n  ersten Entwicklung der Strafe_; Westermarck, _Origin and\n  Development of the Moral Ideas_, Index, s.vv. _Kings_,\n  _Man-gods_; Religions of Egypt (Maspero, Meyer, Wiedemann,\n  Breasted, Steindorff), Babylonia (Jastrow), India (Barth,\n  Hopkins), China (De Groot), Greece (Gruppe), Rome (Auer),\n  etc.\n\n  [623] _Golden Bough_, 2d ed., i, 139 ff.\n\n  [624] Rivers, _The Todas_, p. 448.\n\n  [625] Monier-Williams, _Religious Life and Thought in\n  India_, p. 259. See the cases mentioned by Hopkins,\n  _Religions of India_, p. 522 n.\n\n  [626] For the documents see Breasted, _Ancient Records of\n  Egypt_.\n\n  [627] Rawlinson, _Egypt_, ii, 40 f., 84; Ed. Meyer,\n  _Geschichte des Alten Aegyptens_, p. 252.\n\n  [628] When in a compound name the name of a god stands\n  first, the determinative may refer simply to the god; it is\n  evidence for the man only when it stands immediately before\n  the nondivine element of the royal name. The inscriptions\n  are given in Schrader, _Keilinschriftliche Bibliothek_, III,\n  i; Thureau-Dangin, _Sumerisch-Akkadische K\u00f6nigsinschriften_.\n  In the Code of Hammurabi (ca. 2000 B.C.) the king in one\n  place (col. 5, ll. 4, 5) calls himself \"the Shamash of\n  Babylon,\" but this is of course a figure of speech; the code\n  is given him by Shamash, the god of justice, and he assumes\n  to be no less just than the god whom he here represents.\n\n  [629] For a different view see S. H. Langdon, article\n  \"Babylonian Eschatology\" in _Essays in Modern Theology and\n  Related Subjects_ (the C. A. Briggs memorial volume).\n\n  [630] Cf. the Chinese and Japanese views mentioned above.\n  Among the Mongols there seems to be no trace of such a cult\n  (Buckley, in Saussaye, _Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichte_,\n  2d ed.), but a similar one is found in Tibet in Lamaism.\n\n  [631] Ex. xxii, 28 [27]. Cursing the deity (that is, the\n  national or the local god) is mentioned several times in the\n  Old Testament. Eli's sons committed this offense (1 Sam.\n  iii, 13, corrected text), and Job feared that his sons might\n  have been guilty of it (Job i, 5, where the old Jewish\n  scribes, _causa reverentiae_, have changed \"curse\" into\n  \"bless,\"--so also in i, 11; ii, 5, 9).\n\n  [632] _Adonis Attis Osiris_, p. 15 ff.\n\n  [633] 2 Sam. xiv, 17.\n\n  [634] Isa. ix, 6 [5].\n\n  [635] Ps. lviii, 1 [2]; lxxxii, 1, 6. This last passage,\n  however, is understood in John x, 34 f., to refer to Jewish\n  men. The Hebrew text of Ps. xiv, 7 [6], is corrupt.\n\n  [636] De Groot, _Religion of the Chinese_. This is the\n  philosophical form of the dogma. The root of the conception\n  is to be found, doubtless, in the old (savage) view that the\n  chief of the tribe has quasi-divine attributes.\n\n  [637] Knox, _Religion in Japan_, p. 64.\n\n  [638] In _Alexander_, 28. In the case of Alexander the\n  influence of Egypt is apparent, and it may be suspected that\n  this influence affected the later Greek and Roman custom.\n\n  [639] Appian, _De Rebus Syriacis_, lxv.\n\n  [640] Acts xii, 22.\n\n  [641] Boissier, _La religion romaine_ (1878), i, 131 ff.\n\n  [642] Suetonius, _Caligula_, xxii.\n\n  [643] On the demand for a universal religion in the Roman\n  Empire, and the preparation in the earlier cults for the\n  worship of the emperors, see J. Iverach's article \"C\u00e6sarism\"\n  in Hastings, _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics_;\n  Boissier, op. cit., bk. i, chap. ii.\n\n  [644] Spiegel, _Eranische Alterthumskunde_, bk. iv, chap.\n  iii.\n\n  [645] See the story of the power and fall of a great muni in\n  Lassen's _Anthologia Sanscritica_.\n\n  [646] So, many Christian and Moslem saints have been\n  wonder-workers without being divinized.\n\n  [647] Monier-Williams, _Brahmanism and Hinduism_, p. 510 f.\n\n  [648] _Fortnightly Review_, 1872.\n\n  [649] Stair, _Samoa_, p. 221; article \"Bengal\" in Hastings,\n  _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics_ (Brahmans often become\n  evil spirits).\n\n  [650] _The Todas_, pp. 193, 203, 446.\n\n  [651] _The E[\u00b4w]e-speaking Peoples_, p. 88 ff.\n\n  [652] Breasted, _Records of Ancient Egypt_.\n\n  [653] \u00a7 357.\n\n  [654] Here, as in the case of the divinization of living men\n  (\u00a7 347 n., above), outside suggestion is probable.\n\n  [655] Cf. article \"C\u00e6sarism\" in Hastings, _Encyclop\u00e6dia of\n  Religion and Ethics_.\n\n  [656] Boissier, _La religion romaine_, i, 182. An\n  illustration of religious ideas in the third century is\n  afforded by the enrollment of Caracalla among the heroes, a\n  divinizing decree of the Senate having been extorted by the\n  turbulent and mercenary soldiery (Dio Cassius, ed.\n  Boissevain [Eng. tr. by H. B. Foster], lxxix, 9).\n\n  [657] A. M\u00fcller, _Islam_, i, 494; W. Muir, _The Caliphate_,\n  p. 553 ff.\n\n  [658] In Isa. lxiii, 16, 'Abraham' appears to be a synonym\n  of 'Israel,' and the reference then is to the nonrecognition\n  of certain Jews by the national leaders.\n\n  [659] The narratives of the Pentateuch; Herodotus, v, 66;\n  Pausanias, i, 5, 1.\n\n  [660] Article \"Romulus\" in Roscher's _Lexikon_.\n\n  [661] See below, \u00a7 652.\n\n  [662] Herodotus, v, 66 al.\n\n  [663] Saussaye, _Religion of the Teutons_, pp. 163, 170,\n  206.\n\n  [664] The Ojibwa god Manabozho (described in Schoolcraft's\n  _Algic Researches_) by some inadvertence got the name\n  'Hiawatha,' and so appears in Longfellow's poem. The real\n  Hiawatha was a distinguished Iroquois statesman (supposed to\n  be of the fifteenth century), the founder of the Iroquois\n  League, honored as a patriot, but never worshiped as a god.\n  See H. Hale, _Iroquois Book of Rites_, Index, s.v.\n  _Hiawatha_; Beauchamp, in _Journal of American Folklore_,\n  October, 1891.\n\n  [665] F. Pfister, _Der Reliquienkult im Altertum_.\n\n  [666] Spencer, _Principles of Sociology_, i; Grant Allen,\n  _Evolution of the Idea of God_. See below, \u00a7 631 ff.\n\n  [667] Westermarck, _Origin and Development of the Moral\n  Ideas_, Index, s.v. _Dead_; Grant Allen, op. cit.; article\n  \"Ancestor-worship\" in Hastings, _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion\n  and Ethics_.\n\n  [668] Cf. above, Chap. II.\n\n  [669] Steinmetz (_Ethnologische Studien zur ersten\n  Entwicklung der Strafe_, p. 280 ff.) has attempted a\n  collection and interpretation of the usages of nearly two\n  hundred tribes, but his reckoning is not satisfactory--his\n  enumeration is not complete, and the facts are not\n  sufficiently well certified. He concludes that cases of fear\n  are twice as numerous as those of love.\n\n  [670] Westermarck, _Origin and Development of the Moral\n  Ideas_, chap. xiv.\n\n  [671] Spencer and Gillen, _Northern Tribes Of Central\n  Australia_, pp. 516 f., 520 f.\n\n  [672] Cf. Codrington, _The Melanesians_, p. 271 f.\n\n  [673] The conception of such meals as physical and spiritual\n  communion with the dead was a later development.\n\n  [674] The buffoonery that was sometimes practiced at Roman\n  funerals seems to have come from the natural love of fun,\n  here particularly, also, through the reaction from the\n  oppressive solemnity of the occasion.\n\n  [675] Howitt and Fison, _Kamilaroi and Kurnai_, p. 246 ff.\n\n  [676] Taylor, _New Zealand_, pp. 104, 108.\n\n  [677] Codrington, _The Melanesians_, pp. 194, 253 f.;\n  Powell, _Wanderings_, p. 170.\n\n  [678] Ellis, _Madagascar_, i, 23, 423.\n\n  [679] Callaway, _The Amazulu_, pp. 145, 151.\n\n  [680] A. B. Ellis, _The E[\u00b4w]e_, p. 102 f.\n\n  [681] Steinmetz, _Ethnologische Studien zur ersten\n  Entwicklung der Strafe_. A. L. Kroeber (in _Journal of\n  American Folklore_, 1904) gives an account of a\n  'ghost-dance' in Northwest California, the object of which\n  was said to be that the dead might return, though the\n  details are obscure.\n\n  [682] Some such custom seems to be referred to in Deut.\n  xxvi, 14.\n\n  [683] Fritsch, _Die Eingeborenen S\u00fcd-Afrikas_.\n\n  [684] Mariner, _Tonga_, p. 149.\n\n  [685] Wellhausen, _Reste arabischen Heidentumes_, p. 162 f.;\n  Goldziher, in _Revue de l'histoire des religions_, x. So the\n  Egyptian fellahin to-day.\n\n  [686] Codrington, _The Melanesians_, p. 219 f.; Bonney, in\n  _Journal of the Anthropological Institute_, xiii, 122 ff.;\n  Haddon, _Head-hunters_, pp. 91 f., 183; G. Allen, _Evolution\n  of the Idea of God_, chap. iii.\n\n  [687] Sir G. S. Robertson, _The Kafirs of the Hindu Kush_,\n  pp. 645 ff., 615 ff., 414 f.\n\n  [688] Breasted, _Egypt_, p. 421, etc.\n\n  [689] Jastrow, _Religion of Babylonia and Assyria_, p. 604\n  f.\n\n  [690] Deut. xxvi, 14; Hos. ix, 4; Ezek. xxiv, 17 (revised\n  text); Isa. viii, 19; 1 Sam. xxviii, 13.\n\n  [691] _Rig-Veda_, x, 15; Hopkins, _Religions of India_, p.\n  143 f.\n\n  [692] Spiegel, _Eranische Alterthumskunde_, ii, 91 ff.\n\n  [693] _Odyssey_, xi, 74 ff.; cf. xxiv, 63 ff.\n\n  [694] _Odyssey_, x, 519 ff.; xi, 25 ff.\n\n  [695] Stengel and Oehmichen, _Die griechischen\n  Sakralaltert\u00fcmer_, p. 99 f.\n\n  [696] Gardner and Jevons, _Greek Antiquities_, p. 158 ff.;\n  Gruppe, _Griechische Mythologie_, Index, s.v. _Heros_;\n  Deneken, article \"Heros\" in Roscher, _Lexikon_. Lists of\n  heroes are given by F. Pfister, in _Der Reliquienkult im\n  Altertum_.\n\n  [697] Thucydides, v, 11; Pausanias, i, 32. For other\n  examples, and for the details of the cult, see Stengel and\n  Oehmichen, _Die griechischen Sakralaltert\u00fcmer_, p. 96 ff.\n\n  [698] Similar functions are performed by saints in some\n  Buddhist, Christian, and Moslem communities.\n\n  [699] Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encyclop\u00e4die der classischen\n  Altertumswissenschaft_; Miss J. E. Harrison, _Prolegomena to\n  the Study of Greek Religion_, chap. ii, and the references\n  in these works. On the _Keres_ as ghosts see Crusius, in\n  Roscher's _Lexikon_, s.v. _Keren_, and Harrison, op. cit.,\n  chap. v.\n\n  [700] Ovid, _Fasti_, v, 439 ff., _manes exite paterni_; cf.\n  the Greek proverbial expression [Greek: thyraze kares]\n  (Suidas, s.v. [Greek: thyraze]).\n\n  [701] De Groot, _Religion of the Chinese_, chap. iii.\n\n  [702] Aston, _Shinto_; Knox, _Religion in Japan_, p. 66 f.\n\n  [703] 1 Sam. xxviii.\n\n  [704] Cf. also the Teutonic valkyrs and nornas.\n\n  [705] See above, \u00a7 359. The wide prevalence of the theory in\n  ancient times is indicated by its adoption in the\n  Gr\u00e6co-Jewish _Wisdom of Solomon_ (of the first century\n  B.C.), chap. xiv, and by some Roman writers.\n\n  [706] \u00a7 262 ff.\n\n  [707] For example, in Australia, Fiji, New Guinea, and\n  India.\n\n  [708] Greece, Rome (Lupercalia), Egypt, and apparently in\n  Israel (Ex. xxxii, 6; Numb. xxv).\n\n  [709] In carnivals and many less elaborate customs.\n\n  [710] See above, \u00a7 34.\n\n  [711] It was observable in the lower animals, but in their\n  case was not regarded as religiously important. See below,\n  \u00a7 419, for the connection of animals with phallic cults.\n\n  [712] \u00a7 158 ff.\n\n  [713] Hastings, _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics_, ii,\n  361.\n\n  [714] See Ratzel, _History of Mankind_; Waitz,\n  _Anthropologie der Naturv\u00f6lker_; M\u00fcller, _Amerikanische\n  Urreligionen_; Spencer and Gillen, _Native Tribes of Central\n  Australia_; Codrington, _The Melanesians_; W. Ellis,\n  _Polynesian Researches_; Hartland, article \"Bantu\" in\n  Hastings, _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics_; Callaway,\n  _Amazulus_; Featherman, _Races of Mankind_; Gr\u00fcnwedel,\n  \"Lamaismus\" in _Die orientalischen Religionen_ (I, iii, 1 of\n  _Die Kultur der Gegenwart_); Brinton, _Myths of the New\n  World_, p. 149; Matthews, Dorsey, Teit, Boas, Hill-Tout,\n  opp. cit. (on American Indians).\n\n  [715] \u00a7 34.\n\n  [716] A. B. Ellis, _Yoruba_ and _E[\u00b4w]e_. Ellis does not say\n  that the cult exists in Ashanti, where we should expect it\n  to be found; its absence there is not accounted for. On\n  phallic worship in Congo see H. H. Johnston, in _Journal of\n  the Anthropological Institute_, xiii.\n\n  [717] Hopkins, _Religions of India_, pp. 453, 470.\n\n  [718] Cf. Crooke, article \"Bengal\" in Hastings,\n  _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics_.\n\n  [719] Griffis, _Religions of Japan_; Aston, _Shinto_;\n  Buckley, in Saussaye, _Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichte_, 2d\n  ed.; Florens, in _Die Kultur der Gegenwart_.\n\n  [720] Herodotus, ii, 48 f.\n\n  [721] _Isis and Osiris_, 51.\n\n  [722] An example of na\u00efve popular festivities is given in\n  Herodotus, ii, 60.\n\n  [723] The Gilgamesh epic (Jastrow, _Religion of Babylonia\n  and Assyria_, p. 477); Amos ii, 7; Deut. xxiii, 17 f.;\n  Herodotus, i, 199; Strabo, xvi, 1, 20; Epistle of Jeremy, 42\n  f.; Lucian, _De Syria Dea_, 6 ff. But Hos. ii, Ezek. xvi,\n  xxiii, Isa. lvii, 8, are descriptions of Hebrew addiction to\n  foreign idolatrous cults.\n\n  [724] Isa. lvii, 8: \"Thou didst love their bed, the yad thou\n  sawest.\" The renderings in the English Revised Version are\n  not possible.\n\n  [725] Lucian, op. cit., 28, cf. 16.\n\n  [726] The Aramean Atargatis, properly Attar-Ate, is\n  substantially identical with Ashtart and Ishtar.\n\n  [727] Lucian, _De Syria Dea_, 15.\n\n  [728] J. P. Peters, _Nippur_, Index, s.v. _Phallic symbols_;\n  Bliss and Macalister, _Excavations in Palestine_, p. 136;\n  Macalister, _Bible Side-lights_, p. 72 f.\n\n  [729] These objects (Hebrew _masseba_) are denounced by the\n  prophets because they were connected with the Canaanite\n  non-Yahwistic worship. The same thing is true of the sacred\n  wooden post (the _ashera_) that stood by shrines; Deut. xvi,\n  21 f., etc.\n\n  [730] Roscher, _Lexikon_, s.v. _Priapos._ Diodorus Siculus,\n  iv, 6, mentions also Ithyphallos and Tychon.\n\n  [731] Roscher, _Lexikon_.\n\n  [732] S. Seligmann, _Der b\u00f6se B\u00fcck und Verwandtes_, ii, 191\n  ff.\n\n  [733] Diodorus Siculus, i, 88.\n\n  [734] Roscher, _Lexikon_, s.v. _Indigitamenta_. _Muto_ is\n  'phallos.'\n\n  [735] So Augustine, _De Civitate Dei_, iv, II, 34 al.\n\n  [736] S. Seligmann, _Der b\u00f6se Blick und Verwandtes_, ii, 196\n  ff.\n\n  [737] Cf. Hopkins, _Religions of India_, p. 490, n. 4.\n\n  [738] On the yoni as amulet see Seligmann, _Der b\u00f6se Blick\n  und Verwandtes_, ii, 203.\n\n  [739] Hastings, _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics_, ii,\n  491 f., and the references there to Gait's _Assam_ and other\n  works.\n\n  [740] III Rawlinson, pl. i, no. 12155, and IV Rawlinson,\n  col. 2, II. 25-28. The androgynous sense is maintained by\n  G. A. Barton, in _Journal Of the American Oriental Society_,\n  xxi, second half, p. 185 ff. Other renderings of the first\n  inscription are given by Thureau-Dangin in _Revue\n  d'Assyriologie_, iv, and Radau, _Early Babylonian History_,\n  p. 125.\n\n  [741] Text in Craig, _Assyrian and Babylonian Religious\n  Texts_, i, pl. vii, obv. 6, and by Meek, in _American\n  Journal of Semitic Languages_, xxvi; translation in\n  Jastrow's _Religion Babyloniens und Assyriens_, i, 544 f.,\n  and discussion by him in article \"The 'Bearded' Venus\" in\n  _Revue arch\u00e9ologique_, 1911, i.\n\n  [742] See for Lenormant's view _Gazette arch\u00e9ologique_, 1876\n  and 1879, and Jastrow's criticism in the article cited in\n  the preceding note.\n\n  [743] Lajard, _Recherches sur le culte de V\u00e9nus_. He is\n  followed by A. Jeremias, _The Old Testament in the Light of\n  the Ancient East_ (Eng. tr.), i, 123.\n\n  [744] _Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum_, l, i, p. 13.\n\n  [745] 1 Sam. xii, 28; Deut. xxviii, 10. The angel in whom is\n  Yahweh's name (Ex. xxiii, 21) has the authority of the\n  deity.\n\n  [746] Cf. Dillmann, in _Monatsbericht der Akademie der\n  Wissenschaften_ (Berlin, 1881). The feminine form given to\n  Baal in Rom. xi, 3 f., may refer to the disparaging term\n  'shame' (Heb. _boshet_, for which the Greek would be\n  _aischun[=e]_) often substituted by the late editors of the\n  Old Testament for Baal. Saul's son Ishbaal ('man of Baal')\n  is called Ishbosheth, Jonathan's son Meribbaal is called\n  Mephibosheth, etc.\n\n  [747] Dillmann (loc. cit.) combines _sham[=e]_ with Ashtart,\n  as if the sense were 'the heavenly Ashtart of Baal'--an\n  impossible rendering; but he also interprets the phrase to\n  mean 'Ashtart the consort of the heavenly Baal.' Hal\u00e9vy,\n  _M\u00e9langes_, p. 33; Ed. Meyer, in Roscher's _Lexikon_,\n  article \"Astarte.\"\n\n  [748] _Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum_, i, i, no. 195; i,\n  ii, no. 1, al. Tanit appears to be identical in character\n  and cult with Ashtart.\n\n  [749] See below, \u00a7 411 f.: cf. W. R. Smith, _Religion of the\n  Semites_, 2d ed., p. 478.\n\n  [750] A similar interpretation is given by B\u00e6thgen in his\n  _Semitische Religionsgeschichte_, p. 267 f. His \"monistic\"\n  view, however, that various deities were regarded as\n  manifestations of the supreme deity is not tenable.\n\n  [751] Servius, Commentary on Vergil, _\u00c6n._ ii, 632;\n  Macrobius, _Saturnalia_, iii, 8 on the same passage.\n\n  [752] There are manuscript variations in the text of\n  Servius, but these do not affect the sense derived from the\n  two authors, and need not be considered here.\n\n  [753] Cf. Frazer, _Adonis Attis Osiris_ p. 428 ff.\n\n  [754] Servius, \"they call her\"; Macrobius, \"Aristophanes\n  calls her.\" But who this Aristophanes is, or where he so\n  calls her, we are not informed.\n\n  [755] So Jastrow, in the article cited above. Remarking on\n  the statement of Lydus (in _De Mensibus_, ii, 10) that the\n  Pamphylians formerly worshiped a bearded Venus, he calls\n  attention to the Carian priestess of Athene (Herodotus, i,\n  175; viii, 104), who, when misfortune was impending, had (or\n  grew) a great beard--a mark of power, but presumably not a\n  genuine growth. Exactly what this story means it is hard to\n  say.\n\n  [756] Pausanias, vii, 17; Amobius, v, 5.\n\n  [757] Roscher, _Lexikon_, articles \"Agdistis,\" \"Attis\";\n  Frazer, _Adonis Attis Osiris_, p.219 f.; H. Hepding,\n  _Attis_; cf. Pseudo-Lucian, _De Syria Dea_, 15 (Attis\n  assumes female form and dress).\n\n  [758] This practice seems to be an exaggerated form of the\n  savage custom of self-wounding in honor of the dead (to\n  obtain their favor), interpreted in developed cults as a\n  sacrifice to the deity or as a means of union with him.\n\n  [759] On the wide diffusion of cults of mother-goddesses see\n  below, \u00a7\u00a7 729, 734, 762, etc.\n\n  [760] Cf. Pseudo-Lucian, _De Syria Dea_ 15; Ed. Meyer,\n  _Geschichte des Alteriums_, 2d ed., i, 649, 651; Lagrange,\n  _\u00c9tudes sur les religions s\u00e9mitiques_, 2d ed., p. 241;\n  Hepding, _Attis_, p. 162.\n\n  [761] See above, \u00a7 411.\n\n  [762] In Theophrastus, _Characters_, article 16 (Roscher,\n  _Lexikon_, 8. v. _Hermaphroditos_).\n\n  [763] Roscher, article cited.\n\n  [764] Hopkins, _Religions of India_, pp. 447, 492.\n\n  [765] H. Ellis, _Psychology of Sex_, i, passim.\n\n  [766] Westermarck, _Origin and Development of the Moral\n  Ideas_, chap. xliii.\n\n  [767] Cf. \u00a7 251 ff.\n\n  [768] Dulaure, _Des divinit\u00e9s g\u00e9n\u00e9ratrices_. Cf. Hartland,\n  _Primitive Paternity_, chap. ii.\n\n  [769] See below, Chap. XI.\n\n  [770] J. F. McLennan, _Studies in Ancient History_; Frazer,\n  _Totemism and Exogamy_; A. Lang, _Social Origins_; A. E.\n  Crawley, in _Anthropological Essays presented to E. B.\n  Tylor_; N. W. Thomas, ibid.\n\n  [771] Fraser (_Totemism and Exogamy_, iv, 135), thinks it\n  possible that exogamy of totemic clans is always exogamy in\n  decay.\n\n  [772] L. H. Morgan (the discoverer of the system), _Ancient\n  Society_; W. H. R. Rivers in _Anthropological Essays\n  presented to E. B. Tylor_.\n\n  [773] For the supposition of promiscuity are Morgan (op.\n  cit., p. 54), Spencer and Gillen (_Native Tribes of Central\n  Australia_, p. 100 ff.), and others; against are Westermarck\n  (_Human Marriage_, chap. iv), Crawley (_The Mystic Rose_, p.\n  479 ff.), and others.\n\n  [774] Cf. Morgan, op. cit., p. 27, and part ii, chap. i.\n\n  [775] Howitt, _Native Tribes of South-East Australia_, p.\n  269 ff.\n\n  [776] Gen. xx, 12; the rule was later abrogated (Ezek. xxii,\n  11; Lev. xviii, 9).\n\n  [777] J. F. McLennan, _Studies in Ancient History_, first\n  series, p. 90 ff.; second series, chap. vii.\n\n  [778] L. H. Morgan, _Ancient Society_, p. 424 ff.; Frazer,\n  _Totemism and Exogamy_, i, 164 ff.\n\n  [779] Westermarck, _Human Marriage_, chaps. xiv-xvi;\n  Crawley, _The Mystic Rose_, p. 222. Cf. Darwin, _Variation\n  of Animals and Plants under Domestication_, ii, 103 f.\n\n  [780] J. J. Atkinson, _Primal Law_ (in volume with Lang's\n  _Social Origins_, p. 210 ff.).\n\n  [781] E. Durkheim, in _Ann\u00e9e sociologique_, i, 1-70.\n\n  [782] Frazer, _Totemism and Exogamy_, iv, 75 ff.\n\n  [783] See references in \u00a7 426.\n\n  [784] H. Ellis, _Psychology of Sex_, i, 36 f.; Crawley, in\n  _Anthropological Essays presented to E. B. Tylor_.\n\n  [785] See above, \u00a7 431.\n\n  [786] See above, \u00a7 429, and compare Howard, _History of\n  Matrimonial Institutions_, i, 121 ff.\n\n  [787] Details are given in Frazer's _Totemism and Exogamy_.\n\n  [788] Cf. below, \u00a7 442.\n\n  [789] On two supposed human totems, Laughing Boys and\n  Nursing Mothers, see Frazer, _Totemism and Exogamy_, i, 160,\n  253; ii, 520 f.\n\n  [790] \u00a7 436.\n\n  [791] So, apparently, among the Nandi (Hollis, _The Nandi_,\n  pp. 6, 61).\n\n  [792] As among the Australian Arunta (Spencer and Gillen,\n  _Native Tribes of Central Australia_, pp. 116, 125 ff.).\n\n  [793] Frazer, _Totemism and Exogamy_, ii, 136; iii, 321;\n  Boas, _The Kwakiutl_, p. 328 ff.\n\n  [794] Haddon and Rivers, _Expedition to Torres Straits_, v,\n  158 ff.; Seligmann, _The Melanesians of British New Guinea_,\n  pp. 51, 320.\n\n  [795] Fraser, _Totemism and Exogamy_, ii, 200; iii, 40, 227,\n  267, 281, 322.\n\n  [796] Swanton, _Tlingit Myths_ (_Bulletin 39_, Bureau of\n  American Ethnology).\n\n  [797] See below, \u00a7 544 ff.\n\n  [798] For the details of totemic customs reference may be\n  made, once for all, to Frazer's encyclopedic _Totemism and\n  Exogamy_.\n\n  [799] Spencer and Gillen, _Native Tribes of Central\n  Australia_, pp. 415, 423, etc.\n\n  [800] Rivers, _Journal of the Royal Anthropological\n  Institute_, xxxix; _Man_, viii.\n\n  [801] Brinton, _The Len\u00e2p\u00e9_, p. 39.\n\n  [802] E. F. im Thurn, _Indians of Guiana_, p. 184.\n\n  [803] For the Mandingos of Senegambia see _Revue\n  d'ethnographie_, v, 81, cited in Frazer's _Totemism and\n  Exogamy_, ii, 544.\n\n  [804] Teit, _Thompson River Indians_, p. 95.\n\n  [805] Swanton, _Tlingit Myths_, and _Jesup North Pacific\n  Expedition_, v, 231; Boas, _The Kwakiutl_, pp. 323, 336 f.\n\n  [806] Seligmann, _The Melanesians of British New Guinea_, p.\n  679; in the Louisiade group belief in direct descent is said\n  to exist (p. 743).\n\n  [807] Cf. the remarks of Boas in the Introduction to Teit's\n  _Thompson River Indians_.\n\n  [808] On the other hand, the Kurnai, who are not totemic,\n  refrain, apparently, from eating their sex-patrons.\n\n  [809] This report was made in 1841, before the natives had\n  come in contact with the whites.\n\n  [810] In the Banks Islands the restrictions of eating relate\n  to the patrons of individual persons; see _Journal of the\n  Royal Anthropological Institute_, xxxix, 165 f.\n\n  [811] Rivers, _The Todas_, Index, s.v. _Food, restriction\n  on_.\n\n  [812] Cf. Matthews, _Navaho Legends_, p. 239, note 169;\n  Franciscan Fathers, _Ethnologic Dictionary_ p. 507.\n\n  [813] Teit, _Thompson River Indians_, p. 77.\n\n  [814] Cf. A. M. Tozzer, _Comparative Study of the Mayas and\n  the Lacandones_ (of Yucatan), and the literature given in\n  articles \"America, South\" and \"Brazil\" in Hastings,\n  _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics_.\n\n  [815] J. W. Fewkes is of opinion that the great Snake dance\n  (an economic function) was formerly conducted by the Snake\n  clan (_Sixteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of American\n  Ethnology_, p. 304).\n\n  [816] The choice of the object is determined by local\n  conditions that are not known to us. Sometimes, probably,\n  the object is the one most important for the welfare of the\n  community; sometimes it may have come from accident. See\n  below, \u00a7 554 ff.\n\n  [817] The artificial objects that are regarded, in a few\n  cases, as totems are probably of late origin, the product of\n  reflection, and thus differing from the old totems, which\n  arise in an unreflective time. However, the artificial\n  totems are doubtless sometimes looked on as powerful; in\n  some cases they may be little more than badges.\n\n  [818] This is Frazer's definition (in his _Totemism_ p. 1),\n  supplemented by the words \"not worshiped.\" Cf., on the whole\n  subject, Tylor, in _Journal of the Anthropological\n  Institute_, xxviii, 144; F. Boas, in _American Journal of\n  Psychology_, xxi; A. A. Goldenweiser, \"Totemism,\" in\n  _Journal of American Folklore_, xxiii (1910).\n\n  [819] For a preciser definition of totemism see below,\n  \u00a7 520.\n\n  [820] The details are given in Frazer's _Totemism and\n  Exogamy_.\n\n  [821] Certain Arunta traditions appear to point to a time\n  when the totem was freely eaten. The bird-mates of the clans\n  may be regarded as secondary totems--perhaps a survival from\n  a time when a clan might have more than one totem.\n\n  [822] Spencer and Gillen, _Northern Tribes of Central\n  Australia_, pp. 173, 318.\n\n  [823] The clan-names may formerly have been totemic, but\n  data for the decision of this point are lacking.\n\n  [824] So Frazer, _Totemism and Exogamy_, iv, 173.\n\n  [825] Cf. H. Webster, _Primitive Secret Societies_, pp. 1,\n  121 ff.; Crawley, _The Mystic Rose_, pp. 41 f., 45, 350, 454\n  ff.; Westermarck, _Origin and Development of the Moral\n  Ideas_, ii, 28 ff.; Hobhouse, _Morals in Evolution_, i, 183\n  ff., 188 ff.\n\n  [826] C. G. Seligmann, _The Melanesians of British New\n  Guinea_, chaps. xxxv, 1.\n\n  [827] Such a belief is said to exist in the Aru archipelago\n  (Papuan) west of New Guinea. There the family, and not the\n  clan, is the social unit; every family has its badge or\n  crest.\n\n  [828] Melanesia is here taken to include the Bismarck\n  Archipelago (New Britain, New Ireland, and adjacent islands)\n  and the islands lying to the eastward as far as the 180th\n  meridian of longitude, though in this area there is in some\n  places Polynesian influence.\n\n  [829] So Reverend George Brown, _Melanesians and\n  Polynesians_, p. 28.\n\n  [830] This usage is reported for Florida Island.\n\n  [831] On the question whether these gods are a development\n  out of totem animals see below, \u00a7 577.\n\n  [832] On the relation of this idea to Frazer's theory of\n  \"conceptional totemism\" see below, \u00a7 548.\n\n  [833] It might then seem that the deity was originally the\n  animal; see below, \u00a7 577.\n\n  [834] As to the significance of this fact cf. below, \u00a7 529\n  ff.\n\n  [835] W. H. Furness, 3d, _The Island of Stone-Money_.\n\n  [836] On the large theistic material of the Pelews see\n  Frazer, _Adonis Attis Osiris_, pp. 386, 428 ff., with\n  references to J. Kubary, \"Die Religion der Pelauer\" (in A.\n  Bastian's _Allerlei aus Volks- und Menschenkunde_).\n\n  [837] Cf. below, \u00a7 577.\n\n  [838] Exogamy is said to exist in the atoll Lua Niua, in the\n  Lord Howe group; the population is described as Polynesian\n  (Brown, _Melanesians and Polynesians_, p. 414 ff.); Dr.\n  Brown thinks it probable that exogamous classes formerly\n  existed in Samoa, to which place the Lua Niua people, he\n  holds, are ultimately to be traced.\n\n  [839] Certain septs (among the Telugus and others) are named\n  from inanimate (some times artificial) objects.\n\n  [840] The usages mentioned in article \"Burma\" in Hastings,\n  _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics_, iii, 24, do not\n  necessarily show totemism.\n\n  [841] The Iroquois stock occupied an immense territory,\n  partly in Canada, partly in the region now including the\n  states of New York, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Tennessee,\n  Georgia, Alabama, and the Carolinas.\n\n  [842] Cf. Gatschet, _Migration Legend of the Creeks_, p. 24\n  ff.\n\n  [843] The Wyandots, who were allied to the Iroquois, dwelt\n  in the district north of Lake Ontario.\n\n  [844] The Algonkins formerly ranged over a large territory\n  extending along the Atlantic coast as far south as North\n  Carolina and reaching westward to the Mississippi.\n\n  [845] It was from the Ojibwas that our word 'totem' was\n  taken.\n\n  [846] A similar r\u00f4le, somewhat vague, is assigned to two\n  supernatural beings in Australia (Spencer and Gillen,\n  _Native Tribes of Central Australia_, p. 388; cf. p. 246).\n\n  [847] Gatschet, _Migration Legend of the Creeks_, p. 177 ff.\n  It was expiatory, and was accompanied by a moral\n  reconstruction of society, a new beginning, with old scores\n  wiped out. Cf. the Cherokee Green Corn dance (see article\n  \"Cherokees\" in Hastings, _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and\n  Ethics_).\n\n  [848] Dorsey, _The Skidi Pawnee_, p. xviii. The Pawnee had a\n  fairly well-developed pantheon, and a civil government based\n  on rank (chiefs, warriors, priests, magicians). They lived\n  in endogamous villages; in every village there was a sacred\n  bundle, and all the people of the village were considered to\n  be descendants of the original owner of the bundle.\n\n  [849] Will and Spinden, _The Mandans_ (_Papers of the\n  Peabody Museum of American Arch\u00e6ology and Ethnology_,\n  Harvard University, vol. iii, 1906), p. 129 ff.\n\n  [850] J. W. Fewkes, _The Winter Solstice Ceremony at Walpi_\n  (reprint from _The American Anthropologist_, vol. xi, 1898),\n  with bibliography.\n\n  [851] Fewkes, _Journal of American Ethnology and\n  Arch\u00e6ology_, iv, and _Journal of American Folklore_, iv.\n\n  [852] The stocks or groups are, going from north to south:\n  the D\u00e9n\u00e9 or Athabascans (middle of Alaska and running east\n  and west); the Tlingit (Southern Alaska); the Haidas (Queen\n  Charlotte Islands and adjacent islands); the Tsimshians\n  (valleys of the Nass and Skeena rivers and adjacent\n  islands); the Kwakiutl (coast of British Columbia, from\n  Gardiner Channel to Cape Mudge, but not the west coast of\n  Vancouver Island); the Nootkas (west coast of Vancouver\n  Island); the Salish (eastern part of Vancouver Island, and\n  parts of British Columbia, Washington, Idaho, and Montana);\n  the Kootenay (near Kootenay Lake and adjoining parts of the\n  United States). See the authorities cited by Frazer in\n  _Totemism and Exogamy_.\n\n  [853] \u00a7 445 f.\n\n  [854] Cf. the divergent native accounts of the Melanesian\n  _buto_ (Codrington, _The Melanesians_, p. 31 ff.).\n\n  [855] In North America, in the Iroquois, Algonkin, Maskoki\n  (Creek), and Siouan stocks; in Central America and South\n  America; in Borneo and East Africa; and elsewhere.\n\n  [856] R. B. Dixon, _The Northern Maidu_ (Central\n  California), p. 223; id., _The Shasta_ (Northern California\n  and Oregon), p. 451; id., _The Chimariko Indians_ (west of\n  the Shasta, on Trinity River), p. 301; A. L. Kroeber,\n  article \"California\" in Hastings, _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion\n  and Ethics_.\n\n  [857] Article \"Bantu\" in Hastings, _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion\n  and Ethics_.\n\n  [858] Hollis, _The Masai_, Index, and _The Nandi_, p. 5 f.\n\n  [859] A hint of an earlier usage is given in a legend which\n  relates that totemic clans were ordained by a king to the\n  end that certain sorts of food might be taboo to certain\n  families, and thus animals might have a better chance to\n  multiply.\n\n  [860] See the volumes of A. B. Ellis on these countries\n  (chapters on \"Gods\" and on \"Government\").\n\n  [861] A. van Gennep, _Tabou et tot\u00e9misme \u00e0 Madagascar_, p.\n  314.\n\n  [862] On this point see below, \u00a7 522 ff.\n\n  [863] For the details see W. R. Smith, _Kinship and Marriage\n  in Early Arabia_ (includes the Hebrews); Joseph Jacobs, \"Are\n  there Totem-clans in the Old Testament?\" (in _Arch\u00e6ological\n  Review_, vol. iii); A. Lang, _Custom and Myth_ (on the Greek\n  _genos_), and _Myth, Ritual, and Religion_, i, 266 ff.; ii,\n  226; S. Reinach, _Cultes, mythes et religions_ (Greek and\n  Celtic); Gardner and Jevons, _Greek Antiquities_, p. 68 ff.,\n  etc.; Fowler, _Roman Festivals_, p. 84 f.; G. L. Gomme,\n  \"Totemism in Britain\" (in _Arch\u00e6ological Review_, vol. iii);\n  N. W. Thomas, \"La survivance du culte tot\u00e9mique des animaux\n  et les rites agraires dans le pays de Galles\" (in _Revue de\n  l'histoire des religions_, vol. xxxviii).\n\n  [864] Names are omitted that appear to belong only to\n  individuals or to places.\n\n  [865] G. B. Gray, _Hebrew Proper Names_, p. 86 ff.\n\n  [866] Strabo, _Geographica_, xiii, 588.\n\n  [867] Herodotus, ii, 37, 42; Diodorus Siculus, _Bibliotheke\n  Historike_, i, 70.\n\n  [868] Lev. xi; Deut. xiv.\n\n  [869] Stengel and Oehmichen, _Die griechischen\n  Sakralaltert\u00fcmer_, p. 27.\n\n  [870] Frazer, _Golden Bough_, 2d ed., i, 241 f.\n\n  [871] C\u00e6sar, _De Bello Gallico_, v, 12.\n\n  [872] Herodotus, ii, 42.\n\n  [873] Pausanias, i, 24, 4. On the death of the god cf.\n  Frazer, _The Dying God_.\n\n  [874] Herodotus, ii, 39 ff., W. R. Smith, _Religion of the\n  Semites_, 2d ed., additional note G; the Roman Lupercalia.\n\n  [875] Diodorus Siculus, i, 86 (Egypt); cf. Pliny, _Historia\n  Naturalis_, x, 4 f.\n\n  [876] W. R. Smith, _Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia_,\n  chap. viii (Semites).\n\n  [877] See above, \u00a7\u00a7 441 ff., 466, and below, \u00a7 526; Frazer,\n  _Totemism and Exogamy_, Index, s.vv. _Animals_ and _Totems_.\n\n  [878] See above, \u00a7 443 ff.\n\n  [879] So, also, in Northeastern Asia, in the Japan\n  archipelago (the Ainu), and in low African tribes.\n\n  [880] Where sexual license before marriage prevails, young\n  girls are allowed to go to these houses.\n\n  [881] H. Webster, _Primitive Secret Societies_.\n\n  [882] G. Brown, _Melanesians and Polynesians_, p. 60 ff.\n\n  [883] Mary Kingsley, _West African Studies_, p. 384, and\n  _Travels in West Africa_, p. 532 ff.; Ellis, _Yoruba_, p.\n  110.\n\n  [884] H. Webster, _Primitive Secret Societies_, p. 164 ff.\n\n  [885] Frazer, _Totemism and Exogamy_, i, 495 ff.\n\n  [886] Frazer, loc. cit. Cf. A. Lang, _Secret of the Totem_,\n  p. 138.\n\n  [887] _Jesup North Pacific Expedition_, vi, i, 32 ff., 43\n  ff.\n\n  [888] So worship was offered to the Roman _genius_ (Horace,\n  _Carm._ iii, 17; _Epist._ i, 7, 94).\n\n  [889] A. B. Ellis, _E[\u00b4w]e_, p. 105; _Tshi_, p. 156;\n  _Yoruba_, chap. vii.\n\n  [890] Turner, _Samoa_, p. 78 f. So the [Greek: kourotrophos]\n  (Farnell, in _Anthropological Essays presented to E. B.\n  Tylor_).\n\n  [891] W. H. Dall, _Alaska and its Resources_, p. 145, cited\n  by Frazer, _Totemism and Exogamy_, iii, 442 f.\n\n  [892] The acquisition of a supernatural inspirer by a shaman\n  is analogous to this custom, but belongs in a somewhat\n  different category: see below, \u00a7 540.\n\n  [893] Miss Alice Fletcher, \"Indian Ceremonies\" (in _Report\n  of the Peabody Museum of American Arch\u00e6ology and Ethnology_,\n  Harvard University, 1883).\n\n  [894] F. Boas, _The Kwakiutl_, p. 393 f.\n\n  [895] Cf. Frazer, _Totemism and Exogamy_, iii, 450 ff.\n\n  [896] This process is similar to the gradual reduction of\n  the European independent barons to the position of royal\n  officers.\n\n  [897] See below, \u00a7 633 f.\n\n  [898] As, for example, by the Marathas of the Bombay\n  Presidency (Frazer, _Totemism and Exogamy_, ii, 276 ff.).\n\n  [899] Lord Avebury (Sir John Lubbock), _Prehistoric Times_,\n  2d ed., p. 598, and 6th ed., p. 610; id., _Origin of\n  Civilisation_ (1902), p. 275 ff.; and his _Marriage,\n  Totemism, and Religion_.\n\n  [900] Herbert Spencer, _Fortnightly Review_, 1870, and\n  _Principles of Sociology_ i, \u00a7 171.\n\n  [901] This view is provisionally indorsed by E. B. Tylor, in\n  _Journal of the Anthropological Institute_, xxviii.\n\n  [902] One such case is mentioned in Codrington's\n  _Melanesians_, p. 33.\n\n  [903] Frazer, _Golden Bough_ (1890), ii, 332 ff. This theory\n  has since been abandoned by Frazer (_Totemism and Exogamy_,\n  iv, 54 f.).\n\n  [904] Frazer, _Fortnightly Review_, July and September,\n  1905, pp. 154-172 (reprinted in _Totemism and Exogamy_, i);\n  _Totemism and Exogamy_, ii, 89 ff.; iv, 57 ff.\n\n  [905] Rivers, \"Totemism in Polynesia and Melanesia\" (in\n  _Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute_, xxxix\n  [1909], 172); Frazer, _Totemism and Exogamy_, iv, 59 ff.\n\n  [906] This is the theory adopted by Frazer in his latest\n  work on the subject.\n\n  [907] The widespread belief that birth may be independent of\n  the union of the sexes does not, of course, carry with it an\n  explanation of totemism.\n\n  [908] Lippert, _Die Religionen der europ\u00e4ischen\n  Culturv\u00f6lker_, p. 12; G. A. Wilken, \"Het Animisme bij de\n  Volken van den Indischen Archipel,\" in _De Indische Gids_,\n  1884 (cf. Tylor, in _Journal of the Anthropological\n  Institute_, xxviii, 1899); G. M. Theal, _Records of\n  South-eastern Africa_, vii, and _History and Ethnography of\n  South Africa_, i. 90.\n\n  [909] F. B. Jevons, _Introduction to the History Of\n  Religion_, 1st ed., p. 101.\n\n  [910] F. M. M\u00fcller, _Anthropological Religion_, p. 121 ff.;\n  Pikler and Soml\u00f3, _Ursprung des Totemismu_, p. 7 ff.; A. K.\n  Keane, _Ethnology_, p. 10; cf. G. M. Theal, _History and\n  Ethnography Of South Africa_, i, 17.\n\n  [911] A. C. Haddon, in _Report of the British Association\n  for the Advancement of Science_, 1902.\n\n  [912] A. Lang, _The Secret of the Totem_, chap. vi.\n\n  [913] Lists are given in Frazer's _Totemism and Exogamy_.\n\n  [914] Lang, _The Secret of the Totem_, loc. cit.; Theal,\n  _History and Ethnography of South Africa_, i, 92.\n\n  [915] Cf. A. W. Howitt, _Native Tribes of South-East\n  Australia_, p. 154.\n\n  [916] Frazer, in _Fortnightly Review_, 1899 (this theory was\n  afterwards abandoned by him); B. Spencer, in _Journal of the\n  Anthropological Institute_, xxviii (1899).\n\n  [917] Cf. Durkheim, in _Ann\u00e9e sociologique_, v.\n\n  [918] Durkheim, in _Ann\u00e9e sociologique_, v.\n\n  [919] See below, \u00a7 577.\n\n  [920] Frazer, in his _Totemism_ (this view is now given up\n  by him); F. B. Jevons, _Introduction to the History of\n  Religion_, Index; S. Reinach, _Cultes, mythes et religions_,\n  i, 86 ff.; Hahn, _Die Haustiere_, pp. 28 ff., 42, and his\n  _Demeter und Baubo_, p. 19 ff. (domestication of cattle and\n  use of milk as food connected with moon-cult). Cf. H. Ling\n  Roth, in _Journal of the Anthropological Institute_, xvi,\n  102 ff.\n\n  [921] The totem belongs not to a tribe (Jevons,\n  _Introduction to the History of Religion_, p. 114 f.) but to\n  a clan.\n\n  [922] Frazer, _Totemism and Exogamy_, iv, 19.\n\n  [923] W. E. Roth, quoted in Frazer's _Totemism and Exogamy_,\n  i, 532.\n\n  [924] See above, \u00a7 529 ff.\n\n  [925] W. E. Roth, _North Queensland Ethnography_; Spencer\n  and Gillen, _Northern Tribes of Central Australia_, p. 226\n  ff.\n\n  [926] See below, \u00a7 635 ff.; cf. A. Lang, _Myth, Ritual, and\n  Religion_, ii, 197, etc.; S. Relnach, _Orpheus_ (Eng. tr.),\n  p. 81 ff.; Frazer, _Totemism and Exogamy_, iv, 30 ff.\n\n  [927] Haddon, in _Anthropological Essays presented to E. B.\n  Tyler_, 183 ff.\n\n  [928] Rivers, in _Man_, viii (1908).\n\n  [929] Cf. Frazer, _Totemism and Exogamy_, iv, 31 ff. The\n  Bushman god Cagn, who has the form of a mantis, and the\n  Hindu monkey-god Hanuman seem to have no connection with\n  totemism.\n\n  [930] Cf. the remarks of Haddon, op. cit.\n\n  [931] So Zeus and other Greek gods.\n\n  [932] See below, \u00a7 1041 ff.\n\n  [933] See below, \u00a7 635.\n\n  [934] The moral perfection of the individual is an ideal\n  that has arisen out of social relations; it is demanded by\n  the deity because the moral standard of a deity is that of\n  his human society.\n\n  [935] In international relations this tendency appears in\n  the demand for arbitration.\n\n  [936] N. W. Thomas, article \"Taboo\" in _Encyclop\u00e6dia\n  Britannica_, 11th ed.; Codrington, _The Melanesians_;\n  Thomson, _Story of New Zealand_; A. van Gennep, _Tabou et\n  tot\u00e9misme \u00e0 Madagascar_; Wallace, _Malay Archipelago_, p.\n  149 f.; J. G. Frazer, _Early History of the Kingship_;\n  Marett, \"Is Taboo a Negative Magic?\" (in _Anthropological\n  Essays presented to E. B. Tylor_).\n\n  [937] Cf. the Chickasa _hullo_, said to mean 'mysterious'\n  (Speck, in _Journal of American Folklore_, xx, 57).\n\n  [938] The danger from such objects is referred to a\n  supernatural presence, whose attitude toward human beings\n  may be doubtful; only, when the phenomenon observed is\n  thought to be nonnatural and is afflictive (as in the case\n  of death, for example), this attitude is judged to be\n  hostile.\n\n  [939] Purely economic and other social considerations are\n  sometimes combined with the mana conception.\n\n  [940] The physical unity produced by contact may be brought\n  about, according to savage philosophy, in other ways.\n\n  [941] Ploss-Bartels, _Das Weib_, i, 591; cf. E. S. Hartland,\n  _Primitive Paternity_; Avesta, _Vendidad_, xv, 8.\n\n  [942] Article \"Birth\" in Hastings, _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion\n  and Ethics_.\n\n  [943] Ploss-Bartels, _Das Weib_, ii, 345 ff.\n\n  [944] Lev. xii. In the modern Parsi usage a woman after\n  giving birth is secluded forty days.\n\n  [945] On the relation between birth customs and systems of\n  relationship (patrilineal and matrilineal) see the\n  references in Hastings, _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and\n  Ethics_, ii, 636.\n\n  [946] Numb. xix, 11 ff. For the Mazdean rules see\n  Tiele-Gehrich, _Geschichte der Religion im Altertum_, ii,\n  340 ff.\n\n  [947] Sanitary purposes may have entered into such customs.\n\n  [948] Seligmann, _The Melanesians of British New Guinea_,\n  chap. xxiii, p. 138, etc.; Turner, _Samoa_, p. 145 f.; Kidd,\n  _The Essential Kafir_, p. 253.\n\n  [949] Ellis, _The E[\u00b4w]e-speaking Peoples_, p. 160.\n\n  [950] Cicero, _De Legibus_, ii, 26 (Athens); _Roman_\n  _Digests_, xlvii, 12; _Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum_, i,\n  13 (Phoenician); and so among many savage and\n  half-civilized peoples.\n\n  [951] Crawley, _The Mystic Rose_, chap. iii.\n\n  [952] Seligmann, _The Melanesians of British New Guinea_, p.\n  140.\n\n  [953] Ploss-Bartels, _Das Weib_, i, 296, 302, 374, 618.\n\n  [954] Frazer, article \"Taboo\" in _Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica_,\n  9th ed.\n\n  [955] Seligmann, _The Melanesians of British New Guinea_, p.\n  466; Crawley, _The Mystic Rose_, p. 52 ff.\n\n  [956] G. Brown, _Melanesians and Polynesians_, p. 241; W. H.\n  Furness, 3d, _The Island of Stone-Money_, p. 38 f.\n\n  [957] Crawley, _The Mystic Rose_, p. 399 ff.\n\n  [958] A physiological basis for this view seems to lie\n  outside the resources of savage observation, but prohibition\n  of intercourse just after childbirth may have a humanitarian\n  basis.\n\n  [959] G. Brown, _Melanesians and Polynesians_, pp. 68, 80,\n  200; Seligmann, _The Melanesians of British New Guinea_, p.\n  292; W. R. Smith, _Religion of the Semites_, additional note\n  C.\n\n  [960] Cf. Westermarck, _Origin and Development of the Moral\n  Ideas_, ii, 406 ff.; Hobhouse, _Morals in Evolution_, Index,\n  s.v. _Chastity_.\n\n  [961] See below, \u00a7 895 ff.; Westermarck, op. cit., i, 620\n  ff.\n\n  [962] Ezek. xliv, 19. The term \"sanctify\" of the English\n  Version means 'make ritually sacred,' not to be touched. Cf.\n  Shortland, _Southern Districts of New Zealand_, p. 293 f.;\n  Wellhausen, _Reste arabischen Heidentumes_, p. 106 f.\n\n  [963] For Jewish rules see Lev. xxi. The onerous\n  restrictions on the Roman flamen dialis and his wife are\n  given in Frazer's _Golden Bough_ (see Index, s.v. _Flamen\n  dialis_) and the authorities cited by him.\n\n  [964] The prohibition of the products of the grapevine to\n  the Nazirite (Numb. vi, 3 f.) seems to have been originally\n  part of the attempt to follow the old pastoral life, in\n  contrast with the Canaanite agricultural life; later it\n  received a religious coloring. The prohibition might begin\n  at the moment of the child's conception (Judg. xiii, 4, 14).\n\n  [965] Frazer, _Golden Bough_, 2d ed., i, 299 ff.\n\n  [966] Turner, _Samoa_.\n\n  [967] Alexander, _Short History of the Hawaiian People_.\n\n  [968] R. Taylor, _New Zealand_, chap. viii.\n\n  [969] Furness, _Home Life of the Borneo Head-hunters_, p.\n  160 ff.\n\n  [970] C. S. Hurgronje, _The Achehnese_, p. 262 ff.\n\n  [971] T. C. Hodson, in _Journal of the Anthropological\n  Institute_, xxxvi.\n\n  [972] Codrington, _The Melanesians_, p. 215 ff.\n\n  [973] Harrison, _Prolegomena to the Study of Greek\n  Religion_, pp. 50, 96 ff.; Fowler, _Roman Festivals_, p. 106\n  ff.\n\n  [974] Frazer, _Golden Bough_, 2d ed., iii, 76 f.\n\n  [975] _Journal of the Anthropological Institute_, xxxii;\n  Frazer, op. cit., iii, 80.\n\n  [976] T. C. Hodson, \"The Genna amongst the Tribes of Assam\"\n  (in _Journal of the Anthropological Institute_, xxxvi).\n\n  [977] Lev. xxiii; Numb. xxviii f.\n\n  [978] Stengel and Oehmichen, _Griechische Sakralaltert\u00fcmer_,\n  p. 170.\n\n  [979] Wissowa, _Religion der R\u00f6mer_, p. 365 ff.\n\n  [980] Numb. xxviii, 26.\n\n  [981] The Thargelia; Harrison, op. cit., chap. iii.\n\n  [982] Mariner, _Tonga_, p. 483\n\n  [983] W. Ellis, _Polynesian Researches_, iv, 388, etc.\n\n  [984] Cf. Hopkins, _Religions of India_, p. 448 ff.\n\n  [985] Cf. W. R. Smith, _Religion of the Semites_, additional\n  note C.\n\n  [986] Rivers, _The Todas_, p. 405 ff.\n\n  [987] Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, i, 288, 354.\n\n  [988] For details see Frazer, _Adonis Attis Osiris_, bk.\n  iii, chap. viii f.\n\n  [989] Hollis, _The Nandi_ p. 95 f.\n\n  [990] Rhys Davids, _Buddhism_ (in _Non-Christian Religious\n  Systems_), p. 140 f. Thus, as the author remarks, uposatha\n  is a weekly festival; and there is an approach to a true\n  seven-day week.\n\n  [991] Alexander, _Short History of the Hawaiian People_.\n\n  [992] Details of the week are given in the article\n  \"Calendar\" in Hastings, _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and\n  Ethics_, with references to authorities.\n\n  [993] Hollis, _The Nandi_, p. 79; Frazer, _Adonis Attis\n  Osiris_, pp. 370 ff., 375.\n\n  [994] See the noteworthy Yoruban rest day, the first day of\n  the five-day week (A. B. Ellis, _Yoruba_).\n\n  [995] For the literature on the sabbath see Herzog-Hauck,\n  _Real-Encyklop\u00e4die_; Jastrow, in _American Journal of\n  Theology_ for 1898; Cheyne, _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_;\n  Hastings, _Dictionary of the Bible_; _Jewish Encyclopedia_;\n  F. Bohn, _Der Sabbat im Alten Testament_; Benzinger,\n  _Hebr\u00e4ische Arch\u00e4ologie_; Nowack, _Hebr\u00e4sche Arch\u00e4ologie_;\n  C. H. Toy, \"The Earliest Form of the Sabbath,\" in _Journal\n  of Biblical Literature_ for 1899 (in which, so far as\n  appears, the view that the Hebrew sabbath is a taboo day is\n  stated for the first time).\n\n  [996] Any taboo day might be the occasion of placative\n  ceremonies; but this is not a distinctive feature of the\n  day.\n\n  [997] T. G. Pinches, in _Proceedings of the Society of\n  Biblical Arch\u00e6ology_, xxvi, 51 ff.; Zimmern, in _Zeitschrift\n  der deutschen morgenl\u00e4ndischen Gesellschaft_, lviii, 199\n  ff., 458 ff.; J. Meinhold, _Sabbat und Woche im Alten\n  Testament_. There is no good reason to doubt that this\n  Babylonian term is formally identical with Hebrew _shabat_.\n\n  [998] 2 Kings iv, 23; Amos viii, 5; Isa. i, 13.\n\n  [999] Exod. xxiii, 6.\n\n  [1000] Deut. v, 12 ff.; Exod. xx, 8 ff.; the term 'holy'\n  here means set apart ritually, that is, taboo.\n\n  [1001] Ezek. xx, 12 f., 16, 20 f., 24; Isa. lviii, 13 f.;\n  cf. article \"Sabbath\" in _Jewish Encyclopedia_.\n\n  [1002] The Hebrew stem _shabat_ means 'to cease,' a\n  signification that accords well with the character of a\n  taboo day. But this sense has not been certainly found for\n  the Babylonian stem, and the original force of the term\n  _sabbath_ may be left undecided.\n\n  [1003] Exod. xxiii, 12.\n\n  [1004] Chabas, _Le calendrier des jours fastes et n\u00e9fastes_;\n  Maspero, _\u00c9tudes \u00e9gyptiennes_, i, 28 ff.; Wiedemann,\n  _Religion of the Ancient Egyptians_, chap. x.\n\n  [1005] IV Rawlinson, plates, 32 f.; Jastrow, _Religion of\n  Babylonia and Assyria_, p. 373 ff.\n\n  [1006] Hesiod, _Works and Days_, 763 ff.\n\n  [1007] Wissowa, _Religion der R\u00f6mer_, p. 365 ff.; Fowler,\n  _Roman Festivals_, Index. The Romans, with their\n  thoroughness where public religion was concerned, divided\n  all the days of the year into the three classes, _dies\n  festi_ (festive, for worship), _dies profesti_ (for ordinary\n  business), and _dies intercisi_ (mixed, partly for religion,\n  partly for ordinary affairs).\n\n  [1008] Hastings, _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics_, iii,\n  29 (Burma).\n\n  [1009] J. H. King, _The Supernatural_, Index, s.v. _Luck_.\n\n  [1010] Many examples are given in Westermarck's _Origin and\n  Development of the Moral Ideas_, chap. xxxvii f.; cf. above,\n  \u00a7 204 ff., on fasting.\n\n  [1011] Howitt, _Native Tribes of South-East Australia_, p.\n  630 ff.\n\n  [1012] E. A. Gait, article \"Caste\" in Hastings,\n  _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics_.\n\n  [1013] Frazer, _Golden Bough_, 2d ed., i, 321.\n\n  [1014] Taboo thus helps the growth of civil law (especially\n  of penal codes) by its collection of offenses, though only\n  on condition of retiring from the field. Cf. Frazer,\n  _Psyche's Task_, p. 17 ff.\n\n  [1015] Lev. xiv, 48-53.\n\n  [1016] Lev. xii.\n\n  [1017] So in many popular festivals; see Spencer and Gillen,\n  _Native Tribes of Central Australia_; Hopkins, _Religions of\n  India_, p. 453 ff.; Westermarck, _Origin and Development of\n  the Moral Ideas_, chap. xlii.\n\n  [1018] Examples are given in Crawley's _Mystic Rose_, pp.\n  223, 480 ff., chap. x ff.\n\n  [1019] Tylor, _Early History of Mankind_, 3d ed., p. 129\n  ff.; Hubert and Mauss, in _Ann\u00e9e sociologique_, vii; Frazer,\n  _Early History of the Kingship_, lecture ii, especially p.\n  52 ff. (he defines taboo as \"negative magic,\" magic, that\n  is, employed to avoid malefic influences); cf. Crawley, _The\n  Mystic Rose_, chap. ix, for the transmission of sex\n  characteristics.\n\n  [1020] Cf. R. R. Marett, \"Is Taboo a Negative Magic?\" (reply\n  to Frazer), in _Anthropological Essays presented to E. B.\n  Tylor_.\n\n  [1021] Cf. Marett, op. cit.\n\n  [1022] R. Taylor, _New Zealand_, chap. viii; Alexander,\n  _Short History of the Hawaiian People_.\n\n  [1023] Shortland, _Maori Religion_.\n\n  [1024] Exod. xxiii, 10 f.\n\n  [1025] Livy, i, 31.\n\n  [1026] Codrington, _The Melanesians_, p. 215 ff.; George\n  Brown, _Melanesians and Polynesians_, p. 273 ff.\n\n  [1027] Seligmann, _The Melanesians of British New Guinea_,\n  Index, s.v. _Taboo_.\n\n  [1028] H. Ling Roth, _The Natives of Sarawak and British\n  North Borneo_, i, 98.\n\n  [1029] On _permontong_ see W. H. Furness, 3d, _Home Life of\n  the Borneo Head-hunters_, p. 160 ff.\n\n  [1030] Manu, v, 62.\n\n  [1031] Miss Alice Fletcher, _Indian Ceremonies_, p. 297 f.\n\n  [1032] Miss Mary Kingsley, _Travels_, Index.\n\n  [1033] T. C. Hodson, \"Genna amongst the Tribes of Assam,\" in\n  _Journal of the Anthropological Institute_, xxxvi (1906).\n\n  [1034] Kidd, _The Essential Kafir_, Index.\n\n  [1035] Boas, in _Sixth Annual Report of the Bureau of\n  American Ethnology_, and _Bulletin XV_, American Museum of\n  Natural History.\n\n  [1036] Lev. xii-xv.\n\n  [1037] Deut. xiv; Lev. xi; Diogenes Laertius, _Pythagoras_,\n  xvii.\n\n  [1038] On _tabu_ (or _tapu_) see E. Tregear,\n  _Maori-Polynesian Comparative Dictionary_; W. Ellis,\n  _Polynesian Researches_, iv, 385.\n\n  [1039] Codrington, _The Melanesians_, p. 215.\n\n  [1040] A. van Gennep, _Tabou et tot\u00e9misme \u00e0 Madagascar_.\n\n  [1041] R. H. Nassau, _Fetichism in West Africa_, p. 211.\n\n  [1042] The taboo sense proper is not found in [Greek: agios\n  (agos), enag\u00eas], and Latin _sacer_ which rather mean what is\n  accursed, detestable on account of wrong committed.\n\n  [1043] Sacred books \"defile the hands.\"\n\n  [1044] Cf. articles \"Taboo\" in _Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica_,\n  9th ed. (by Frazer) and 11th ed. (by Thomas).\n\n  [1045] The relation between totemism and man's attitude\n  toward beasts and plants is discussed above, \u00a7\u00a7 524 ff., 564\n  ff.\n\n  [1046] A. B. Ellis, _Yoruba_, p. 167.\n\n  [1047] Alexander, _Short History of the Hawaiian People_,\n  chap. xxii.\n\n  [1048] On the question whether a germinal sense of moral\n  obligation is found in the lower animals see above, \u00a7 12.\n\n  [1049] Naturally, the origin of all the particular taboos\n  escapes us; it depends in most cases on unknown conditions.\n\n  [1050] 1 Cor. xi, 27-30.\n\n  [1051] On the social organization of law cf. Darwin,\n  _Descent of Man_, p. 108; article \"Aryan Religion\" in\n  Hastings, _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics_.\n\n  [1052] See above, \u00a7 240 ff.\n\n  [1053] In a cannibal community, for example, the gods will\n  be cannibal; see A. Lang, _Myth, Ritual, and Religion_, new\n  ed., i, 6, 263 f.\n\n  [1054] Rawlinson, _History of Ancient Egypt_, i, 414 f.; ff.,\n  85, 506; Breasted, _History of Egypt_, pp. 46, 575; Hopkins,\n  _Religions of India_, pp. 368, 502; ibid., p. 538 f.\n\n  [1055] They sometimes coalesce in functions with ghosts and\n  spirits.\n\n  [1056] Teit, _Thompson River Indians_, p. 19 ff.\n\n  [1057] L. Farrand, \"Traditions of the Chilcotin Indians\" in\n  _Jesup North Pacific Expedition_ (vol. ii of _Memoirs of the\n  American Museum of Natural History_), i, 14 ff.; Farrand and\n  Kahnweiler, \"Traditions of the Quinault Indians,\" ibid.,\n  iii, 111; Boas, _Indianische Sagen_, p. 194 ff.; C.\n  Hill-Tout, articles in _Journal of the Anthropological\n  Institute_, vols. xxxiv, xxxv, xxxvii.\n\n  [1058] Boas, Introduction to Teit's _Thompson River\n  Indians_, p. 16, and \"Reports on the Indians of British\n  Columbia\" in _Reports of the British Association for the\n  Advancement of Science_, vols. lix, lx, lxi, lxiv, lxv. A\n  tricksy character is ascribed to Loki in some of the Norse\n  stories (Saussaye, _Religion of the Teutons_, p. 263). Loki,\n  however, as he appears in the literature, is a highly\n  complex figure.\n\n  [1059] See Boas's Introduction in Teit's _Thompson River\n  Indians_.\n\n  [1060] R. B. Dixon, _The Northern Maidu_, p. 263.\n\n  [1061] A. C. Hollis, _The Masai_, p. 264 f.; Lang, _Myth,\n  Ritual, and Religion_, 1st ed., ii, 4 f.\n\n  [1062] Spencer and Gillen, _Native Tribes of Central\n  Australia_, p. 123 ff.\n\n  [1063] W. Matthews, _Navaho Legends_, pp. 69 ff., 73 ff.\n\n  [1064] See Brinton, _Myth of the New World_ and _American\n  Hero-Myths_; _Journal of American Folklore_, passim. On the\n  'Hiawatha' myth see Hale, _Iroquois Book of Rites_, p. 180\n  ff., and Beauchamp, in _Journal of American Folklore_,\n  October, 1891.\n\n  [1065] Codrington, _The Melanesians_, pp. 28, 167, and\n  Index, s.v. _Qat_.\n\n  [1066] He is called also the \"Big Raven,\" belonging under\n  this title in the cycle of raven myths of the North Pacific\n  Ocean (both in Asia and in America); see Jochelson, in\n  _Jesup North Pacific Expedition_, vi, i, 17 f.\n\n  [1067] Hollis, _The Nandi_, p. 98 f.; Callaway, _The\n  Amazulu_, p. 1 ff.; cf. the Japanese mythical emperor Jimmu\n  (Knox, _Development of Religion in Japan_, pp. 46, 63).\n\n  [1068] Jastrow, _Religion of Babylonia and Assyria_, Index,\n  s.v.; Gen. iv; articles in Roscher's _Lexikon_, s.vv.;\n  Gruppe, _Griechische Mythologie_, Index, s.vv.\n\n  [1069] It is noteworthy that among the numerous \u00e6tiological\n  myths there seems to be no attempt to account for the origin\n  of language. Language was thought of as so simple and\n  natural a thing that no explanation of its beginnings was\n  necessary. Adam, in Gen. ii, is able, as a matter of course,\n  to give names to the animals. In early myths beasts have the\n  power of speech. In a Nandi folk-story (Hollis, _The Nandi_,\n  p. 113) what excites the wonder of the thunder and the\n  elephant is not man's capacity of speech, but the fact that\n  he can turn over when asleep without first getting up.\n\n  [1070] For female deities the title \"grandmother\" occurs\n  (Batchelor, _The Ainu_ [1901], p. 578). The devil's\n  grandmother figures in Teutonic folk-stories; see _Journal\n  of American Folklore_, xiii, 278 ff.; Frazer, _Golden\n  Bough_, 1st ed., i, 336.\n\n  [1071] Attempts to prove a primitive monotheism usually fail\n  to take this distinction into account.\n\n  [1072] Howitt, _Native Tribes of South-East Australia_, p.\n  488 ff.\n\n  [1073] Boas, Introduction to Teit's _Thompson River\n  Indians_, p. 7.\n\n  [1074] Callaway, _The Amazulu_, p. 1 ff.\n\n  [1075] Kidd, _The Essential Kafir_, p. 101 ff.\n\n  [1076] A. B. Ellis, _Tshi_, chaps. v-vii; _E[\u00b4w]e_, chap. v;\n  _Yoruba_, chap. iii. Cf. C. Partridge, _Cross River Natives_\n  (South Nigeria), p. 282 ff.\n\n  [1077] W. Crooke, _The Popular Religion and Folklore of\n  Northern India_ (1907), chap. ii.\n\n  [1078] Hopkins, _Religions of India_, p. 537 f.\n\n  [1079] Rivers, _The Todas_, chap. xix.\n\n  [1080] Matthews, _Navaho Legends_, p. 35 ff.\n\n  [1081] Jochelson, in _Jesup North Pacific Expedition_, vi,\n  i, 36-43.\n\n  [1082] Aston, _Shinto_, Index, s.v. _Kami_; Knox, _Religion\n  in Japan_, p. 27 ff.\n\n  [1083] Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, ii, 255; cf. ii, 337.\n\n  [1084] Dorsey, _The Skidi Pawnee_, p. xix; Matthews, _Navaho\n  Legends_, p. 34 f.\n\n  [1085] Hopkins, _Religions of India_, p. 532.\n\n  [1086] Spence, in Hastings, _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and\n  Ethics_, ii, 835.\n\n  [1087] A. B. Ellis, _E[\u00b4w]e_ (Dahomi), p. 104.\n\n  [1088] On the ascription of divinity to men in great\n  civilized religious systems see above, \u00a7 351 ff.\n\n  [1089] Maspero, _Dawn of Civilization_, p. 120 ff.; Ed.\n  Meyer, _Geschichte des Alten Aegyptens_, p. 31 ff.;\n  Wiedemann, _Religion of the Ancient Egyptians_, p. 109;\n  Erman, _Handbook of Egyptian Religion_, pp. 21 f., 39.\n\n  [1090] Cf. W. von Baudissin, _Studien zur semitischen\n  Religionsgeschichte_, i, 28 f.\n\n  [1091] R. Smend, _Alttestamentliche Religionsgeschichte_, p.\n  33 f. In regard to the original home of Yahweh and the\n  diffusion of his cult among other peoples than the Hebrews\n  exact information is lacking.\n\n  [1092] Pietschmann, _Ph\u00f6nizier_, pp. 170 f., 182 ff.\n\n  [1093] Hastings, _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics_, i,\n  664.\n\n  [1094] Jastrow, _Religion of Babylonia and Assyria_, Index,\n  s.vv.; articles in Roscher's _Lexikon_; \"Eshmun\" in\n  _Orientalische Studien N\u00f6ldeke gewidmet_.\n\n  [1095] See, for example, Pausanias, i, 37, 3 (Zeus\n  Meilichios); ii, 19, 3 (Apollo Lykios); iii, 13, 2 (Kore\n  Soteira--Persephone, the protectress); v, 25, 6 f.\n  (Heracles); viii, 12, 1 (Zeus Charmon).\n\n  [1096] Macdonell, _Vedic Mythology_, p. 15 ff.; Bloomfield,\n  _Religion of the Veda_, p. 90.\n\n  [1097] Sir C. R. Markham, _The Incas of Peru_, p. 104.\n\n  [1098] L. Spence, _The Mythologies of Ancient Mexico and\n  Peru_, p. 24 f.\n\n  [1099] See above, \u00a7 647.\n\n  [1100] Roscher, _Lexikon_, article \"Heros,\" col. 2473 ff.\n\n  [1101] _Works and Days_, 155 ff.\n\n  [1102] He appears to be usually beneficent; but, like all\n  the dead, he might sometimes be maleficent.\n\n  [1103] But these origins, going far back into prehistoric\n  times, are obscure.\n\n  [1104] Codrington, _The Melanesians_, p. 132.\n\n  [1105] Tregear, in _Journal of the Anthropological\n  Institute_, xix, 97 ff.; Grey, _Polynesian Mythology_, p.\n  164.\n\n  [1106] Alexander, _Short History of the Hawaiian People_.\n\n  [1107] E. H. Gomes, _Southern Departments of Borneo_.\n\n  [1108] Skeat, _Malay Magic_, chap. iv; Skeat and Blagden,\n  _Pagan Races of the Malay Peninsula_, ii, 245 ff.\n\n  [1109] Hopkins, _Religions of India_, p. 529 f.; Crooke,\n  _Popular Religion and Folklore of Northern India_, i, chap.\n  ii.\n\n  [1110] Hollis, _The Masai_, p. 264. The related Nandi\n  worship the sun (Asista) mainly, but have also a thunder-god\n  (Hollis, _The Nandi_, p. 40 f.).\n\n  [1111] Hollis, op. cit., p. 279.\n\n  [1112] With them, as everywhere else, there is occasional\n  discrimination in the functions of magicians, different men\n  healing or inflicting different sicknesses; cf. article\n  \"Bantu\" in Hastings, _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics_.\n\n  [1113] A. B. Ellis, _E[\u00b4w]e_, chap. v; _Tshi_, chap. v;\n  _Yoruba_, p. 45.\n\n  [1114] Jochelson, in _Jesup North Pacific Expedition_, vi,\n  i, 33 ff., 27 ff.\n\n  [1115] Batchelor, _The Ainu_, chap. li.\n\n  [1116] Herodotus, iv, 94.\n\n  [1117] Demetrius Klementz, article \"Buriats\" in Hastings,\n  _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics_.\n\n  [1118] Brinton, _The Len\u00e2p\u00e9_, p. 65 ff.; Dorsey, _The Skidi\n  Pawnee_, p. xviii ff. On gods of air and winds see J. H.\n  Keane, in article \"Air and Gods of the Air\" in Hastings,\n  _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics_.\n\n  [1119] Hastings, op. cit., i, 382 ff., and ii, 837.\n\n  [1120] Brinton, _American Hero-Myths_, chap. iv; A. M.\n  Tozzer, _Comparative Study of the Mayas and the Lacandones_\n  (of Yucatan), pp. 80, 93 ff.; H. H. Bancroft, _Native Races\n  of the Pacific States of North America_, ii, chap. xx ff.\n\n  [1121] J. G. M\u00fcller, _Geschichte der amerikanischen\n  Urreligionen_, p. 577 ff.; Lang, _Myth, Ritual, and\n  Religion_, chap. xiv; L. Spence, _Mythologies of Ancient\n  Mexico and Peru_; E. Seler, _Gesammelte Abhandlungen_. For\n  earlier authorities see Winsor, _Narrative and Critical\n  History Of America_, vol. i, chaps. iii, iv.\n\n  [1122] J. G. M\u00fcller, _Geschichte der amerikanischen\n  Urreligionen_, p. 313 ff.; Prescott, _Peru_, i, 91 ff.; C.\n  R. Markham, _The Incas of Peru_, chap. viii; and see\n  preceding note.\n\n  [1123] Maspero, _Dawn of Civilization_, ii, 81, note 2; p.\n  82, notes 1 and 2.\n\n  [1124] Usener, _G\u00f6tternamen_ p. 122 ff.; L. R. Farnell, \"The\n  Place of the 'Sonder-G\u00f6tter' in Greek Polytheism\" (in\n  _Anthropological Essays presented to E. B. Tylor_).\n\n  [1125] Farnell, op. cit.; cf. T. R. Glover, _Conflict of\n  Religions in the Early Roman Empire_, p. 12.\n\n  [1126] Roscher, _Lexikon_, s.v.\n\n  [1127] Augustine, _De Civitate Dei_, vii, 22; cf. bks. vi,\n  vii, passim.\n\n  [1128] Cf. Wissowa, _Religion der R\u00f6mer_, pp. 15, 145 ff.\n\n  [1129] Judg. viii, 33.\n\n  [1130] The name occurs only once, in 2 Kings, i, 2. It is\n  incorrectly adopted in the English Version of the New\n  Testament.\n\n  [1131] Found only in the Synoptic Gospels, Mk. iii, 22;\n  Matt. x, 25; xii, 24, 27; Luke xi, 15, 18, 19.\n\n  [1132] Isa. lxiii, 15.\n\n  [1133] On these Semitic titles see articles \"Baal\" and\n  \"Baalzebub\" in Hastings, _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and\n  Ethics_; article \"Beelzebul\" in Cheyne, _Encyclop\u00e6dia\n  Biblica_; various articles in Brown, Driver, Briggs, _Hebrew\n  and English Lexicons_.\n\n  [1134] Batchelor, _The Ainu_, chap. x; Furness, _Home life\n  of the Borneo Head-hunters_, p. 64 f.; Hopkins, _Religions\n  of India_, p. 530, note 2; De Groot, _Religion of the\n  Chinese_, p. 129 f.\n\n  [1135] Turner, _Samoa_, p. 18 f.; Nassau, _Fetichism in West\n  Africa_, pp. 67, 163 ff.\n\n  [1136] On \"manitu\" see _Handbook of American Indians_, s.v.\n  (and cf. article \"Wakonda\"); W. Jones, in _Journal of\n  American Folklore_, xviii, 183 ff. On \"nagual\" see Bancroft,\n  _Native Races of the Pacific States of North America_, iii,\n  458; Brinton, in _Journal of American Folklore_, viii, 249.\n\n  [1137] _Journal of American Folklore_, viii, 115.\n\n  [1138] Cf. M. H. Kingsley, _West African Studies_, p. 132 f.\n\n  [1139] Roscher, _Lexikon_, i, 2, col. 1616.\n\n  [1140] Cf. article \"Daimon\" in Roscher, op. cit.\n\n  [1141] Spiegel, _Eranische Alterthumskunde_, ii, 91 ff.;\n  Dan. x, 20; xi, 1; xii, 1; Matt. xviii, 10.\n\n  [1142] Examples are given above, \u00a7 255 f.\n\n  [1143] Spencer and Gillen, _Native Tribes of Central\n  Australia_, chap. x.\n\n  [1144] Codrington, _The Melanesians_, pp. 150 f., 158 f.,\n  168 f.; Turner, _Samoa_, pp. 7, 52.\n\n  [1145] Here again a distinction must be made between animals\n  simply sacred and those that are specifically totemic.\n\n  [1146] Codrington, _The Melanesians_, pp. 248 f., 253 ff.\n\n  [1147] Lang, _Myth, Ritual, and Religion_, chaps. xii f.\n\n  [1148] So the Samoan Tangaloa (Tylor, _Primitive Culture_,\n  3d ed., ii, 344 f.).\n\n  [1149] St. John, _The Far East_, i, 180.\n\n  [1150] Hopkins, _Religions of India_, p. 528 ff.\n\n  [1151] A. B. Ellis, _Yoruba_, pp. 38 ff., 56 ff.; cf. M. H.\n  Kingsley, _West African Studies_, p. 117 ff.\n\n  [1152] Lang, _Myth, Ritual, and Religion_, preface to new\n  edition.\n\n  [1153] Matthews, _Navaho Legends_, p. 34.\n\n  [1154] Article \"Brazil\" in Hastings, _Encyclop\u00e6dia of\n  Religion and Ethics_.\n\n  [1155] G. Grey, _Polynesian Mythology_, p. 1 ff.; Taylor,\n  _New Zealand_, chap. vi; cf., for Polynesia, W. Ellis,\n  _Polynesian Researches_, chap. xiii. The abstract ideas\n  reported by Taylor are remarkable: from conception came\n  increase, from this came swelling, then, in order, thought,\n  remembrance, desire; or, from nothing came increase and so\n  forth; or, the word brought forth night, the night ending in\n  death. The significance of this scheme (supposing it to be\n  correctly stated) has not been explained. The r\u00f4le assigned\n  to \"desire\" in the Rig-Veda creation-hymn (x, 129) is the\n  product of learned reflection (cf. Schopenhauer's \"blind\n  will\"), and sounds strange in the mouth of New Zealand\n  savages.\n\n  [1156] Cf. Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, ii, 308 ff.\n\n  [1157] Williams and Calvert, _Fiji_, p. 193 f.\n\n  [1158] Grey, _Polynesian Mythology_, p. 15; Castr\u00e9n,\n  _Finnische Mythologie_, p. 1.\n\n  [1159] Jastrow, _Religion of Babylonia and Assyria_ (English\n  and German editions), Index, s.vv. _Allatu, Nergal_; id.,\n  _Aspects of Religious Belief and Practice in Babylonia and\n  Assyria_, p. 368 ff.; Wiedemann, _Religion of the Ancient\n  Egyptians_, p. 217; Erman, _Handbook of Egyptian Religion_,\n  p. 94 ff.; Macdonell, _Vedic Mythology_, pp. 171 ff., 169\n  ff.; Bloomfield, _Religion of the Veda_, p. 144 f.; Hopkins,\n  _Religions of India_, p. 128 ff.; Spiegel, _Eranische\n  Alterthianskunde_, ii, 163 (but the old Persian god of the\n  Underworld, if there was one, was absorbed, in\n  Zoroastrianism, by Ahura Mazda); Jackson, in Geiger and\n  Kuhn's _Grundriss der iranischen Philologie_, ii, 652, \u00a7 52;\n  Farnell, _Cults of the Greek States_, ii, 513 ff.; iii,\n  chap. v; Wissowa, _Religion der R\u00f6mer_, p. 187 ff.; Aust,\n  _Religion der R\u00f6mer_, p. 52; Rohde, _Psyche_, 3d ed. i, 205,\n  ff.; articles on Hades, Plutos, Hermes, Dionysos, Nergal,\n  and related deities, in Roscher's _Lexikon_.\n\n  [1160] Cf. Jastrow, _Aspects of Religious Belief and\n  Practice in Babylonia and Assyria_, pp. 356 f., 372 f.; F.\n  Schwally, _Das Leben nach dem Tode_, p. 65 ff.; R. H.\n  Charles, _Eschatology_, p. 18 f. For the Arabs see\n  Wellhausen, _Reste arabischen Heidentumes_, iii, 22 ff., 42\n  ff.; N\u00f6ldeke, article \"Arabs (Ancient)\" in Hastings,\n  _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics_; for the\n  Phoenicians, Pietschmann, _Ph\u00f6nizier_, p. 191 f.\n\n  [1161] Ps. cxxxix.\n\n  [1162] See article \"Celts\" in Hastings, op. cit.; Saussaye,\n  _Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichte_, 2d ed.; Usener,\n  _G\u00f6tternamen_; article \"Aryan Religion\" in Hastings, op.\n  cit., p. 38 f. and passim.\n\n  [1163] Hollis, _The Masai_, p. 264. The neighboring Nandi,\n  according to Hollis (_The Nandi_, p. 41), have a similar\n  pair.\n\n  [1164] A. C. Dixon, _The Northern Maidu_ (_Bulletin of the\n  American Museum Of Natural History_, xviii, iii), p. 263.\n  For other such conceptions see Tylor's discussion in\n  _Primitive Culture_, ii, 320 ff.\n\n  [1165] Brinton, _Myths of the New World_, p. 63; H. Hale,\n  _Iroquois Book of Rites_, p. 74.\n\n  [1166] A possible exception is the Khond myth of the\n  struggle between the sun-god (Boora Pennu), the giver of all\n  good things, and the earth-goddess (Tari), the author of\n  evil things (Hopkins, _Religions of India_, p. 529 f.;\n  Macpherson, _India_, p. 84); but the origin of this myth is\n  uncertain.\n\n  [1167] 1 Kings xxii, 19-23.\n\n  [1168] Ed. Meyer, _Geschichte des Alten Aegyptens_, p. 71\n  f.; Maspero, _Dawn of Civilization_, pp. 172, 177.\n\n  [1169] R. Taylor, _New Zealand_, pp. 114 ff., 132; Jean A.\n  Owen, _The Story of Hawaii_, p. 70 f.\n\n  [1170] Mills, in _Journal of the American Oriental Society_,\n  xx, 31 ff.; Bloomfield, _Religion of the Veda_, p. 123 ff.\n\n  [1171] Spiegel, _Eranische Alterthumskunde_, ii, 21 ff., 121\n  ff.\n\n  [1172] Zech. iii, 1-3; Job i, ii.\n\n  [1173] 1 Chr. xxi, 1.\n\n  [1174] 2 Cor. iv, 4.\n\n  [1175] The Greek _daimon_, properly simply a deity, received\n  its opprobrious sense when Jews and Christians identified\n  foreign deities with the enemies of the supreme God.\n\n  [1176] Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, ii, 318 ff.\n\n  [1177] Great gods also send suffering, but only when they\n  are angered by men's acts, as by disrespect to a priest\n  (Apollo, in _Iliad_, i) or to a sacred thing (Yahweh, 1 Sam.\n  vi, 19; 2 Sam. vi, 7). In the high spiritual religions\n  suffering is treated as educative, or is accepted as\n  involving some good purpose unknown to men.\n\n  [1178] W. R. Smith, _Religion of the Semites_, 2d ed., p.\n  126 f.\n\n  [1179] Jastrow, _Religion of Babylonia and Assyria_, p. 260\n  ff.; O. Weber, _D\u00e4monenbeschw\u00f6rung bei den Babyloniern und\n  Assyriern_ (in _Der Alte Orient_, 1906).\n\n  [1180] The Ethiopic Book of Enoch (ed. R. H. Charles),\n  chaps. liii, vi-x; the Slavonic Enoch, or Secrets of Enoch\n  (ed. R. H. Charles), chap. xxxi. For the later Jewish view\n  (in Talmud and Midrash) see _Jewish Encyclopedia_, article\n  \"Satan.\"\n\n  [1181] The \"demons\" of 1 Cor. x, 20 (King James version,\n  \"devils\") are foreign deities.\n\n  [1182] Hopkins, _Religions of India_, pp. 416, 492 ff.\n\n  [1183] Herzog-Hauck, _Real-Encyklop\u00e4die_, articles\n  \"Ophiten,\" \"Kainiten.\"\n\n  [1184] J. Menant, _Les Y\u00e9sidis_ (in _Annales du Mus\u00e9e\n  Guimet_); Isya Joseph, _Yesidi Texts_ (reprinted from\n  _American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures_, xxv\n  (1909), no. 2 f.). Cf. the idea of restoration in Col. i,\n  20.\n\n  [1185] So the Christian Satan.\n\n  [1186] When, in the reports of travelers and other\n  observers, demons are said to be placated, examination shows\n  that these beings are gods who happen to be mischievous. Of\n  this character, for example, appear to be the \"demons\"\n  mentioned in Hastings, _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and\n  Ethics_, ii, 122.\n\n  [1187] Frazer, _Golden Bough_, 2d ed., iii, 39 ff.\n\n  [1188] But see below, \u00a7 704.\n\n  [1189] Baethgen, _Beitr\u00e4ge zur semitischen\n  Religionsgeschichte_; Wellhausen, _Skissen_, iii, 25;\n  N\u00f6ldeke, in _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenl\u00e4ndischen\n  Gesellschaft_, 1886, 1888, and article \"Arabs (Ancient)\" in\n  Hastings, _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics_; Pinches,\n  article \"Gad,\" and Driver, article \"Meni,\" in Hastings,\n  _Dictionary of the Bible_; Cheyne, article \"Fortune\" in\n  _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_; Commentaries of Delitzsch, Duhm,\n  Marti, Skinner, and Box on Isa. lxv, 11.\n\n  [1190] Lane, _Arabic-English Lexicon_, s.v. The Old\n  Testament title \"Rock\" given to Yahweh (Deut. xxxii, 18,\n  \"the Rock that begat thee\") is figurative, but may go back\n  to a divine rock.\n\n  [1191] On the Hebrew place-name (Job i, 1) and perhaps\n  personal name (Gen. xxxvi, 28) U[s.] (Uz), which seems to be\n  formally identical with 'Au[d.], see W. R. Smith, _Kinship\n  and Marriage in Early Arabia_, 1st ed., p. 260 f., and his\n  _Religion of the Semites_, p. 43; Wellhausen, _Skissen_,\n  iii; N\u00f6ldeke, in _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenl\u00e4ndischen\n  Gesellschaft_, xl, 183 f.\n\n  [1192] _Maniya_, plural _man\u00e2y[=a]_.\n\n  [1193] Isa. lxv, 11; III Rawlinson, 66.\n\n  [1194] Jastrow, _Religion of Babylonia and Assyria_, pp.\n  420, 428 (the tablets of fate given to Kingu and snatched\n  from him by Marduk); R. F. Harper, _Assyrian and Babylonian\n  Literature_, p. 304 f. (Marduk seizes the tablets of fate\n  from Zu); Ps. cxxxix, 16; Dan. vii, 10; Rev. v, 1, and other\n  passages.\n\n  [1195] As far as the forms are concerned, a concrete sense\n  for _man[=a]t_, _manu_, _meni_, seems possible; cf. Wright,\n  _Arabic Grammar_, 2d ed., i, \u00a7 231; Barth, _Semitische\n  Nominalb\u00fcdungen_, p. 163 ff.; Delitzsch, _Assyrian Grammar_,\n  p. 158 ff.\n\n  [1196] The etymologies in Gen. xxx, 11 ff. are popular. In\n  \"Baal-Gad\" (Josh. xi, 17) _Gad_ may be the name of a place;\n  cf. Stade, _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_, i, 271, note.\n\n  [1197] Erman, _Handbook of Egyptian Religion_, chap. iii.\n  For a list of other Egyptian gods of abstractions, such as\n  eternity, life, Joy, see Wiedemann, \"Religion of Egypt,\" in\n  Hastings, _Dictionary of the Bible_, v, 191.\n\n  [1198] Boissier, _La religion romaine_, i, 4 ff.; Wissowa,\n  _Religion der R\u00f6mer_, p. 46 ff.; Usener, _G\u00f6tternamen_, p.\n  364 ff. (cf. Farnell, in _Anthropological Essays presented\n  to E. B. Tylor_); Fowler, _Roman Festivals_, pp. 190 f.,\n  341; Frazer, _Adonis Attis Osiris_, p. 169 ff.\n\n  [1199] Cf. above, \u00a7 679, note.\n\n  [1200] Not all of these had public cults.\n\n  [1201] See articles in Roscher's _Lexicon_ (\"Eros,\" \"Moira,\"\n  and similar terms); on Phoibos, cf. L. Deubner, in\n  _Athenische Mittheilungen_, 1903.\n\n  [1202] Cicero, _De Natura Deorum_, ii, 25.\n\n  [1203] Hopkins, _Religions of India_, p. 135 f.; Bloomfield,\n  _Religion of the Veda_, pp. 191, 243 ff.; Macdonell, _Vedic\n  Mythology_, p. 115 ff.\n\n  [1204] Spiegel, _Eranische Alterthumskunde_, ii, 34 ff.; A.\n  V. Williams Jackson, _Iranische Religion_ (in Geiger and\n  Kuhn's _Grundriss der iranischen Philologie_, ii, 637).\n\n  [1205] The six are: Vohumanah (Good Thought or Good Mind),\n  Khshathra Vairya (Best or Wished-for Righteous Realm or\n  Law), Spenta Armaiti (Holy Harmony), Asha Vahista (Perfect\n  Righteousness or Piety), Haurvatat (Well-being), Ameretat\n  (Immortality).\n\n  [1206] On these and certain minor divinized conceptions of\n  time see Spiegel, op. cit., ii, 4-17. On the Hindu\n  personification of time see Bloomfield, _Religion of the\n  Veda_, p. 244 ff. In these and similar cases time,\n  containing all things, is conceived of as the producer of\n  all things, and the line between personification and\n  hypostatization is not always clearly defined. For the\n  influence of astrology on the deification of time, see\n  Cumont, _Les religions orientates parmi les peuples\n  romains_, chap. vii (on astrology and magic), p. 212 f.,\n  paragraph on new deities, and notes thereto. Hubert, \"La\n  repr\u00e9sentation du temps dans la religion et la magie\" (in\n  _M\u00e9langes de l'histoire des religions_), p. 190,\n  distinguishes between the notation of favorable and\n  unfavorable times (and the nonchronological character of\n  mythical histories) and the calendar, which counts moments\n  continuously.\n\n  [1207] On a supposed relation between the Amesha-spentas and\n  the Vedic Adityas see Roth, in _Zeitschrift der deutschen\n  morgenl\u00e4ndischen Gesellschaft_, vi, 69 f.; Macdonell, _Vedic\n  Mythology_, p. 44; Bloomfield, _Religion of the Veda_, p.\n  134 f. Cf. also L. H. Gray (on the derivation of the\n  Amshaspands from material gods), in _Archiv f\u00fcr\n  Religionswissenschaft_, vii (1904), 345.\n\n  [1208] Cf. J. B. Carter, _De Deorum Romanorum Cognominibus_.\n\n  [1209] Cf. Boissier, _La religion romaine_, i, 9.\n\n  [1210] Cf. Farnell, _Cults of the Greek States_, v, 442 ff.\n\n  [1211] They survive in later times to some extent in the\n  form of patron and other local saints, Christian and Moslem.\n\n  [1212] Cf. Bloomfield's classification of deities (_Religion\n  of the Veda_, p. 96) partly according to the degree of\n  clearness with which characters belonging to physical nature\n  appear: \"translucent\" gods are those whose origin in nature\n  is obvious; \"transparent\" gods are half-personified nature\n  objects.\n\n  [1213] Cf. Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, ii, 285 ff.\n\n  [1214] See above, \u00a7 328 ff.\n\n  [1215] Spencer and Gillen, _Native Tribes of Central\n  Australia_, p. 561 ff., and _Northern Tribes of Central\n  Australia_, p. 182; Codrington, _The Melanesians_, p. 348;\n  Roth, in _Journal of the Anthropological Institute_, xxi,\n  125; Boas, _The Kwakiutl_, p. 410 f.\n\n  [1216] Cf. Batchelor, _The Ainu_ (1901), p. 63 f.\n\n  [1217] Cf. Aston, _Shinto_, p. 35.\n\n  [1218] J. G. M\u00fcller, _Amerikanische Urreligionen_, p. 58,\n  and Index, s.v. _Sonnendienst_; Matthews, _Navaho Legends_,\n  p. 33; Brinton, _The Len\u00e2p\u00e9_, p. 65 (cf. his _American\n  Hero-Myths_, p. 230); Gatschet, _Migration Legend of the\n  Creeks_, p. 216 f.\n\n  [1219] Prescott, _Mexico_, i, 57 ff.; id., _Peru_, i, 92\n  ff.; E. J. Payne, _History of the New World called America_,\n  i, 463, 550 ff.; C. R. Markham, _The Incas of Peru_, pp. 63,\n  67, 104 ff.\n\n  [1220] _Records of the Past_, first series, ii, 129 ff.;\n  viii, 105 ff.\n\n  [1221] Jastrow, _Religion of Babylonia and Assyria_, p. 71.\n\n  [1222] A. B. Ellis, _E[\u00b4w]e_, p. 65.\n\n  [1223] Macdonell, _Vedic Mythology_, pp. 30, 32, 29, cf. p.\n  23; Bloomfield, _Religion of the Veda_, p. 86; Hopkins,\n  _Religions of India_, p. 40 ff.\n\n  [1224] _Yashi_, x, 67.\n\n  [1225] Hopkins, _Religions of India_, p. 529 f.\n\n  [1226] \u00a7 710.\n\n  [1227] W. Crooke, _Popular Religion and Folklore of Northern\n  India_, i, 12 ff.; _Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society_,\n  xviii, 373 ff. (the Lurka Coles); Hopkins, _Religions of\n  India_ (Dravidians, Kolarians); and for a modern, more\n  civilized cult see Hopkins, op. cit., p. 480, note 3; Payne,\n  _History of the New World called America_, i, 546 ff.\n\n  [1228] Turner, _Samoa_, Index, s.v. _Moon_; Matthews,\n  _Navaho Legends_, pp. 86, 226.\n\n  [1229] See above, \u00a7 328 ff.; cf. Tylor, _Primitive Culture_,\n  i, 290 f.\n\n  [1230] Erman, _Handbook of Egyptian Religion_, pp. 88, 91.\n\n  [1231] Jastrow, _Religion of Babylonia and Assyria_, pp. 356\n  ff., 457.\n\n  [1232] De Groot, _Religion of the Chinese_, p. 5 (cf. J.\n  Edkins, _Religion in China_, p. 105 ff.).\n\n  [1233] Hopkins, _Religions of India_, pp. 204, 266, 526.\n\n  [1234] Judg. v, 20; Isa. xxiv, 21 ff.; Job xxxviii, 7; Enoch\n  xviii, 12; xxi, 1 (cf. Rev. ix, 1); cf. Neh. ix, 6. See\n  Baudissin, _Semitische Religionsgeschichte_, i, 118 ff.;\n  article \"Astronomy and Astrology\" in Hastings, _Dictionary\n  of the Bible_.\n\n  [1235] 2 Kings xxiii, 5.\n\n  [1236] The corrupt and obscure passage Amos v, 26, cannot be\n  cited as proving a cult of a deity Kaiwan (Masoretic text\n  Kiyyun, Eng. R.V. \"shrine\") identical with Assyrian kaiwan\n  or kaiman, the planet Saturn; there is no evidence that this\n  planet was worshiped in Assyria.\n\n  [1237] Hastings, _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics_, i,\n  660.\n\n  [1238] Cf. W. R. Smith, _Kinship and Marriage in Early\n  Arabia_, chap. vi, note 8; Hastings, _Encyclop\u00e6dia of\n  Religion and Ethics_, loc. cit.\n\n  [1239] Spiegel, _Eranische Alterthumskunde_, ii, 70 ff.\n\n  [1240] Cf. Gruppe, _Griechische Mythologie_, Index, s.vv.\n  _Stern_ and _Sternbilder_.\n\n  [1241] Cumont, _Les religions orientales parmi les peuples\n  romains_, chap. vii.\n\n  [1242] The Franciscan Fathers, _Ethnologic Dictionary of the\n  Navaho Language_, Index, s.v.; Tylor, _Primitive Culture_,\n  i, 293 f.\n\n  [1243] This is the full development of what had doubtless\n  been felt vaguely from the beginning of religious history.\n\n  [1244] On Kronos and the Titans cf. article \"Kronos\" in\n  Roscher's _Lexikon_.\n\n  [1245] C\u00e6lus (or C\u00e6lum) was sometimes called the son of\n  \u00c6ther and Dies (Cicero, _De Natura Deorum_, iii, 17, 24).\n\n  [1246] Ed. Meyer, _Geschichte des Alten Aegyptens_ (and cf.\n  his _Geschichte des Altertums_, 2d ed.); Maspero, _Dawn of\n  Civilisation_; Wiedemann, _Religion of the Ancient\n  Egyptians_, and article \"Religion of Egypt\" in Hastings,\n  _Dictionary of the Bible_, vol. v; Erman, _Handbook of\n  Egyptian Religion_; Breasted, _History of Egypt_.\n\n  [1247] Breasted, op. cit., pp. 36, 46; id., _Ancient Records\n  of Egypt_, under the various kings.\n\n  [1248] So Ed. Meyer, in article \"Horos\" in Roscher's\n  _Lexikon_.\n\n  [1249] So Steindorff, _Religion of the Ancient Egyptians_,\n  p. 26 f.\n\n  [1250] Cf. Steindorff, op. cit., p. 30 f.\n\n  [1251] _Records of the Past_, vi, 105 ff.; Steindorff, op.\n  cit., p. 107 ff.\n\n  [1252] See, for example, the hymn in _Records of the Past_,\n  viii, 105 ff.\n\n  [1253] He was, therefore, doubtless a god of fertility.\n\n  [1254] _Records of the Past_, ii, 129 ff. The names of other\n  deities also were combined with that of Ra.\n\n  [1255] Egyptian civilization, as appears from recent\n  explorations, began far back of Menes; cf. Ed. Meyer,\n  _Geschichte des Altertums_, 2d ed., vol. i, part ii, \u00a7 169.\n\n  [1256] Cf. Breasted, _History of Egypt_, p. 58; Frazer,\n  _Adonis Attis Osiris_, bk. iii, chap. v.\n\n  [1257] Plutarch, _Isis and Osiris_, 18; Frazer, loc. cit.;\n  Breasted, op. cit., p. 171 f.\n\n  [1258] His identification by some ancient theologians with\n  the sun (Frazer, op. cit., p. 351 f.) or with the moon\n  (Plutarch, op. cit., 41) is an illustration of the late\n  tendency to identify any great god with a heavenly body.\n\n  [1259] Such is the wording given by Proclus. The form in\n  Plutarch (_Isis and Osiris_, 9) is substantially the same:\n  \"I am all that has been and that is and that shall be, and\n  my veil no mortal has lifted.\" See Roscher, _Lexikon_,\n  article \"Nit,\" col. 436. Doubts have been cast on the\n  reality of the alleged inscription.\n\n  [1260] Maspero, _Dawn of Civilization_, p. 131.\n\n  [1261] So Ed. Meyer, in Roscher, _Lexikon_, article \"Isis,\"\n  col. 360.\n\n  [1262] Steindorff, _Religion of the Ancient Egyptians_, p.\n  107 ff.\n\n  [1263] See Drexler, in Roscher, _Lexikon_, article \"Isis,\"\n  col. 424 ff.\n\n  [1264] Barth, _The Religions of India_ (Eng. tr.); Hopkins,\n  _Religions of India_; Hillebrandt, _Vedische Mythologie_;\n  Macdonell, _Vedic Mythology_, Bloomfield, _Religion of the\n  Veda_. See the bibliography in Hopkins, op. cit., p. 573 ff.\n\n  [1265] _Rig-Veda_, viii, 41, 1. 7; i, 23, 5 (_[r.]ta_,\n  'order').\n\n  [1266] _Rig-Veda_, x, 121.\n\n  [1267] Early imagination apparently connected the future\n  social life of gods and men not with the calm sky, but with\n  the upper region that was the scene of constant and awful\n  movements. But the ground of the choice of Indra as lord of\n  heaven rests in the obscurity of primeval times.\n\n  [1268] For economic reasons a rain-god must generally be\n  prominent and popular.\n\n  [1269] \u00a7 703.\n\n  [1270] The history of this distinction between Dyaus and\n  Varuna is lost in the obscurity of the beginnings.\n\n  [1271] This conception appears in germinal form in\n  _Rig-Veda_, v, 84, vi, 515, but is not there or elsewhere\n  developed.\n\n  [1272] Macdonell, _Vedic Mythology_, \u00a7 20.\n\n  [1273] Cf. Hastings, _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics_,\n  article \"Bengal,\" p. 491 ff., and the references there given\n  to authorities.\n\n  [1274] One form of \u00c7aktism is described (in Hastings, loc.\n  cit.) as being the general worship of the Mothers of the\n  universe represented as the wives of the gods.\n\n  [1275] _Rig-Veda_, x, 64, 92, 135, 21, 52, 14.\n\n  [1276] Ibid., x, 14; ix, 113. However, this title is given\n  to Varuna also (x, 14): Yama and Varuna are the two kings\n  whom the dead man sees when he reaches heaven.\n\n  [1277] Ibid., x, 10, 13, 14 (cf. Atharva-Veda, xviii, 13).\n\n  [1278] Hillebrandt, _Vedische Mythologie_, i, 394 ff., but\n  only for the Indo-Iranian period.\n\n  [1279] _Rig-Veda_, x, 64.\n\n  [1280] Cf. M\u00fcller, _Lectures on the Science of Language_,\n  second series, p. 534 f.; Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, ii,\n  314; Bergaigne, _La religion v\u00e9dique_, ii, 94, note 3;\n  Frobenius, _Childhood of Man_, chap. xxii. Cf. the Egyptian\n  conception of Osiris (Maspero, _Dawn of Civilisation_, p.\n  195).\n\n  [1281] Matthews, _Navaho Legends_, p. 80; other examples are\n  given in W. Ellis's _Polynesian Researches_, i, chap. v, and\n  Tylor, op. cit., ii, 312 ff.\n\n  [1282] Ellis, loc. cit.; Dorsey, _The Skidi Pawnee_, p. 6.\n\n  [1283] Hopkins, _Religions of India_, p. 128 ff.; Macdonell,\n  _Vedic Mythology_, \u00a7 77; Bloomfield, _Religion of the Veda_,\n  Index, s.v. _Yama_; and see the references in these works to\n  other authors.\n\n  [1284] _Jewish Encyclop\u00e6dia_, articles \"Adam\" and \"Adam\n  Kadmon\"; _Koran_, ii, 29 ff.; cf. 1 Cor. xv, 45 ff.\n\n  [1285] See above. \u00a7\u00a7 67 ff., 82.\n\n  [1286] On the relation between the two \"first ancestors,\"\n  Yama and Manu, cf. Bloomfield, op. cit., p. 140 f.\n\n  [1287] Hopkins, _Religions of India_, p. 379 ff.\n\n  [1288] Tiele-Gehrich, _Geschichte der Religion im Altertum_,\n  vol. ii, part i.\n\n  [1289] See above, \u00a7 703. Cf. articles by L. H. Mills in\n  _Journal of the American Oriental Society_, vols. xx and\n  xxi; L. H. Gray, in _Archiv f\u00fcr Religionswissenschaft_, vii\n  (1904), p. 345.\n\n  [1290] _Records of the Past_, vols. v, ix.\n\n  [1291] Many lesser divine beings are mentioned by Spiegel\n  (in _Eranische Alterthumskunde_, ii, 66 ff.); the advance to\n  a real monotheistic cult was not achieved in Persia without\n  many generations of struggle.\n\n  [1292] Cf. the similar process in the Arabian treatment of\n  the jinn (W. R. Smith, _Religion of the Semites_, new ed.,\n  p. 122 f.).\n\n  [1293] Cf. A. V. Williams Jackson, _Zoroaster_, and his\n  sketch in Geiger and Kuhn's _Grundriss der iranischen\n  Philologie_; D. Menant, _Zoroaster d'apr\u00e8s la tradition\n  parsie_, in _Annales du Mus\u00e9e Guimet_, vol xxx.\n\n  [1294] De Groot, _Religion of the Chinese_, chaps. i and\n  iii; pp. 62 ff., 112 f., 129 f.\n\n  [1295] With this conception we may compare the similar\n  principles in the Vedic and Mazdean systems.\n\n  [1296] The all-controlling order, as is remarked above, is\n  that of the universe, which furnishes the norm for human\n  life; but in the universe the grandest object is heaven.\n\n  [1297] Legge, in _Sacred Books of the East_, xxxix, xl; De\n  Groot, _Religious System of China_, and his smaller works,\n  _Religion of the Chinese_ and _Development of Religion in\n  China_.\n\n  [1298] W. E. Griffis, _Religions of Japan_; E. Buckley, in\n  Saussaye, _Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichte_, 2d ed.; Aston,\n  _Shinto_; Knox, _Development of Religion in Japan_;\n  Longford, _The Story of Old Japan_, chap. ii.\n\n  [1299] Whether the worship of ancestors, now so important an\n  element of the national life, is native or borrowed is\n  uncertain.\n\n  [1300] W. R. Smith, _Religion of the Semites_, new ed., p.\n  13 ff.\n\n  [1301] Compare Baethgen, _Beitr\u00e4ge sur semitischen\n  Religionsgeschichte_, p. 262 f.\n\n  [1302] Jastrow, _Religion of Babylonia and Assyria_; id.,\n  _Aspects of Religious Belief and Practice in Babylonia and\n  Assyria_; Jeremias, in Saussaye, _Lehrbuch der\n  Religionsgeschichte_; Zimmern, article \"Babylonians and\n  Assyrians\" in Hastings, _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and\n  Ethics_; Ed. Meyer, _Geschichte des Altertums_, i, part ii,\n  2d book. In our survey of Babylonian deities the question of\n  Sumerian influence may be left out of the account.\n\n  [1303] Compare Jastrow, _Religion of Babylonia and Assyria_,\n  p. 481; id., _Aspects of Religious Belief and Practice in\n  Babylonia and Assyria_, pp. 23, 45, 121.\n\n  [1304] Ezek. viii, 16.\n\n  [1305] Jastrow, _Aspects of Religious Belief and Practice in\n  Babylonia and Assyria_, p. 82. The Babylonian and Assyrian\n  triads were loosely constructed, and had, apparently, no\n  significance for the local and royal cults. In this regard\n  they differed from the Egyptian triads and enneads, which\n  were highly elaborated and organised (Maspero, _Dawn of\n  Civilisation_, p. 104 ff.; Breasted, _History of Egypt_, p.\n  56.; Steindorff, _Religion of the Ancient Egyptians_, p.\n  29).\n\n  [1306] Cf. article \"Astarte\" (by Ed. Meyer) in Roscher,\n  _Lexikon_.\n\n  [1307] For the cuneiform material see Delitzsch,\n  _Assyrisches Handw\u00f6rterbuch_, and, for various etymologies\n  proposed for the name, Barton, _Semitic Origins_, p. 102\n  ff.; Haupt, in _Journal of the American Oriental Society_,\n  xxviii, 112 ff.; Barton, ibid., xxxi, 355 ff. The frequent\n  expression _ilani u ishtar\u00e2ti_, 'gods and goddesses,'\n  suggests that the original sense of _ishtar_ is simply 'a\n  deity'; it is not probable that a proper name would become a\n  common noun and have a plural; cf. the treatment of the\n  title _ilu_, 'a god.'\n\n  [1308] As the title _bel_, 'lord,' became the proper name of\n  a particular god, so the title _ishtar_, 'mistress,' 'lady,'\n  might become the proper name of a particular goddess; in\n  neither case is the detailed history of the process known to\n  us.\n\n  [1309] They were probably local \"lords\"; in Moab Ashtar was\n  combined with a deity called Kemosh, of whom nothing is\n  known except that he was a Moabite national god (cf. G. F.\n  Moore, article \"Chemosh\" in _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_). For a\n  different view of Ashtar and Athtar see Barton, _Semitic\n  Origins_, Index, s.vv. _Chemosh_, _Athtar_; he regards these\n  deities as transformations of the mother-goddess Ashtart.\n\n  [1310] Baethgen, _Beitr\u00e4ge zur semitischen\n  Religionsgeschichte_, p. 66 ff.; Jeremias, \"Syrien und\n  Ph\u00f6nizien\" (in Saussaye's _Lehrbuch der\n  Religionsgeschichte_).\n\n  [1311] Rawlinson, _History of Phoenicia_; Pietschmann,\n  _Geschichte der Ph\u00f6nizier_; Jeremias, op. cit.\n\n  [1312] Article \"Esmun\" in Roscher's _Lexikon_; article in\n  _Orientalische Studien N\u00f6ldeke gewidmet_. Of the vague group\n  known as the Kabiri (the 'great ones,' seven in number, with\n  Eshmun as eighth) we have little information; on the\n  diffusion of their cult in Grecian lands see Roscher, op.\n  cit., article \"Megaloi Theoi.\"\n\n  [1313] Wellhausen, _Reste arabischen Heidentumes_, pp. 21\n  ff., 45 ff.; W. R. Smith, _Kinship and Marriage in Early\n  Arabia_, chap. vi, note 8; chap. viii, note 2; article\n  \"Dusares\" in the _Anthropological Essays presented to F. W.\n  Putnam_.\n\n  [1314] Mordmann, _Himyarische Inschriften_; Mordmann and\n  M\u00fcller, _Sab\u00e4ische Denkm\u00e4ler_; Barton, _Semitic Origins_, p.\n  127 ff.\n\n  [1315] His original seat is uncertain; by some scholars he\n  is regarded as an old North Semitic deity, but the grounds\n  for this view are not convincing. The occurrences of the\n  name outside of the Hebrew region throw little or no light\n  on his origin. Cf. Delitzsch, _Paradies_; Baudissin,\n  _Studien sur semitischen Religionsgeschichte_; Barton,\n  _Semitic Origins_, chap. vii.\n\n  [1316] On his position in the seventh century cf. W. F.\n  Bade, in _Transactions of the American Philological\n  Association_, 1908.\n\n  [1317] For the Old Testament statements see C. G.\n  Montefiore, _Origin and Growth of Religion as illustrated by\n  the Religion of the Ancient Hebrews_ (Hibbert Lectures,\n  1892), Index, s.v. _Yahweh_.\n\n  [1318] He was thus supreme for the particular tribe, though\n  not universal; cf. article \"Arabs (Ancient)\" in Hastings,\n  _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics_.\n\n  [1319] Farnell, _Cults of the Greek States_; Gruppe,\n  _Griechische Mythologie_; articles on the various deities in\n  Roscher's _Lexikon_.\n\n  [1320] Formally the names Dyaus, Zeus, and Ju (in Jupiter)\n  are identical; and to these may probably be added the\n  Teutonic Tiu (Tyr).\n\n  [1321] In early thought the sky (like the earth) is in\n  itself a powerful thing, a personality, and the god who is\n  later supposed to inhabit and control it is a definite\n  figure, like, for example, a tree-god.\n\n  [1322] From the ancient notices of Kronos it is hardly\n  possible to fix definitely the relation between him and\n  Zeus. It is probable that he represents an older cult that\n  was largely displaced by that of Zeus. The custom of human\n  sacrifice in his cult led to the identification of him with\n  the Phoenician (Carthaginian) Melek (Moloch), and his name\n  has been interpreted (from [Greek: krain\u00f4]) as meaning 'king'\n  (= melek); but this resemblance does not prove a Semitic\n  origin for him. Whether his r\u00f4le as king of the Age of Gold\n  was anything more than a late construction is not clear.\n\n  [1323] The etymology of his name is doubtful.\n\n  [1324] On his titles \"earth-shaker\" and \"earth-upholder\" cf.\n  Gruppe, _Griechische Mythologie_ p. 1139, note 2.\n\n  [1325] Possibly he was originally the ocean itself conceived\n  of as a living and powerful thing, as Zeus (and so Varuna\n  and Ahura Mazda) was originally the physical sky; Okeanos is\n  a great god (_Iliad_, xiv, 201; Hesiod, _Theogony_, 133).\n\n  [1326] By many writers he is considered to have been\n  originally a wind-god; but wind, though it might suggest\n  swiftness (and, with some forcing, thievishness), cannot\n  account for his other endowments.\n\n  [1327] Gen. xxx, 37 ff.; xxxi, 9; Wellhausen, _Reste\n  arabischen Heidentumes_, p. 196; Westermarck, _Origin and\n  Development of the Moral Ideas_, ii, 17-19.\n\n  [1328] _Odyssey_, xv, 319 f. Lang lays too much stress on\n  this fact (_Myth, Ritual, and Religion_, 1st ed., ii, 257).\n\n  [1329] Gruppe (_Griechische Mythologie_, p. 1384) thinks (on\n  grounds not clear) that he was originally of Crete.\n\n  [1330] So Gruppe, op. cit.\n\n  [1331] _Homeric Hymn to Pan._\n\n  [1332] Servius on Vergil, _Eclogue_ ii, 31.\n\n  [1333] Roscher, in _Lexikon_, article \"Pan,\" col. 1405, and\n  in _Festschrift f\u00fcr Joh. Overbeck_, p. 56 ff. On the\n  influence of the Egyptian cult of the goat-god of Mendes on\n  the conception of Pan see Roscher, _Lexikon_, article \"Pan,\"\n  cols. 1373, 1382.\n\n  [1334] Mannhardt, _Antike Wald und Feldkulte_, p. 135 f.;\n  Roscher, op. cit., col. 1406; Farnell, _Cults of the Greek\n  States_, v, 431, and many others. To this etymology Gruppe\n  (op. cit., p. 1385) objects that such a name for a deity is\n  not probable for primitive savage times; he offers nothing\n  in its place.\n\n  [1335] Plutarch, _De Defectu Oraculorum_, 17; Reinach,\n  _Orpheus_ (Eng. tr.), p. 41.\n\n  [1336] Pindar, ed. W. Christ, _Fragments_, 95 ff.\n\n  [1337] _Theogony_, 922 f.\n\n  [1338] Euripides, _Bacch\u00e6_, 131 f. (cf. \u00c6schylus, _The Seven\n  against Thebes_, 541; Porphyry, _De Abstinentia_, \u00a7 13).\n\n  [1339] _Nili Opera_, p. 27; Smith, _Religion of the\n  Semites_, 2d ed., p., 338 f.; Spencer, _Principles of\n  Sociology_, i, 288.\n\n  [1340] See above, \u00a7 384 ff.\n\n  [1341] _Iliad_, xiv, 325.\n\n  [1342] Perhaps the description of him in the _Iliad_ (loc.\n  cit.) as \"a joy to mortals\" refers to wine; cf. Hesiod,\n  _Theogony_, 941, where he is called the \"bright joyous one.\"\n\n  [1343] As, for example, the Arabian clan god Dusares (Dhu\n  ash-Shara), carried by the Nabateans northward, was brought\n  into relation with the viticulture of that region. Cf.\n  above, \u00a7 764.\n\n  [1344] On this point cf. Miss J. Harrison, _Prolegomena to\n  the Study of Greek Religion_, p. 366.\n\n  [1345] See above, \u00a7 680 f.\n\n  [1346] _Iliad_, xv, 184 ff.; Hesiod, _Theogony_, 453 ff.\n\n  [1347] He is not always in mythological constructions\n  distinct from Zeus--in _Iliad_, ix, 457, it is Zeus\n  Katachthonios who is lord below.\n\n  [1348] \u00c6schylus, _Prometheus Bound_, 806.\n\n  [1349] Cf. the development of Osiris (above, \u00a7 728).\n\n  [1350] Cf. Greek Horkos, and the oath by the Styx.\n\n  [1351] Cf. Miss Harrison, _Prolegomena to the Study of Greek\n  Religion_, chap. vi.\n\n  [1352] Cf. Roscher, _Lexikon_, s.v.; Miss Harrison,\n  _Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion_, p. 271 ff.\n\n  [1353] Compare Mannhardt, _Mythologische Forschungen_, p.\n  320 ff.; Frazer, _Golden Bough_, 2d ed., ii, 176 ff.\n\n  [1354] Compare Miss Harrison, op. cit., p. 271 ff.\n\n  [1355] By her name she is identified with the hearth, as\n  similarly Zeus is identified with the sky. The hearth was\n  the center of the home, and had wide cultic significance.\n  The name Hestia embodies not the divinization of a concrete\n  object, but the recognition of the divine person presiding\n  over the object in question.\n\n  [1356] Roscher, _Lexikon_; Farnell, _Cults of the Greek\n  States_.\n\n  [1357] _Odyssey_, xx, 71.\n\n  [1358] The representation of her as the slayer of women with\n  her \"kindly arrows\" (_Odyssey_, xx, 67), that is, by an easy\n  death, is in keeping with the early idea that death was\n  caused by some supernatural Power; so Apollo slays (_Iliad_,\n  xxiv, 759).\n\n  [1359] Leto is a Titaness (Hesiod, _Theogony_, 404 ff.), an\n  old local goddess, naturally a patron of children, and so of\n  similar nature with Artemis, with whom she was often joined\n  in worship. Her connection with Apollo arose possibly from a\n  collocation of her cult with his in some place; in such\n  collocations the goddess would become, in mythological\n  constructions, the mother, sister, or wife of the god. This\n  relation once established, stories explaining it would\n  spring up as a matter of course. The fact that she was later\n  identified with the Asian Great Mother indicates that she\n  also had a universal character.\n\n  [1360] Hesiod, _Theogony_, 411 ff.\n\n  [1361] She was, perhaps, an underground deity, or the\n  product of the fusion of two deities, one of whom was\n  chthonic.\n\n  [1362] Farnell, _Cults of the Greek States_; Roscher,\n  _Lexikon_.\n\n  [1363] Thus the Greeks endeavored to embody in divine\n  figures all sides of family life. The division of functions\n  between Hera, Hestia, and Athene is clear.\n\n  [1364] As, for example, 'fragile' and 'frail,' 'intension'\n  and 'intention,' 'providential' and 'prudential,' and many\n  other groups of this sort.\n\n  [1365] For the view that she was a native \u00c6gean deity see\n  Farnell, _Greece and Babylon_, p. 97. Later Semitic\n  influences, in any case, must be assumed.\n\n  [1366] No satisfactory explanation of the name Aphrodite has\n  as yet been offered.\n\n  [1367] See above, \u00a7 762.\n\n  [1368] _Homeric Hymn to Aphrodite_; Euripides, _Medea_, 835\n  ff.; Lucretius. Ishtar also is the mother of all things, but\n  the idea is not developed by the Semites.\n\n  [1369] Compare the details given in J. Rosenbaum's\n  _Geschichte der Lustseuche im Alterume_.\n\n  [1370] Aust, _Religion der R\u00f6mer_; Fowler, _Roman\n  Festivals_; id. _The Religious Experience of the Roman\n  People_; articles in Roscher's _Lexikon_; Mommsen, _History\n  of Rome_ (Eng. tr.), bk. i, chap. xii.\n\n  [1371] \u00a7 702 ff.\n\n  [1372] Hence a confusion of names that appears even to-day,\n  and in books otherwise careful, as, for example, in the Bohn\n  translations of Greek works, in which the Greek deities are\n  throughout called by Latin names.\n\n  [1373] So written in good manuscripts. The \"piter\" probably\n  denotes fatherly protection, though it may have meant\n  originally physical paternity. On this point cf. W. R.\n  Smith, _Religion of the Semites_, lecture ii, and the\n  various stories of the birth of Jupiter's children.\n\n  [1374] On the significance of the doublefaced Janus (Janus\n  Geminus) and of the ancient usage of opening the gates of\n  his temple in time of war and closing them in time of peace,\n  see article \"Janus\" in Roscher's _Lexikon_, col. 18 ff.\n\n  [1375] With his function as door-god compare the functions\n  of other Roman door-gods, of Vesta, and of Hindu and other\n  house-deities.\n\n  [1376] Varro, _De Lingua Latina_, v, 85; Cato, _De Agri\n  Cultura_, 141.\n\n  [1377] So Roscher and others.\n\n  [1378] Cf. Fowler, _Roman Festivals_, p. 35.\n\n  [1379] The cult of Mars was widely diffused in Italy and,\n  later, elsewhere. His original seat is uncertain. He was,\n  perhaps, the tribal god of a conquering people.\n\n  [1380] Cf. also the Ancillarum Feri\u00e6 (July 7).\n\n  [1381] See above, \u00a7 217 ff.\n\n  [1382] Vergil, _Eclogues_, iv, 6. Cf. above, \u00a7 768, note\n  (Kronos).\n\n  [1383] Aust, _Religion der R\u00f6mer_; Farnell, _Cults of the\n  Greek States_; Fowler, _Roman Festivals_; articles in\n  Roscher's _Lexikon_.\n\n  [1384] She appears to have been a Greek deity adopted by the\n  Romans.\n\n  [1385] See above, \u00a7 43.\n\n  [1386] Compare the Greek Hestia and the Hindu house-goddess\n  (Hopkins, _Religions of India_, pp. 374, 530).\n\n  [1387] On the Arician Diana see Frazer, _Golden Bough_, 2d\n  ed., i, 230 f.\n\n  [1388] Or, better, from _dei[=a]_.\n\n  [1389] The prevailing view is that the grove is an opened\n  place into which light enters, and it is thus distinguished\n  from the dark and gloomy forest. The verbs _nitere_,\n  _nitescere_, _virere_, are used by Ovid and other writers to\n  describe this gleaming of leaves, plants, trees, groves, and\n  of the earth.\n\n  [1390] An early divine name expressive of intellectual power\n  is not probable.\n\n  [1391] On her origin cf. Wissowa, _Religion der R\u00f6mer_, p.\n  203 ff.\n\n  [1392] Varro, _De Re Rustica_, i, 1.\n\n  [1393] See above, \u00a7 803.\n\n  [1394] In favor of Ardea, twenty miles south of Rome, as her\n  original seat, cf. Wissowa, _Religion der R\u00f6mer_, p. 235.\n\n  [1395] Her identification with the Greek goddess was perhaps\n  furthered by a supposed relation between her name and the\n  noun _venustas_, 'grace, beauty,' the special quality of\n  Aphrodite. If that was the original sense of 'Venus,' it\n  could hardly have indicated an \u00e6sthetic perception of nature\n  (Wissowa, op. cit.); such a designation would be foreign to\n  early ways of naming deities. Whether the stem _van_ might\n  mean 'general excellence' (here agricultural) is uncertain;\n  on the Greek epithets 'Kallisto,' 'Kalliste,' and so forth,\n  cf. Gruppe, _Griechische Mythologie_, p. 1270 f. The name\n  'Venus,' if connected with the root of _venerari_, might\n  mean simply 'a revered object,' a deity; cf. Bona Dea and\n  Ceres (creator).\n\n  [1396] Roscher's _Lexikon_, s.v. \"Fortuna,\" col. 1518;\n  Fowler, _Roman Festivals_, p. 68. On licentious cults of\n  Venus cf. J. Rosenbaum, _Geschichte der Lustseuche im\n  Altertume_.\n\n  [1397] See above, \u00a7 671.\n\n  [1398] Articles in Roscher, _Lexikon_, and in _Orientalische\n  Studien N\u00f6ldeke gewidmet_.\n\n  [1399] Inscriptions of Rammannirari and Nebuchadrezzar (Birs\n  Nimrud); Jastrow, _Religion of Babylonia and Assyria_,\n  Index, s.v.; id., _Aspects of Religious Belief and Practice\n  in Babylonia and Assyria_, Index, s.v. _Adad_.\n\n  [1400] There is no separate god of Sheol in the Old\n  Testament. On Eve as such a deity see Lidzbarski,\n  _Ephmeris_, i, 26; cf. Cook, _North Semitic Inscriptions_,\n  135.\n\n  [1401] Gen. vi, 4, cf. Ezek. xxxii, 27; Philo of Byblos;\n  Harper, _Assyrian and Babylonian Literature_.\n\n  [1402] Isa. lxiii, 16 (\"God is our father, though Abraham\n  and Israel do not acknowledge us\") is regarded by some\n  commentators as pointing to ancestor-worship. It seems,\n  however, to be nothing more than the complaint of persons\n  who were disowned by the community or by the leaders.\n\n  [1403] \u00a7 341 ff.\n\n  [1404] Jastrow, _Religions of Babylonia and Assyria_, p.\n  168: \"a pantheon of demons.\"\n\n  [1405] Isa. xxxiv, 14.\n\n  [1406] Satan is one of the Elohim-beings, old gods\n  subordinated to Yahweh, and Azazel, if his name contains the\n  divine title _el_, must be put into this class.\n\n  [1407] Wisdom of Solomon, ii, 24.\n\n  [1408] Harrison, _Prolegomena to the Study of Greek\n  Religion_, chap. v. On Hindu demons see Hopkins, _Religions\n  of India_, Index, s.v. _Devils_.\n\n  [1409] \u00a7\u00a7 698 ff., 398 ff.\n\n  [1410] See below, Chapter vii. Here, again, Mazdaism forms\n  an exception, resembling the Semitic scheme rather than the\n  Hindu.\n\n  [1411] A partial exception is found in the comparatively\n  late movement from the south of Arabia over into Africa\n  (Abessinia, Ethiopia).\n\n  [1412] On the characteristics of the various great religions\n  see Hegel, _Religionsphilosphe_; Santayana, _Reason in\n  Religion_ (vol. iii of _The Life of Reason_); E. Caird,\n  _Evolution of Religion_; R. B. Perry, _Approach to\n  Philosophy_; S. Johnson, _Oriental Religions_; J. F. Clarke,\n  _Ten Great Religions_; S. Reinach, _Orpheus_. See below,\n  Chapter ix.\n\n  [1413] But a certain substratum is usually assumed, no\n  attempt being made to account for its existence.\n\n  [1414] Cf. Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, chaps. viii-x;\n  Jastrow, _Study of Religion_, Index, s.vv. _Myth_,\n  _Mythology_; Lang, _Custom and Myth_, and _Myth, Ritual, and\n  Religion_; articles \"Mythologie\" in _La Grande Encyclop\u00e9die_,\n  and \"Mythology\" in _Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica_, 11th ed.\n\n  [1415] Belief in miracles, which is found in some higher\n  religions, may here be left out of the account as belonging\n  in a separate category.\n\n  [1416] Lang, _Myth, Ritual, and Religion_, chaps. ii-iv.\n\n  [1417] So with the theory of universal borrowing from one\n  center advocated by Stucken (_Astralmythen_), Winckler\n  (_Himmels- und Weltensbild der Babylonier als Grundlage der\n  Weltanschauung und Mythologle aller V\u00f6lker_), Jeremias (_Das\n  Alte Testament im Lichte des Alten Orients_), Jensen (_Das\n  Gilgamesch Epos_), and others.\n\n  [1418] Cf. article \"Cosmogony and Cosmology\" in Hastings,\n  _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics_.\n\n  [1419] \u00a7 225 ff.\n\n  [1420] _\u00c7atapatha Brahmana_, xi, 1, 6, 1.\n\n  [1421] R. B. Dixon, _The Northern Maidu_, p. 335 f.\n\n  [1422] Spiegel (_Eranische Alterthumskunde_, ii, 144)\n  ascribes to the Eranians the conception of creation out of\n  nothing. See also the Hawaiian representation of the origin\n  of all things from the primeval void, and the orderly\n  sequence of the various forms of life.\n\n  [1423] A. Lang, _Myth, Ritual, and Religion_ chap. vi ff.\n\n  [1424] See, for example, the two accounts of creation in the\n  Book of Genesis. In the earlier account (chap. ii) the\n  procedure of Yahweh is mechanical, and things do not turn\n  out as he intended; in the later account (chap. i) there is\n  no mention of a process--it is the divine word that calls\n  the world into being.\n\n  [1425] Dixon, _The Northern Maidu_, p. 263.\n\n  [1426] See R. Andree, _Die Flutsagen_; article \"Flood\" in\n  Hastings, _Dictionary of the Bible_.\n\n  [1427] Matthews, _Navaho Legends_, p. 37; cf. Dorsey, _The\n  Skidi Pawnee_, p. 14 ff.\n\n  [1428] Grey, _Polynesian Mythology_, p. 57 f.; cf. Tylor,\n  _Primitive Culture_, i, 335.\n\n  [1429] Callaway, _The Amazulu_, pp. 3, 4, 100, 138.\n\n  [1430] Gen. v; vi, 4; Herodotus, iii, 23; Roscher,\n  _Lexikon_, s.v. _Giganten_; cf. Tylor, op. cit., i, 385 ff.;\n  Brinton, _American Hero-Myths_, p. 88.\n\n  [1431] Brinton, _Religions of Primitive Peoples_, p. 126 f.;\n  Maspero, _Dawn_, p. 158; Gen. ii, iii; _Avesta, Vendidad_,\n  Fargard ii; Spiegel, _Eranische Alterthumskunde_, i, 463\n  ff.; Windischmann, _Zoroastrische Studien_, p. 19 ff.;\n  Hopkins, in _Journal of the American Oriental Society_\n  (September, 1910), pp. 362, 366; article \"Hesperiden\" in\n  Roscher's _Lexikon_; commentaries of Kalisch, Dillmann,\n  Driver, Skinner, and others on Gen. ii, iii; _Jewish\n  Encyclop\u00e6dia_, s.v. _Paradise_; Delitzsch, _Wo lag das\n  Paradies?_ On the character of the abode of the Babylonian\n  Parnapishtim see Jastrow, _Religion of Babylonia and\n  Assyria_, pp. 488, 496.\n\n  [1432] 2 Pet. iii, 7, contrast with the old destruction by\n  water; Hindu eschatology.\n\n  [1433] The Norse myth of \"the twilight of the gods\" has\n  perhaps been colored, in its latest form, by Christian\n  eschatology.\n\n  [1434] Hopkins, _Religions of India_, p. 421; Spiegel,\n  _Eranische Alterthumskunde_, ii, 161; H. Warren, _Buddhism\n  in Translations_, p. 315 ff.\n\n  [1435] Matthews, _Navaho Legends_, p. 63 ff.\n\n  [1436] Hartland, _Primitive Paternity_, chap. i.\n\n  [1437] Grey, _Polynesian Mythology_, chap. i.\n\n  [1438] Maspero, _Dawn_, p. 128 f.\n\n  [1439] _Aitareya Brahmana_, iv, 27.\n\n  [1440] Hollis, _The Masai_, p. 279; cf. Turner, _Samoa_, p.\n  198.\n\n  [1441] Gruppe, _Griechische Culte und Mythen_. Cf. the\n  birth-myth in Matthews, _Navaho Legends_, p. 71.\n\n  [1442] So Heracles, Achilles, \u00c6neas, and the heroes\n  mentioned in Gen. vi, 4.\n\n  [1443] Gen. ii, 7.\n\n  [1444] So in Polynesia, North America, China, ancient\n  Greece, and among the Hebrews.\n\n  [1445] As, for example, the Hebrews (Deut. xxxii, 8 f.)\n\n  [1446] Spencer and Gillen, _Native Tribes of Central\n  Australia_, p. 119 ff.; Taylor, _New Zealand_, chap. xiv and\n  p. 325; Turner, _Samoa_, p. 3 ff.; J. G. M\u00fcller, _Geschichte\n  der amerikanischen Urreligionen_, pp. 33 ff., 179 ff., \u00a7 61.\n\n  [1447] So the Hindu Manu (man), or Father Manu (_Rig-Veda_,\n  ii, 33, 13), is the progenitor of the human race. Cf. the\n  \"first man,\" Yama. For the Old-Persian genealogical scheme\n  see Spiegel, _Eranische Alterthumskunde_, i, 473, 500 ff.\n\n  [1448] Deut. xxxii.\n\n  [1449] Codrington, _The Melanesians_, p. 156 ff.; R\u00e9ville,\n  _Native Religions of Mexico and Peru_, p. 64; Brinton,\n  _Myths of the New World_, p. 264, and _American Hero-Myths_,\n  pp. 186 f., 195 ff.; cf. R. B. Brehm, _Das Inka-Reich_, p.\n  24 ff.\n\n  [1450] Jastrow, _Aspects of Religious Belief and Practice in\n  Babylonia and Assyria_, p. 89.\n\n  [1451] Gen. iv, 16 ff.\n\n  [1452] Gen. vi, 1, 2, 4 (verse 3 is an interpolation).\n\n  [1453] Herodotus, v, 57 f.; Roscher, _Lexikon_, s.v.\n  _Kadmos_.\n\n  [1454] _Rig-Veda_, i, 93, 6.\n\n  [1455] Hesiod, _Works and Days_, 49 ff.\n\n  [1456] In the story in Genesis (ii, 17; iii, 5, 22-24) there\n  is a trace of such jealousy; and it is by violation of the\n  command of the deity that man attains the knowledge of good\n  and evil.\n\n  [1457] L. Frobenius, _Childhood of Man_, chap. xxv (and cf.\n  chap. xxvi).\n\n  [1458] Chapter iii.\n\n  [1459] Spencer and Gillen, _Native Tribes of Central\n  Australia_, p. 394 ff.\n\n  [1460] See above, \u00a7 153 ff.\n\n  [1461] Gen. xvii.\n\n  [1462] Ex. iv, 24-26; Josh. v, 2 ff.\n\n  [1463] W. Matthews, _Navaho Legends_, p. 40 ff.; J. W.\n  Fewkes, _The Winter Solstice Ceremony at Walpi_.\n\n  [1464] R\u00e9ville, _Native Religions of Mexico and Peru_\n  (Hibbert Lectures), pp. 94 f., 110 (cf. ib., p. 224 f., on\n  Peruvian dances). See above, \u00a7 109, note 6.\n\n  [1465] Gen. xxxii, 24 ff.\n\n  [1466] Fowler, _Roman Festivals_, p. 38.\n\n  [1467] Fowler, op. cit., p. 99 ff.; for another view see\n  Roscher, _Lexikon_, article \"Maia II\"; cf. Wissowa,\n  _Religion der R\u00f6mer_, p. 185.\n\n  [1468] Augustine, _De Civitate Dei_, 18, 9.\n\n  [1469] Judg. xi, 30 ff.\n\n  [1470] Plutarch, _Theseus_, 27.\n\n  [1471] F. B. Jevons, _Introduction to the History of\n  Religion_, chap. xxiii f.; Miss J. E. Harrison, _Prolegomena\n  to the Study of Greek Religion_, chap. x; K. H. E. de Jong,\n  _Das antike Mysterienwesen_, pp. 14, 16, 18; Preller,\n  \"Eleusinia\" in Pauly's _Realencyclop\u00e4die_; Reitzenstein,\n  _Hellenistische Mysterienreligion_.\n\n  [1472] In Babylonia such r\u00f4les are ascribed to Ea and Marduk\n  (Jastrow, _Religion of Babylonia and Assyria_, pp. 137, 139,\n  276).\n\n  [1473] See above, \u00a7 844 f.; W. R. Smith, _Religion of the\n  Semites_, 2d ed., pp. 18, 173 ff., _Records of the Past_,\n  vi, 108.\n\n  [1474] The myths connected with Quetzalcoatl (see Brinton,\n  _American Hero-Myths_, and L. Spence, _Mythologies of\n  Ancient Mexico and Peru_) do not relate mostly to the\n  movements and deeds of the sun or the winds, but arose from\n  his character as local deity with universal powers. Social\n  and political events were woven into them. His contest with\n  Tezcatlipoca seems to reflect the struggle between two\n  tribes; his defeat signifies the victory of the conquering\n  tribe, and the expectation of his return (by which the\n  invading Spaniards, it is said, profited) was based on the\n  political hope of his people. Cf. similar expectations among\n  other peoples.\n\n  [1475] Gen. xxii.\n\n  [1476] B. Beer, _Leben Abraham's nach Auffassung der\n  j\u00fcdischen Sage_, p. 5 and note 34; p. 102, note 30.\n\n  [1477] Turner, _Samoa_, Index.\n\n  [1478] Spencer and Gillen, _Native Tribes of Central\n  Australia_, chap. xviii.\n\n  [1479] Pausanias, _Description of Greece_, passim.\n\n  [1480] Semitic and other examples are given in W. R. Smith's\n  _Religion of the Semites_, p. 173 ff.\n\n  [1481] On the complicated myth of Pha\u00ebthon see the article\n  in Roscher's _Lexikon_.\n\n  [1482] Isa. xxiv, 21; Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, i, 356 ff.\n\n  [1483] The Babylonians were the great astronomers and\n  astrologers of antiquity, but their eminence in this regard\n  belongs to their later period. After the fall of the later\n  Babylonian empire (B.C. 539) the term 'Chaldean' became a\n  synonym of 'astrologer' (so in the Book of Daniel, B.C.\n  165-164); cf. Jastrow, _Aspects of Religious Belief and\n  Practice in Babylonia and Assyria_, p. 259 f.\n\n  [1484] Brinton, _Myths of the New World_, passim; Hartland,\n  _Primitive Paternity_, i, 149 f.; Grey, _Polynesian\n  Mythology_, p. 1 ff.; Hickson, _Northern Celebes_; Lane,\n  _Arabian Nights_, i, 30 ff.; Saussaye, _Religion of the\n  Teutons_, p. 216 f.; _Iliad_, xxiii, 198 ff.; Tylor,\n  _Primitive Culture_, i, 360 ff.; Ratzel, _History of\n  Mankind_ (Eng. tr.), passim.\n\n  [1485] _Iliad_, xxiii, 200 f. For some wind-myths see\n  Roscher, _Lexikon_, articles \"Boreaden,\" \"Boreas,\"\n  \"Harpyia.\" Cf. the Maori myths given in R. Taylor's _New\n  Zealand_, chap. vi, and for Navaho winds see Matthews,\n  _Navaho Legends_, p. 226, note 75.\n\n  [1486] As in Goldziher's _Hebrew Mythology_ (Eng. tr.), a\n  view later abandoned by the author.\n\n  [1487] By Mannhardt, in _Mythologische Forschungen_, p. 224\n  ff.; Frazer, in _Golden Bough_, 2d ed. (see Index, s.v.\n  _Corn_); and others.\n\n  [1488] Cf. Frazer, op. cit., chap. iii, \u00a7 16 f.; Roscher,\n  _Lexikon_, articles \"Kybele,\" \"Attis,\" \"Persephone,\"\n  \"Ceres\"; and Farnell, _Cults of the Greek States_.\n\n  [1489] See above, \u00a7 678.\n\n  [1490] Gen. i, 2 f.\n\n  [1491] Dan. ii, 22; Rev. xxi, 23.\n\n  [1492] This is true even in the case of abstract deities;\n  see above, \u00a7\u00a7 696, 702 ff.\n\n  [1493] A myth is a purely imaginative explanation of\n  phenomena; a legend rests on facts, but the facts are\n  distorted. The two terms are often confused the one with the\n  other.\n\n  [1494] Some peculiar combinations appear in the figures of\n  Semiramis and the Kuretes and the Korybantes; see the\n  articles in Roscher's _Lexikon_ under these headings.\n\n  [1495] Cf. Gomme, _Folklore as an Historical Science_; Van\n  Gennep, _La formation des l\u00e9gendes_.\n\n  [1496] See the various folk-lore journals; W. W. Newell,\n  article \"Folk-lore\" in Johnson's _Universal Cyclop\u00e6dia_; cf.\n  Gomme, op. cit., and \u00a7 881 below.\n\n  [1497] So in the cases of the Australian ancestors, the\n  Polynesian, Teutonic, Finnic, Slavic, Greek, Phrygian, and\n  other heroes and gods, the Hebrew patriarchs, and many other\n  such figures.\n\n  [1498] See above, \u00a7 859.\n\n  [1499] See above, \u00a7 649.\n\n  [1500] Such were the Greek rhapsodists (M\u00fcller and\n  Donaldson, _History of the Literature of Ancient Greece_, i,\n  33 ff.), and probably the Hebrew mashalists (Numb. xxi, 27,\n  Eng. tr., \"they that speak in proverbs\"). Such reciters are\n  found in India at the present day.\n\n  [1501] On the value of myths for religious instruction cf.\n  Schultz, _Old Testament Theology_, Eng. tr. (of 4th German\n  ed.), i, chap. ii.\n\n  [1502] Geffcken, article \"Allegory\" in Hastings,\n  _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics_.\n\n  [1503] _Ph\u00e6drus_, 229; _Cratylus_, 406 f.; _Republic_ 378.\n\n  [1504] Cf. M\u00fcller and Donaldson, _History of the Literature\n  of Ancient Greece_, chap. xxvi.\n\n  [1505] 1 Cor. ix, 9 f.; x, 1-4; Gal. iv, 24 ff.; Heb. vii,\n  2; Origen, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and commentators\n  generally up to the sixteenth century and later.\n\n  [1506] _Origine de tous les cultes ou religion universelle_\n  (1794).\n\n  [1507] _Science of Language_, 2d series; cf. his Hibbert and\n  Gifford lectures.\n\n  [1508] It is elaborated in G. W. Cox's _Mythology of the\n  Aryan Nations_.\n\n  [1509] Op. cit. \u00a7 864. Cf. article \"Panbabylonianism\" in\n  _Harvard Theological Review_ for January, 1910.\n\n  [1510] _Astralmythen der Hebr\u00e4er, Babylonier und Aegypter_\n  (1896-1907).\n\n  [1511] So in folk-tales the same motif appears in a hundred\n  different settings; but this is not necessarily a sign of\n  borrowing.\n\n  [1512] Op. cit., p. 190.\n\n  [1513] See above, \u00a7 826, note.\n\n  [1514] No well-defined Arabian myths are known.\n\n  [1515] Most of the Old Testament mythical material has been\n  worked over by Hebrew monotheistic editors.\n\n  [1516] P. Jensen, _Das Gilgamesch Epos in der\n  Weltliteratur_.\n\n  [1517] Cf. article \"Panbabylonianism\" cited in \u00a7 866, note.\n\n  [1518] As, for example, those of New Zealand, Babylonia, and\n  Greece.\n\n  [1519] Cf. Keightley, _Fairy Mythology_, 2d ed., p. 14 f.\n\n  [1520] Bacon, _Wisdom of the Ancients_; in Biblical\n  exposition many recent writers.\n\n  [1521] See above, \u00a7 864 ff.; cf. Jastrow, _Study of\n  Religion_, p. 28 ff.\n\n  [1522] _Symbolik und Mythologie der alten V\u00f6lker_\n  (1810-1812).\n\n  [1523] _Antisymbolik_ (1824-1826).\n\n  [1524] Buttmann, Welcker, Lobeck, and others.\n\n  [1525] _Prolegomena zu einer wissenschaftlichen Mythologie_\n  (1825).\n\n  [1526] See above, \u00a7 865.\n\n  [1527] See above, \u00a7 359. Cf. Grant Allen, _The Evolution of\n  the Idea of God_.\n\n  [1528] Darwin and Spencer (evolution), Bastian (ethnology),\n  and others.\n\n  [1529] In his _Early History of Mankind_ and _Primitive\n  Culture_. Cf. C. de Brosses (_Du culte des dieux f\u00e9tiches_,\n  1760), who expressed a similar view.\n\n  [1530] A. Lang, _Custom and Myth_ and _Myth, Ritual, and\n  Religion_, and other works; Frazer, _Golden Bough_, 2d and\n  3d edd.; W. R. Smith, _Religion of the Semites_; and others.\n\n  [1531] Mannhardt, _Wald- und Feldkulte_ and _Mythologische\n  Forschungen_.\n\n  [1532] See the bibliography at the end of this book.\n\n  [1533] Beginnings for such a survey have been made in the\n  Teutonic, American, and some other areas.\n\n  [1534] Confucianism, if it can be called a religion, is an\n  exception.\n\n  [1535] See the bibliographies in Johnson's _Universal\n  Cyclop\u00e6dia_, article \"Fairy-lore,\" and _La Grande\n  Encyclop\u00e9die_, article \"F\u00e9e\"; Maury, _Croyances et l\u00e9gendes\n  du moyen \u00e2ge_, new ed.; Hartland, _The Science of\n  Fairy-tales_.\n\n  [1536] Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, Index, s.v. _Magic_;\n  Frazer, _Golden Bough_, 2d ed., Index, do.; id., _Early\n  History of the Kingship_, Index, do.; Hobhouse, _Morals in\n  Evolution_, Index, do.; Westermarck, _Origin and Development\n  of the Moral Ideas_, Index, do.; S. Reinach, _Orpheus_,\n  Index, do.; Hubert and Mauss, in _Ann\u00e9e sociologique_, vii;\n  Marett, _Threshold of Religion_; articles \"Magie\" in _La\n  Grande Encyclop\u00e9die_ and \"Magic\" in _Encyclop\u00e6dia\n  Britannica_, 11th ed.; article \"Magia\" in Daremberg and\n  Saglio, _Dictionnaire des antiquit\u00e9s grecques et romaines_.\n\n  [1537] Examples are cited in the works mentioned above.\n\n  [1538] On the view that many quasi-magical acts are\n  spontaneous reactions of the man to his environment see I.\n  King, _Development of Religion_, chap. vii. According to\n  this view the thought suggests the act. The warrior,\n  thinking of his enemy, instinctively makes the motion of\n  hurling something at him (as a modern man shakes his fist at\n  an absent foe), and such an act, a part of the excitation to\n  combat, is believed to be efficacious.\n\n  [1539] Westermarck, _Origin and Development of the Moral\n  Ideas_, s.v. _The Evil Eye_.\n\n  [1540] On mana see above, \u00a7 231 ff. Though the theory of\n  mana was necessarily vague, the thing itself was quite\n  definite.\n\n  [1541] Jastrow, _Religion of Babylonia and Assyria_, p. 85.\n\n  [1542] _Isis and Osiris_, 73.\n\n  [1543] Frazer, _Golden Bough_, 2d ed., i, 154 ff.\n\n  [1544] \u00a7 6 f.\n\n  [1545] Cf. Lord Avebury, _Marriage, Totemism, and Religion_,\n  p. 135.\n\n  [1546] Alexander, _Short History of the Hawaiian People_.\n\n  [1547] Jastrow, _Religion of Babylonia and Assyria_, p. 263.\n\n  [1548] Matthews, _Navaho Legends_, p. 36.\n\n  [1549] Cf. W. R. Smith, _Religion of the Semites_, lecture\n  iii.\n\n  [1550] Teit, _Thompson River Indians_, p. 53 f.\n\n  [1551] 1 Cor. x, 20 f.\n\n  [1552] Certain ceremonies of the higher religions produce\n  effects that must be regarded as magical.\n\n  [1553] Lubbock, _Origin of Civilization_, p. 188. Similar\n  logic appears in the story of the origin of Goodwin Sands,\n  told by Bishop Latimer (in a sermon preached before Edward\n  VI). An old man, being asked what he thought was the cause\n  of the Sands, replied that he had lived near there, man and\n  boy, fourscore years, and before the neighboring steeple was\n  built there was no Sands, and therefore his opinion was that\n  the steeple was the cause of the Sands.\n\n  [1554] So among the old Hebrews, according to 1 Sam. xxviii,\n  9. For Rome cf. Fowler, _Religious Experience of the Roman\n  People_, lecture iii.\n\n  [1555] Cf. above, \u00a7 889.\n\n  [1556] In some cases the priest is a magician (Grey,\n  _Polynesian Mythology_, p. 114 ff.)--he acts as the\n  mouthpiece of a god, and in sympathy with the god. Cf.\n  Westermarck, _Origin and Development of the Moral Ideas_,\n  ii, 658. On a connection between the magician and the poet\n  see Goldziher, in _Proceedings of the Tenth International\n  Congress of Orientalists_.\n\n  [1557] Cf. above, \u00a7 889.\n\n  [1558] Dixon, _The Northern Maidu_, p. 267 f.; id., _The\n  Shasta_, 471 ff.\n\n  [1559] Ellis, _Tshi_, p. 120.\n\n  [1560] Dixon, _The Shasta_, loc. cit.; Miss Fletcher,\n  _Indian Ceremonies_, p. 280.\n\n  [1561] M. Kingsley, _Studies_, p. 136.\n\n  [1562] Grey, _Polynesian Mythology_, p. 278.\n\n  [1563] Jastrow, _Religion of Babylonia and Assyria_, p. 267\n  f.\n\n  [1564] 1 Sam. xxviii.\n\n  [1565] Apuleius, _Metamorphoses_, bk. ii f.\n\n  [1566] Sura cxiii.\n\n  [1567] Women, however, are sometimes shamans in such tribes,\n  as in the California Shasta (while in the neighboring Maidu\n  they are commonly men). See Dixon, _The Shasta_, p. 471;\n  _The Northern Maidu_, p. 267 f.\n\n  [1568] Tiele, _Elements of the Science of Religion_, ii,\n  140; cf. Spiegel, _Eranische Alterthumskunde_, iii, 564 f.,\n  587 f.; Jackson, in Geiger and Kuhn's _Grundriss der\n  iranischen Philologie_, ii, 630, 671, 692.\n\n  [1569] Sophocles, _OEdipus Tyrannus_, 387; Euripides,\n  _Orestes_, 1498. Hence the term 'magic' as the designation\n  of a certain form of procedure.\n\n  [1570] So in the _Thousand and One Nights_, passim.\n\n  [1571] Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, i, 113 ff.; Castr\u00e9n,\n  _Finnische Mythologie_, pp. 186 ff., 229; Skeat, _Malay\n  Magic_, p. 162; Rivers, _The Todas_, p. 263; Crooke,\n  _Popular Religion and Folklore of Northern India_, ii, 283\n  ff. For modern usages see Wuttke, _Der deutsche\n  Volksaberglaube der Gegenwart_, 2d ed., pp. 131, 241.\n\n  [1572] A magician, as a man of special social prominence and\n  of extraordinary power over the forces of the world,\n  becomes, in some cases, the political head of his community\n  (as a priest sometimes has a like position). Where the\n  divinization of men is practiced, the magician may be\n  recognized as a god. But no general rule can be laid down.\n  The office of king had its own political development, and a\n  god was the natural product of the reflection of a\n  community. The elevation of the magician to high political\n  or ecclesiastical position was dependent on peculiar\n  circumstances and may be called sporadic. Cf. Frazer, _Early\n  History of the Kingship_, p. 107 ff. and lecture v.\n\n  [1573] Cf. Frazer, _Golden Bough_, 2d ed., Index, s.v.\n  _Kings_.\n\n  [1574] See Lord Avebury, _Marriage, Totemism, and Religion_,\n  chap. iv.\n\n  [1575] The plant or animal may be a totem, but its magical\n  power is not derived from its totemic character. Magical\n  potency may dwell in nontotemic objects; in magical\n  ceremonies connected with totems (as in Australia) it is the\n  ceremony rather than the totem that is efficacious. Cf.\n  Marett, _Threshold of Religion_, p. 22 f.\n\n  [1576] Cf. Marett, \"From spell to prayer,\" in his _Threshold\n  of Religion_, p. 33 ff.\n\n  [1577] Cf. J. H. King, _The Supernatural_, Index, s.v.\n  _Charm_; Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, ii, 148; article\n  \"Charms and Amulets\" in Hastings, _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion\n  and Ethics_.\n\n  [1578] Eng. tr. by Bloomfield, in _Sacred Books of the\n  East_.\n\n  [1579] L. W. King, _Babylonian Magic and Sorcery_.\n\n  [1580] _Records of the Past_, first series, vols. ii, vi;\n  Griffith, article \"Egyptian Literature\" in _Library of the\n  World's Best Literature_; Maspero, _Dawn of Civilization_,\n  p. 212 ff.; Breasted, _History of Egypt_, Index, s.v.\n  _Magic_.\n\n  [1581] Cf. Macdonald, _Religious Attitude and Life in\n  Islam_, Index, s.v. _Magic_.\n\n  [1582] Daremberg and Saglio, _Dictionnaire des antiquit\u00e9s\n  grecques et romaines_, article \"Magia\"; cf. articles\n  \"Medeia\" and \"Kirke\" in Roscher's _Lexikon_.\n\n  [1583] Apuleius, _Metamorphoses_; Gibbon, _Decline and Fall\n  of the Roman Empire_, ii, 535 ff.; Friedl\u00e4nder, _Roman Life\n  and Manners under the Early Empire_ (Eng. tr.), i, 260 f.;\n  Fowler, _The Religious Experience of the Roman People_, p.\n  57 ff.; cf. Cumont, _Astrology and Religion among the Greeks\n  and Romans_, Index, s.v. _Magic_.\n\n  [1584] 1 Sam. xxviii; Isa. viii, 19.\n\n  [1585] In the later Judaism Solomon is the great master of\n  magic; see the story of the Queen of Sheba in the Second\n  Esther Targum; Baring-Gould, _Legends of Old Testament\n  Characters_. For the Arabian legends of Solomon (borrowed\n  from the Jews) see _Koran_, sura xxxviii; _History of\n  Bilkis, Queen of Sheba_, compiled from various Arabic\n  sources, in Socin's _Arabic Grammar_ (Eng. tr., 1885).\n\n  [1586] Lecky, _History of the Rise and Influence of the\n  Spirit of Rationalism in Europe_; Westermarck, _Origin and\n  Development of the Moral Ideas_, Index, s.vv. _Magic_ and\n  _Witches_.\n\n  [1587] These Powers, including mana, may all be called\n  \"divine\" as distinguished from the purely \"human.\"\n\n  [1588] A superhuman phenomenon, if produced by a deity, is\n  called a \"miracle,\" and is held to be beneficent; if\n  produced by a nontheistic process, it is called \"magical,\"\n  and is looked at doubtfully.\n\n  [1589] Cf. Westermarck, _Origin and Development of the Moral\n  Ideas_, ii, 696; Hobhouse, _Morals in Evolution_, Index,\n  s.v. _Magic and Morals_.\n\n  [1590] Ultimately, in early religious theory, all objects\n  are divine or abodes or incarnations of divine beings and\n  capable of independent action; sometimes, doubtless, the\n  recognition of the natural character of a thing (as of\n  courage and other qualities in animals) coalesces with the\n  belief in its guiding power.\n\n  [1591] Cf. article \"Magia\" in Daremberg and Saglio,\n  _Dictionnaire des antiquit\u00e9s grecques et romaines_, p. 1496.\n\n  [1592] Rivers, _The Todas_, p. 254.\n\n  [1593] Cf. article \"Bantu\" in Hastings, _Encyclop\u00e6dia of\n  Religion and Ethics_, p. 358.\n\n  [1594] 1 Sam. x, 5; xix, 24.\n\n  [1595] Breasted, _History of Egypt_, p. 513 f. The envoy not\n  only failed to procure cedar for the sacred barge of Amon\n  but was ordered by the prince to leave the city; the youth\n  intervened successfully (ca. 1100 B.C.).\n\n  [1596] So Teiresias (_Odyssey_, x, 492 ff.; _OEdipus\n  Tyrannus_, 92) and Samuel (1 Sam. ix).\n\n  [1597] Mic. i, 8; cf. 2 Kings iii, 15 (music as a\n  preliminary condition of inspiration).\n\n  [1598] As among the Hebrews, the Greeks, and other ancient\n  peoples.\n\n  [1599] Formerly, says Cicero (_De Divinatione_, i, 16),\n  almost nothing of moment, or even in private affairs, was\n  undertaken without an augury.\n\n  [1600] For a tabulation of omens and other signs and of\n  forms of divinatory procedure see article \"Divination\" in\n  _La Grande Encyclop\u00e9die_.\n\n  [1601] Cicero, _De Divinatione_, i, 1-4; Diodorus Siculus,\n  i, 70, 81; Maspero, _Dawn of Civilization_, p. 216 ff.;\n  Steindorff, _Religion of the Ancient Egyptians_, p. 113 ff.\n  (cf. Gen. xliv, 5, 15, which may point to an Egyptian custom\n  of divination by cup); Jastrow, _Religion Babyloniens und\n  Assyriens_, and _Aspects of Religious Belief and Practice in\n  Babylonia and Assyria_; Hopkins, _Religions of India_, pp.\n  256, 328; De Groot, _Religious System of China_, i, 103 ff.;\n  iii, chap. xii; Buckley, in Saussaye's _Lehrbuch der\n  Religionsgeschichte_, 2d ed. (China); articles \"Divination\"\n  in _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_, Hastings's _Dictionary of the\n  Bible_, and _Jewish Encyclopedia_; Bouch\u00e9-Leclercq,\n  _Histoire de la divination dans l'antiquit\u00e9_; articles\n  \"Divinatio\" and \"Haruspices\" in Daremberg and Saglio,\n  _Dictionnaire des antiquit\u00e9s grecques et romaines_; Gardner\n  and Jevons, _Greek Antiquities_, chap. vii; Stengel and\n  Oehmichen, _Die griechischen Sakralaltert\u00fcmer_; Wissowa,\n  _Religion der R\u00f6mer_, p. 450 ff.; Fowler, _Religious\n  Experience of the Roman People_, lecture xiii; Wellhausen,\n  _Reste arabischen Heidentumes_, pp. 126 ff., 148 ff.;\n  article \"Celts\" in Hastings, _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and\n  Ethics_; Hastings, op. cit., ii, 54 ff.; Saussaye, _Religion\n  of the Teutons_, Index, s.v. _Divination_.\n\n  [1602] Turner, _Samoa_, Index, s.v. _Omens_.\n\n  [1603] These animals were originally themselves divine, and\n  therefore, by their own knowledge, capable of indicating the\n  course of events; cf. \u00a7 905, note.\n\n  [1604] Hollis, _The Masai_, p. 323 f.; id., _The Nandi_, p.\n  79.\n\n  [1605] Ellis, _Tshi_, p. 203.\n\n  [1606] Conolly, _Journey to the North of India_, 2d ed.,\n  1838, ii, 137 ff.\n\n  [1607] Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, i, 78, etc. For South\n  Africa cf. Callaway, _The Amasulu_, Index, s.vv. _Omens_,\n  _Divination_, _Diviners_; Kidd, _The Essential Kafir_,\n  Index, s.v. _Divining_; article \"Bantu\" in Hastings,\n  _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics_, p. 362.\n\n  [1608] 2 Sam. v, 24.\n\n  [1609] Jastrow, _Religion of Babylonia and Assyria_ (Eng.\n  and Ger. edd.), in which references to the original\n  documents are given.\n\n  [1610] [Greek: ornis, oi\u00f4nos]. _Iliad_, ii, 859; xii, 237;\n  xxiv, 219; Hesiod, _Works and Days_, 826; cf.\n  Bouch\u00e9-Leclercq, _Histoire de la divination dans\n  l'antiquit\u00e9_, i, 127 ff.\n\n  [1611] _Birds_, 715 ff.\n\n  [1612] _Iliad_, xii, 243.\n\n  [1613] In Borneo, which has an elaborate scheme of omens\n  from birds, prayer is sometimes addressed to them. Furness,\n  _Home life of the Borneo Head-hunters_, Index, s.v. _Omen_;\n  Haddon, _Head-hunters_, p. 344.\n\n  [1614] The sacrificial animal was regarded as divine, and\n  its movements had the significance of divine counsels.\n\n  [1615] Terence, _Phormio_, IV, iv, 25 ff.\n\n  [1616] Frazer, _Totemism and Exogamy_, ii, 137; Tylor,\n  _Primitive Culture_, i, 119 f.; Miss Fletcher, _Indian\n  Ceremonies_, p. 278 ff.\n\n  [1617] Jastrow, _Religion of Babylonia and Assyria_, p. 384\n  ff.\n\n  [1618] Turner, _Samoa_, p. 319; Rivers, _The Todas_, p. 593;\n  Hollis, _The Nandi_, p. 100, and _The Masai_, p. 275 ff.\n\n  [1619] On the exaggerated range and importance ascribed by\n  some modern writers to early conceptions of the divinatory\n  function of heavenly bodies see above, \u00a7\u00a7 826, 866 ff.\n\n  [1620] Erman, _Handbook of Egyptian Religion_, pp. 163, 180.\n\n  [1621] Jastrow, _Aspects of Religious Belief and Practice in\n  Babylonia and Assyria_, p. 240 ff.; R. F. Harper, _Assyrian\n  and Babylonian Literature_, p. 451 ff.\n\n  [1622] Persius, vi, 18.\n\n  [1623] Cicero, _De Divinatione_, ii, 42 ff.\n\n  [1624] The largest planet was brought into connection with\n  the chief god of Babylon, Marduk; the bright star of morning\n  and evening with Ishtar; the red planet with Nergal, god of\n  war, and the others with Ninib and Nebo respectively. The\n  Romans changed these names into those of their corresponding\n  deities, Jupiter, Venus, Mars, Saturn, and Mercury.\n\n  [1625] Cumont, _Les religions orientales dans le paganisme\n  romain_, chap. vii, and Eng. tr., _The Oriental Religions in\n  Roman Paganism_; id., _Astrology and Religion among the\n  Greeks and Romans_; Bouch\u00e9-Leclercq, _L'astrologie grecque_\n  and _Histoire de la divination dans l'antiquit\u00e9_.\n\n  [1626] Medieval belief in astral power is embodied in the\n  English word 'influence,' properly the inflow from the stars\n  (so in Milton's _L'Allegro_, 121 f., \"ladies whose bright\n  eyes rain influence\"). An astrologer was often attached to a\n  royal court or to the household of some great person, his\n  duty being to keep his patron informed as to the future.\n\n  [1627] _Odyssey_, xvii, 541 ff. The fear of a sneeze (which\n  must be followed by some form of 'God bless you!') belongs\n  in a different category; the danger is that a hurtful spirit\n  may enter the sneezer's body, or that his soul may depart.\n\n  [1628] Muir, _The Caliphate_, p. 112.\n\n  [1629] Hastings, _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics_, ii,\n  362; Ellis, _Tshi_, p. 202; id., _Yoruba_, p. 97; cf.\n  Hollis, _The Masai_, p. 324.\n\n  [1630] 1 Sam. xxiii, 2.\n\n  [1631] 1 Sam. xiv, 38-42 (see the Septuagint text).\n\n  [1632] Ezek. xxi, 21 [26].\n\n  [1633] _Moallakat of Imru'l-Kais_, ver. 22.\n\n  [1634] Bouch\u00e9-Leclercq, _Histoire de la divination dans\n  l'antiquit\u00e9_, i, 195 ff.; iv, 153, 159; Augustine,\n  _Confessions_, iv, 5: de paginis poetae cujuspiam longe\n  allud canentis atque intendentis; if, says Augustine's\n  friend, an apposite verse so appears, it is not wonderful\n  that something bearing on one's affairs should issue from\n  the human soul by some higher instinct, though the soul does\n  not know what goes on within it.\n\n  [1635] Cf. Comparetti, _Virgilio nel medio evo_, i, 64 f.\n  (Eng. tr., p. 47 f.).\n\n  [1636] As the Masai (Hollis, _The Masai_, p. 324).\n\n  [1637] Bouch\u00e9-Leclercq, _Histoire de la divination dans\n  l'antiquit\u00e9_; Daremberg and Saglio, _Dictionnaire des\n  antiquit\u00e9s grecques et romaines_, s.v. _Haruspices_; Fowler,\n  _The Religious Experience of the Roman People_, Index, s.v.\n  _Haruspices_.\n\n  [1638] M. Jastrow, \"The Liver in Antiquity\" (_University of\n  Pennsylvania Medical Bulletin_, 1908) and _Religion\n  Babyloniens und Assyriens_.\n\n  [1639] _Primitive Culture_, i, 124.\n\n  [1640] See above, \u00a7 28. The skull is employed as a means of\n  divination (Haddon, _Head-hunters_, p. 91 ff.).\n\n  [1641] See above, \u00a7 24.\n\n  [1642] Cf. Roscher, _Lexikon_, article \"Oneiros,\" col. 904.\n\n  [1643] J. H. King, _The Supernatural_, i, 168 ff.; Tylor,\n  _Primitive Culture_, i, 121 ff., 440 f.; Howitt, _Native\n  Tribes of South-East Australia_ p. 436; Mrs. K. Langloh\n  Parker, _The Euahlayi Tribe_, pp. 28, 83 f.\n\n  [1644] Dorsey, _The Skidi Pawnee_, Index, s.v. _Dreams_.\n\n  [1645] Ellis, _Tshi_, p. 90\n\n  [1646] Breasted, _History of Egypt_, p. 468, and see p. 558.\n\n  [1647] Gen. xi f.\n\n  [1648] Jastrow, _Religion of Babylonia and Assyria_, p. 349\n  f.\n\n  [1649] Gen. xx, 3; xxviii, 12; xxxi, 11; xxxvii, 5.\n\n  [1650] Dan. ii, iv.\n\n  [1651] _Iliad_, ii, 1 ff. So Yahweh, by a lying spirit,\n  sends Ahab to his death (1 Kings, xxii, 19 ff.) and deceives\n  the prophet, who misleads the people (Ezek. xiv, 9). The\n  theory of these ancient writers was that a deity, like an\n  earthly king, had a right to use any means to gain his ends.\n\n  [1652] Cf. article \"Oneiros\" in Roscher's _Lexikon_.\n\n  [1653] 1 Sam. xxviii, 6. The other means used, it is said,\n  were the urim (urim and thummim) and prophets. These all\n  failing, the king had recourse to necromancy.\n\n  [1654] See article \"Asklepios\" in Roscher's _Lexikon_.\n\n  [1655] See the description in Pater's _Marius the\n  Epicurean_.\n\n  [1656] A god might send a dream to a seer for the benefit of\n  some other person. So Ishtar spoke to Assurbanipal through\n  the dream of a seer (George Smith, _History of\n  Assurbanipal_, p. 123 f.).\n\n  [1657] Jastrow, _Religion Babyloniens und Assyriens_; Dan.\n  ii, 2 ff.; Deut. xiii, 1; Gardner and Jevons, _Greek\n  Antiquities_, p. 258; Aust, _Religion der R\u00f6mer_, Index,\n  s.v. _Traum_, _Traumdeutung_; Roscher, _Lexikon_, article\n  \"Oneiros.\"\n\n  [1658] So it was in the case of magicians and prophets\n  generally; cf. Ezek. xxxix, 21; Isa. xiiii, 9.\n\n  [1659] Jastrow, _Religion of Babylonia and Assyria_, p. 404,\n  and German ed., ii, Index.\n\n  [1660] Dream-books exist at the present day. Those who\n  believe in the predictive power of dreams regard them as\n  messages from God or as products of telepathy.\n\n  [1661] The Nandi invoke a skull as divine witness (Hollis,\n  _The Nandi_, p. 76 f.).\n\n  [1662] Ellis, _Tshi_ chap. xviii.\n\n  [1663] Apparently because he is thus shown to be unsupported\n  by any evil spirit.\n\n  [1664] Frobenius, _Childhood of Man_, p. 190 ff.\n\n  [1665] Turner, _Samoa_, p. 184.\n\n  [1666] Purchas, _Pilgrimage_, ed. Ravenstein, pp. 56 f., 59\n  f.\n\n  [1667] \"Code of Hammurabi\" (\u00a7\u00a7 2, 132), by C. H. W. Johns,\n  in Hastings's _Dictionary of the Bible_, extra volume.\n\n  [1668] Numb. v.\n\n  [1669] Hopkins, _Religions of India_, p. 275 ff.\n\n  [1670] She was rejected by the sacred water; cf. W. R.\n  Smith, _Religion of the Semites_, 2d ed., p. 179; Tylor,\n  _Primitive Culture_, i, 140. Cf. Ellis, _Yoruba_, p. 190 f.;\n  id., _Tshi_, pp. 198, 201.\n\n  [1671] Turner, _Samoa_, p. 184.\n\n  [1672] Similarly, a blessing once uttered remains effective\n  and cannot be recalled; so in the story of Isaac blessing\n  Jacob and Esau, Gen. xxvii.\n\n  [1673] Westermarck, \"L'\u00e2r\" in _Anthropological Essays\n  presented to Tylor_; cf. his _Origin and Development of the\n  Moral Ideas_, Index, s.v. _Curses_.\n\n  [1674] Hence the opposition (now disappearing) to lines of\n  railway and telegraph, which were supposed to interfere with\n  the happy influences of rivers and hills and other natural\n  features.\n\n  [1675] De Groot, _Religious System of China_ and\n  _Development of Religion in China_; and his article \"Die\n  Chinesen\" in Saussaye, _Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichte_.\n  See above, \u00a7 747 ff.\n\n  [1676] Haddon, _Head-hunters_, pp. 42, 182 f.; on the\n  sacredness of the head see Frazer, _Golden Bough_, 2d ed.,\n  i, 362 ff.; Frobenius, _Childhood of Man_, chap. xiii.\n\n  [1677] Hopkins, _Religions of India_, p. 532.\n\n  [1678] So when Rebecca wished to obtain information about\n  her children, soon to be born, it is said simply that she\n  went to inquire of Yahweh (Gen. xxv, 22), as if there was,\n  as a matter of course, a shrine in the neighborhood.\n\n  [1679] Bouch\u00e9-Leclercq, _Histoire de la divination dans\n  l'antiquit\u00e9_, ii, 250 ff.; iii.\n\n  [1680] Cumont, _Les religions orientales dans le paganisme\n  romain_, Eng. tr., _The Oriental Religions in Roman\n  Paganism_, pp. 105, 124 f., 168.\n\n  [1681] Cf. Steindorff, _Religion of the Ancient Egyptians_,\n  p. 113 f.\n\n  [1682] Wellhausen, _Reste arabischen Heidentumes_, p. 126\n  ff.\n\n  [1683] 1 Sam. xiv, 36 ff.; xxiii, 2; xxx, 7 f.; Isa. lxv, 1;\n  Ezek. xxxiii, 30 ff.\n\n  [1684] 2 Kings, i, 2. The prophet Elijah, who was a zealous\n  Yahwist, was very angry with the king for applying to a\n  foreign deity; but evidently the Philistine shrine enjoyed a\n  greater reputation than any in Israel.\n\n  [1685] Jastrow, _Religion of Babylonia and Assyria_, Index,\n  s.v. _Oracles_.\n\n  [1686] Cf. Aust, _Religion der R\u00f6mer_, Index, s.v. _Orakel_;\n  see below, \u00a7 933 ff.\n\n  [1687] Friedl\u00e4nder, _Roman Life and Manners under the Early\n  Empire_ (Eng. tr.), p. 3, 129 ff.; Fowler, _Religious\n  Experience of the Roman People_, p. 339.\n\n  [1688] Cicero, _De Divinatione_, i, 34, 37 f.; Plutarch, _De\n  Pythiae Oraculis_ and _De Defectu Oraculorum_; Gardner and\n  Jevons, _Greek Antiquities_, Index, s.v. _Oracles_;\n  Bouch\u00e9-Leclercq, _Histoire de la divination dans\n  l'antiquit\u00e9_, Index, and Stengel and Oehmichen, _Die\n  greichischen Sakralaltert\u00fcmer_, Index; _Encyclop\u00e6dia\n  Britannica_, 11th ed., article \"Oracle.\"\n\n  [1689] On the position of women in ancient religion cf.\n  Farnell's article in _Archiv f\u00fcr Relgionswissenschaft_,\n  1904.\n\n  [1690] Gruppe, _Griechische Mythologie_, pp. 102, 105;\n  Farnell, _Cults of the Greek States_, iv, 187 ff.\n\n  [1691] See above, \u00a7\u00a7 362, 366.\n\n  [1692] See article \"Ancestor-worship\" and articles on lower\n  tribes in Hastings, _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics_.\n\n  [1693] Jastrow, _Religion of Babylonia and Assyria_, p. 511.\n\n  [1694] 1 Sam. xxviii; Isa. viii, 19.\n\n  [1695] Ezek. xxi, 26 [21] (King Nebuchadrezzar divines by\n  teraphim).\n\n  [1696] Bouch\u00e9-Leclercq, _Histoire de la divination dans\n  l'antiquit\u00e9_, iii, 363 ff.; Daremberg and Saglio,\n  _Dictionnaire des antiquit\u00e9s grecques et romaines_, article\n  \"Divination,\" p. 308.\n\n  [1697] 1 Cor. xv, 49; 2 Cor. v, 8; Cumont, _Astrology and\n  Religion among the Greeks and Romans_, lecture vi.\n\n  [1698] Cranz, _Greenland_, i, 192 ff.; Rink, _Danish\n  Greenland_, p. 142 f.\n\n  [1699] Brinton, _Cakchiquels_, p. 47.\n\n  [1700] Cf. N\u00f6ldeke, article \"Arabs (Ancient)\" in Hastings,\n  _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics_, i, 667, 671.\n\n  [1701] Ellis, _Yoruba_, p. 56 ff.; id., _Tshi_, p. 124 ff.\n\n  [1702] P. R. Gurden, article \"Ahoms\" in Hastings,\n  _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics_.\n\n  [1703] Rivers, _The Todas_, p. 249 ff.\n\n  [1704] A. Bertrand, _La religion des Gaulois_, pp. 257, 259,\n  263.\n\n  [1705] Jastrow, _Religion of Babylonia and Assyria_, p. 341.\n\n  [1706] On Hebrew divination see articles \"Divination\" in\n  Hastings, _Dictionary of the Bible_, and in the\n  _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_.\n\n  [1707] Deut. xiii, 1; xviii, 10.\n\n  [1708] The Hebrew text is doubtful, and its meaning is not\n  clear; cf. Gray, \"The Book Of Isaiah,\" in _The International\n  Critical Commentary_.\n\n  [1709] Gen. xliv, 5.\n\n  [1710] Cf. Bouch\u00e9-Leclercq, _Histoire de la divination dans\n  l'antiquit\u00e9_, ii, 1 ff., 62 ff.\n\n  [1711] _Tim\u00e6us_, 72.\n\n  [1712] Xenophon, _Memorabilia_, i, 3, 4: [Greek: ta hypo t\u00f4n\n  the\u00f4n s\u00eamainomena].\n\n  [1713] Originally diviners from the flight of birds, but the\n  area of their divinatory functions was gradually extended.\n  See Wissowa, _Religion der R\u00f6mer_, p. 450 ff.; Fowler,\n  _Religious Experience of the Roman People_, lecture xiii.\n\n  [1714] Charged with the interpretation of the entrails of\n  sacrificed animals, and also of lightning and portents.\n\n  [1715] Wissowa, op. cit., p. 474.\n\n  [1716] Cf. above, \u00a7 895 f.\n\n  [1717] This story (connected with Thebes) appears to\n  represent some sort of protest against the Dionysiac cult\n  when it was first brought to Greece; cf. Roscher, _Lexikon_,\n  article \"Pentheus.\"\n\n  [1718] Cf. above, \u00a7 927.\n\n  [1719] 1 Sam. xix, 24; cf. Mic. i, 8 ff.\n\n  [1720] Their \"visions\" sometimes show literary art (Ezek. xl\n  ff.; Zech. i-viii).\n\n  [1721] Roscher, _Lexikon_, article \"Sibylla.\"\n\n  [1722] That is, she was not to be tolerated as a rival of\n  the great oracular god.\n\n  [1723] Cf. Wissowa, _Religion der R\u00f6mer_, pp. 239, 462 ff.\n\n  [1724] Bouch\u00e9-Leclercq, _Histoire de la divination dans\n  l'antiquit\u00e9_, ii, Index, s.v. _Cumes_.\n\n  [1725] Wissowa, _Religion der R\u00f6mer_, p. 463; Fowler,\n  _Religious Experience of the Roman People_, p. 339.\n\n  [1726] Augustine, _De Civitate Dei_, x, 27 (in connection\n  with Vergil's verses, _Eclogues_, iv, 13 f.); xxviii, 23\n  (the initial letters in _Sibylline Oracles_, viii, 268-309,\n  giving a title of Christ). So Eusebius, in his report of the\n  Oration of Constantine, xviii; cf. Lactantius, _Divinae\n  Institutiones_, lib. i, cap. vi.\n\n  [1727] _Oracula Sibyllina_, ed. Alexandre (Greek text, with\n  Latin tr.); ed. Friedlieb (Greek text, with German tr. and\n  additions by Volkmann); ed. Rzack (critical Greek text);\n  Terry, _The Sibylline Oracles_ (Eng. tr., blank verse).\n\n  [1728] On the attitude of early Greek philosophers\n  (Pythagoras, Democritus, Empedocles, Thales, Xenophanes)\n  toward divination, and the relation of the latter to the\n  idea of divine providence, see Bouch\u00e9-Leclercq, _Histoire de\n  la divination dans l'antiquit\u00e9_, i, 29 ff.\n\n  [1729] See Chapter iii.\n\n  [1730] Cf. Barton, _Semitic Origins_, chap. i.\n\n  [1731] Cf. Breasted, _Religion and Thought in Ancient\n  Egypt_.\n\n  [1732] Fowler, _Religious Experience of the Roman People_,\n  chaps. i, xvi.\n\n  [1733] Bertrand, _La religion des Gaulois_; Rhys, _Celtic\n  Heathendom_; Usener, _G\u00f6tternamen_; articles \"Celts\" and\n  \"Aryan Religion\" in Hastings, _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and\n  Ethics_.\n\n  [1734] Cf. the sketch given above, Chapter vii; Tylor,\n  _Primitive Culture_; Frazer, _Golden Bough_, 2d ed., passim.\n\n  [1735] Spencer and Gillen, _Native Tribes of Central\n  Australia_, and _Northern Tribes of Central Australia_;\n  Howitt, _Native Tribes of South-East Australia_;\n  Quatrefages, _The Pygmies_; Hyades and Deniker, _Mission\n  scientifique du cap Horn_; Seligmann, _The Melanesians of\n  British New Guinea_.\n\n  [1736] Fritsch, _Die Eingeborenen S\u00fcd-Afrika's_; article\n  \"Bantu\" in Hastings, _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics_.\n\n  [1737] Callaway, _The Amazulu_.\n\n  [1738] See above, \u00a7 837.\n\n  [1739] Rivers, _The Todas_.\n\n  [1740] Codrington, _The Melanesians_; W. Ellis, _Polynesian\n  Researches_; Williams and Calvert, _Fiji_; Turner, _Samoa_;\n  Kr\u00e4mer, _Die Samoa-Inseln_; Taylor, _New Zealand_; H. Ling\n  Roth, _The Natives of Sarawak and British North Borneo_.\n\n  [1741] Brinton, _The Len\u00e2p\u00e9_; Matthews, _Navaho Legends_;\n  Dorsey, _Traditions of the Skidi Pawnee_; Teit, _Thompson\n  River Indians_; Boas, _The Kwakiutl_; Dixon, _The Northern\n  Maidu_ and _The Shasta_; _Journal of American Folklore_,\n  passim.\n\n  [1742] Van Gennep, _Tabou et tot\u00e9misme \u00e0 Madagascar_; A.B.\n  Ellis, _E[\u00b4w]e_, _Tshi_, _Yoruba_; Skeat, _Malay Magic_; Skeat\n  and Blagden, _Pagan Races of the Malay Peninsula_; Hopkins,\n  _Religions of India_.\n\n  [1743] Aston, _Shinto_; Knox, _Development of Religion in\n  Japan_.\n\n  [1744] _The Kalevala_; Castr\u00e9n, _Finnische Mythologie_.\n\n  [1745] Prescott, _Conquest of Mexico_ and _Conquest of\n  Peru_; Winsor, _Narrative and Critical History of America_;\n  Brinton, _American Hero-Myths_, Index; Lang, _Myth, Ritual,\n  and Religion_, Index, s.vv. _Mexican Divine Myths_ and\n  _Peruvian Myths_.\n\n  [1746] Ehrenreich, _Mythen und Legenden der\n  s\u00fcdamericanischen Urv\u00f6lker_.\n\n  [1747] De Groot, _Religious System of China_.\n\n  [1748] The _Avesta_; Spiegel, _Eranische Alterthumskunde_,\n  vol. ii, bk. iv, chaps. i, ii; De Harlez, _Avesta_,\n  Introduction, p. lxxxiv ff.; _The Shahnameh_.\n\n  [1749] Maspero, _Dawn of Civilization_, p. 155 ff.;\n  Steindorff, _Religion of the Ancient Egyptians_, p. 106 ff.\n\n  [1750] Plutarch, _Isis and Osiris_; Steindorff, op. cit.,\n  Index, s.vv. _Isis_ and _Osiris_; Roscher, _Lexikon_,\n  articles \"Isis,\" \"Usire.\"\n\n  [1751] R. F. Harper, _Assyrian and Babylonian Literature_;\n  Jastrow, _Aspects of Religious Belief and Practice in\n  Babylonia and Assyria_, Index, s.v. _Myths_.\n\n  [1752] Job xxvi, 12; Ps. lxxxix, 11 [10]; Isa. li, 9.\n\n  [1753] Deut. xxxii, 8 f.\n\n  [1754] Gen. iv, 17 ff.; v, vi, 4; Ezek. xxxii, 27 (revised\n  text).\n\n  [1755] Gen. iii, 14 ff. On the loss of immortality see\n  above, \u00a7 834.\n\n  [1756] On the ceremony of mourning for Tammuz (Ezek. viii,\n  14) see Jastrow, _Religion of Babylonia and Assyria_, p. 574\n  ff.; Pseudo-Lucian, _De Syria Dea_. In Babylonia the\n  ceremony appears to have been an official lament for the\n  loss of vegetation (the women mourners being attached to the\n  temple); in Syria (Hierapolis) it took on orgiastic elements\n  (perhaps an importation from Asia Minor). The women of Ezek.\n  viii were attached, probably, to the service of the temple.\n\n  [1757] Barth, _Religions of India_; Hopkins, _Religions of\n  India_; Macdonell, _Vedic Mythology_; Lang, _Myth, Ritual,\n  and Religion_, Index.\n\n  [1758] This is true of all mythical and legendary creations\n  of the thought of communities, but in an especial degree of\n  the Greek.\n\n  [1759] Saussaye, _Religion of the Teutons_, Index, s.v.\n  _Myths_; he distinguishes between the earlier and the later\n  stories; R. M. Meyer, _Altgermanische Religionsgeschichte_,\n  chaps. iii, iv.\n\n  [1760] Folk-lore and legend mingle with the myths.\n\n  [1761] See R. M. Meyer, op. cit., p. 444 ff.\n\n  [1762] Even in great modern religions nominally monotheistic\n  a virtual polytheism continues to exist.\n\n  [1763] See above, \u00a7 683 ff.\n\n  [1764] This conception survives in the great polytheistic\n  cults, and may be recognized in the later religions of\n  redemption.\n\n  [1765] Compare the Brazilian Tapuyas (Botocudos); see\n  article \"Brazil\" in Hastings, _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and\n  Ethics_.\n\n  [1766] For West Africa cf. A. B. Ellis, _Yoruba_, p. 87;\n  _Tshi_, chaps. iii-viii; _E[\u00b4w]e_, chaps. iii-v.\n\n  [1767] \u00a7 365 ff. On this attitude see the reports of the\n  religions of particular peoples and the summaries of such\n  reports in dictionaries and encyclopedias, and in such works\n  as Steinmetz, _Ethnologische Studien zur ersten Entwicklung\n  der Strafe_; Westermarck, _Origin and Development of the\n  Moral Ideas_; also articles in the _Journal of the\n  Anthropological Institute_, the reports of the American\n  Bureau of Ethnology, and similar publications.\n\n  [1768] Theoph. Hahn, _Tsuni-Goam_, p. 38.\n\n  [1769] Hollis, _The Masai_, p. 264 f.\n\n  [1770] Skeat, _Malay Magic_, pp. 93 ff., 320 ff.\n\n  [1771] Batchelor, _The Ainu_, pp. 193 f., 200.\n\n  [1772] Wellhausen, _Reste arabischen Heidentumes_, p. 135\n  ff.; W. R. Smith, _Religion of the Semites_, Index, s.v.\n  _Jinn_.\n\n  [1773] R. C. Temple, article \"Andamans\" in Hastings,\n  _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics_.\n\n  [1774] For example, by Waitz, _Anthropologie_, iii, pp. 182\n  f., 330, 334 f.; Waitz expresses doubt (p. 345) as to the\n  correctness of certain accounts of the religious ideas of\n  the Oregon tribes.\n\n  [1775] Gatschet, _Migration Legend of the Creeks_, p. 215\n  f., Brinton, _The Len\u00e2p\u00e9_, p. 67 f.; Dorsey, _The Skidi\n  Pawnee_, p. xviii f.; Dixon, _The Shasta_, p. 491 ff.\n\n  [1776] On methods of accounting for the existence of death\n  in the world see above, \u00a7 834.\n\n  [1777] Br\u00e9beuf's account is given in _Relation des J\u00e9suites\n  dans la nouvelle France_, 1635, p. 34; 1636, p. 100; cf. the\n  edition of the _Relation_ by R. G. Thwaites, viii, 116 ff.;\n  x, 126 f. Br\u00e9beuf appears to have followed Sagard, _Canada_\n  (see Troas ed., p. 452 ff.). The story is discussed by\n  Brinton, in _Myths of the New World_, 3d ed., p. 79 ff., and\n  his criticism is adopted by Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, 3d\n  ed., ii, 322.\n\n  [1778] Brinton, op. cit., p. 77.\n\n  [1779] Cf. Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, ii, 334 ff.; article\n  \"Algonquins\" in Hastings, _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and\n  Ethics_, pp. 320, 323.\n\n  [1780] Batchelor, _The Ainu_, and his article in Hastings,\n  op. cit.\n\n  [1781] Hopkins, _Religions of India_, p. 528 ff. The\n  influence of Brahmanism is possible here; but cf. Hopkins,\n  op. cit., p. 530, note 3.\n\n  [1782] Maspero, _Dawn of Civilization_, pp. 172, 202;\n  Breasted, _History of Egypt_, p. 571; Steindorff, _Religion\n  of the Ancient Egyptians_, p. 67 ff.\n\n  [1783] This myth may have trickled down to them (through the\n  Canaanites or in some other way) in subdued form--it\n  appears, perhaps, in the serpent of Gen. iii; but it seems\n  to have been adopted in full form at a later time,\n  apparently in or after the sixth century B.C.\n\n  [1784] Rohde, _Psyche_, Index, s.v. _Erinyen_; articles\n  \"Ate,\" \"Erinys,\" in Roscher's _Lexikon_.\n\n  [1785] On the diverse elements in Loki's character, and on\n  his diabolification, see Saussaye, _Religion of the\n  Teutons_, p. 259 ff.; R. M. Meyer, _Altgermanische\n  Religionsgeschichte_, p. 335 ff. (Loki as fire-god developed\n  out of a fire-demon).\n\n  [1786] Hastings, _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics_,\n  article \"Celts,\" p. 289. On the anthropinizing or the\n  distinctly euhemerizing treatment of these two personages\n  see Rhys, _Celtic Folklore_, Index, s.vv.\n\n  [1787] Hopkins, _Religions of India_, pp. 367, 377, 414.\n\n  [1788] See above, \u00a7 857.\n\n  [1789] It has been suggested that climatic conditions (sharp\n  contrasts of storm and calm, with consequent strain and\n  peace in life) led to this dual arrangement. But we do not\n  know that there were specially strong contrasts of weather\n  in the Iranian home, and there is no mention of such a\n  situation in the early documents, in which the complaint is\n  of inroads of predatory bands from the steppe.\n\n  [1790] See above, \u00a7 742 ff.\n\n  [1791] According to Diogenes Laertius, Proem, viii.\n\n  [1792] To designate the unfriendly supernatural Powers two\n  terms meaning 'divine beings' were available, 'asuras' and\n  'divas' (daevas); the Hindus chose the former, the Iranians\n  the latter. Cf. Darmesteter, _Ormazd et Ahriman_, p. 268\n  ff.; Macdonell, _Vedic Mythology_, p. 156 ff.\n\n  [1793] Zech. iii; Job i, ii; 1 Chron. xxi, 1, contrasted\n  with 2 Sam. xxiv, 1; Enoch xl, 7; liii, 3, etc.; Secrets of\n  Enoch (Slavonic Enoch), xxix, 4, 5; xxxi, 3, 4. The word\n  Satan means 'adversary,' and, as legal adversary, 'accuser.'\n  The germ of the conception is to be sought in the apparatus\n  of spirits controlled by Yahweh, and sometimes employed by\n  him as agents to harm men (1 Kings xxii, 19-23). The idea of\n  an accusing spirit seems to have arisen from the necessity\n  of explaining the misfortunes of the nation (Zech. iii); it\n  was expanded under native and foreign influences.\n\n  [1794] 2 Cor. iv, 4.\n\n  [1795] _Koran_, vii, 10 ff.\n\n  [1796] So in the ceremonies of the pilgrimage to Mecca and\n  in common life. The \"satans\" have in part coalesced with the\n  jinn; see Lane's _Arabian Nights_, \"Notes to the\n  Introduction,\" note 21.\n\n  [1797] Herzog-Hauck, _Real-Encyklop\u00e4die_, s.v. \"Mani u.\n  Manich\u00e4ismus.\"\n\n  [1798] On a lack of unity in the world see W. James, _A\n  Pluralistic Universe_.\n\n  [1799] \u00a7 643.\n\n  [1800] So the Zulu Unkulunkulu, the Fiji Ndengei, the\n  Virginia Ahone, and others.\n\n  [1801] Compare Lang's sketch of the gods of the lower races\n  in _Myth, Ritual, and Religion_, chap. xii f., and _Making\n  of Religion_, preface and chaps. xii-xiv.\n\n  [1802] Strachey, _Historie of Travaile into Virginia\n  Britannica_ (1612), p. 98 f. and chap. vii; Winslow,\n  _Relation_ (1624), printed in Young's _Chronicles of the\n  Pilgrim Fathers_, see chap. xxiii.\n\n  [1803] Cf. Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, ii, 324, 339.\n\n  [1804] Callaway, _The Amazulu_, p. 1 ff.\n\n  [1805] Howitt, _Native Tribes of South-East Australia_,\n  Index (cf. Spencer and G\u00fclen, _Northern Tribes of Central\n  Australia_, p. 492); cf. Thomas, _Natives of Australia_,\n  chap. xiii, and article \"Australia\" in Hastings,\n  _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics_.\n\n  [1806] Temple, article \"Andamans\" in Hastings, _Encyclop\u00e6dia\n  of Religion and Ethics_.\n\n  [1807] Williams and Calvert, _Fiji_, chap. vii.\n\n  [1808] Batchelor, _The Ainu_, chap. xvii; Taylor, _New\n  Zealand_, chaps. v-vii; Rink, _Danish Greenland_, p. 204\n  ff.; Boas, _The Kwakiutl_, chap. vi.\n\n  [1809] The confusion incident to savage theogonic reflection\n  is illustrated by Zulu attempts to explain Unkulunkulu\n  (Callaway, loc. cit.).\n\n  [1810] Lang, in the works cited in the preceding paragraph,\n  is right in his contention that the clan god is not always\n  derived from a spirit; but the coloring he gives to the\n  character of this sort of god is not in accordance with\n  known facts.\n\n  [1811] See above, \u00a7 746 ff.\n\n  [1812] It is not probable that the recent abolition of the\n  office of emperor (supposing the present revolutionary\n  movement to maintain itself) will affect the essence of the\n  existing cult.\n\n  [1813] In place of the emperor some high official personage\n  will doubtless be deputed to conduct the national\n  sacrifices.\n\n  [1814] De Groot, _Religious System of China_, _Religion of\n  the Chinese_, and _Development of Religion in China_.\n\n  [1815] Prescott, _Conquest of Peru_; Spence, _Mythologies of\n  Ancient Mexico and Peru_.\n\n  [1816] An approach to such a system appears in the later\n  cult of Confucius.\n\n  [1817] See \u00a7 977.\n\n  [1818] So later, for example, in Plato, necessity appears as\n  something limiting the deity. See below, \u00a7 1001. Cf. Cicero,\n  _De Fato_.\n\n  [1819] Cf. the Chinese conception of the supreme order of\n  the world. Possibly this goes back to the general savage\n  conception of mana.\n\n  [1820] _Metaphysics_, ix, 8; xii, 6 f.\n\n  [1821] _Tim\u00e6us_, 47 f.\n\n  [1822] Stob\u00e6us, _Elog\u00e6_, ed. Wachsmuth, lib. i, cap. i, no.\n  12; Pearson, _Fragments of Zeno and Cleanthes_; Eng. tr. in\n  Arnold, _Roman Stoicism_, p. 85 ff. The quotation in Acts\n  xvii, 28, may be from Cleanthes or from Aratus. On the\n  Gr\u00e6co-Roman Stoicism and the relation between it and\n  Christianity see Arnold, op. cit.\n\n  [1823] Apuleius, _Metamorphoses_, bk. xi; Roscher,\n  _Lexikon_, article \"Isis\"; Cumont, _Mysteries of Mithra_;\n  id., _Astrology and Religion among the Greeks and Romans_,\n  Index, s.vv. _Isis and Serapis_ and _Mithra_.\n\n  [1824] _Metaphysics_, i, 5: \"The one is god.\"\n\n  [1825] So in Goethe, Wordsworth, and other modern poets.\n\n  [1826] In certain regions, especially in Tibet and Japan,\n  Buddhism coalesces with popular nature-cults and shamanistic\n  systems, and loses its nontheistic character.\n\n  [1827] Cf. Satayana, \"Lucretius,\" in his _Three\n  Philosophical Poets_.\n\n  [1828] The great exception is the resurrection of Jesus,\n  regarded in the New Testament and by the mass of orthodox\n  Christians as an historical fact, and one of infinite\n  significance for the salvation of the world.\n\n  [1829] An emotional element possessing moral force may exist\n  in any religion; cf. below, \u00a7\u00a7 1167, 1192, 1199.\n\n  [1830] \u00a7 13 ff.\n\n  [1831] See above, Chapter iii.\n\n  [1832] See above, \u00a7\u00a7 128, 131, 231 ff.\n\n  [1833] Cf. article \"Charms and Amulets\" in Hastings,\n  _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics_.\n\n  [1834] Cf. Marett, _Threshold of Religion_, p. 77 ff.\n\n  [1835] Examples are found in J. H. King, _The Supernatural_,\n  Index, s.v.; Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, Index, s.v.; L. T.\n  Hobhouse, _Morals in Evolution_, Index, s.v.; and see the\n  references in these works.\n\n  [1836] See above, \u00a7 3.\n\n  [1837] Spencer, _Principles Of Sociology_, i, 280 ff.;\n  Westermarck, _Origin and Development of the Moral Ideas_,\n  ii, 550 al.\n\n  [1838] Dorsey, _Skidi Pawnee_, p. 341; article \"Bantu\" in\n  Hastings, _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics_, ii, 359;\n  Rivers, _The Todas_, p. 393; Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, ii,\n  392; Westermarck, op. cit., ii, 518 al.\n\n  [1839] Tylor, op. cit., ii, 385, 395 al.; Gen. viii, 21.\n\n  [1840] Batchelor, _The Ainu_; Miss Fletcher, _Indian\n  Ceremonies_; Hollis, _The Nandi_, p. 12; Hopkins, _Religions\n  of India_, pp. 449 ff. 528; Saussaye, _Religion of the\n  Teutons_, pp. 373, 383; R. M. Meyer, _Altgermanische\n  Religionsgeschte_, pp. 416, 419 ff.; N. W. Thomas, article\n  \"Animals\" in Hastings, _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and\n  Ethics_. Cf., for the Hebrews, W. R. Smith, _Religion of the\n  Semites_, 2d ed., p. 217 ff.; for the Greeks, Gardner and\n  Jevons, _Greek Antiquities_, p. 245 f.; Miss Harrison,\n  _Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion_, chap. x.\n\n  [1841] Batchelor, _The Ainu_.\n\n  [1842] A. C. Haddon, _Head-hunters_, p. 353 ff.\n\n  [1843] F. H. Cushing, \"My Adventures in Zu\u00f1i\" in _The\n  Century Magazine_ for May, 1883.\n\n  [1844] Cf. Hubert and Mauss, \"Essai sur le sacrifice\" in\n  _Ann\u00e9e sociologique_, ii (1898).\n\n  [1845] A more socially refined conception appears in the\n  lectisternium, in which the gods sit at table with their\n  human friends. Cf. Wissowa, _Religion der R\u00f6mer_, p. 355\n  ff.; Fowler, _Religious Experience of the Roman People_,\n  Index, s.v.\n\n  [1846] \u00a7 23.\n\n  [1847] For the worshiper the blood had strengthening power.\n\n  [1848] 1 Kings, xvi, 34; article \"Bridge\" in Hastings,\n  _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics_.\n\n  [1849] Cf. Westermarck, _Origin and Development of the Moral\n  Ideas_, Index, s.v. _Human Sacrifice_.\n\n  [1850] Breasted, _History of Egypt_, pp. 325, 411, 478.\n\n  [1851] Pietschmann, _Ph\u00f6nizier_, p. 167; Tylor, _Primitive\n  Culture_, ii, 403; 2 Kings, iii, 27; Exod. xiii; i, 13;\n  N\u00f6ldeke, article \"Arabs (Ancient)\" in Hastings,\n  _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics_.\n\n  [1852] 2 Kings, xvii, 31.\n\n  [1853] _Rig-Veda_, x, 18, 8; viii, 51, 2.\n\n  [1854] _S\u00e1nkhayan Srauta Sutra_, xvi, 10-14; Weber,\n  _Indische Streifen_, i, 65; Hopkins, _Religions of India_,\n  pp. 196, 198.\n\n  [1855] Hopkins, op. cit., p. 326 ff. Cf. also the practice\n  of the thugs, which has now been put a stop to by the\n  British Government.\n\n  [1856] De Groot, in Saussaye, _Lehrbuch der\n  Religionsgeschichte_, 2d ed., p. 77 f.\n\n  [1857] Saussaye, _Religion of the Teutons_, Index, s.v.\n\n  [1858] Williams, _Fiji_; Turner, _Samoa_; Codrington, _The\n  Melanesians_.\n\n  [1859] Waitz-Gerland, _Anthropologie der Naturv\u00f6lker_,\n  Index; J. G. M\u00fcller, _Geschichte der amerikanischen\n  Urreligionen_, Index; Gatschet, _Migration Legend of the\n  Creeks_, p. 36.\n\n  [1860] Payne, _The New World, Called America_. In Mexico the\n  victim was surrounded with luxuries (including wives) and\n  treated as a god for one year and then sacrificed (Frazer,\n  _Golden Bough_, 1st ed., ii, 218 ff.; 2d ed., ii, 342 f.).\n\n  [1861] A. B. Ellis, _Tshi_, _E[\u00b4w]e_, and _Yoruba_.\n\n  [1862] For such substitutions in Greece see Gardner and\n  Jevons, _Greek Antiquities_, p. 243 f.\n\n  [1863] Ellis, _Yoruba_.\n\n  [1864] \u00a7 106 ff.\n\n  [1865] Alice Fletcher, _Indian Ceremonies_; _Journal of\n  American Folklore_, vol. iv (1891), no. 15, and vol. xvii\n  (1904), no. 64; _Reports of the Bureau of Ethnology_, vol\n  xiv, p. 701.\n\n  [1866] Cf. Tylor, _Primitive Culture_, Index, s.v.\n  _Sacrifice_, and Westermarck, _Origin and Development of the\n  Moral Ideas_, Index, s.v. _Sacrifice_.\n\n  [1867] Cf. Wissowa, _Religion der R\u00f6mer_, p. 338 f.\n\n  [1868] _Religion of the Semites_, 2d ed., p. 455.\n\n  [1869] Lev. i-iv, viii, xvi, xxi; Numb. xix; Hopkins,\n  _Religions of India_, p. 197 ff.; Gardner and Jevons, _Greek\n  Antiquities_, Index, s.v. _Priests and Sacrifices_; Lippert,\n  _Geschichte des Priesterthums_.\n\n  [1870] Heb. x, 3.\n\n  [1871] _De Abstinentia_ ii, 24.\n\n  [1872] See below, \u00a7 1045 ff.\n\n  [1873] Gen. iv, 3, 4; Lev. ii, al.\n\n  [1874] _Primitive Culture_, ii, 375 ff.; cf. Spencer,\n  _Principles of Sociology_, i, 280 ff.\n\n  [1875] So often in ascetic practices.\n\n  [1876] So, for example, in the _Imitatio Christi_.\n\n  [1877] Euripides, _Iphigeneia in Aulis_, 1581 ff.\n  (Iphigeneia); Gen. xxii (Isaac); and similar procedures in\n  Hesiod, _Theogony_, 535 ff.; Ovid, _Fasti_, iii, 339 ff.;\n  _Aitareya Brahmana_, ii, 8; _\u00c7atapatha Brahmana_, i, 2, 3,\n  5.\n\n  [1878] The expulsion of sin or evil in the person of a beast\n  or a human being is a totally different conception. See\n  above, \u00a7 143.\n\n  [1879] Isa. liii.\n\n  [1880] Isa. xl, 2.\n\n  [1881] Cf. \u00a7\u00a7 128, 217 ff., 1023.\n\n  [1882] Other examples are given in Fowler, _Roman\n  Festivals_, pp. 81 (shepherd sacrifice), 96 (Feri\u00e6 Latin\u00e6),\n  194 (at the temple of Hercules), and cf. his _Religious\n  Experience of the Roman People_, Index, s.v. _Meals,\n  Sacrificial_.\n\n  [1883] Foucart, _Des associations religieuses chez les\n  Grecs_. For the Isis ceremony cf. Apuleius, _Metamorphoses_,\n  xi, 24 f.\n\n  [1884] Cumont, _The Mysteries of Mithra_ (Eng. tr.), p. 160.\n  On the magical element in mysteries cf. De Jong, _Das antike\n  Mysterienwesen_, chap. vi.\n\n  [1885] See above, \u00a7 1024.\n\n  [1886] _Iliad_, i, 66 f.; _Odyssey_, x, 518 ff.; Gen. viii,\n  21.\n\n  [1887] So Wellhausen, _Prolegomena to the History of Israel_\n  (Eng. tr.), p. 62. In the Roman _sacra gentilicia_ it was\n  rather the divinized ancestors who were the guests--they\n  were entertained by the living.\n\n  [1888] In his article \"Sacrifice\" in _Encyclop\u00e6dia\n  Brittanica_ (1886) and his _Religion of the Semites_ (new\n  ed., 1894).\n\n  [1889] The assumption that the victim is a totem is not\n  necessary to his argument, which rests on the sacredness\n  (that is, the divinity) of the victim--a fact universally\n  admitted.\n\n  [1890] Isa. lxv, lxvi.\n\n  [1891] Spencer and Gillen, _Native Tribes of Central\n  Australia_; id., _Native Tribes of Northern Australia_.\n\n  [1892] On this point and on Smith's theory in general see\n  the exposition of the theory by Jevons, _Introduction to the\n  History of Religion_, chap. xii.\n\n  [1893] _The Dying God_ (part iii of 3d ed. of _The Golden\n  Bough_).\n\n  [1894] _Wald- und Feldkulte_, 2d ed., ii, 273 ff.\n\n  [1895] _L'ann\u00e9e sociologique_, ii, 115 ff.\n\n  [1896] Frazer, _The Dying God_, chap. ii, \u00a7 2.\n\n  [1897] Cf. Frazer, _Adonis Attis Osiris_ (part iv of 3d ed.\n  of _The Golden Bough_); 2d ed. of _The Golden Bough_, ii,\n  365 f.\n\n  [1898] Article \"Dido\" in Roscher's _Lexikon_; Saussaye,\n  _Religion of the Teutons_, p. 231.\n\n  [1899] For the view that Odin's self-sacrifice is merely an\n  imitation of the reception into the Odin-cult see Meyer,\n  _Altgermanische Religionsgeschichte_, p. 241.\n\n  [1900] _L'ann\u00e9e sociologique_, ii.\n\n  [1901] _Yajur-Veda_, passim; _\u00c7atapatha Brahmana_, i, 3, 6,\n  8; ii, 6, 2; Hopkins, _Religions of India_, p. 188 al.;\n  Bloomfield, _Religion of the Veda_, pp. 31 ff., 215.\n\n  [1902] _Elements of the Science of Religion_ (Gifford\n  Lectures), ii, 144 ff.\n\n  [1903] Plato (_Laws_, iii, 716) says that a bad man gets no\n  benefit from sacrifice.\n\n  [1904] _Laws_, i, 631, 642.\n\n  [1905] Ps. xix, 7 ff.; cxix.\n\n  [1906] Ps. xl, 7; l, 8-15; li, 18 f., al.\n\n  [1907] Amos, v, 21 ff.; Isa. i, 11 ff.; Mic. vi, 6 ff.; Jer.\n  vii, 21 ff.\n\n  [1908] See Ellis, _E[\u00b4w]e_ (Dahomi), _Tshi_ (Ashanti),\n  _Yoruba_; Miss Kingsley, _Travels_; Codrington, _The\n  Melanesians_; Turner, _Samoa_; articles \"Andeans,\" \"Bantu,\"\n  \"Bengal,\" \"Brazil,\" al., in Hastings, _Encyclop\u00e6dia of\n  Religion and Ethics_.\n\n  [1909] Rivers, _The Todas_, chaps. vi, xi, xiii.\n\n  [1910] Cf. also Crooke's _Popular Religion and Folklore of\n  Northern India_, in which similar customs are mentioned.\n\n  [1911] Chapter iii.\n\n  [1912] Dixon, _The Northern Maidu_ and _The Shasta_. For\n  Korea see H. G. Underwood, _Religions of Eastern Asia_.\n\n  [1913] _L'ann\u00e9e sociologique_, ii; see above, \u00a7 1049.\n\n  [1914] Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers. A single early detail is\n  mentioned in 1 Sam. ii, 13 ff. For the later Jewish\n  ceremonial see article \"Sacrifice\" in _Encyclop\u00e6dia\n  Biblica_.\n\n  [1915] Mariette, _Abydos_; Maspero, _Dawn of Civilization_\n  (Eng. tr.), p. 121 ff.; Erman, _Handbook of Egyptian\n  Religion_, pp. 46-49, 122, 179 f. (reports of Herodotus).\n\n  [1916] For Babylonia see Jastrow, _Religion of Babylonia and\n  Assyria_, Index, s.v. _Rituals_; for Mazdean, De Harles,\n  _Avesta_, Introduction, pp. clxvi, clxx.\n\n  [1917] _Journal of the American Oriental Society_, xx, 58\n  ff.; cf. De Groot, in Saussaye, _Lehrbuch der\n  Religionsgeschichte_, p. 60 ff.\n\n  [1918] Foucart, _Associations religieuses chez les Grecs_;\n  Jevons, _Introduction to History of Religion_, chap. xxiii;\n  De Jong, _Das antike Mysterienwesen_, p. 18 ff.\n\n  [1919] Cumont, _Mysteries of Mithra_.\n\n  [1920] Apuleius, _Metamorphoses_, chap. xi.\n\n  [1921] 1 Cor. xi, 20 ff.; xiv (cf. Acts ii, 46); _Teaching\n  of the Twelve Apostles_, chap. ix f.\n\n  [1922] So, for instance, postures in prayer, such as\n  kneeling, bowing, standing.\n\n  [1923] The _Amarna Letters; Records of Ancient Egypt_, ed.\n  Breasted; cuneiform inscriptions. The Egyptian king,\n  however, was regarded as divine.\n\n  [1924] Gibbon, chaps. xiii (Diocletian), xl, year 532; cf.\n  descriptions in Scott's _Count Robert of Paris_.\n\n  [1925] Daniel, _Codex Liturgicus_; articles \"Liturgie\" and\n  \"Messe\" in Herzog-Hauck, _Real-Encyklop\u00e4die_; articles\n  \"Liturgy\" and \"Liturgical Books\" in Smith and Cheatham,\n  _Dictionary of Christian Antiquities_.\n\n  [1926] Cf. J. Lippert, _Allgemeine Geschichte des\n  Priesterthums_; Westermarck, _Origin and Development of the\n  Moral Ideas_, Index, s.v. _Priests_.\n\n  [1927] On priestly taboos see Frazer, _Golden Bough_, 2d\n  ed., Index, s.v.; these are often of the same sort as royal\n  taboos. See above, \u00a7 595 ff. For Hebrew priestly taboos see\n  Ezek. xliv, Lev. xxi f.\n\n  [1928] Westermarck, _Origin and Development of the Moral\n  Ideas_, i, 348, 381.\n\n  [1929] Not all these conditions were to be found in any one\n  community.\n\n  [1930] Westermarck, op. cit., ii, 406 ff.\n\n  [1931] Pausanias, ii, 33, 3.\n\n  [1932] For a possible case see Wilkinson, _The Ancient\n  Egyptians_, 1st ed., i, 317.\n\n  [1933] Ellis, _E[\u00b4w]e_, p. 141; Ward, _History, Literature\n  and Religion of the Hindoos_, ii, 134; Jastrow, _Religion of\n  Babylonia and Assyria_, p. 660; Hos. iv, 14; Deut. xxiii, 17\n  f. (prohibition); Gen. xxxviii, 14 ff.\n\n  [1934] Erman, _Handbook of Egyptian Religion_, pp. 72, 221,\n  is disposed to reject the statement of Strabo (xvii, i, 46)\n  that there was libertinage at Thebes. Cf. Wilkinson, _The\n  Ancient Egyptians_, Index, s.v. _Priestesses_.\n\n  [1935] C. H. W. Johns, article \"Code of Hammurabi\" in\n  Hastings, _Dictionary of the Bible_, extra volume; D. G.\n  Lyon, \"The Consecrated Women of the Hammurabi Code\" in\n  _Studies in the History of Religions presented to C. H.\n  Toy_.\n\n  [1936] Strabo, p. 378.\n\n  [1937] Roscher, _Lexikon_, article \"Aphrodite,\" col. 401.\n  Cf. the practice mentioned in 1 Sam. ii, 22.\n\n  [1938] Curtiss, _Primitive Semitic Religion To-day_.\n\n  [1939] See, for example, 1 Sam. ii, 22.\n\n  [1940] For a description of their privileges and power in\n  Ashanti see Ellis, _Tshi_, p. 121 ff.\n\n  [1941] License in festivals and mystical or symbolic\n  marriages are excluded as not being official consecration of\n  a class of persons.\n\n  [1942] Examples are given in Westermarck, _Origin and\n  Development of the Moral Ideas_, ii, 443 ff.; Frazer,\n  _Adonis Attis Osiris_, chap. iv; Seligmann, _Der b\u00f6se Blick\n  und Verwandies_, ii, 190 ff.; and see above, \u00a7 384 ff.\n\n  [1943] Inscription of Tralles; see Ramsay, _Cities and\n  Bishoprics of Phrygia_, i, 94 ff.; Farnell, _Cults of the\n  Greek States_, ii, 636.\n\n  [1944] Herodotus, i, 199. The correctness of Herodotus's\n  statement has been doubted; but, though the procedure is\n  singular, it is not wholly out of keeping with known\n  Babylonian customs. It must be remembered, however, that\n  Herodotus wrote long after the fall of the Babylonian\n  empire, when foreign influence was possible. See also\n  _Epistle of Jeremias_, v, 43.\n\n  [1945] Pseudo-Lucian, _De Syria Dea_, chap. vi.\n\n  [1946] Homosexual practices do not belong here (Westermarck,\n  op. cit., chap. xliii). The intercourse of priests with\n  sacred and other women is likewise excluded.\n\n  [1947] Deut. xxiii, 18 [17] f., \"sodomite.\"\n\n  [1948] 1 Kings, xiv, 24 (tenth century), where the\n  _kedeshim_ seem to be described as a Canaanite institution.\n  Cf. Deut. xxii, 3.\n\n  [1949] _Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum_, part i, i, 86, B\n  10.\n\n  [1950] With allusion, perhaps, to the dog's faithfulness to\n  his master. In the _Amarna Letters_ a Canaanite governor\n  calls himself the \"dog\" (_kalbu_) of his Egyptian overlord.\n  Cf. W. R. Smith, _Religion of the Semites_, 2d ed., p. 292,\n  n. 2. For examples of the sanctity of the dog see article\n  \"Animals\" in Hastings, _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and\n  Ethics_, p. 512.\n\n  [1951] Cf. Frazer, _Adonis Attis Osiris_, p. 71 f., and the\n  curious story told in Josephus, _Antiquities_, xviii, 3.\n\n  [1952] The Lydian method by which girls earned their dowries\n  (Herodotus, i, 93) is economic, and had, apparently, no\n  connection with religion.\n\n  [1953] See above, \u00a7 180. Cf. Ramsay, _Cities and Bishoprics\n  of Phrygia_, 1, 94 ff.\n\n  [1954] Westermarck, _History of Human Marriage_, chap. iii\n  ff.\n\n  [1955] At Byblos the prostitution of the woman was required\n  only in case she refused to offer her hair to the goddess.\n  This offering was probably originally a substitute for the\n  offering of her virginity, but there is no evidence that the\n  latter was of the nature of a sacrifice.\n\n  [1956] Farnell, in _Archiv f\u00fcr Religionswissenschaft_, vii,\n  88 (see above, \u00a7\u00a7 182, 594, and cf. Crawley, _Mystic Rose_,\n  p. 322). Farnell does not mention this suggestion in his\n  _Greece and Babylon_, p. 269 ff.\n\n  [1957] Westermarck, _Origin and Development of the Moral\n  Ideas_, ii, 446; cf. Frazer, _Golden Bough_, 2d ed., Index,\n  s.vv. _Stranger_, _Strangers_.\n\n  [1958] Cumont, _Les religions orientales dans le paganisme\n  romain_ (Eng. tr., _Oriental Religions in Roman Paganism_,\n  p. 247 f.); cf. Hartland, in _Anthropological Essays\n  presented to Tylor_, p. 201 f.\n\n  [1959] On this cult see Mannhardt, _Baumkultus_ and _Antike\n  Wald- und Feldkulte_.\n\n  [1960] Mannhardt, _Antike Wald- und Feldkulte_, ii, 284;\n  Frazer, _Adonis Attis Osiris_, p. 33 ff.\n\n  [1961] Cf. Hartland, op. cit., p. 199.\n\n  [1962] Hartland, _Primitive Paternity_, chap. ii.\n\n  [1963] Frazer, _Adonis Attis Osiris_, p. 50 ff.\n\n  [1964] Cf. Nilsson, _Griechische Feste_.\n\n  [1965] Maspero, _Dawn of Civilization_; Erman, _Handbook of\n  Egyptian Religion_, Index, s.v.; Breasted, _History of\n  Egypt_, Index, s.v.\n\n  [1966] Jastrow, _Religion of Babylonia and Assyria_, Index,\n  s.v.\n\n  [1967] Barth, _Religions of India_, Index, s.v.; Hopkins,\n  _Religions of India_, Index, s.v.\n\n  [1968] Spiegel, _Eranische Alterthumskunde_, vol. III, bk.\n  vi.\n\n  [1969] O. Gruppe, _Griechische Mythologie_, Index, s.v.\n  _Priester_; Gardner and Jevons, _Greek Antiquities_, Index,\n  s.v.; Farnell, _Cults of the Greek States_, passim.\n\n  [1970] This remark applies to the oracles as well as to the\n  ordinary temple-service.\n\n  [1971] Cf. Wissowa, _Religion der R\u00f6mer_, Index, s.v.\n  _Pontifex_, _Pontifices_; Fowler, _Roman Festivals_, s.v.\n  _Pontifices_; Saussaye, _Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichte_,\n  2d ed. (Roman religion).\n\n  [1972] On the other hand, the Romans have given us such\n  fundamental terms as 'religion,' 'superstition,' 'cult,'\n  'piety,' 'devotion,' all theocratic and individual.\n\n  [1973] De Groot, _Religious System of China_; Legge,\n  _Religion of China_; Doolittle, _Social Life of the\n  Chinese_.\n\n  [1974] Some high official will, doubtless, now take the\n  emperor's place.\n\n  [1975] This seems to remain true notwithstanding the present\n  movement in China toward the adoption of Western methods of\n  education. De Groot's estimate of Chinese religion (in op.\n  cit.) is less favorable.\n\n  [1976] Garcilasso de la Vega, _Royal Commentaries of the\n  Yncas_, ed. C. R. Markham, part i, bk. ii, chap. ix;\n  Prescott, _Peru_, vol. 1, chap. iii; Payne, _New World,\n  called America_, Index; A. R\u00e9ville, _Native Religions of\n  Mexico and Peru_, Index.\n\n  [1977] Sahagun, _Historia General de las Cosas de Nueva\n  Espa\u00f1a_, Eng. tr. by Markham; Payne, op. cit.; R\u00e9ville, op.\n  cit.\n\n  [1978] In the political and social disorders in Judea in the\n  seventh and sixth centuries B.C. the priesthood was,\n  probably, influential in maintaining and transmitting the\n  purer worship of Yahweh, and thus establishing a\n  starting-point for the later development.\n\n  [1979] Cf. Breasted, _Religion and Thought in Ancient\n  Egypt_, lecture x.\n\n  [1980] So Ezekiel's altar (probably a copy of that in the\n  Jerusalem temple-court), over 16 feet high, with a base 27\n  feet square (Ezek. xliii, 13 ff.). The Olympian altar was 22\n  feet high and 125 feet in circumference. Cf. W. R. Smith,\n  _Religion of the Semites_, 3d ed., pp. 202, 341, 377 ff. On\n  the general subject see article \"Altar\" in Hastings,\n  _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics_.\n\n  [1981] So in Australia (Spencer and Gillen, _Native Tribes\n  of Central Australia_, Index, and _Native Tribes of Northern\n  Australia_, Index), Samoa (Turner), Canaan (Genesis, Judges,\n  passim), Greece (Gardner and Jevons, _Greek Antiquities_, p.\n  173), etc.\n\n  [1982] Gardner and Jevons, op. cit., Index, s.v. [Greek:\n  temenos], _Temple_; Wellhausen, _Reste arabischen\n  Heidentumes_, Index; W. R. Smith, op. cit., Index, s.v.\n  _Temples_. There is perhaps a hint of such a place in Ex.\n  iii, 5.\n\n  [1983] K. F. Hermann, _Gottesdienstliche Alterth\u00fcmer der\n  Griechen_, \u00a7 18; Jevons, _Introduction to the History of\n  Religion_, 1st ed., p. 137.\n\n  [1984] Cf. article \"Architecture\" in Hastings, _Encyclop\u00e6dia\n  of Religion and Ethics_.\n\n  [1985] Ps. xiii, 3 [2]; lxxxiv, 3 [2].\n\n  [1986] So in Egypt, Palestine, Greece, and probably in\n  Babylonia and Assyria.\n\n  [1987] In Herod's temple: the Court of the Gentiles, the\n  Court of Women, the Court of Israel (Nowack, _Lehrbuch der\n  hebr\u00e4ischen Arch\u00e4ologie_, ii, 76 ff.).\n\n  [1988] Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encyclop\u00e4die der classischen\n  Altertumswissenschaft_; article \"Asylum\" in _Jewish\n  Encyclopedia_. The right of asylum goes back to very early\n  forms of society in all parts of the world; many examples\n  are cited by Westermarck, _Origin and Development of the\n  Moral Ideas_, Index, s.v. _Asylums_.\n\n  [1989] Cf. above, \u00a7 121.\n\n  [1990] Jastrow, _Religion of Babylonia and Assyria_, chap.\n  xxvi.\n\n  [1991] On the supposed difference of symbolism between Greek\n  and Gothic temples (churches) see Ruskin, _Seven Lamps of\n  Architecture_.\n\n  [1992] \u00a7\u00a7 15, 120, note 3.\n\n  [1993] For details see Erman, _Handbook of Egyptian\n  Religion_, p. 45 f.; Jastrow, op. cit., p. 658 ff.; articles\n  \"Ritual\" and \"Sacrifice\" in _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_;\n  Bloomfield, _Religion of the Veda_, p. 213 f.; Hopkins,\n  _Religions of India_, p. 124; _L'Ann\u00e9e sociologique_, ii.\n\n  [1994] \u00a7 1199.\n\n  [1995] Some hymns to Tammuz are lamentations for dying\n  vegetation and petitions for its resuscitation.\n\n  [1996] 1 Chron. xvi; commentaries on the Psalms; works on\n  Hebrew arch\u00e6ology (Nowack, Benzinger); articles in Biblical\n  dictionaries and encyclopedias.\n\n  [1997] _Revue des \u00e9tudes grecques_, 1894. On savage songs\n  and music see above, \u00a7 106.\n\n  [1998] Pauly-Wissowa, _Real-Encyclop\u00e4die der classischen\n  Altertumswissenschaft_; Fowler, _Roman Festivals_.\n\n  [1999] Passover with the departure from Egypt; Sukkot\n  (Tabernacles) with the march through the wilderness; later,\n  Weeks (Pentecost) with the revelation of the law at Sinai.\n\n  [2000] Book of Esther.\n\n  [2001] 1 Macc. v, 47 ff.\n\n  [2002] 1 Macc. vii, 49.\n\n  [2003] H. H. Wilson, _Religious Sects of the Hindus_;\n  Monier-Williams, _Hinduism_, Index.\n\n  [2004] Gardner and Jevons, _Greek Antiquities_, p. 289.\n\n  [2005] They sometimes degenerate into coarseness or\n  immorality.\n\n  [2006] Christmas, New Year's Day, May Day, Midsummer, All\n  Souls, and others.\n\n  [2007] The protest in Prov. xxvi, 2, against this whole\n  conception shows that it existed among the Jews down to a\n  late time.\n\n  [2008] Totemic poles, with carved figures of animals, are\n  found in Northwest America (Boas, _The Kwakiutl_; Swanton,\n  in _Journal of American Folklore_, xviii, 108 ff.) and in\n  South Nigeria (Partridge, _Cross River Natives_, p. 219);\n  but these figures are rather tribal or clan symbols than\n  idols.\n\n  [2009] The situation in Egypt was exceptional; after the\n  idolatrous stage had been reached the old worship of the\n  living animal survived.\n\n  [2010] Aniconic representations of deities in civilized\n  communities (like the stone representing the Ephesian great\n  goddess) are survivals from the old cult of natural objects.\n\n  [2011] Teraphim, 1 Sam. xix, 13 al.\n\n  [2012] In the literature they are guardians of sacred places\n  (Gen. iii, 24) and throne-bearers of the deity (Ezek. i, 26;\n  Ps. xviii, 11 [10]).\n\n  [2013] The numerous images mentioned in the Old Testament as\n  worshiped by the Israelites appear to have been borrowed\n  from neighboring peoples. The origin of the bull figures\n  worshiped at Bethel and Dan is obscure, but they appear to\n  represent the amalgamation of an old bull-cult with the cult\n  of Yahweh.\n\n  [2014] Possibly the civilization of China was in earliest\n  times identical with or similar to that Central Asiatic\n  civilization out of which Mazdaism seems to have sprung. Cf.\n  R. Pumpelly, in _Explorations in Turkestan_ (expedition of\n  1904), i, pp. xxiv, 7, chap. iv f.\n\n  [2015] The same feeling appears in the treatment of images\n  of saints by some European peasants.\n\n  [2016] For Egyptian forms see Rawlinson, _History of Ancient\n  Egypt_, vol. i; Maspero, _Dawn of Civilization_; for\n  Semitic, Ohnefalsch-Richter, _Kypros, the Bible, and Homer_;\n  for Indian, Lefmann, \"Geschichte des alten Indiens\" in\n  Oncken's _Allgemeine Geschichte_.\n\n  [2017] Even the Hindu women's linga-cult is said to be\n  sometimes morally innocent.\n\n  [2018] A church is here taken to be a voluntary religious\n  body that holds out to its members the hope of redemption\n  and salvation through association with a divine person or a\n  cosmic power.\n\n  [2019] \u00a7 530 f.\n\n  [2020] W. Ellis, _Polynesian Researches_, vol. i, chap. ix.\n\n  [2021] H. Webster, _Primitive Secret Societies_, chap. vii.\n\n  [2022] For a large definition of the term see S. Reinach,\n  _Orpheus_ (Eng. tr.), p.v.\n\n  [2023] For a possible influence see below, \u00a7 1101.\n\n  [2024] See the histories of philosophy of Ueberweg,\n  Windelband, Meyer, Zeller.\n\n  [2025] See the reference in the _Republic_ (ii, 364 f.) to\n  the mendicant prophets with their formulas for expiation of\n  sin and salvation from future punishment, and Demosthenes's\n  derisive description of \u00c6schines as mystagogue (_De Corona_,\n  313).\n\n  [2026] It is not clear that the peculiar cults described in\n  Isa. lxv, 3-5; lxvi, 3 f., are of Semitic origin. Their\n  history, however, is obscure--they are not referred to\n  elsewhere in Jewish literature. In part they are, like the\n  cults mentioned in Ezek. viii, 10, the adoption of the\n  sacred animals of neighboring peoples; Isa. lxv, 5 seems to\n  point to a close voluntary association with a ceremony of\n  initiation, but nothing proves that the association was of\n  Semitic origin. For a different view see W. R. Smith,\n  _Religion of the Semites_, 2d ed., p. 357 ff.\n\n  [2027] _The Mysteries of Mithra_ (Eng. tr.), p. 29.\n\n  [2028] 1 Cor. ii, 7; Mk. iv, 11 al.\n\n  [2029] Barth, _Religions of India_, p. 76 ff.; Hopkins,\n  _Religions of India_, p. 216 ff.; cf. Bloomfield, _Religion\n  of the Veda_, p. 282 ff.\n\n  [2030] \"Die Chinesen,\" in Saussaye, _Lehrbuch der\n  Religionsgeschichte_; R. K. Douglas, _Confucianism and\n  Taouism_; De Groot, _Religion of the Chinese_; cf. H. G.\n  Underwood, _Religions of Eastern Asia_.\n\n  [2031] Stob\u00e6us, _Eclogues_, i, 30.\n\n  [2032] Porphyry, _Vita Plotini_, cap. 3.\n\n  [2033] Hopkins, _Religions of India_, chap. xii f.; Rhys\n  Davids, _Buddhism_; Barth, _Religions of India_; Oldenberg,\n  _Buddha_.\n\n  [2034] The problem of life is stated to be how to get rid of\n  desire, which is the source of all suffering; the Buddhist\n  answer is that desire is eliminated by moral living, for\n  which knowledge is necessary. So the Socratic school based\n  virtue and happiness on knowledge. Cf. also the Biblical\n  book of Proverbs.\n\n  [2035] It does not follow that every founder of a religion\n  will establish a church; other things than the person of the\n  founder, such as the nature of his teaching and the\n  character of his social milieu, enter into the problem.\n\n  [2036] On current proposed reforms of Buddhism in Japan see\n  Underwood, _Religions of Eastern Asia_, p. 222 ff.\n\n  [2037] The two last of these functions ceased on the\n  destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans (70 A.D.), the first\n  remained.\n\n  [2038] Proselytes arose mostly from the general liberal\n  tendency of the times (from about the second century B.C.\n  and on), sometimes from lower impulses, sometimes they were\n  made by force. See articles in Cheyne, _Encyclop\u00e6dia\n  Biblica_; Hastings, _Dictionary of the Bible_; and _Jewish\n  Encyclopedia_.\n\n  [2039] They were virtually identified with the Jewish\n  people. On the early form of voluntary devotion to a foreign\n  deity see W. R. Smith, _Religion of the Semites_, 2d ed., p.\n  75 ff.\n\n  [2040] \u00a7 1115.\n\n  [2041] On attempts to discover forms of Christianity before\n  Jesus see W. R. Smith, _Der vorchristliche Jesus_, and _Ecce\n  Deus_; M. Friedl\u00e4nder, _Synagoge und Kirche_.\n\n  [2042] The two passages in the Gospels (Matt. xvi, 18;\n  xviii, 17) in which the word \"church\" occurs appear clearly,\n  on exegetical grounds, to be scribal insertions of the later\n  period.\n\n  [2043] \"Elder\" and \"apostle\" are Jewish titles, and the\n  reading of the Scriptures, prayer, and exhortation formed\n  part of the synagogal service; see Sch\u00fcrer, _The Jewish\n  People in the Time of Jesus Christ_ (Eng. tr.), II, ii, 52\n  ff., and article \"Apostle\" in _Jewish Encyclopedia_. Other\n  offices arose in the church out of the peculiar conditions;\n  the eucharistic meal appears to have been developed under\n  non-Jewish influence.\n\n  [2044] So far has the idea of the civil character of the\n  Church been carried that in some places the keeper of a\n  licensed brothel has been required to be a member of the\n  State Church.\n\n  [2045] Harnack, _Dogmengeschichte_; articles in\n  Herzog-Hauck, _Real-Encyklop\u00e4die_, and _Jewish\n  Encyclopedia_; Mansel, _The Gnostic Heresies_.\n\n  [2046] Cumont, _Textes et monuments_ and _The Mysteries of\n  Mithra_.\n\n  [2047] _Metamorphoses_, chap. xi.\n\n  [2048] Cf. article \"Isis\" in Roscher's _Lexikon_.\n\n  [2049] Cf. A. G. Leonard, _Islam, her Moral and Spiritual\n  Value_.\n\n  [2050] A. M\u00fcller, _Islam_, ii, 614 ff.; Copp\u00e9e, _Conquest of\n  Spain_; Dozy, _Histoire des musulmans en Espagne_; Stanley\n  Lane-Poole, _Story of the Moors in Spain_.\n\n  [2051] Of these fraternities the largest and most powerful\n  is the Senussi of North Africa, a splendidly organized body\n  with a central administration clothed with absolute\n  authority; see Depont and Coppolani, _Les confr\u00e9ries\n  religieuses musulmanes_.\n\n  [2052] S. de Sacy, _Expos\u00e9 de la religion des Druses_; J.\n  Wortabet, _Researches into the Religions of Syria_; C. H.\n  Churchill, _Ten Years' Residence in Mt. Lebanon_.\n\n  [2053] Cf. Dr. Thomas Arnold's ideal, the identification of\n  Church and State (A. P. Stanley, _Life and Correspondence of\n  Thomas Arnold_).\n\n  [2054] Payne, _History of the New World called America_;\n  Markham, _Rites and Laws of the Incas_; Prescott, _Conquest\n  of Peru_, bk. i, chap. iii.\n\n  [2055] On India's fertility in the production of religions\n  cf. Bloomfield, _Religion of the Veda_, p. 2 ff.\n\n  [2056] This organization was first called the \"Brahma-Samaj\"\n  (the Church of Brahma), later the \"Adi-Samaj\" (the First\n  Church).\n\n  [2057] The Brahma-Samaj.\n\n  [2058] There are other theistic bodies in India. The\n  Arya-Samaj (Aryan Church) derives its doctrines (monotheism\n  and other) from the Veda (necessarily by a forced\n  interpretation); it is a sort of protest against foreign\n  (Christian) influence. See articles \"Arya Samaj\" and \"Brahma\n  Samaj\" in Hastings, _Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics_.\n\n  [2059] Gobineau, _Les religions et les philosophies dans\n  l'Asie centrale_; R. G. Browne, _The Episode of the Bab_ and\n  _The New History of the Bab_; article \"Bab, Babis\" in\n  Hastings, op. cit.; article \"Bahaism\" in the _Nouveau\n  Larousse, Suppl\u00e9ment_; _Some Answered Questions_, translated\n  by Laura C. Burney (exposition of the doctrine by the son of\n  the Bahaist founder).\n\n  [2060] Babism is fairly well represented in Persia at the\n  present day; see R. G. Browne.\n\n  [2061] Cf. articles in Herzog-Hauck, _Real-Encyklop\u00e4die_;\n  McClintock and Strong, _Biblical Cyclop\u00e6dia_; _New\n  Schaff-Herzog Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religious Knowledge_.\n\n  [2062] On the community founded by Pythagoras see the\n  histories of philosophy; it appears to have embodied a\n  suggestion of monastic life, but its origin is uncertain.\n\n  [2063] The Hebrew Nazirite vow, for example, was merely a\n  consecration of a part of the body to the deity with the\n  observance of old nomadic customs of food and dwellings.\n\n  [2064] Hopkins, _Religions of India_, Index, s.v. _Monks_.\n\n  [2065] Rhys Davids, _Buddhism_, chap. vi.\n\n  [2066] Cf. H. Weingarten, _Ursprung des M\u00f6nchthums_, cited\n  with approval by Meyer, _Geschichte des Alten Aegyptens_, p.\n  401; cf. Lehmann-Haupt, in Roscher's _Lexikon_, article\n  \"Sarapis,\" col. 362 ff.\n\n  [2067] Cf. Hopkins, _Religions of India_, chap. xix; J.\n  Estlin Carpenter, \"Buddhist and Christian Parallels\" in\n  _Studies in the History of Religions presented to C. H.\n  Toy_.\n\n  [2068] Against this view see Breastad, _History of Egypt_,\n  p. 578 ff.\n\n  [2069] _De Vita Contemplativa_; see the edition of F. C.\n  Conybeare. The work is probably to be considered genuine.\n\n  [2070] Philo, _Quod omnis probus liber_; Pliny, _Historia\n  Naturalis_, v, 17; Josephus, _Antiquities_, xviii, 1, and\n  _War_, ii, 8; Sch\u00fcrer, _The Jewish People in the Time of\n  Jesus Christ_ (Eng. tr.), II, ii, 188 ff. (and the\n  bibliography there given); articles in Cheyne, _Encyclop\u00e6dia\n  Biblica_, and Hastings, _Dictionary of the Bible_.\n\n  [2071] From the geographical and historical conditions a\n  Pythagorean origin (perhaps indirect) seems the more\n  probable.\n\n  [2072] The earliest appearance of an Essene is in the latter\n  part of the second century B.C. (Josephus, _Antiquities_,\n  xiii, 11, \u00a7 2).\n\n  [2073] Roscher, _Lexikon_, article \"Sarapis,\" col. 362 f.\n\n  [2074] See references given above in \u00a7 1121, note.\n\n  [2075] Rhys Davids, _Buddhism_; R. S. Copleston, _Buddhism_.\n\n  [2076] Ezekiel, early in the sixth century, and Haggai and\n  Zechariah in the latter part of the century, show no\n  consciousness of the existence of authoritative writings.\n\n  [2077] Cf. G. F. Moore, \"The Definition of the Jewish Canon\n  and the Repudiation of Christian Scriptures\" in _Essays in\n  Modern Theology and Related Subjects ... Testimonial to C.\n  A. Briggs_.\n\n  [2078] G. Wildeboer, _Het Onstaan van den Kanon des Ouden\n  Verbonds_; H. E. Ryle, _Canon of the Old Testament_;\n  articles \"Canon\" in _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_, \"Bible Canon\" in\n  _Jewish Encyclopedia_, \"Kanon des Alten Testaments\" in\n  Herzog-Hauck, _Real-Encyklop\u00e4die_.\n\n  [2079] See the _Longer Catechism of Philaret_, 1839.\n\n  [2080] T. Zahn, _Gesichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons_, E.\n  C. Moore, _The New Testament in the Christian Church_;\n  article \"Canon\" in _Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica_.\n\n  [2081] _Historia Naturalis_, xxx, chap. i, \u00a7 2.\n\n  [2082] The question whether any of this material went back\n  to Zoroaster must here be left undecided.\n\n  [2083] Spiegel, _Eranische Alterthumskunde_, iii, 778 ff.\n\n  [2084] N\u00f6ldeke, _Sketches from Eastern History_ (Eng. tr.),\n  p. 25 ff.\n\n  [2085] A creed usually contains also an affirmation of the\n  authority of the book on which it is based. Some religious\n  bodies do not regard any book as absolutely authoritative,\n  and their creeds are merely expressions of their independent\n  religious beliefs.\n\n  [2086] So among the Egyptians, Hebrews, Hindus, Greeks,\n  Romans, and others.\n\n  [2087] Cf. Sabatier, _Authority in Religion_ (Eng. tr.), and\n  the bibliography therein given.\n\n  [2088] The contention that a given religion must triumph\n  because it is divine and its triumph is divinely predicted\n  introduces a discussion that cannot be gone into here, where\n  the object is to consider existing facts.\n\n  [2089] Babism (or Bahaism) also claims to be universal, but\n  its origin is so recent that this claim cannot be tested.\n\n  [2090] Rhys Davids, _Buddhism_.\n\n  [2091] It has been professed by a few persons in Europe and\n  America, but the so-called \"theosophy\" is not Buddhism. On\n  supposed points of contact between the New Testament and\n  Buddhism cf. C. F. Aiken, _The Dhamma of Gotama the Buddha\n  and the Gospel of Jesus the Christ_.\n\n  [2092] T. W. Arnold, _The Preaching of Islam_.\n\n  [2093] See Tiele, article \"Religion\" in _Encyclop\u00e6dia\n  Britannica_, 9th ed., and cf. his _Elements of the Science\n  of Religion_, i, 28 ff.; R. de la Grasserie, _Des religions\n  compar\u00e9es au point de vue sociologique_; M. Jastrow, _The\n  Study of Religion_, pp. 58 ff.; article \"Religion\" in\n  _Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica_, 11th ed.\n\n  [2094] Cases of adoption of alien cults bodily are here of\n  course excluded; in such cases the cults are to be referred\n  to the creators and not to the borrowers.\n\n  [2095] In some forms of Brahmanism, in Buddhism, and in some\n  modern systems this Power is impersonal or undefined.\n\n  [2096] On Gautama's attitude toward divine beings cf. Rhys\n  Davids, _Buddhism_, p. 87 f.; Hopkins, _Religions of India_,\n  p. 333 f.\n\n  [2097] W. D. Whitney, _Princeton Review_, May, 1881.\n\n  [2098] Kuenen, _National Religions and Universal Religions_\n  (Hibbert Lectures, 1882); Tiele, _Elements of the Science of\n  Religion_, i, 43 ff.; Jastrow, _Study of Religion_, p. 89\n  ff.\n\n  [2099] Confucian China and Shintoist Japan are excluded; but\n  in both these countries Buddhism is widespread. Pure\n  Confucianism is not a religion, and the old Shinto is no\n  longer believed in by educated Japanese.\n\n  [2100] Cf. Tiele, _Elements of the Science of Religion_,\n  Index, s.v.\n\n  [2101] Myths, it may be remarked, are not confined to the\n  uncivilised and the old national cults; they are found in\n  all great religious systems.\n\n  [2102] See, in this connection, the account of the faith of\n  the philosopher Sallustius, the Emperor Julian's friend, by\n  Professor Gilbert Murray, \"A Pagan Creed,\" in the _English\n  Review_ for December, 1909. The term 'pagan' now has a\n  connotation that is singularly out of accord with the\n  character of a man like Sallustius.\n\n  [2103] \u00a7 14 f.\n\n  [2104] Examples are the Copernican and Newtonian theories;\n  the magnitude of the stellar universe; Biblical criticism;\n  the theories of evolution and the conservation of energy.\n\n  [2105] The general religious attitude may be the same\n  whether the world be regarded as monistic or as pluralistic.\n\n  [2106] See above, \u00a7 172.\n\n  [2107] Cf. L. T. Hobhouse, _Morals in Evolution_, part ii,\n  chaps. v-vii.\n\n  [2108] An example is the Old-Hebrew usage respecting\n  marriage with a half-sister or with a wife (not one's\n  mother) of a father. Up to about the seventh century B.C.\n  such marriages were lawful (Gen. xx, 12; 2 Sam. xiii, 13;\n  xvi, 22); later they were forbidden (Ezek. xxii, 10 f.; Lev.\n  xviii, 11). Maspero (in the _Annuaire de l'\u00e9cole des hautes\n  \u00e9tudes_, 1896) points out that in Egypt marriage between\n  uterine brothers and sisters in the royal family was not\n  only legal but a sacred duty, its object being to maintain\n  the purity of the divine blood.\n\n  [2109] See above, \u00a7\u00a7 107, 180, 219.\n\n  [2110] Amos ii, 7; Hos. iv, 14.\n\n  [2111] The Old Testament command to exterminate the\n  Canaanites (Deut. vii, 2; xxv, 19; Josh. vi-xi) is not\n  historical, that is, was not given at the time stated or at\n  any other time. The Israelites, in fact, settled down among\n  the Canaanites and intermarried with them, and at the time\n  when the passages just cited were written (seventh century\n  and later) there were no such alien tribes in Canaan. But\n  these passages show how a current barbarous custom of war\n  could be regarded by religious leaders as pleasing to God.\n\n  [2112] See \u00a7 630 ff.\n\n  [2113] So, for example, Butler's _Analogy_.\n\n  [2114] It is an exaggeration to say (as has been said) that\n  the sentiment of the sacred obligation of opinion was first\n  formulated or created in the world by the early Christian\n  martyrs--before their time Socrates, Jews in the Antiochian\n  persecution, and probably others, had embodied this\n  sentiment--but the Christian devotion helped to make it a\n  generally recognized ethical principle.\n\n  [2115] Hopkins, _Religions of India_, Index, s.v. _Yoga_;\n  Bloomfield, _Religion of the Veda_, Index, s.v. _Baksheesh_;\n  article \"Saint and Saintliness\" in _Jewish Encyclopedia_;\n  Christian hagiologies; Goldziher, _Muhammedanische Studien_;\n  C. Trumelet, _Les saints de l'Islam_.\n\n  [2116] See above, \u00a7 1163.\n\n  [2117] Ezek. xiv, 9.\n\n  [2118] It is this sort of insensate optimism that Voltaire\n  ridicules in _Candide_--a just and useful protest against a\n  superficial view of life.\n\n\n\n\nSELECTED LIST OF BOOKS OF REFERENCE\n\n\nENCYCLOP\u00c6DIAS AND DICTIONARIES\n\n Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica (9th ed., Edinburgh; 11th ed., Cambridge,\n   England, and New York).\n\n La Grande Encyclop\u00e9die (Paris, 1886-1902).\n\n Le Nouveau Larousse (Paris, 1898-1904).\n\n Johnson's Universal Cyclop\u00e6dia (New York, 1893-1895).\n\n The New International Encyclop\u00e6dia (New York, 1905).\n\n Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics (Edinburgh, 1908-    ).\n\n LICHTENBERGER. Encyclop\u00e9die des sciences religieuses (Paris, 1877-1882).\n\n ROSCHER. Ausf\u00fchrliches Lexikon der griechischen und r\u00f6mischen Mythologie\n   (Leipzig, 1884-    ).\n\n DAREMBERG ET SAGLIO. Dictionnaire des antiquit\u00e9s grecques et romaines\n   (Paris, 1873-1884).\n\n PAULY-WISSOWA. Real-Encyclop\u00e4die der classischen Altertumswissenschaft\n   (new ed., Stuttgart, 1904).\n\n GEIGER AND KUHN. Grundriss der iranischen Philologie (Strassburg,\n   1895-1904).\n\n Jewish Encyclopedia (New York and London, 1901-1906).\n\n Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica (London and New York, 1899-1903).\n\n HASTINGS. Dictionary of the Bible (Edinburgh, 1900-1904).\n\n HUGHES. Dictionary of Islam (London, 1896).\n\n Encyclop\u00e6dia of Islam (Leiden) (in course of publication).\n\n HERZOG-HAUCK. Real-Encyclop\u00e4die f\u00fcr protestantische Theologie und Kirche\n   (Leipzig, 1895-1909).\n\n HAMBURGER. Realencyclop\u00e4die des Judenthums (2d ed., Leipzig, 1896).\n\n The Catholic Encyclopedia (New York, 1907-1911).\n\n SMITH AND CHEETHAM. Dictionary of Christian Antiquities (London, 1875).\n\n MCCLINTOCK AND STRONG. Cyclop\u00e6dia of Biblical, Theological and\n   Ecclesiastical Literature (New York, 1868-1881).\n\n MEUSEL. Kirchliches Handlexikon (Leipzig, 1887-1902).\n\n WETZER AND WELTE. Kirchenlexikon (Freiburg im Breisgau, 1882-1903).\n\n PERIODICALS\n\n\n    Revue de l'histoire des religions (Paris).\n    Archiv f\u00fcr Religionswissenschaft (Leipzig).\n    Le Mus\u00e9on et La Revue des religions (Louvain, 1882-    ).\n    Journal asiatique (Paris).\n    Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (London).\n    Journal of the Ceylon Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society (Colombo).\n    Journal of the Straits Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society\n     (Singapore).\n    Journal of the China Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society (Hongkong).\n    Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal (Calcutta).\n    Journal of the Indian Archipelago and Eastern Asia (Singapore).\n    De indische Gids (Amsterdam).\n    The Indian Antiquary (Bombay).\n    Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh.\n    Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenl\u00e4ndischen Gesellschaft (Leipzig).\n    Wiener Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die Kunde des Morgenlandes.\n    Mitteillungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft and Der alte Orient\n     (Leipzig).\n    Mitteilungen der deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft (Berlin).\n    Transactions of the Asiatic Society of Japan (Yokohama),\n    Journal of the American Oriental Society (New Haven).\n    Zeitschrift f\u00fcr die Mythologie (G\u00f6ttingen).\n    Journal of the Anthropological Institute (London).\n    Transactions of the Ethnological Society (London).\n    Man (anthropological monthly) (London).\n    Annals of Arch\u00e6ology and Anthropology (Liverpool Institute\n      of Arch\u00e6ology).\n    Arch\u00e6ological Review (London).\n    Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada (Ottawa, Montreal,\n      and London).\n    Transactions of the Society of Biblical Arch\u00e6ology (London).\n    L'Anthropologie (Paris).\n    Revue internationale de sociologie (Paris).\n    Annales du Mus\u00e9e Guimet (Paris).\n    L'Ann\u00e9e sociologique (Paris).\n    Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Ethnologie (Berlin).\n    Archiv f\u00fcr Anthropologie (Braunschweig).\n    Arch\u00e4ologische Gesellschaft (Berlin).\n    Archiv f\u00fcr slavische Philologie (Berlin, 1876-    ).\n    Jahreshefte des oesterreichischen arch\u00e4ologischen Instituts (Vienna).\n    Mitteilungen der anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien.\n    Anthropos, Ephemeris internationalis ethnologica et linguistica\n      (Salzburg, 1906-    ).\n    Archivio per l'Antropologia e la Etnologia (Florence).\n    Internationales Archiv f\u00fcr Ethnologie (Leiden).\n    '[Greek: Eph\u00eameris' Archaiologik\u00ea] (Athens).\n    American Journal of Arch\u00e6ology (New York and London).\n    Transactions of the American Ethnological Society (New York).\n    The Anthropologist (Washington).\n    American Antiquarian Society (Worcester, Mass.).\n    Reports of the National Museum (Washington).\n    Reports of the Bureau of Ethnology (Washington).\n    Reports of the Smithsonian Institution (Washington).\n    University of California Publications in American Arch\u00e6ology\n      and Ethnology (Berkeley).\n    Revue des questions historiques (Paris).\n    Revue \u00e9gyptologique (Paris).\n    Zeitschrift f\u00fcr aegyptische Sprache und Altertumswissenschaft\n      (Leipzig).\n    Revue s\u00e9mitique (Paris).\n    Revue du monde musulman (Paris).\n    American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures (Chicago).\n    Revue d'Assyriologie (Paris).\n    Zeitschrift f\u00fcr Assyriologie und verwandte Gebiete (Leipzig).\n    Beitr\u00e4ge zur Assyriologie und semitischen Sprachwissenschaft\n      (Leipzig).\n    Revue des \u00e9tudes grecques (Paris, 1888-    ).\n    Journal of Hellenic Studies (London).\n    Revue des \u00e9tudes juives (Paris).\n    Folklore (London).\n    Folklore Journal (London).\n    Revue des traditions populaires (Paris).\n    M\u00e9lusine (mythology and popular traditions) (Paris).\n    Zeitschrift des Vereins f\u00fcr Volkskunde (Berlin).\n    Ons Volksleven (Tijdschrift voor Taal-Volks-en Oudheidkunde) (Brecht).\n    Revue Celtique (Paris).\n    Celtic Review (Edinburgh).\n    Mittheilungen der Gesellschaft f\u00fcr j\u00fcdische Volkskunde (Breslau).\n    Archivio per lo studio delle tradizioni popolari (Palermo).\n    International Journal of Ethics (Philadelphia and London).\n    Hibbert Journal (London).\n\n\n\n WORKS ON THE NATURE OF RELIGION\n\n PLATO. Ph\u00e6do; Ph\u00e6drus; Republic.\n\n HUME, DAVID. Natural History of Religion (vol. ii of Green and Grose's\n   ed. of Hume's Essays, London, 1882); Dialogues concerning Natural\n   Religion (ibid.).\n\n KANT, IMMANUEL. Religion innerhalb der Grenzen der blossen Vernunft\n   (K\u00f6nigsberg, 1793; in new ed. of his Works, Berlin, 1912).\n\n HEGEL, G. W. F. Philosophie der Religion (Berlin, 1832; new ed., Leiden,\n   1890; Eng. tr., London, 1895) (cf. John Caird's Philosophy of\n   Religion, London, 1876).\n\n BURNOUF, E. La science des religions (3d ed., Paris, 1876; Eng. tr.,\n   London, 1888).\n\n ARNOLD, MATTHEW. Literature and Dogma (London and New York, 1873).\n\n PFLEIDERER, O. Religionsphilosophie auf geschichtlicher Grundlage (3d\n   ed., Berlin, 1896); Eng. tr., The Philosophy of Religion on the Basis\n   of its History (London, 1886); Philosophy and Development of Religion\n   (Edinburgh, 1899); Evolution and Theology, and Other Essays (Eng. tr.,\n   London and New York, 1900); Religion und Religionen (Munich, 1906);\n   Eng. tr., Religion and Historic Faiths (New York, 1907).\n\n GHEYN, J. VAN DEN. La science des religions (Lyon, 1886).\n\n HARTMANN, E. VON. Religionsphilosophie (Leipzig, 1888).\n\n MARTINEAU, J. A Study of Religion (London, 1888).\n\n BENDER, W. Das Wesen der Religion (4th ed., Bonn, 1888).\n\n DEUSSEN, P. Allgemeine Geschichte der Philosophie mit besonderer\n   Ber\u00fccksichtigung der Religionen (Leipzig, 1894; new ed., 1899-1911).\n\n JASTROW, MORRIS, JR. The Study of Religion (London and New York, 1901).\n\n EVERETT, C. C. The Psychological Elements of Religion (New York and\n   London, 1902); Theism and the Christian Faith (New York and London,\n   1909).\n\n JAMES, WILLIAM. The Will to Believe, and Other Essays (London and New\n   York, 1897); Varieties of Religious Experience (London and New York,\n   1902); Pragmatism (London and New York, 1907); A Pluralistic Universe\n   (New York, 1909).\n\n ROYCE, JOSIAH. Religious Aspects of Philosophy (Boston, 1886); The World\n   and the Individual (London and New York, 1900-1901); The Sources of\n   Religious Insight (New York, 1912).\n\n CAIRD, E. Evolution of Religion (London and New York, 1893).\n\n LA GRASSERIE, RAOUL DE. De la psychologie des religions (Paris, 1899).\n\n BOUSSET, W. What is Religion? (Eng. tr., New York and London, 1907).\n\n H\u00d6FFDING, H. Philosophy of Religion (Eng. tr., London and New York,\n   1906).\n\n PERRY, R. B. The Approach to Philosophy, chaps. iii, iv, vii (New York,\n   1905).\n\n SANTAYANA, G. Reason in Religion (vol. iii of his Life of Reason) (New\n   York, 1905).\n\n KING, IRVING. Development of Religion (New York, 1910).\n\n LEUBA, J. H. A Psychological Study of Religion (New York, 1912).\n\n KANT, IMMANUEL. Kritik der praktischen Vernunft (4th ed., Riga, 1797),\n   and see his Collected Works (Berlin, 1912-    ).\n\n MARTINEAU, JAMES. The Relations between Ethics and Religion (London,\n   1881).\n\n GUYAU, J. M. Esquisse d'une morale sans obligation ni sanction (Paris,\n   1885; 4th ed., 1896; Eng. tr., London, 1898); L'irreligion de l'avenir\n   (Paris, 1887).\n\n PALMER, G. H. The Field of Ethics (Boston, 1901).\n\n OTTO, R. Naturalism and Religion (Eng. tr., London and New York, 1909).\n\n\n GENERAL DESCRIPTIVE WORKS\n\n CICERO. De Fato and De Natura Deorum.\n\n BROSSES, C. de. Du culte des dieux f\u00e9tiches (Paris or Geneva, 1760).\n\n DUPUIS, C. F. Origine de tous les cultes, ou religion universelle\n   (Paris, 1794; new ed., 1870).\n\n MEINERS, C. Allgemeine kritische Geschichte der Religion (Hannover,\n   1806-1807).\n\n WALTZ, T. Anthropologie der Naturv\u00f6lker (Leipzig, 1859-1872).\n\n BASTIAN, A. Beitr\u00e4ge zur vergleichenden Psychologie (Berlin, 1868).\n\n M\u00dcLLER, FR. MAX. Introduction to the Science of Religion (2d ed.,\n   London, 1880); Natural Religion (London, 1890); Physical Religion\n   (London, 1891); Anthropological Religion (London, 1892); Theosophy, or\n   Psychological Religion (London, 1893).\n\n SPENCER, H. Descriptive Sociology (London, 1873-1881); Principles of\n   Sociology (London, 1879-1896); vol. i (on religious phenomena) (New\n   York, 1882).\n\n LIPPERT, J. Religionen der europ\u00e4ischen Culturv\u00f6lker (Berlin, 1881);\n   Allgemeine Geschichte des Priesterthums (Berlin, 1883).\n\n R\u00c9VILLE, A. Prol\u00e9gom\u00e8nes de l'histoire des religions (Paris, 1881; Eng.\n   tr., London, 1884); Les religions des peuples non-civilis\u00e9s (Paris,\n   1883).\n\n KUENEN, A. National Religions and Universal Religions (London, 1882).\n\n CLARKE, J. F. Ten Great Religions (Boston, 1883; popular ed., 1899).\n\n D'ALVIELLA, GOBLET. Introduction \u00e0 l'histoire g\u00e9n\u00e9rale des religions\n   (Brussels, 1887); Origin and Growth of the Conception of God (London,\n   1892); Croyances, rites, institutions (Paris, 1911).\n\n LA SAUSSAYE, P. D. Chantepie de. Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichte\n   (Freiburg, 1887-1888; Eng. tr. of vol. i, London, 1892; 2d ed., 1897).\n\n TYLOR, E. B. Researches into the Early History of Mankind (London,\n   1878); Primitive Culture (3d ed., London, 1891 and 1903).\n\n The Hibbert Lectures (London and New York, 1878-1894).\n\n The Gifford Lectures (London and New York, 1890-).\n\n USENER, H. Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen (Bonn, 1889);\n   G\u00f6tternamen (Bonn, 1896).\n\n FRAZER, J. G. The Golden Bough (London, 1890; 3d ed., 1906-1911); Early\n   History of the Kingship (London, 1905).\n\n KING, J. H. The Supernatural (London, 1892).\n\n Article \"Fetishism\" in Hastings's Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics.\n\n TRUMBULL, H. C. The Blood-Covenant (New York, 1893); The\n   Threshold-Covenant (New York, 1896).\n\n MARILLIER, L. La survivance de l'l\u00e2me et l'id\u00e9e de justice chez les\n   peuples non-civilis\u00e9s (Paris, 1894); L'origine des dieux [criticism of\n   Grant Allen's Evolution of the Idea of God] (Paris, 1899).\n\n STEINMETZ, S. R. Ethnologische Studien zur ersten Entwicklung der Strafe\n   (Leiden and Leipzig, 1894).\n\n TIELE, C. P. Geschichte der Religion im Alterthum bis auf Alexander den\n   Grossen (Germ. tr., Gotha, 1895; ed. Gehrich, Gotha, 1896-1903).\n\n MENZIES, A. History of Religion (London and New York, 1895; New York,\n   1906).\n\n Religious Systems of the World (London, 1896; new ed., 1902).\n\n CARPENTER, J. E. Place of Christianity among the Religions of the World\n   (London, 1904).\n\n Orientalische Religionen (in Die Kultur der Gegenwart) (Berlin and\n   Leipzig, 1906).\n\n BLOOMFIELD, M. The Symbolic Gods (in Studies in Honor of B. L.\n   Gildersleeve) (Baltimore, 1902).\n\n JEVONS, F. B. Introduction to the History of Religion (London, 1896; 2d\n   ed., 1902); Introduction to the Study of Comparative Religion (New\n   York, 1908); The Idea of God in Early Religions (Cambridge, England,\n   1910).\n\n JOHNSON, SAMUEL. Oriental Religions and their Relation to Universal\n   Religion (1872-1885; Boston, 1897).\n\n WHITE, A. D. Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (New York,\n   1897).\n\n DURKHEIM, E. D\u00e9finition des ph\u00e9nom\u00e8nes religieux (in _L'Ann\u00e9e\n   sociologique_, ii) (Paris, 1897-1898).\n\n ALLEN, GRANT. Evolution of the Idea of God (London and New York, 1897).\n\n TIELE, C. P. Elements of the Science of Religion (Edinburgh and London,\n   1897-1899).\n\n BRINTON, D. G. Religions of Primitive Peoples (New York and London,\n   1897).\n\n RATZEL, F. History of Mankind (Eng. tr., London, 1898).\n\n LANG, A. Custom and Myth (London, 1884); Myth, Ritual and Religion (2d\n   ed., 1899); The Making of Religion (2d ed., London, 1900).\n\n ANDREE, R. Die Flutsagen (Braunschweig, 1891).\n\n USENER, H. Die Sintfluthsagen (Bonn, 1899).\n\n WOODS, F. H. Article \"Flood\" (in Hastings's Dictionary of the Bible)\n   (Edinburgh and New York, 1900).\n\n SUTHERLAND, A. The Origin and Growth of the Moral Instinct (London and\n   New York, 1898).\n\n LA GRASSERIE, RAOUL DE. Des religions compar\u00e9es au point de vue\n   sociologique (Paris, 1899).\n\n INGRAM, J. K. Outline of the History of Religion (London, 1900).\n\n LORD AVEBURY (Sir John Lubbock). Prehistoric Times (6th ed., London,\n   1900).\n\n HIRN, Y. Origins of Art (London, 1900).\n\n ELLIS, HAVELOCK. Studies in the Psychology of Sex (London, 1900; and\n   Philadelphia, 1904-1910).\n\n MORRIS, MISS M. The Economic Study of Religion (in _Journal of the\n   American Oriental Society_, xxiv) (New Haven, 1903).\n\n REINACH, S. Cultes, mythes et religions (Paris, 1905-1908).\n\n HOPKINS, E. W. The Universality of Religion (in _Journal of the American\n   Oriental Society_, xxv) (New Haven, 1904).\n\n JORDAN, L. H. Comparative Religion, its Genesis and Growth (Edinburgh,\n   1905).\n\n DIETERICH, A. Mutter Erde, ein Versuch \u00fcber Volksreligion (Leipzig and\n   Berlin, 1905).\n\n FARNELL, L. R. Evolution of Religion (London and New York, 1905).\n\n DULAURE, J. A. Des divinit\u00e9s g\u00e9n\u00e9ratrices (2d ed., Paris, 1905).\n\n REITZENSTEIN, R. Hellenistische Wundererz\u00e4hlungen (Leipzig, 1906).\n\n CUMONT, F. Les religions orientales dans le paganisme romain (Paris,\n   1907; Eng. tr., Chicago, 1911).\n\n HAMILTON, MARY. Incubation (London, 1906).\n\n HOBHOUSE, L. T. Morals in Evolution (London and New York, 1906).\n\n Article \"Art\" in Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics (Edinburgh and New\n   York, 1908).\n\n PERROT AND CHIPIEZ. Histoire de l'art dans l'antiquit\u00e9 (Paris,\n   1882-1911; Eng. tr., London and New York, 1883-1890).\n\n MEYER, EDOUARD. Geschichte des Altertums (2d ed., Stuttgart and Berlin,\n   1907-1909).\n\n WESTERMARCK, E. Origin and Development of the Moral Ideas (London,\n   1908).\n\n PREUSS, K. T. Ursprung der Religion und Kunst.\n\n WEBSTER, H. Primitive Secret Societies (New York, 1908); Rest-Days: a\n   Sociological Study (reprinted from _University Studies_) (Lincoln,\n   Nebraska, 1911).\n\n CONDER, C. R. The Rise of Man (London and New York, 1908).\n\n PLOSS, H. H. Das Kind (Stuttgart, 1876); Das Weib, ed. M. Bartels\n   (Leipzig, 1902).\n\n HARTLAND, E. S. Primitive Paternity (London, 1909).\n\n FRAZER, J. G. Psyche's Task [influence of superstition on the growth of\n   institutions] (London, 1909).\n\n REINACH, S. Orpheus (Paris, 1909; Eng. tr., revised by the author,\n   London and New York, 1909).\n\n FROBENIUS, L. Childhood of Man (Eng. tr., London and Philadelphia,\n   1909).\n\n THOMAS, W. I. Source-Book for Social Origins (Chicago and London. 1909).\n\n MARETT, R. R. The Threshold of Religion (London [1909]).\n\n SELIGMANN, S. Der b\u00f6se Blick und Verwandtes (Berlin, 1910).\n\n ELWORTHY, F. T. Article \"Evil Eye\" (in Hastings's Encyclop\u00e6dia of\n   Religion and Ethics).\n\n BOEHMER, J. Religions-Urkunden der V\u00f6lker (Leipzig).\n\n Article \"Cosmogony and Cosmology\" in Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics\n   (Oxford, 1912).\n\n CRAWLEY, A. E. Articles \"Cursing and Blessing,\" \"Dress,\" and \"Eating the\n   God,\" ibid.\n\n Articles \"Dwarfs and Pygmies,\" \"Dualism,\" \"Fate,\" \"Calendar,\"\n \"Feasting,\" \"Fasting,\" \"Festivals and Fasts,\" ibid.\n\n SCHNEIDER, H. Religion und Philosophie (Leipzig, 1912).\n\n CARPENTER, J. Estlin. Comparative Religion (London and New York,\n   1913(?)).\n\n\n WORKS ON TOTEMISM AND EXOGAMY\n\n MORGAN, L. H. Ancient Society (London, 1877).\n\n SPENCER, H. Principles of Sociology, i, \u00a7 171 ff. (London and New York,\n   1882).\n\n HAHN, ED. Die Haustiere (Leipzig, 1896); Demeter und Baubo (L\u00fcbeck,\n   1897).\n\n TYLOR, E. B. Remarks on Totemism, _Journal of the Anthropological\n   Institute_ (1899).\n\n PIKLER AND SOML\u00d3. Ursprung des Totemismus (Berlin, 1900).\n\n HARTLAND, E. S. Totemism and Some Recent Discoveries, _Folklore_ (1900).\n\n DURKHEIM, E. La prohibition de l'inceste et ses origines, _L'Ann\u00e9e\n   sociologique_, i (Paris, 1896-1897); Sur le tot\u00e9misme, _L'Ann\u00e9e\n   sociologique_, v (1900-1901).\n\n ZAPLETAL, V. Totemismus und die Religion Israels (Freiburg (Swiss),\n   1901).\n\n HILL-TOUT, C. Origin of Totemism among the Aborigines of British\n   Columbia, _Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada_ (2d Series,\n   1901-1902 and 1903-1904).\n\n SMITH, W. R. Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia (2d ed., London, 1903)\n   (criticized by N\u00f6ldeke in _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenl\u00e4ndischen\n   Gesellschaft_, 1886).\n\n LANG, A. Social Origins (London, 1903); Secret of the Totem (London,\n   1905); Australian Problems (in Anthropological Essays presented to\n   Tylor) (Oxford, 1907).\n\n JEVONS, F. B. Introduction to the History of Religion (2d ed., London,\n   1902).\n\n MARILLIER, L. La place du tot\u00e9misme dans l'\u00e9volution religieuse\n   [criticism of Jevons], _Revue de l'histoire des religions_, xxxvi,\n   xxxvii (Paris, 1897-1898); article \"Totem\" (in La Grande Encyclop\u00e9die)\n   (Paris, 1886-1902).\n\n WUNDT, W. Mythus und Religion (in his V\u00f6lkerpsychologie, Leipzig,\n   1908-1910).\n\n CRAWLEY, A. E. Exogamy and the Mating of Cousins (in Essays presented to\n   Tylor, Oxford, 1907).\n\n RIVERS, W. H. H. On the Origin of the Classificatory System of\n   Relationships (in Essays presented to Tylor, 1907).\n\n THOMAS, N. W. La survivance du culte tot\u00e9mique ... dans le pays de\n   Galles, _Revue de l'histoire des religions_, xxxviii (Paris); Origin\n   of Exogamy (in Essays presented to Tylor, Oxford, 1907).\n\n GOMME, G. L. Totemism in Britain, _Arch\u00e6ological Review_ (London, 1889).\n\n GOLDENWEISER, A. A. Totemism, an Analytical Study, _Journal of American\n   Folklore_ (Boston and New York, 1910).\n\n FRAZER, J. G. Totemism and Exogamy (London, 1910).\n\n\n WORKS ON TABOO\n\n FRAZER, J. G. Article \"Taboo\" (in Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica, 9th ed.).\n\n CRAWLEY, A. E. Mystic Rose (London, 1902); Exogamy and the Mating of\n   Cousins (in Essays presented to Tylor, Oxford, 1907).\n\n GENNEP, A. VAN. Tabou et tot\u00e9misme \u00e0 Madagascar (Paris, 1904).\n\n HODSON, T. C. The Genna amongst the Tribes of Assam, _Journal of the\n   Anthropological Institute_, xxxvi (London, 1906).\n\n MARILLIER, L. Article \"Tabou\" (in La Grande Encyclop\u00e9die) (Paris).\n\n TYLOR, E. B. Early History of Mankind, p. 129 ff. (3d ed., London,\n   1878).\n\n FRAZER, J. G. Lectures on the Early History of the Kingship [holds that\n   taboo is a negative magic] (London, 1905); Taboo and the Perils of the\n   Soul (part ii of 3d ed. of the Golden Bough) (London, 1911).\n\n MARETT, R. R. Is Taboo a Negative Magic? (in Essays presented to Tylor)\n   (Oxford, 1907) [reply to Frazer].\n\n THOMAS, N. W. Article \"Taboo\" (in Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica, 11th ed.).\n\n GAIT, E. A. Article \"Caste\" (in Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics)\n   (Edinburgh and New York, 1911).\n\n TAYLOR, R. New Zealand (London, 1870).\n\n ALEXANDER, W. D. Brief History of the Hawaiian People (New York, 1892).\n\n\n _The Hebrew Sabbath as a Taboo Day_\n\n TOY, C. H. The Earliest Form of the Hebrew Sabbath, _Journal of Biblical\n   Literature_ (Boston, 1899).\n\n DRIVER, S. R. Article \"Sabbath\" (in Hastings's Dictionary of the Bible)\n   (Edinburgh and New York, 1902).\n\n PINCHES, T. G. Sapattu, the Babylonian Sabbath, _Proceedings of the\n   Society of Biblical Arch\u00e6ology_ (London, 1904).\n\n ZIMMERN, H. Comments on Pinches's article, _Zeitschrift der deutschen\n   morgenl\u00e4ndischen Gesellschaft_ (Leipzig, 1904).\n\n MEINHOLD, J. Sabbat und Woche in Alten Testament (G\u00f6ttingen, 1905).\n\n WEBSTER, H. Rest Days: a Sociological Study, _University Studies_\n   (Lincoln, Nebraska, 1911).\n\n\n ON MAGIC\n\n Articles in La Grande Encyclop\u00e9die (Paris); Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica\n   (London, 11th ed.); Daremberg and Saglio, Dictionnaire des antiquit\u00e9s\n   grecques et romaines (Paris).\n\n TYLOR, E. B. Researches into the Early History of Mankind, p. 129 (3d\n   ed., London, 1878); Primitive Culture, Index, s.v. (3d ed., London,\n   1891).\n\n KING, J. H. The Supernatural, bk. ii, chap. iii f. (London, 1892).\n\n DAVIES, T. WITTON. Magic, Divination, and Demonology (London, 1898).\n\n TIELE, C. P. Elements of the Science of Religion, Index, s.v. (Edinburgh\n   and London, 1899).\n\n JEVONS, F. B. Introduction to the History of Religion, Index, s.v.\n   (London, 1896; 2d. ed., 1902).\n\n LANO, A. Magic and Religion (London, 1901).\n\n HOBHOUSE, L. T. Morals in Evolution, Index, s.v. (London and New York,\n   1906).\n\n HADDON, A. C. Magic and Fetishism (London, 1906).\n\n WESTERMARCK, E. Origin and Development of the Moral Ideas, Index, s.v.\n   (London, 1908).\n\n HUBERT AND MAUSS. In _L'Ann\u00e9e sociologique_, vii (Paris, 1902-1903).\n\n REINACH, S. Orpheus, Index, s.v. (Paris, 1909; Eng. tr., London and New\n   York, 1909).\n\n FRAZER, J. G. Early History of the Kingship, Index, s.v. (London, 1905).\n\n MARETT, R. R. Is Taboo a Negative Magic? (in Anthropological Essays\n   presented to E. B. Tylor) (Oxford, 1907).\n\n HARRISON, MISS J. E. Chap. iv of her Themis (Cambridge, England, 1912).\n\n\n _Egypt_\n\n ERMAN, A. Life in Ancient Egypt (Eng. tr., London, 1894).\n\n BUDGE, E. A. WALLIS. Egyptian Magic (London, 1899).\n\n WIEDEMANN, A. Magie und Zauberei im alten Aegypten (Leipzig, 1905).\n\n BREASTED, J. H. History of Egypt, Index, s.v. (New York, 1905).\n\n\n _Babylonia and Assyria_\n\n KING, L. W. Babylonian Magic and Sorcery (London, 1896).\n\n JASTROW, M. Religion of Babylonia and Assyria (Boston, 1898); Religion\n   Babyloniens und Assyriens (Giessen, 1906-    ).\n\n FOSSEY, CH. La magie assyrienne (Paris, 1902).\n\n\n _Jewish_\n\n Articles in Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica (London and New York); Hastings's\n   Dictionary of the Bible (Edinburgh and London); Jewish Encyclopedia\n   (New York and London).\n\n SCH\u00dcRER, E. Geschichte des j\u00fcdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi\n   (3d ed., Leipzig, 1901); Eng. tr., History of the Jewish People in the\n   Time of Jesus Christ, Index. s.v. (New York, 1891).\n\n BLAU, L. Das alt-j\u00fcdische Zauberwesen (Strassburg, 1898).\n\n\n _Arabia and Modern Egypt_\n\n WELLHAUSEN, J. Reste arabischen Heidentumes, Index, s.v. (Berlin, 1897).\n\n LANE, E. W. The Thousand and One Nights, Index (London, 1883).\n\n\n _Finnish_\n\n CASTR\u00c9N, M. A. Finnische Mythologie (Germ. tr., St. Petersburg, 1853).\n\n\n _India_\n\n BLOOMFIELD, M. Eng. tr. of the Atharva-Veda (in Sacred Books of the\n   East) (Oxford).\n\n HOPKINS, E. W. Religions of India, Index, s.v. (Boston and London,\n   1895).\n\n\n _Greek_\n\n HARRISON, MISS J. E. Themis, a Study of the Social Origins of Greek\n   Religion (Cambridge, England, 1912).\n\n\n _Roman_\n\n APULEIUS. Metamorphoses.\n\n FRIEDL\u00c4NDER, L. Darstellungen aus der Sittengeschichte Roms (8th ed.,\n   Leipzig, 1910); Eng. tr., Roman Life and Manners under the Early\n   Empire, Index (London and New York, ca. 1903).\n\n WISSOWA, G. Religion und Kultus der R\u00f6mer (M\u00fcnchen, 1902).\n\n FOWLER, W. W. Religious Experience of the Roman People, Index (London,\n   1911).\n\n\n _Teutonic_\n\n LA SAUSSAYE, P. D. CHANTEPIE DE. Religion of the Teutons, Index, s.v.\n   (Boston and London, 1902).\n\n\n _Noncivilized Peoples_\n\n ELLIS, A. B. Tshi (London, 1887); E[\u00b4w]e (London, 1890); Yoruba (London,\n   1894).\n\n CODRINGTON, R. H. The Melanesians, Index, s.v. (Oxford, 1891).\n\n SPENCER AND GILLEN. Native Tribes of Central Australia (London, 1899);\n   Northern Tribes of Central Australia [the Intichiuma ceremonies]\n   (London, 1904).\n\n HOWITT, A. W. Native Tribes of South-East Australia (London, 1904).\n\n HOLLIS, A. C. The Masai, Index (Oxford, 1905); The Nandi, Index (Oxford,\n   1909).\n\n WESTERMARCK, E. L'\u00e2r, or the Transference of Conditional Curses in\n   Morocco (in Essays presented to Tylor) (Oxford, 1907).\n\n SELIGMANN, C. G. Melanesians of British New Guinea, Index (Cambridge,\n   England, 1910).\n\n BROWN, G. Melanesians and Polynesians, Index (London, 1910).\n\n DIXON, R. B. The Northern Maidu (New York, 1905); The Shasta (New York,\n   1907).\n\n SKEAT, W. W. Malay Magic (London, 1900).\n\n RIVERS, W. H. H. The Todas (London. 1906).\n\n CROOKE, W. Popular Religion and Folklore of Northern India, Index\n\n   (London, 1896).\n\n TEIT, J. Traditions of the Thompson River Indians of British Columbia,\n   Index (Boston and New York, 1898).\n\n BELL, H. H. J. Obeah: Witchcraft in the West Indies (2d ed., London,\n   1893).\n\n\n ON DIVINATION\n\n La Grande Encyclop\u00e9die (Paris), article \"Divination.\"\n\n Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica (11th ed.), articles \"Divination\" and \"Oracle.\"\n\n Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica (London and New York), article \"Divination.\"\n\n Hastings's Dictionary of the Bible (Edinburgh and New York), articles\n   \"Divination\" and \"Soothsaying.\"\n\n Jewish Encyclopedia (New York and London), articles \"Divination,\"\n   \"Astrology,\" \"Necromancy.\"\n\n CICERO. De Divinatione.\n\n PLUTARCH. De Pythiae Oraculis; De Defectu Oraculorum.\n\n MANILIUS. Astronomica (ed. Theod. Breiter, Leipzig, 1907-1908).\n\n FIRMICUS MATERNUS. Matheseos Libri viii (ed. Pruckner, Basel, 1551);\n   bks. i-iv and bk. v, proem (ed. Kroll and Skutch, Leipzig, 1897).\n\n TYLOR, E. B. Primitive Culture, Index (London, 1891).\n\n KING, J. H. The Supernatural (London, 1892).\n\n ERMAN, A. Handbook of Egyptian Religion (Eng. tr., London, 1907).\n\n JASTROW, M., JR. Religion of Babylonia and Assyria (Boston and London,\n   1898; and the German ed., Giessen, 1906-    ); Aspects of Religious\n   Belief and Practice in Babylonia and Assyria (New York and London,\n   1911).\n\n HOPKINS, E. W. Religions of India, pp. 256, 328 (Boston and London,\n   1895).\n\n STENGEL AND OEMICHEN. Die griechischen Sakralaltert\u00fcmer (Munich, 1890).\n\n BOUCH\u00c9-LECLERCQ. Histoire de la divination dans l'antiquit\u00e9 (Paris,\n   1879-1882); L'astrologie grecque (Paris, 1899).\n\n DAREMBERG AND SAGLIO. Dictionnaire des antiquit\u00e9s grecques et romaines,\n   articles \"Divinatio\" and \"Haruspices\" (Paris, 1873-1884).\n\n FARNELL, L. R. Cults of the Greek States, iv, 179 ff. (Oxford,\n   1896-1909) (Oracles); Greece and Babylon, Index,\n   s.v. (Edinburgh, 1911).\n\n GARDNER AND JEVONS. Greek Antiquities (London, 1895).\n\n WISSOWA, G. Religion und Kultus der R\u00f6mer (M\u00fcnchen, 1902).\n\n FOWLER, W. W. Religious Experience of the Roman People (London, 1911).\n\n Article \"Sibylla\" (by Buchholz in Roscher's Lexikon).\n\n CUMONT, FR. Astrology and Religion among the Greeks and Romans (New York\n   and London, 1912).\n\n WELLHAUSEN, J. Reste arabischen Heidentumes (Berlin, 1897).\n\n Article \"Celts\" in Hastings's Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics\n   (Edinburgh and New York, 1911).\n\n LA SAUSSAYE, P. D. CHANTEPIE DE. Religion of the Teutons, Index (Boston\n   and London, 1902).\n\n GROOT, J. J. M. DE. Religious System of China (Leiden, 1892-1907).\n\n Articles \"Ancestor-worship,\" \"Ahoms,\" \"Bantu\" in Hastings's Encyclop\u00e6dia\n   of Religion and Ethics.\n\n TURNER, G. Samoa, Index (London, 1884).\n\n FURNESS, W. H. 3d. Home Life of Borneo Head-hunters (Philadelphia,\n   1902).\n\n RIVERS, W. H. H. The Todas, Index (London, 1906).\n\n THURSTON, E. Omens and Superstitions of Southern India (London, 1912).\n\n ELLIS, A. B. Tshi (London, 1887).\n\n CALLAWAY, H. Religious System of the Amazulu (Natal, 1868-1870).\n\n Article \"Dreams and Sleep\" in Hastings's Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and\n   Ethics.\n\n\n ON FOLKLORE\n\n See periodicals mentioned above, p. 587.\n\n FRAZER, J. G. Golden Bough (3d ed., London, 1911).\n\n KEIGHTLY, T. Fairy Mythology (2d ed., London, 1850).\n\n MACCULLOCH, J. A. Article \"Fairy\" (in Hastings's Encyclop\u00e6dia of\n   Religion and Ethics).\n\n MANNHARDT, J. W. E. Wald- und Feldkulte (Berlin, 1877).\n\n History of the \u00c6sopic Fable (in Caxton's \u00c6sop, ed. Jos. Jacob) (London,\n   1889).\n\n JACOBS, J. Migration of Fables (Introduction to his Fables of Pilpay)\n   (London, 1888); Fables of \u00c6sop (London, 1894).\n\n HARTLAND, E. S. Science of Fairy Tales (London, 1891); Folk-lore, what\n   is it? (London, 1897); Mythology and Folktales (London, 1900).\n\n GOMME, G. L. Ethnology in Folklore (London, 1892); Folklore as an\n   Historical Science (London, 1908).\n\n GENNEP, A. VAN. La formation des l\u00e9gendes (Paris, 1910).\n\n Bibliotheca Diabolica (New York, 1874).\n\n CARUS, P. History of the Devil and of the Idea of Evil (Chicago, 1900).\n\n\n _Oceania_\n\n BATCHELOR, J. The Ainu and their Folklore (London, 1901).\n\n SEIDENAGEL, C. W. Language spoken by the Bontoc-Igorot [of Luzon]\n   (Chicago, 1909).\n\n EMERSON, N. B. Unwritten Literature of Hawaii (Washington, 1909).\n\n\n _America_\n\n BOAS, F. Dissemination of Tales among the Natives of North America,\n   _Journal of American Folklore_, iv (Boston, 1891); Indianische Sagen\n   von der nordpacifischen K\u00fcste Nord-Amerikas (Berlin, 1895).\n\n DORSEY, G. A. The Dwamish Indian Spirit Boat, _Bulletin of Philadelphia\n   Free Museum of Science and Art_ (1902).\n\n\n _Egypt_\n\n MASPERO, G. Les contes populaires de l'\u00c9gypte ancienne (Paris, 1882).\n\n WIEDEMANN, A. Alt\u00e4gyptische Sagen und M\u00e4rchen (Leipzig, 1906).\n\n\n _Asia_\n\n BENFEY, TH. The Pantschatantra (Leipzig, 1859); Introduction to\n   Bickell's ed. of the Kalilag and Damnag (Leipzig, 1876).\n\n KEITH-FALCONER, F. G. N. Eng. tr. of Wright's ed. of the Late Syriac\n   Kalilah and Dimnah (Cambridge, England, 1885).\n\n CROOKE, W. Popular Religion and Folklore of Northern India, Westminster\n   (London, 1896).\n\n THURSTON, EDGAR. Omens and Superstitions of Southern India (London,\n   1912).\n\n The Jesup North Pacific Expedition (New York and Leiden, 1900-    ).\n\n BOGORAS, W. The Folklore of North-Eastern Asia as compared with that of\n   North-Western America, _American Anthropologist_ (Washington, 1902).\n\n COSQUIN, E. Origine et propagation des contes populaires europ\u00e9ens (in\n   his Contes populaires de la Lorraine) (Paris, 1886); Le lait de la\n   m\u00e8re et le coffre flottant (reprint from _Revue de questions\n   historiques_) (Paris, 1908); Le prologue-cadre des Mille et Une Nuits,\n   les l\u00e9gendes perses et le livre d'Esther (Paris, 1909).\n\n\n _Africa_\n\n THEAL, G. M. Kaffir Folklore (London [1872]).\n\n BLEEK, W. H. I. Specimens of Bushman Folklore (Eng. tr., London, 1911).\n\n RIVERS, W. H. H. The Todas, Index, s.vv. _Folklore, Mythology_ (London\n   and New York, 1906).\n\n HOLLIS, A. C. The Masai, Index (Oxford, 1905); The Nandi, Index (Oxford,\n   1909).\n\n\n _Europe_\n\n GRIMM, W. Die deutsche Heldensage (1829; 3d ed., G\u00f6ttingen, 1889).\n\n WUTTKE, A. Der deutsche Volksaberglaube der Gegenwart (3d ed., Berlin,\n   1900).\n\n RHYS, J. Celtic Folklore (Oxford, 1901).\n\n CAMPBELL, J. F. Popular Tales of the West Highlands and Heroic Gaelic\n   Ballads (1872; new ed., Edinburgh, 1890-1893).\n\n BRAND, J. Popular Antiquities of Great Britain (new ed., London, 1905).\n\n S\u00c9BILLOT, P. Le folklore de France (Paris, 1904-1907).\n\n MAURY, L. F. A. Croyances et l\u00e9gendes du moyen \u00e2ge (new ed., Paris,\n   1896).\n\n GELDART, E. M. Folklore of Modern Greece (London, 1884).\n\n KRAUSS, F. S. Volksglaube und religi\u00f6ser Brauch der S\u00fcdslaven (Vienna,\n   1885; M\u00fcnster, 1890).\n\n KNOWLSON, T. S. Origin of Popular Superstitions (London, 1910).\n\n WLISLOCKI, H. VON. Volksglaube und religi\u00f6ser Brauch der Zigeuner\n   (M\u00fcnster i. W., 1891); Volksglaube und religi\u00f6ser Brauch der Magyaren\n   (M\u00fcnster i. W., 1893).\n\n\n ON MYTHOLOGY\n\n _General_\n\n Articles in Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica (11th ed.) and La Grande\n   Encyclop\u00e9die (Paris).\n\n M\u00dcLLER, K. O. Prolegomena zu einer wissenschaftlichen Mythologie\n   (G\u00f6ttingen, 1825).\n\n M\u00dcLLER, F. Max. Comparative Mythology (1856; in vol. ii of Chips from a\n   German Workshop, London, 1858; New York, 1869).\n\n BR\u00c9AL, M. M\u00e9langes de mythologie et de linguistique (Paris, 1877).\n\n PFLEIDERER, O. Religionsphilosophie auf geschichtlicher Grundlage (3d\n   ed., Berlin, 1896; Eng. tr., London, 1886).\n\n TYLOR, E. B. Early History of Mankind (London, 1878); Primitive Culture\n   (3d. ed., London, 1891).\n\n VIGNIOLI, T. Myth and Science (London, 1882).\n\n LA SAUSSAYE, P. D. CHANTEPIE DE. Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichte (1st\n   ed., Freiburg, 1887-1889); Eng. tr. of vol. i (London and New York\n   1891).\n\n LANG, A. Myth, Ritual and Religion (2d ed., London, 1899); Custom and\n   Myth (London, 1901).\n\n GARDENER, P. Origins of Myth (Oxford, 1896).\n\n TIELE, C. P. De Oorsprong van myth en godsdienst, _Theologisch\n   Tijdschrift_, iv (Amsterdam and Leiden); Elements of the Science of\n   Religion, Index, s.vv. _Mythology_, _Myths_ (Edinburgh and London,\n   1897-1899).\n\n JEVONS, F. B. Introduction to the History of Religion (2d ed., London,\n   1902).\n\n R\u00c9VILLE, J. De la complexit\u00e9 des mythes et des l\u00e9gendes, _Revue de\n   l'histoire des religions_, xiii (Paris).\n\n JASTROW, M. Study of Religion (London and New York, 1901).\n\n SCHULTZ, H. Old Testament Theology, Introduction (Eng. tr. of 4th Germ.\n   ed., Edinburgh, 1892).\n\n Articles \"Demons and Spirits,\" \"Earth, Earth-gods\" in Hastings's\n   Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics.\n\n\n _Special_\n\n TAYLOR, R. New Zealand (London, 1870).\n\n B\u00dcLOW, W. Die samoansche Sch\u00f6pfungssaga, _Internationales Archiv f\u00fcr\n   Ethnologie_ xii (Leiden).\n\n BASTIAN, A. Die samoanische Sch\u00f6pfungssage (Berlin, 1894).\n\n ALEXANDER, W. D. Brief History of the Hawaiian People (New York, 1892).\n\n TURNER, G. Samoa (London, 1884).\n\n BRINTON, D. G. American Hero-Myths (Philadelphia, 1882); Myths of the\n   New World (New York, 1896).\n\n EHRENREICH, P. Mythen und Legenden der s\u00fcdamerikanischen Urv\u00f6lker\n   (Berlin, 1905).\n\n CASTR\u00c9N, M. A. Finnische Mythologie (Germ. tr., St. Petersburg, 1853).\n\n COX, G. W. Mythology of Aryan Nations (London, 1887).\n\n MEYER, E. H. Germanische Mythologie (Berlin, 1891).\n\n GRUPPE, O. Griechische Mythologie (M\u00fcnchen, 1897-1906).\n\n JASTROW, M. Religion of Babylonia and Assyria (Boston and London, 1898).\n\n MUIR, JOHN. Original Sanskrit Texts (London and Edinburgh, 1858-1870).\n\n HOPKINS, E. W. Religions of India (Boston and London, 1895).\n\n MACDONNEL, A. A. Vedic Mythology (Strassburg, 1897).\n\n FARNELL, L. R. Cults of the Greek States (Oxford, 1896-1909).\n\n GRIMM, J. Deutsche Mythologie (4th ed., Berlin, 1875-1878); Eng. tr.,\n   Teutonic Mythology (London, 1888).\n\n LA SAUSSAYE, P. D. CHANTEPIE DE. Religion of the Teutons, Index (Boston\n   and London, 1902).\n\n CAMPBELL, J. F. The Celtic Dragon-Myth (Edinburgh, 1911).\n\n Articles \"Celts,\" \"Cuchulainn Cycle,\" \"Feinn Cycle\" in Hastings's\n   Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics.\n\n COLLIGNON, M. Manual of Mythology in Relation to Greek Art (translated\n   and enlarged by Jane E. Harrison) (London, 1899).\n\n Article \"Female Principle\" in Hastings's Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and\n   Ethics.\n\n CURTIN, J. Myths of the Modocs (Boston, 1912).\n\n Article \"Animal\" [on cults of animals, plants, stones, waters] in La\n   Grande Encyclop\u00e9die, section iv, \"Mythology\" (Paris).\n\n THOMAS, N. W. Article \"Animals\" (in Hastings's Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion\n   and Ethics); Article \"Animal-Worship\" (in Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica,\n   11th ed.).\n\n TYLOR, E. B. Primitive Culture, Index, s.vv. _Stock-and Stone-Worship_,\n   _Mountain, River-Worship_ (London, 1891).\n\n COOKE, S. A. Article \"Tree-Worship\" (in Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica, 11th\n   ed.).\n\n American Bureau of Ethnology, _16th Annual Report_ (Washington).\n\n SMITH, W. R. Religion of the Semites, lecture v (new ed., London, 1894).\n\n ERMAN, A. Handbook of Egyptian Religion, Index (Eng. tr., London, 1907).\n\n STEINDORFF, G. Religion of the Ancient Egyptians (New York and London,\n   1905).\n\n JASTROW, M., JR. Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, pp. 662 f., 688 f.\n   (Boston, 1898).\n\n GARSTANG, J. Land of the Hittites, Index (London, 1910).\n\n HOPKINS, E. W. Mythological Aspects of Trees and Mountains in the Great\n   Epic, _Journal of the American Oriental Society_ (September, 1910);\n   The Sacred Rivers of India (in Studies presented to C. H. Toy) (New\n   York, 1912).\n\n GUBERNATIS, A. DE. Zoological Mythology (London, 1872); La mythologie\n   des plantes (Paris, 1878-1882).\n\n FERGUSSON, JAMES. Tree- and Serpent-Worship (2d ed., London, 1873).\n\n CROOKE, W. Popular Religion and Folklore of Northern India (London,\n   1896).\n\n HOS AND MCDOUGALL. Relation between Man and Animals in Sarawak, _Journal\n   of the Anthropological Institute_, xxxi (London).\n\n ELLIS, A. B. E[\u00b4w]e, pp. 49 f., 98 (London, 1890).\n\n BOETTICHER, K. Baumkultus der Hellenen und R\u00f6mer (Berlin, 1856).\n\n GRUPPE, O. Die griechischen Culte und Mythen (Leipzig, 1887).\n\n OVERBECK, J. Das Cultusobject bei den Griechen in seinen \u00e4ltesten\n   Gestaltungen, _Berichte der s\u00e4chsischen Gesellschaft der\n   Wissenchaften_, p. 121 ff. (1864).\n\n OHNEFALSCH-RICHTER, M. Kypros, the Bible and Homer (London, 1893).\n\n WELLHAUSEN, J. Reste arabischen Heidentumes, Index (Berlin, 1897).\n\n HUGHES, T. P. Dictionary of Islam, Index, s.v. _Kaaba_ (2d ed., London,\n   1896).\n\n LA SAUSSAYE, P.D. CHANTEPIE DE. Religion of the Teutons, Index, s.v.\n   _Tree-Worship_ (Boston and London, 1902).\n\n MANNHARDT, W. Baumkultus der Germanen und ihrer Nachbarst\u00e4mme (Berlin,\n   1875).\n\n FRAZER, J. G. Golden Bough, Index, s.v. _Tree-Worship_ (London, 1907);\n   Adonis Attis Osiris, Index, s.vv. _Animals_, _Water_, and p. 158\n   (London, 1907).\n\n Articles \"Asherah\" and \"Pillar\" in Hastings's Dictionary of the Bible.\n\n Articles \"Asherah\" and \"Massebah\" in Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica.\n\n TRUMBULL, H. C. Threshold Covenant, p. 228 (New York, 1896).\n\n HARTLAND, E. S. Primitive Paternity, Index, s.v. _Trees_ (London, 1910).\n\n PHILPOT, MRS. J. H. The Sacred Tree, or the Tree in Religion and Myth\n   (London, 1897).\n\n\n WORKS ON PARTICULAR RELIGIONS\n\n\n _Egyptian_\n\n PLUTARCH, Isis and Osiris.\n\n RAWLINSON, G. History of Ancient Egypt (London and New York, 1881).\n\n TIELE, C. P. History of the Egyptian Religion (Eng. tr., Boston, 1882).\n\n LE PAGE RENOUF, P. Religion of Ancient Egypt (London, 1884).\n\n BRUGSCH, H. Religion und Mythologie der alten Aegypter (1884).\n\n MEYER, ED. Geschichte des alten Aegyptens (Berlin, 1887).\n\n MASPERO, G. \u00c9tudes de mythologie et d'arch\u00e9ologie \u00e9gyptiennes (Paris,\n   1893); The Dawn of Civilization (Eng. tr., London, 1896).\n\n M\u00dcLLER, W. MAX. Asien und Europa (Leipzig, 1893); Article \"Egypt\" (in\n   Encyclop\u00e6dia Biblica).\n\n WIEDEMANN, K. A. Religion of the Ancient Egyptians (London, 1897);\n   Egyptian Doctrine of Immortality (London, 1895); Religion of Egypt (in\n   Hastings's Dictionary of the Bible, vol. v) (1904).\n\n PETRIE, W. M. F. Religion and Conscience in Ancient Egypt (London,\n   1898); Article \"Egyptian Religion\" (in Hastings's\n   Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics).\n\n STEINDORFF, G. Religion of the Ancient Egyptians (New York and London,\n   1905).\n\n ERMAN, A. Aegypten und aegyptisches Leben im Altertum (1887); Eng. tr.,\n   Life in Ancient Egypt (London, 1894); Handbook of Egyptian Religion\n   (Eng. tr., London, 1907).\n\n BREASTED, J. H. History of Egypt from the Earliest Times to the Persian\n   Conquest (New York, 1905); Development of Religion and Thought in\n   Ancient Egypt (New York, 1912).\n\n CUMONT, F. The Religion of Egypt (Eng. tr., in _The Open Court_,\n   Chicago, September, 1910).\n\n REITZENSTEIN, R. Poimandres (Leipzig, 1904).\n\n FOUCART, G. Article \"Dualism (Egyptian)\" (in Hastings's Encyclop\u00e6dia of\n   Religion and Ethics).\n\n\n _General Semitic_\n\n BAUDISSIN, W. W. Studien zur semitischen Religionsgeschichte (Leipzig,\n   1876-1878).\n\n HAL\u00c9VY, J. M\u00e9langes de critique et d'histoire relatifs aux peuples\n   s\u00e9mitiques (Paris, 1883).\n\n BAETHGEN, FR. Beitr\u00e4ge zur semitichen Religionsgeschichte (Berlin,\n   1888).\n\n N\u00d6LDEKE, TH. Sketches from Eastern History (Eng. tr., London and\n   Edinburgh, 1892).\n\n M\u00dcLLER, W. MAX. Asien und Europa (Leipzig, 1893).\n\n SMITH, W. R. Religion of the Semites (2d ed., London, 1894); Kinship and\n   Marriage in Early Arabia (2d ed., London, 1903).\n\n BARTON, G. A. A Sketch of Semitic Origins (New York and London, 1902).\n\n CURTISS, S. I. Primitive Semitic Religion To-day (London, 1902).\n\n LAGRANGE, M. J. \u00c9tudes sur les religions s\u00e9mitiques (2d ed., Paris,\n   1905).\n\n\n _Arabian_\n\n SALE, G. Preliminary Discourse to Translation of the Koran (1734; new\n   ed., London, 1857) (and in Wherry's Commentary on the Quran,\n   London, 1882).\n\n SPRENGER, A. Das Leben und die Lehre des Mohammeds (Berlin, 1861-1865).\n\n SYED, AHMED. Essays on the Life of Mohammed and Subjects Subsidiary\n   thereto (London, 1870).\n\n AMEER, ALI. Life and Teachings of Mohammed, or the Spirit of Islam\n   (London, 1873); Islam (London, 1897).\n\n TASSY, GARCIN DE. L'Islamisme d'apr\u00e8s le Coran (Paris, 1874).\n\n KREMER, A. VON. Kulturgeschichte des Orients unter den Chalifen (Vienna,\n   1875-1877).\n\n SMITH, R. B. Mohammed and Mohammedanism (New York, 1875).\n\n GOLDZIHER, I. Muhammedanische Studien (Halle, 1889-1890).\n\n MUIR, SIR WILLIAM. Mahomet and Islam (London, Religious Tract Society;\n   New York, ca. 1894).\n\n CASTRIES, LE COMTE HENRY DE. L'Islam (Paris, 1896).\n\n WELLHAUSEN, J. Reste arabischen Heidentumes (Berlin, 1897).\n\n SMITH, H. P. The Bible and Islam (New York, 1897).\n\n KLEIN, F. A. The Religion of Islam (London, 1906).\n\n LEONARD, A. G. Islam, her Moral and Spiritual Value (London, 1909).\n\n MACDONALD, D. B. Religious Attitude and Life in Islam (Chicago, 1909);\n   Aspects of Islam (New York, 1911).\n\n MARGOLIOUTH, D. S. Article \"Mahomet\" (in Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica, 11th\n   ed.).\n\n THATCHER, G. W. Article \"Mahommedan Religion,\" ibid.\n\n N\u00d6LDEKE, TH. Article \"Arabs (Ancient)\" in Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and\n   Ethics.\n\n REES, J. D. The Muhammadans (in Epochs of Indian History) (London and\n   New York, 1894).\n\n LANE, E. W. Notes to his Thousand and One Nights (ed E. S. Poole,\n   London, 1883).\n\n HARTMANN, M. Article \"Islam in China\" (announced to appear in\n   Encyclop\u00e6dia of Islam).\n\n MEYER, EDOUARD. Der Ursprung des Islams und die ersten Offenbarungen\n   Mohammeds (excursus in his Ursprung und Geschichte der Mormonen, p. 62\n   _ff._) (Halle a. S., 1912).\n\n TOY, C. H. Mohammed and the Islam of the Koran, _Harvard Theological\n   Review_ (Cambridge, Mass., 1912).\n\n GARNETT, LUCY M. J. Mysticism and Magic in Turkey (London, 1912).\n\n\n _Babylonian-Assyrian_\n\n JENSEN, P. Die Kosmologie der Babylonier (Strassburg, 1890).\n\n TIELE, C. P. Babylonisch-assyrische Geschichte (Gotha, 1886); Die\n   Religion in Babylonien und Assyrien (in his Geschichte der Religion im\n   Alterthum) (new ed., Gotha, 1896-1903).\n\n JEREMIAS, FRIEDR. Die Babylonier und Assyrier (in Saussaye's Lehrbuch\n   der Religionsgeschichte) (2d ed., Freiburg, 1897).\n\n KING, L. W. Babylonian Religion and Mythology (London, 1899).\n\n JEREMIAS, ALFRED. Die babylonisch-assyrischen Vorstellungen vom Leben\n   nach dem Tode (Leipzig, 1897); Das Alte Testament im Lichte des alten\n   Orients (2d ed., Leipzig, 1906; Eng. tr., London and New York, 1911).\n\n JASTROW, M., JR. Religion of Babylonia and Assyria (Boston, 1898; Germ.\n   ed., Giessen, 1904-    ); Religion of Babylonia and Assyria (in\n   Hastings's   Dictionary of the Bible, vol. v) (Edinburgh and New York,\n   1904); Aspects of Religious Belief and Practice in Babylonia and\n   Assyria (New York and London, 1911).\n\n HARPER, R. F. Assyrian and Babylonian Literature (New York, 1901).\n\n DELITZSCH, FRIEDR. Babel und Bibel (Leipzig, 1902; and Stuttgart, 1903;\n   new ed., Stuttgart, 1905); Eng. tr., ed. C. H. W. Johns (London,\n   1903); Eng. tr. by McCormack and Carruth [with German criticisms and\n   the author's replies] (Chicago, 1903).\n\n ROGERS, R. W. Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, especially in its\n   Relations to Israel (New York, 1908).\n\n DHORME, P. La religion assyro-babylonienne (Paris, 1910).\n\n ZIMMERN, H. Article \"Babylonians and Assyrians\" (in Encyclop\u00e6dia of\n   Religion and Ethics).\n\n LANGDON, S. H. Sumerian and Babylonian Psalms (New York and Paris,\n   1909); Babylonian Eschatology (in Essays offered to C. A. Briggs, New\n   York, 1911).\n\n TOY, C. H. Panbabylonianism, _Harvard Theological Review_ (Cambridge,\n   Mass., 1910).\n\n Articles on Marduk, Nebo, Oannes, etc., in Roscher's Lexikon.\n\n\n _Mandean_\n\n N\u00d6LDEKE, TH. Mand\u00e4ische Grammatik, Einleitung (Halle, 1875).\n\n BRANDT, A. J. H. W. Die mand\u00e4ische Religion (Leipzig, 1889).\n\n KESSLER, K. Article \"Mand\u00e4er\" (in Herzog-Hauck's Real-Encyklop\u00e4die).\n\n GOTTHEIL, R. J. H. Article \"Mand\u00e6ans\" (in Johnson's Universal\n   Cyclop\u00e6dia).\n\n\n _Yesidi_\n\n IBN HALLIKAN. Wafay\u00e2t al-\u00c1y\u00e2n (Biographical Dictionary) (ed. F.\n   W\u00fcstenfeld, G\u00f6ttingen, 1835-1840); Eng. tr. by MacGuckin de Slane\n   (Paris and London, 1842-1871).\n\n LAYARD, SIR A. H. Nineveh and its Remains (2d ed., London, 1849; new\n   ed., New York, 1853); Discoveries among the Ruins of Nineveh and\n   Babylon (London, 1853).\n\n BADGER, G. P. Nestorians and their Rituals (London, 1852).\n\n SIOUFFI, N. In _Journal asiatique_ (Paris, 1882 and 1885).\n\n MENANT, J. Les Yezidiz, _Annales du Mus\u00e9e Guimet_ (Paris, 1892).\n\n PARRY, O. H. Six Months in a Syrian Monastery (London, 1895).\n\n HUART, CL\u00c9MENT. History of Arabic Literature, p. 272 f. (London and New\n   York, 1903).\n\n JACKSON, A. V. W. In _Journal of the American Oriental Society_, vol.\n   xxv, p. 178 ff. (1904); Sketch in his Persia, Past and Present (New\n   York, 1906).\n\n Article \"Yesidis\" in New International Encyclop\u00e6dia (New York, 1905).\n\n LIDZBARSKI, M. In _Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenl\u00e4ndischen\n   Gesellschaft_, vol. li (Leipzig).\n\n JOSEPH, ISYA. Yezidi Texts (reprinted from _American Journal of Semitic\n   Languages and Literatures_) (Chicago, 1909).\n\n\n _Hebrew, Edomite, Phoenician, Aramean, etc._\n\n KUENEN, A. Religion of Israel to the Fall of the Jewish State (Leipzig,\n   1873-1874; Eng. tr., London, 1874); The Prophets and Prophecy in\n   Israel (Eng. tr., London, 1877).\n\n SCHULTZ, H. Old Testament Theology (Eng. tr. of 4th Germ. ed.,\n   Edinburgh, 1892).\n\n SCHWALLY, F. Das Leben nach dem Tode nach den Vorstellungen des alten\n   Israel und Judentums (Giessen, 1892).\n\n MONTEFIORE, C. G. Religion of the Ancient Hebrews (London, 1892).\n\n DILLON, E. J. The Sceptics of the Old Testament (London, 1895).\n\n GUNKEL, H. Sch\u00f6pfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit (G\u00f6ttingen, 1895).\n\n MARTI, K. Geschichte der israelitischen Religion (3d ed., Strassburg,\n   1897); Religion des Alten Testaments (T\u00fcbingen, 1906; Eng. tr.,\n   London, 1907).\n\n CHEYNE, T. K. Jewish Religious Life after the Exile (New York and\n   London, 1898).\n\n BUDDE, K. Religion of Israel to the Exile (New York and London, 1899).\n\n SMEND, R. Alttestamentliche Religionsgeschichte (Leipzig, 1899).\n\n KAUTZSCH, E. Religion of Israel (in Hastings's Dictionary of the Bible,\n   vol. v) (Edinburgh and New York, 1904).\n\n KENT, C. F. History of the Hebrew People (New York, 1896-1899).\n\n MANN, NEWTON. The Evolution of a Great Literature (2d ed., Boston,\n   1906).\n\n ADDIS, W. E. Hebrew Religion to the Establishment of Judaism under Ezra\n   (London and New York, 1906).\n\n WELLHAUSEN, J. Israelitisch-j\u00fcdische Religion (in Kultur der Gegenwart)\n   (Berlin and Leipzig, 1909).\n\n LOISY, A. La religion d'Isra\u00ebl (2d ed., revised and enlarged, Ceffonds,\n   chez l'auteur, 1908); Eng. tr., The Religion of Israel (London and New\n   York, 190?).\n\n WALLIS, LOUIS. The Sociological Study of the Bible (Chicago, 1912).\n\n MITCHELL, H. G. Ethics of the Old Testament (Chicago, 1912).\n\n BENZIGER, I. Hebr\u00e4ische Arch\u00e4ologie (2d ed., T\u00fcbingen, 1907).\n\n NOWACK, W. Lehrbuch der hebr\u00e4ischen Arch\u00e4ologie (Leipzig, 1894).\n\n WACE, W. The Apocrypha (Eng. tr., in Speaker's Commentary) (London,\n   1888).\n\n SCH\u00dcRER, E. Geschichte des j\u00fcdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi\n   (3d and 4th edd., Leipzig, 1898-1907); Eng. tr. of 2d. ed., History of\n   the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ (New York, 1891).\n\n B\u00dcCHLER, A. Die Priester und der Cultus im letzten Jahrzehnt des\n   jerusalemischen Tempels (Vienna, 1895).\n\n BOUSSET, W. Die Religion des Judentums im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter\n   (Berlin, 1903).\n\n RIGGS, J. S. History of the Jewish People during the Maccabean and Roman\n   Periods (New York, 1910).\n\n HOLLMANN, G. The Jewish Religion in the Time of Jesus (Eng. tr., London,\n   1909).\n\n GRAETZ, H. History of the Jews (Eng. tr., Philadelphia, 1891-1895).\n\n GROSSMAN, L. Judaism and the Science of Religion (New York and London,\n   1889).\n\n SUFFRIN, A. E. Article \"Dualism (Jewish)\" (in Hastings's Encyclop\u00e6dia of\n   Religion and Ethics).\n\n WEBER, F. J\u00fcdische Theologie (2d. ed., Leipzig, 1897).\n\n LAZARUS, M. Ethics of Judaism (Eng. tr., Philadelphia, 1900-    ).\n\n PHILIPSON, D. The Reform Movement in Judaism (New York and London,\n   1907).\n\n OESTERLEY, W. O. E., and BOX, G. H. Religion and Worship of the\n   Synagogue (New York, 1907).\n\n BLISS, F. J. The Religions of Modern Syria and Palestine (New York,\n   1912).\n\n JOSEPH, M. Judaism as Creed and Life (London and New York, 1910).\n\n PHILO OF BYBLOS, Greek tr. of Sanchuniathon (text, Greek and Latin, in\n   K. M\u00fcller's Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum) (Paris, 1848).\n\n CORY, I. P. Ancient Fragments of the Phoenician ... and Other Writers\n   (London, 1876).\n\n GUTSCHMID, A. VON. Kleine Schriften (Leipzig, 1890).\n\n RAWLINSON, G. History of Phoenicia (London, 1889).\n\n PIETSCHMANN, R. Geschichte der Phoenizier (Berlin, 1889).\n\n BAUDISSIN, W. VON. Adonis und Esmun (Berlin, 1911).\n\n M\u00dcLLER, W. MAX. Remarks on the Carthaginian Deity, _Journal of the\n   American Oriental Society_, vol. xxxii (December, 1912).\n\n Articles \"Edomites\" and \"Syrians\" (announced) in Hastings's Encyclop\u00e6dia\n   of Religion and Ethics.\n\n ALEXANDRE, CHARLES. Oracula Sibyllina (Greek text with Latin tr.)\n   (Paris, 1841, new ed., 1869).\n\n FRIEDLIEB, J. H. Oracula Sibyllina (Greek text with German tr.)\n   (Leipzig, 1852).\n\n RZACH, A. Oracula Sibyllina (critical Greek text) (Vienna, 1891).\n\n TERRY, M. S. The Sibylline Oracles (translated from the Greek) (New\n   York, 1890).\n\n\n _Asia Minor_\n\n PSEUDO-LUCIAN. De Syria Dea.\n\n MEYER, EDOUARD. Geschichte des Altertums, vol. i, part ii (2d ed.,\n   Stuttgart and Berlin, 1909).\n\n PERROT AND CHIPIEZ. History of Art in Sardinia ... and Asia Minor (Eng.\n   tr., 1890).\n\n MESS\u00cbRSCHMIDT, L. Corpus Inscriptionum Hettiticarum, _Mitteilungen der\n   vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft_ (Leipzig, 1900); The Ancient Hittites,\n   _Smithsonian Institution, Annual Reports_ (1893, 1894).\n\n RAMSAY, SIR WILLIAM. Historical Geography of Asia Minor (in\n   supplementary papers of the _Royal Geographical Society_, iv) (London,\n   1890); articles in _Journal of Royal Asiatic Society_, xv.\n\n WINCKLER, H. In _Mitteilungen der deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft_\n   (Berlin, 1907).\n\n HOGARTH, D. G. Article \"Hittites\" (in Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica, 11th\n   ed.).\n\n GARSTANG, J. Land of the Hittites (London, 1910).\n\n WARD, W. H. The Greek and the Hittite Gods (in Essays presented to C. A.\n   Briggs, New York, 1911); Asianic Influence in Greek Mythology (in\n   Studies presented to C. H. Toy, New York, 1912).\n\n ROSCHER. Lexikon, article \"Kybele.\"\n\n\n _Mithraism_\n\n CUMONT FRANZ. Textes et monuments figur\u00e9s relatifs aux myst\u00e8res de\n   Mithra (Brussels, 1899); Myst\u00e8res de Mithra (2d ed., Paris, 1902; Eng.\n   tr., Chicago, 1903); Astrology and Religion among the Greeks and\n   Romans (New York and London, 1912); article \"Mithras\" in Roscher's\n   Lexikon.\n\n\n _Indian_ (_Vedic_, _Brahmanic_, _Modern_)\n\n WARD, W. A. View of the History, Literature and Mythology of the Hindoos\n   (London, 1822).\n\n WILSON, H. H. Sketch of the Religious Sects of the Hindus (in Asiatic\n   Researches, 1828-1832) (republished, London, 1861).\n\n MACPHERSON, S. C. Religious Opinions and Observances of the Khonds,\n   _Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society_ (London, 1842 and 1852).\n\n BURNOUF, EMILE. Essais sur le V\u00e9da (Paris, 1863).\n\n COLEBROOKE, H. T. Essays (new ed., London, 1873).\n\n BERGAIGNE, A. La religion v\u00e9dique (Paris, 1878-1883).\n\n M\u00dcLLER, F. MAX. Religions of India (London, 1878).\n\n ZIMMER, H. Altindisches Leben (Berlin, 1879).\n\n LEFMANN, S. Geschichte des alten Indiens (Berlin, 1880).\n\n BARTH, A. Religions of India (Eng. tr., London, 1882).\n\n DEUSSEN, P. Das System des Vedanta (Leipzig, 1883); Eng. tr., The system\n   of the Vedanta (Chicago, 1912).\n\n WILKINS, W. J. Modern Hinduism (London, 1887).\n\n LE BON, G. Les civilisations de l'Inde (Paris, 1887).\n\n LANMAN, C. R. Beginnings of Hindu Pantheism (Cambridge, Mass., 1890).\n\n MONIER-WILLIAMS, SIR MONIER. Hinduism (London, 1890); Brahmanism and\n   Hinduism (4th ed., London, 1891); Indian Wisdom (London, 1893).\n\n GARBE, R. Die Samkhya Philosophie (Cambridge, Mass., and Boston, 1895);\n   Beitr\u00e4ge zur indischen Kulturgeschichte (Berlin, 1903); Akbar, Emperor\n   of India, _The Monist_, (Chicago, April, 1909).\n\n OLDENBERG, H. Religion des Veda (Berlin, 1894).\n\n MACDONELL, A. A. Vedic Mythology (Strassburg, 1897).\n\n HILLEBRANDT, A. Vedische Mythologie (Breslau, 1891-1902).\n\n BLOOMFIELD, M. Religion of the Veda (New York and London, 1908).\n\n HOPKINS, E. W. Religions of India (Boston, 1895); The Great Epic of\n   India (New York, 1901); India Old and New (New York, 1901).\n\n DUBOIS, J. A. Hindu Manners, Customs and Ceremonies (tr. from the\n   author's later French manuscript, by H. K. Beauchamp) (Oxford, 1897).\n\n DUTT, R. C. Civilization of India (London, 1900).\n\n EGGELING, H. J. Article \"Hinduism\" (in Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica, 11th\n   ed.) (London).\n\n BEVERIDGE, H. Article \"Akbar\" (in Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics)\n   (Edinburgh and New York).\n\n GRIERSON, G. A. Article \"Bhakti-Marga,\" ibid.\n\n PRIDHAM, C. An Account of Ceylon [the Veddas] (London, 1849).\n\n CROOKS, W. Popular Religion and Folk-Lore of Northern India (London,\n   1896); article \"Bengal\" in Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics;\n   article \"Dravidians (North India),\" ibid.\n\n FRAZER, R. W. Article \"Dravidians (South India),\" ibid.\n\n ROBERTSON, SIR G. SCOTT. The Kafirs of the Hindu Kush (London, 1896).\n\n RIVERS, W. H. H. The Todas (London, 1906).\n\n HODSON, T. C. The Naga Tribes of Manipur (London, 1911).\n\n\n _Buddhism_\n\n BURNOUF, EMILE. Introduction \u00e0 l'histoire du bouddhisme indien (Paris,\n   1844); Le lotus de la bonne loi (tr. of the Saddharma-Pundarika)\n   (Paris, 1852).\n\n HUC, ABB\u00c9. Travels in Tartary, Thibet and China (1844-1846; Eng. tr.,\n   Chicago, 1898).\n\n HARDY, R. Spence. Eastern Monachism (London, 1850); Manual of Buddhism\n   in its Modern Development (2d ed., London, 1860).\n\n DAVIDS, T. W. Rhys. Some Points in the History of Indian Buddhism\n   (London, 1881); Buddhism (London, 1882); Buddhist India (London,\n   1903); Buddhism, its History and Literature (2d ed., New York and\n   London, 1907).\n\n OLDENBERG, H. Buddha, his Life, his Doctrine, his Order (Eng. tr.,\n   London, 1882).\n\n KERN, H. The Lotus of the True Law (tr. of the Saddharma-Pundarika),\n   vol. xxi of Sacred Books of the East (Oxford, 1884).\n\n MONIER-WILLIAMS, SIR MONIER. Buddhism (London, 1890).\n\n HARDY, EDMUND. Der Buddhismus (M\u00fcnster, 1890).\n\n COPLESTON, R. S. Buddhism Primitive and Present in Magadha and in Ceylon\n   (London, 1892).\n\n BARTH, A. Religions of India (Eng. tr., London, 1882).\n\n HOPKINS, E. W. Religions of India (Boston and London, 1895); India Old\n   and New (New York, 1901).\n\n WARREN, H. C. Buddhism in Translations (Cambridge, Mass., 1896).\n\n DE LA VALL\u00c9E, POUSSIN. Buddhisme et religions de l'Inde (Brussels, 1912).\n\n WADDELL, L. A. Buddhism in Tibet, or Lamaism (London, 1895).\n\n GR\u00dcNWEDEL, A. Lamaismus (in _Kultur der Gegenwart_, Die orientalischen\n   Religionen) (Berlin, 1906).\n\n ROCKHILL, W. W. Life of the Buddha and the Early History of his Order\n   [from Tibetan works] (London, 1907).\n\n BEAL, SAMUEL. Buddhism in China (London, 1884).\n\n DE GROOT, J. J. M. On Mahayana (in his Religion of the Chinese) (New\n   York, 1910).\n\n HACKMANN, H. Der Buddhismus (Halle a. S., 1905-1906); Eng. tr., Buddhism\n   as a Religion (London, 1909).\n\n OLTRAMARE, P. Histoire des id\u00e9es th\u00e9osophiques dans l'Inde, _Annales du\n   Mus\u00e9e Guimet_, v (Paris, 1906).\n\n COWELL, M\u00dcLLER AND TAKAKUSU. Tr. of Buddhist Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na s\u00fbtras (including\n   the Buddha-Karita of Asvaghosha), vol. xlix of Sacred Books of the\n   East (Oxford, 1894).\n\n Articles (announced) on Hinayana and Mahayana in Encyclop\u00e6dia of\n   Religion and Ethics.\n\n SUZUKI, T. Eng. tr. of Asvaghosha's Discourse on the Awakening of Faith\n   (Chicago, 1900); Outlines of Mah\u00e2y\u00e2na Buddhism (London, 1907).\n\n AUNG, S. Z., AND MRS. RHYS DAVIDS. Compendium of Philosophy (London,\n   1910).\n\n HAAS, H. Article \"Amida Buddha unsere Zuflucht,\" _Religions-Urkunden der\n   V\u00f6lker_ (Leipzig, 1910).\n\n RICHARD, T. The New Testament of Higher Buddhism (Edinburgh, 1910); Eng.\n   tr. of Asvaghosha's Discourse on the Awakening of Faith (Shanghai,\n   1907).\n\n ANESAKI, M. Article \"Docetism (Buddhist)\" (in Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion\n   and Ethics).\n\n LLOYD, A. The Creed of Half Japan, Sketches of Japanese Buddhism (New\n   York, 1912).\n\n AIKEN, C. F. The Dhamma of Gotama the Buddha and the Gospel of Jesus the\n   Christ (Boston, 1900) (with bibliography).\n\n EDMUNDS, A. J. Buddhist and Christian Gospels (4th ed., Philadelphia,\n   1908-1909).\n\n\n _Jainism_\n\n JACOBI, H. [vG]aina-sutras, vol. xxii of Sacred Books of the East\n   (Oxford, 1884).\n\n HOPKINS, E. W. Religions of India (Boston and London, 1895), and the\n   bibliography there given.\n\n\n _Sikhs_\n\n TRUMPP, ERNST. Religion der Sikhs (Leipzig, 1881); The Adi Granth (Eng.\n   tr., London, 1907).\n\n HOPKINS, E. W. Religions of India, pp. 510 ff., 591 (Boston, 1895).\n\n MACAULIFFE, M. A. The Sikh Religion (Oxford, 1909).\n\n BLOOMFIELD, M. The Sikh Religion (in Studies in the History of Religions\n   presented to C. H. Toy) (New York, 1912).\n\n\n _Gypsies_\n\n WLISLOCKI, H. VON. Volksglaube und religi\u00f6ser Brauch der Zigeuner\n   (M\u00fcnster, Westphalia, 1891).\n\n BURTON, SIR R. F. The Jew, the Gypsy, and El Islam (Chicago and New\n   York, 1898).\n\n GASTER, MOSES. Article \"Gipsies\" (with bibliography) (in Encyclop\u00e6dia\n   Britannica, 11th ed.).\n\n Article \"Gypsies\" in New International Encyclop\u00e6dia.\n\n _Ethnologische Mitteilungen_ (Berlin, 1892).\n\n\n _Malay Peninsula and Assam_\n\n SKEAT, W. W. Malay Magic (London, 1900).\n\n SKEAT, W. W., AND BLAGDEN, C. O. Pagan Races of the Malay Peninsula\n   (London, 1906).\n\n HODSON, T. C. Genna amongst the Tribes of Assam, _Journal of the\n   Anthropological Institute_, (London, 1905).\n\n GAIT, E. A. History of Assam (Calcutta, 1906).\n\n ANDERSON, J. D. Article \"Assam\" (in Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and\n   Ethics).\n\n\n _Indo-Chinese Peninsula_\n\n CABATON, A. Article \"Annam\" (in Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics).\n\n\n _Persian_\n\n WINDISCHMANN, F. Zoroastrische Studien (Berlin, 1863).\n\n SPIEGEL, FR. Eranische Alterthumskunde (Leipzig, 1871-1878).\n\n HARLEZ, C. DE. Introduction to his French Translation of the Avesta\n   (Paris, 1881).\n\n HAUG, M. Essays on the Parsis (3d ed., London, 1884).\n\n JUSTI, F. Geschichte des alten Persiens, p. 67 ff. (Berlin, 1879).\n\n GEIGER, W. Civilization of the Eastern Iranians in Ancient Times (Eng.\n   tr., London, 1885-1886).\n\n DARMESTETER, J. Le Zend-Avesta (Paris, 1892-1893).\n\n JACKSON, A. V. Williams, Die Iranische Religion (in Geiger and Kuhn's\n   _Grundriss der iranischen Philologie_) (Strassburg, 1896-1904);\n   Zoroaster (New York and London, 1899); Persia, Past and Present (New\n   York, 1906); article \"Avesta\" (in Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and\n   Ethics); Religion of the Ach\u00e6menian Kings (according to the\n   inscriptions), _Journal of the American Oriental Society_, xxi (New\n   Haven, 1901).\n\n BROWNE, E. G. Literary History of Persia, p. 95 ff. (London, 1902).\n\n GELDNER, K. F. Avestalitteratur, _Grundriss der iranischen Philologie_,\n   ii; Eng. tr., in Studies in honor of Sanjana (Strassburg, 1904).\n\n SANJANA. Zarathushtra and Zarathushtrianism in the Avesta (Leipzig,\n   1906).\n\n MENANT, D. Zoroaster d'apr\u00e8s la tradition parsie, _Annales du Mus\u00e9e\n   Guimet_, vol. xxx (Paris).\n\n MILLS, L. H. Zarathushtra (Zoroaster), Philo, the Ach\u00e6menids and Israel\n   (Chicago, 1906); articles (on Asha and Vohumanah) in _Journal of the\n   American Oriental Society_, xx, xxi (New Haven, 1899-1901).\n\n GRAY, L. H. In _Archiv f\u00fcr Religionswissenschaft_ vii, 345 (Leipzig,\n   1904).\n\n CASARTELLI, L. C. Philosophy of the Mazdayasnian Religion under the\n   Sassanids (Eng. tr., Bombay, 1889); article \"Dualism, Iranian\" (in\n   Hastings's Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics).\n\n MOORE, G. F. Zoroastrianism, _Harvard Theological Review_, vol. v.\n   (Cambridge, Mass., 1912).\n\n DARMESTETER AND MILLS. Eng. tr. of the Avesta (in Sacred Books of the\n   East) (Oxford, 1879-    ).\n\n CUMONT, FR. Article \"Mithras\" (in Roscher's Lexikon).\n\n\n _Manich\u00e6ism_\n\n BEAUSOBRE, ISAAC DE. Histoire critique de Manich\u00e9e et du manich\u00e9isme\n   (Paris, 1734-1735).\n\n FL\u00dcGEL, G. Mani, seine Lehre und seine Schriften (from the _Fihrist_)\n   (Leipzig, 1862).\n\n KESSLER, K. Mani (Berlin, 1889 and 1903); article \"Mani und die\n   Manich\u00e4er\" (in Herzog-Hauck's Real-Encyklop\u00e4die) (Leipzig, 1903).\n\n KUGENER AND CUMONT. Recherches sur le manich\u00e9isme (Brussels, 1908 ff.)\n\n\n _Druses_\n\n SACY, SILVESTRE DE. Expos\u00e9 de la religion des Druses (Paris, 1838).\n\n CHURCHILL, C. H. Ten Years' Residence in Mount Lebanon (London, 1853).\n\n WORTABET, J. Researches into the Religions of Syria (London, 1860).\n\n GUYS, H. La th\u00e9ogonie des Druses (Paris, 1863).\n\n HERZOG-HAUCK. Real-Encyklop\u00e4die, Index, s.v. _Drusen_.\n\n HOGARTH, D. G., AND BELL, GERTRUDE L. Article \"Druses\" (in Encyclop\u00e6dia\n Britannica, 11th ed.)\n\n\n _Babism and Bahaism_\n\n COMTE DE GOBINEAU. Les religions et les philosophies dans l'Asie\n   Centrale (Paris, 1866).\n\n BROWNE, E. G. The Episode of the Bab: a Traveller's Narrative, vol. i\n   Persian text, vol. ii Eng. tr. (Cambridge, England, 1891); New History\n   of the Bab (Eng. tr., Cambridge, England, 1893).\n\n PHELPS, M. H. Life and Teaching of Abbas Effendi [son of the founder,\n   Beh\u00e1u'llah]--Religion of the Babis and Behais (New York, 1903).\n\n BURNEY, LAURA C. Some Answered Questions [statement of Bahaist beliefs\n   by Abbas Efendi] (London, 1908).\n\n\n _Armenian_\n\n SAYCE, A. H. Article \"Armenia (Vannic)\" (in Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and\n   Ethics).\n\n ANANIKIAN, M. H. Article \"Armenia (Zoroastrian),\" ibid.\n\n\n _\u00c6gean_\n\n PERROT AND CHIPIEZ. La Gr\u00e8ce primitive (in their Histoire de l'art)\n   (Paris, 1895).\n\n EVANS, A. J. Mycen\u00e6an Tree and Pillar Cult (London and New York, 1901);\n   Scripta Minoa [written documents of Minoan Crete] (Oxford 1909-    ).\n\n Articles in _Journal of Hellenic Studies_ and _Annals of the British\n   School at Athens_.\n\n HOGARTH, D. G. Article \"\u00c6gean Religion\" (in Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and\n   Ethics).\n\n\n _Greek_\n\n AUGUSTINE. De Civitate Dei.\n\n WELCKER, F. G. Griechische G\u00f6tterlehre (G\u00f6ttingen, 1857-1863).\n\n HERMANN, K. F. Lehrbuch der gottesdienstlichen Alterth\u00fcmer der Griechen\n   (Heidelberg, 1858).\n\n GLADSTONE, W. E. Juventus Mundi, the Gods and Men of the Heroic Age\n   (London, 1869).\n\n BOETTICHER, C. Baumkultus der Hellenen und R\u00f6mer (Berlin, 1856).\n\n GRUPPE, O. Die griechischen Culte und Mythen (Leipzig, 1887);\n   Griechische Mythologie (M\u00fcnchen, 1897-1906).\n\n STENGEL AND OEHMICHEN. Die griechischen Sakralaltert\u00fcmer (M\u00fcnchen,\n   1890).\n\n DYER, LOUIS. Studies of the Gods in Greece (London, 1891).\n\n CAIRD, E. Evolution of Religion, lecture v (London and New York, 1893).\n\n GARDNER AND JEVONS. Greek Antiquities (London, 1895).\n\n MOMMSEN, A. Feste der Stadt Athen (new ed., Leipzig, 1898).\n\n DICKINSON, G. LOWES. The Greek View of Life (2d ed., London, 1898).\n\n FARNELL, L. R. Cults of the Greek States (Oxford, 1896-1909); The Place\n   of the 'Sonderg\u00f6tter' in Greek Polytheism (in Anthropological Essays\n   presented to E. B. Tylor) (Oxford, 1907); Greece and Babylon\n   (Edinburgh, 1911); Higher Aspects of Greek Religion (London, 1912).\n\n ROHDE, E. Psyche, 1894 (3d issue, Leipzig, 1903).\n\n HARRISON, MISS J. E. Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion\n   (Cambridge, Eng., 1903); Themis, a Study of the Social Origins of\n   Greek Religion (Cambridge, England, 1912).\n\n HATCH, E. Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Christian Church\n   (London, 1904).\n\n SEYMOUR, T. D. Life in the Homeric Age (New York and London, 1907).\n\n ADAM, JAMES. The Religious Teachers of Greece (Edinburgh, 1908).\n\n PFISTER, F. Reliquien-Cult im Altertum (Giessen, 1909).\n\n FOUCART, P. Des associations religieuses chez les Grecs (Paris, 1873);\n   Lea grands myst\u00e8res d'Eleusis (Paris, 1900).\n\n JEVONS, F. B. Introduction to the History of Religion (2d ed., London,\n   1902), chap. xxiii f.\n\n JONG, K. H. E. DE. Das antike Mysterienwesen (Leiden, 1909).\n\n FAIRBANKS, A. Handbook of Greek Religion (New York, 1910).\n\n REIZENSTEIN, R. Hellenistische Mysterienreligion (Leipzig and Berlin,\n   1910).\n\n Article \"Dionysos\" in Roscher's Lexikon.\n\n Articles \"Mystery\" and \"Orpheus\" in Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica 11th ed.\n\n Article \"Mystery\" in New International Encyclop\u00e6dia.\n\n BEVAN, E. R. Article \"Deification (Greek and Roman)\" (in Encyclop\u00e6dia of\n   Religion and Ethics) (Edinburgh and New York, 1912).\n\n LEHMANN-HAUPT, C. F. Article \"Sarapis\" (in Roscher's Lexikon).\n\n MAHAFFY, J. P. History of Egypt under the Ptolemaic Dynasty, p. 56 ff.\n   (London, 1889).\n\n STEINDORFF, G. Religion of the Ancient Egyptians, p. 72 f. (New York and\n London, 1905).\n\n PLUTARCH. Isis and Osiris.\n\n PREUSCHEN, E. M\u00f6nchtum und Sarapiskult (Giessen, 1903).\n\n APULEIUS. Cult of Isis (in his Metamorphoses, bk. xi).\n\n DREXLER, W. Article \"Isis\" (in Roscher's Lexikon).\n\n\n _Religious Relations between Greece and India_\n\n SCHR\u00d6DER, L. VON. Pythagoras und die Inder (Leipzig, 1884).\n\n WEBER, A. Die Griechen in Indien, _Literarisches Centralblatt_ (1884).\n\n GARBE, R. Connexion between Indian and Greek Philosophy, _The Monist_\n (July, 1894).\n\n HOPKINS, E. W. Religions of India, chap. xix (Boston and London, 1895).\n\n PRINGLE-PATTISON, A. S. Article \"Pythagoras\" (in Encyclop\u00e6dia\n   Britannica, 11th ed.).\n\n Histories of Philosophy, on Pythagoras.\n\n\n _Roman_\n\n VARRO, M. T. Res Rusticae (Leipzig, 1889); Res Divinae (from Augustine's\n   De Civitate Dei) (Leipzig, 1896); De Lingua Latina (Leipzig, 1910).\n\n ARNOBIUS. Disputationes adversus Gentes (or Nationes) (Latin text,\n   Vienna, 1875; Eng. tr., New York, 1888).\n\n SERVIUS. Commentary on Vergil (Leipzig, 1881-1887).\n\n MACROBIUS. Saturnalia (Fr. tr., Paris, 1883).\n\n AUGUSTINE. De Civitate Dei.\n\n MOMMSEN, TH. R\u00f6mische Geschichte (new ed., Berlin, 1856-1887; Eng. tr.,\n   London and New York, 1870, 1894, 1903).\n\n ZELLER, E. Religion und Philosophie bei den R\u00f6mern (in his Beitr\u00e4ge und\n   Abhandlungen) (Berlin, 1872).\n\n BOISSIER G. La religion romaine d'Auguste aux Antonins (2d ed., Paris,\n   1878).\n\n RENAN, E. Influence of the Institutions, Thought and Culture of Rome on\n   Christianity (London, 1880).\n\n PRELLER-JORDAN. R\u00f6mische Mythologie (Berlin, 1881-1883).\n\n AUST, E. Religion der R\u00f6mer (M\u00fcnster, Westphalia, 1899).\n\n WISSOWA, G. Religion und Kultus der R\u00f6mer (Munich, 1902).\n\n FOWLER, W. W. Roman Festivals of the Period of the Republic (London,\n   1899); Social Life at Rome in the Age of Cicero (New York, 1910);\n   Religious Experience of the Roman People (London, 1911).\n\n FRIEDL\u00c4NDER, L. Sittengeschichte Roms (8th ed., Leipzig, 1910); Eng. tr.\n   of 7th ed., Roman life and Manners under the Early Empire (London and\n   New York ca. 1903).\n\n GLOVER, T. R. Conflict of Religions in the Early Roman Empire (2d ed.,\n   London, 1909).\n\n GRUPPE, G. Kulturgeschichte der r\u00f6mischen Kalserzeit (M\u00fcnchen,\n   1903-1904).\n\n CARTER, J. B. Religion of Numa (London, 1906); The Religious Life of\n   Ancient Rome (Boston and New York, 1911).\n\n REINACH, S. Orpheus [a general history of religions], chap. iii (Paris,\n   1909; Eng. tr., revised by the author, London and New York, 1909).\n\n ARNOLD, E. V. Roman Stoicism (Cambridge, England, 1911).\n\n\n _Etruscan_\n\n HERBIG, G. Article \"Etruscan Religion\" (in Hastings's Encyclop\u00e6dia of\n   Religion and Ethics).\n\n\n _Celtic_\n\n RHYS, J. Celtic Heathendom (London, 1886).\n\n BERTRAND, A. Religion des Gaulois (2d ed., Paris, 1891).\n\n IHM, M. Der M\u00fctter-oder Matronenkultus und seine Denkm\u00e4ler, _Bonner\n   Jahrb\u00fccher_ (1887).\n\n MACCULLOCH J. A. Religion of the Ancient Celts (Edinburgh, 1911);\n   article \"Celts\" (in Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics); article\n   \"Druids,\" ibid.\n\n GRUFFYDD, W. J. Welsh Literature (in article \"Celt\" in Encyclop\u00e6dia\n   Britannica, 11th ed.).\n\n QUIGGIN, E. C. Article \"Celtic Languages and Literature,\" ibid.\n\n ROBINSON, F. N. Article \"Deae Matres\" (in Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and\n   Ethics).\n\n Revue Celtique (Paris).\n\n _Celtic Review_, Edinburgh.\n\n\n _Teutonic_\n\n GRIMM, J. Deutsche Mythologie (Berlin, 1835; 4th ed., 1875-1878);\n   Kleinere Schriften (Berlin, 1864-1890).\n\n M\u00dcLLENHOFF, K. Deutsche Altertumskunde (Berlin, 1870-1892).\n\n BUGGE, S. Studier over de nordiske Gude-og Heltesagns oprindelse (1880);\n   Germ. tr., Studien \u00fcber die Entstehung der nordischen G\u00f6tterund\n   Heldensagen (Munich, 1889).\n\n GRUPPE, O. Griechische Culte und Mythen in ihren Beziehungen zu den\n   orientalischen Religionen, Index (Leipzig, 1887).\n\n MOGK, E. Germanische Mythologie (in Paul's Grundriss der germanischen\n   Philologie) (2d ed., Strassburg, 1898).\n\n MEYER, E. H. Germanische Mythologie (Berlin, 1891).\n\n GUMMERE, F. B. Article \"Teutonic (or Germanic) Mythology\" (in Johnson's\n   Universal Cyclop\u00e6dia); Germanic Origins (New York, 1892).\n\n LA SAUSSAYE, P. D. CHANTEPIE DE. Religion of the Teutons (with\n   bibliography) (Boston and London, 1902).\n\n CHADWICK, H. M. Article \"Teutonic Peoples,\" p. 683 ff. (in Encyclop\u00e6dia\n   Britannica, 11th ed.).\n\n MANNHARDT, W. Baumcultus der Germanen und ihrer Nachbarst\u00e4mme (Berlin,\n   1875); Antike Wald- und Feldkulte aus nordeurop\u00e4ischen Uberlieferungen\n   erl\u00e4utert (Berlin, 1877); Mythologische Forschungen, _Quellen und\n   Forschungen_ (1884).\n\n J\u00d3NSSON, F. Article \"The Eddas\" (in Hastings's Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion\n   and Ethics).\n\n VIGFUSSON, G., AND POWELL, F. YORK. Corpus Poeticum Boreale (Old Norse\n   Poetry, Scaidic and Eddic) (Oxford, 1883).\n\n THORPE, B. Metrical Translation of the Edda (London, 1866).\n\n\n _Slavic_\n\n Archiv f\u00fcr slavische Philologie (Berlin, 1876-    ).\n\n MANNS, E. H. Article \"Slavs,\" p. 230 (in Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica, 11th.\n   ed.).\n\n USENER, H. G\u00f6tternamen (Bonn, 1896).\n\n KRAUSS, F. S. Slavische Folkforschungen (Leipzig, 1908).\n\n MONE, F. J. Geschichte des Heidenthums in n\u00f6rdlichen Europa (Leipzig,\n   1836).\n\n\n _Central and Northern Asia_\n\n RATZEL, F. History of Mankind (Eng. tr., London, 1896-1898).\n\n FEATHERMAN, A. Races of Mankind, iv (London, 1881-1891).\n\n PUMPELLY, R. Explorations in Turkestan (Prehistoric Civilizations of\n   Anau) (Washington, 1908).\n\n V\u00c1MB\u00c9RY, A. Die primitive Cultur des turko-tatarischen Volkes (Leipzig,\n   1879).\n\n HUC, E. R. Travels in Tartary, Tibet, and China (Eng. tr., London,\n   1859).\n\n KEANE, A. H. Asia (London, 1896-1906); article \"Asia\" (in Encyclop\u00e6dia\n   of Religion and Ethics).\n\n KING, L. W. History of Sumer and Akkad, Appendix (New York, 1910).\n\n MOUHOT, H. Travels in the Central Parts of Indo-China (London, 1864).\n\n CROSS, E. B. The Karens, _Journal of the American Oriental Society_, iv\n   (New York, 1854).\n\n KLEMENTZ, DEMETRIUS. Article \"Buriats\" (in Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and\n   Ethics).\n\n WASILJEV, J. Heidnische Gebr\u00e4uche, Aberglaube und Religion der Wotyaken\n   (Helsingfors, 1902).\n\n JOCHELSON, W. The Koryak (in Jesup North Pacific Expedition, vi) (New\n   York).\n\n BOGORAS, W. The Chukchee, ibid.\n\n WRIGHT, J. H., editor. History of All Nations, vol. ii, Central and\n   Eastern Asia in Antiquity (by F. Justi, F. W. Williams, M. Jastrow,\n   Jr., and A. V. W. Jackson) (Philadelphia and New York, 1902 and 1905).\n\n WLISLOCKI, H. VON. Volksglaube und religi\u00f6ser Brauch der Magyaren\n   (M\u00fcnster, Westphalia, 1893).\n\n CASTR\u00c9N, M. A. Finnische Mythologie (Germ. tr., St. Petersburg, 1853).\n\n Acta Societatis Scientiarum Fennic\u00e6 (Helsingfors).\n\n COMPARETTI, D. Il Kalevala, o la poesia tradizionale del Finni (Rome,\n   1891).\n\n CRAWFORD, J. M. Eng. tr. of the Kalevala (New York, 1888).\n\n KIRBY, W. F. Eng. tr. of the Kalevala (London, 1898).\n\n\n _Japan_\n\n GRIFFIS, W. E. The Religions of Japan (London, 1895).\n\n ASTON, W. G. Shinto (London, 1907).\n\n KNOX, G. W. Development of Religion in Japan (New York and London,\n   1907).\n\n LONGFORD, J. H. Story of Old Japan (London, 1910).\n\n BRINKLEY, F. In article \"Japan\" (in Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica, 11th ed.,\n   p. 222 ff.).\n\n BATCHELOR, J. The Ainu and their Folklore (London, 1901); article\n   \"Ainus\" (in Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics).\n\n HOWARD, B. D. Life with the Trans-Siberian Savages (London, 1893).\n\n\n _China and Korea_\n\n DOUGLAS, R. K. Confucianism and Taouism (London, 1889).\n\n LEGGE, JAMES. Religions of China (London, 1880); articles \"Confucius\"\n   and \"L\u00e2o-Tsze\" (in Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica, 11th ed.); Texts of Taoism\n   (in Sacred Books of the East, vol. xi).\n\n DE GROOT, J. J. M. Religious System of China (Leiden, 1892-1907);\n   Religion of the Chinese (New York, 1910); Religion in China:\n   Universism, a Key to the Study of Taoism and Confucianism (New York\n   and London, 1912).\n\n GILES, H. A. Articles \"Religions of Ancient China,\" \"China\" (in\n   Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica, 11th ed.).\n\n GRIFFIS, W. E. Corea, the Hermit Nation (New York, 1901).\n\n LONGFORD, J. H. Story of Korea (New York, 1911).\n\n HOWARTH, O. J. R. Article \"Korea\" (in Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica, 11th\n   ed.).\n\n UNDERWOOD, H. G. Religions of Eastern Asia (New York, 1910).\n\n PARKER, E. H. Studies in Chinese Religion (London, 1910).\n\n CHAVANNES, E. M\u00e9moires historiques, vol. i, Introduction to tr. of the\n   Tao-Teh-King (Paris, 1895).\n\n DVORAK, R. China's Religionen, No. 2 (M\u00fcnster, 1903).\n\n HEYSINGOR, J. W. The Light of China (metrical version of the\n   Tao-Teh-King) (Philadelphia, 1903).\n\n\n _Oceania_\n\n RATZEL, F. History of Mankind (Eng. tr., London, 1896-1898).\n\n FRAZER, J. G. Totemism and Exogamy, Index (London, 1910); The Belief in\n   Immortality and the Worship of the Dead (the Gifford Lectures,\n   1911-1912) (London and New York).\n\n BASTIAN A. Inselgruppen in Oceania (Berlin, 1883).\n\n KEANE, A. H. Article \"Australasia\" (in Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and\n   Ethics).\n\n\n _Polynesia_\n\n MARINER, W. Tonga Islands (London, 1817).\n\n GREY, G. Polynesian Mythology (Auckland, 1885).\n\n ELLIS, W. Polynesian Researches (London, 1859); Tour around Hawaii\n   (London, 1829).\n\n JARVES, J. J. History of the Hawaiian Islands (Honolulu, 1872).\n\n BASTIAN, A. Zur Kenntniss Hawaiis (Berlin, 1883).\n\n ALEXANDER, W. D. Brief History of the Hawaiian People (London, 1892).\n\n ACHELIS, THOS. Ueber Mythologie und Cultus von Hawaii, 1895 (reprint\n   from Ausland, 1893).\n\n TAYLOR, R. New Zealand and its Inhabitants (London, 1870).\n\n GILL, W. Myths and Songs of the South Pacific (London, 1876).\n\n TURNER, G. Samoa (London, 1884).\n\n KR\u00c4MER, A. Hawaii, Ostmikronesien und Samoa (Stuttgart, 1906).\n\n TREGEAR, E. The Maori race (Wanganui, New Zealand, 1904).\n\n SHORTLAND, E. Traditions and Superstitions of the New Zealanders\n   (London, 1854).\n\n B\u00c4SSLER, A. S\u00fcdsee Bilder (Berlin, 1895); Neue S\u00fcdsee Bilder (Berlin,\n   1900).\n\n\n _Melanesia_\n\n WILLIAMS, J., AND CALVERT, J. Fiji and the Fijians (London, 1870).\n\n CODRINGTON, R. H. The Melanesians (Oxford, 1891).\n\n SELIGMANN, C. G. The Melanesians of British New Guinea (Cambridge,\n   England, 1910).\n\n BROWN, GEORGE. Melanesians and Polynesians (London and New York, 1910).\n\n FURNESS, W. H., 3d. The Island of Stone-Money (Uap of the Carolines),\n   (Philadelphia and London, 1910).\n\n\n _Australia and Tasmania_\n\n SPENCER, B., AND GILLEN, J. Native Tribes of Central Australia (London,\n   1899); Northern Tribes of Central Australia (London, 1904).\n\n HOWITT, A. W. Native Tribes of South-East Australia (London, 1904).\n\n PARKER, MRS. K. L. The Euahlayi Tribe (London, 1905).\n\n GENNEP, A. V. Mythes et l\u00e9gendes d'Australie (Paris, 1906).\n\n THOMAS, N. W. Native Tribes of Australia (London, 1907); article\n   \"Australia\" (in Encyclop\u00e6dia of Religion and Ethics).\n\n TYLOR, E. B. On the Tasmanians as Representatives of Pal\u00e6olithic Man,\n   _Journal of the Anthropological Institute_, xxiii\n\n\n _Malay Archipelago and the Philippines_\n\n MARSDEN, W. History of Sumatra (London, 1811).\n\n BOCK, C. Head-hunters of Borneo (London, 1881).\n\n MAN, E. H. The Aboriginal Inhabitants of the Andaman Islands, _Journal\n   of the Anthropological Institute_, xii (London, 1885).\n\n WALLACE, A. R. The Malay Archipelago (London, 1890).\n\n WILKEN, G. A. Het shamanisme bij de volken van den Indischen Archipel\n   ('S-Hage, 1887).\n\n KRUIJT, A. C. Het animisme in den indischen Archipel ('S-Gravenhage,\n   1906).\n\n SARASIN, P. AND F. Die Weddas von Ceylon und die umgebenden\n   V\u00f6lkerschaften (Wiesbaden, 1893).\n\n ROTH, H. L. The Natives of Sarawak and British North Borneo (London,\n   1896).\n\n HADDON, A. C. Head-hunters, Black, White and Brown (London, 1901).\n\n FURNESS, W. H., 3d. Home-life of Borneo Head-hunters (Philadelphia,\n   1902).\n\n MORRIS, MISS M. Harvest Gods of the Land Dyaks of Borneo, _Journal of\n   the American Oriental Society_ (July, 1905).\n\n HURGRONYE, C. SNOUCK. The Achehnese (London, 1906).\n\n WARNECK, J. Die Religion der Batak (in J. B\u00f6hmer's Religionsurkunden der\n   V\u00f6lker, Abth. iv, Bd. i) (Leipzig, 1909).\n\n _Reports of the Bureau of Ethnology of the Philippine Government._\n\n _Journal of American Folklore._\n\n _Philippine Journal of Science_, Manila.\n\n _Bureau of American Ethnology._\n\n BLUMENTRITT, F. Diccionario mitologico de Philippinas (2d ed., Madrid,\n 1895).\n\n BEYER, H. O., AND BARTON, R. F. An Ifugao Burial Ceremony (reprint from\n _Philippine Journal of Science_) (1911).\n\n\n NORTH AMERICA\n\n Relation des J\u00e9suites de la Nouvelle France [17th century] (edited, with\n   Eng. tr., by R.G. Thwaites, Cleveland, 1901).\n\n PARKMAN, F. The Jesuits in North America in the Seventeenth Century\n   (London, 1867).\n\n WILLIAMS, ROGER. Key into the Language of America (London, 1643).\n\n HODGE, F. W. Handbook of American Indians North of Mexico (Washington,\n   1907-1910).\n\n _Journal of American Folklore_ (Boston and New York).\n\n SMITH, JOHN. General History of Virginia (London, 1627; new issue,\n   1907).\n\n STRACHEY, W. Historie of Travaile into Virginia Britannia (1618; ed.\n   R. H. Major, London, 1849).\n\n HENDERSON, S. R. The Government and Religion of the Virginia Indians,\n   _Johns Hopkins University Studies in History and Political Science_,\n   xiii (Baltimore).\n\n M\u00dcLLER, J. G. Geschichte der amerikanischen Urreligionen (Basel, 1867).\n\n SCHOOLCRAFT, H. R. Indian Tribes of the United States (Philadelphia,\n   1851-1860).\n\n BANCROFT, H. H. Native Races of the Pacific States of North America\n   (New York, 1875-1876).\n\n WINSOR, J. Narrative and Critical History of America (Boston, 1889).\n\n PAYNE, E. J. History of the New World, called America (Oxford, 1899).\n\n CUSHING, F. H. My Adventures in Zufii, _Century Magazine_ (New York,\n   May, 1883).\n\n FLETCHER, ALICE. Indian Ceremonies from the _Sixteenth Report of the\n   Peabody Museum of American Arch\u00e6ology and Ethnology_ (Cambridge,\n   Mass., 1883) (Salem, Mass., 1884).\n\n GATSCHET, A. S. A Migration Legend of the Creek Indians (Philadelphia,\n   1884).\n\n BRINTON, D. G. The Len\u00e2p\u00e9 and their Legends (Philadelphia, 1885).\n\n FEWKES, J. W. The Winter Solstice Ceremony at Walpi (reprinted from the\n   _American Anthropologist_, xi) (Washington, 1898).\n\n MATTHEWS, W. Navaho Legends (Boston and New York, 1897).\n\n BOAS, F. The Indians of British Columbia (reprinted from _Report of the\n   British Association_, 1889) (London); The Kwakiutl (Washington, 1897).\n\n TEIT, J. Traditions of the Thompson River Indians of British Columbia\n   (Boston and New York, 1898).\n\n MORICE, A. G. Notes ... on the Western D\u00e9n\u00e9s, _Transactions of the\n   Canadian Institute_ (1894).\n\n WILL, G. F., AND SPINDEN, H. J. The Mandans [of North Dakota], (Peabody\n   Museum, Cambridge, Mass., 1906).\n\n HILL-TOUT, C. British North America (the Far West) (London, 1907).\n\n DIXON, R. B. The Northern Maidu [of California], _Bulletin of American\n   Museum of Natural History_, vol. xvii (New York, 1905); The Shasta\n   (California), ibid. (New York, 1907); The Chimariko Indians,\n   _University of California Publications in American Arch\u00e6ology and\n   Ethnology_ (Berkeley, 1910).\n\n CRANZ. D. History of Greenland (London, 1820).\n\n RINK, H. J. Tales and Traditions of the Eskimo (Edinburgh and London,\n   1875); The Eskimo Tribes (Copenhagen and London, 1887).\n\n BOAS, F. The Central Eskimo, _Reports of the Bureau of Ethnology_,\n   1884-1885 (Washington, 1888).\n\n RASMUSSEN, KNUD. People of the Polar North (London, 1908).\n\n RADIN, P., AND GRAY, L. H. Article \"Eskimos\" (in Hastings's Encyclop\u00e6dia\n   of Religion and Ethics).\n\n\n _Mormonism_\n\n RILEY, I. W. The Founder of Mormonism, a Psychological Study of Joseph\n   Smith (New York, 1902).\n\n LINN, W. A. The Story of the Mormons ... to the Year 1901 (New York\n   1902).\n\n MEYER, EDOUARD. Ursprung und Geschichte der Mormonen (Halle a. S.,\n   1912).\n\n\n _Mexico_\n\n SAHAGUN, F. B. DE. Historia general de las cosas de Nueva Espa\u00f1a\n   (Mexico, 1829-1830, and Fr. tr.).\n\n ACOSTA, J. DE. Historia de las Indias (Eng. tr., C. R. Markham, London,\n   1880).\n\n HERRERA, A. DE. Historia de las Indias Ocidentales (Eng. tr., London,\n   1825-1826).\n\n SELER, E. Altmexikanische Studien, _Publications of Berlin Museum f\u00fcr\n   V\u00f6lkerkunde_, vi (1899); Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur amerikanischen\n   Sprach-und Alterthumskunde (Berlin, 1902-1909).\n\n PRESCOTT, W. H. Conquest of Mexico (Boston, 1843).\n\n R\u00c9VILLE, A. Native Religions of Mexico and Peru (London, 1884).\n\n SPENCE, L. Mythologies of Ancient Mexico and Peru (London, 1907).\n\n PREUSS, K. T. Die Feuerg\u00f6tter als Ausgangspunkt zum Verst\u00e4ndniss der\n   mexikanischen Religion, _Mitteilungen der_ [Wiener] _anthropologischen\n   Gesellschaft_ (1903).\n\n NUTALL, ZELIA. A Penitential Rite of the Ancient Mexicans,\n   _Arch\u00e6ological and Ethnological Papers of the Peabody Museum, Harvard\n   University_ (Cambridge, Mass., 1904).\n\n TOY, C. H. Mexican Human Sacrifice, _Journal of American Folklore_\n   (Boston and New York, 1905).\n\n\n CENTRAL AMERICA\n\n BRINTON, D. G. The Names of the Gods in the Kiche Myths of Central\n   America, _Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society_\n   (Philadelphia, 1881); The Annals of the Cakchiquels (Philadelphia,\n   1885); Nagualism, a Study in Native American Folklore and History\n   (Philadelphia, 1894).\n\n SCHELLHAS, P. Representations of Deities of the Maya Mss. (Eng. tr. of\n   2d ed. in _Papers of the Peabody Museum, Harvard University_)\n   (Cambridge, Mass., 1904).\n\n TOZZER, A. M. Comparative Study of the Mayas and Lacandones [of Yucatan]\n   (New York and London, 1907).\n\n\n _Porto Rico_\n\n FEWKES, J. W. Aborigines of Porto Rico (in _Reports of the Bureau of\n   Ethnology_, xxv) (Washington).\n\n\n SOUTH AMERICA\n\n LA VEGA, GARCILASO DE. Comentarios reales de los Incas (1609; Eng. tr.,\n   ed. C. R. Markham, Rites and Laws of the Yncas) (London, 1870).\n\n PRESCOTT, W. H. Conquest of Peru (Boston, 1847).\n\n BERNAU, J. H. Missionary Labors in British Guiana (London, 1847).\n\n IM THURN, F. Among the Indians of Guiana (London, 1883).\n\n R\u00c9VILLE and SPENCE. See under 'Mexico.'\n\n HYADES, P., AND DENIKER, J. Mission scientifique du Cap Horn (Paris,\n   1882-1883, 1891-    ).\n\n VON DEN STRINEN, K. Unter den Naturv\u00f6lkern Zentral-Brasiliens (Berlin,\n   1894).\n\n B\u00c4SSLER, A. Altperuanische Kunst (1902).\n\n EHRENREICH, P. Mythen und Legenden der s\u00fcdamerikanischen Urv\u00f6lker\n   (Berlin, 1905).\n\n FARABEE, W. C. Some Customs of the [Peruvian] Machegongos (reprinted\n   from _Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society_) (Worcester,\n   1909).\n\n\n AFRICA\n\n WAITZ-GARLAND. Anthropologie der Naturv\u00f6lker (Leipzig, 1859-1872).\n\n ELLIS, W. History of Madagascar (London, 1838).\n\n FRITSCH, G. Die Eingeborenen S\u00fcd-Afrika's (Breslau, 1872).\n\n HAHN, TH. Tsuni-Goam, the Supreme Being of the Khoi-Khoi (London, 1881).\n\n MACDONALD, D. Africana (London, 1882).\n\n MACDONALD, J. Manners, Customs, Superstitions and Religions of\n   South-African Tribes, _Journal of the Anthropological Institute_, xix,\n   xx (London); East Central African Customs, ibid., xxii (London, 1893).\n\n CALLAWAY, H. Religious System of the Amazulu (Natal, 1868-1870).\n\n ELLIS, A. B. The Tshi-speaking Peoples of the Gold Coast of West Africa\n   (London, 1887); The E[\u00b4w]e-speaking Peoples of the Slave Coast of West\n   Africa (London, 1890); The Yoruba-speaking Peoples of the Slave Coast\n   of West Africa (London, 1894).\n\n SCHNEIDER, W. Religion der afrikanischen Naturv\u00f6lker (M\u00fcnster,\n   Westphalia, 1891).\n\n HANOTEAU, A., and LETOURNEAUX, A. La Kabylie (2d ed., Paris, 1893).\n\n WESTERMARCK, E. Nature of the Arab [vG]inn, _Journal of the\n   Anthropological Institute_ (London, 1900); L'\u00e2r, or the Transference\n   of Conditional Curses in Morocco (in Anthropological Essays presented\n   to E. B. Tylor) (Oxford, 1907).\n\n KINGSLEY, MARY. Travels in West Africa (London, 1897); West African\n   Studies (London, 1901).\n\n THEAL, G. M. Records of South-Eastern Africa (London, 1898-1900);\n   History and Ethnography of South Africa (London, 1907-1910).\n\n QUATREFAGES, A. DE. The Pygmies (Eng. tr., New York, 1895).\n\n JOHNSTON, H. The Pygmies of the Great Congo Forest, _Smithsonian\n   Institution Reports_, 1902 (Washington).\n\n SCHMIDT, W. Stellung der Pygm\u00e4env\u00f6lker in der Entwicklungsgeschichte des\n   Menschen (Stuttgart, 1910).\n\n MAC-RITCHIE, D. Article \"Dwarfs and Pygmies\" (in Hastings's Encyclop\u00e6dia\n   of Religion and Ethics).\n\n FROBENIUS, L. Ursprung der afrikanischen Kulturen (1898; Eng. tr. in\n   _Smithsonian Institution Reports_, 1898, Washington).\n\n HINDE, S. L., AND MRS. HILDEGARDE. The Last of the Masai (London, 1901).\n\n HOLLIS, A. C. The Masai (Oxford, 1905); The Nandi (Oxford, 1909).\n\n NASSAU, R. H. Fetichism in West Africa (London, 1904).\n\n KIDD, D. The Essential Kafir (London, 1904).\n\n JOHNSTON, H. The Uganda Protectorate (London, 1904).\n\n PARTRIDGE, C. Cross River Natives (London, 1905).\n\n ROSCOE, J. Manners and Customs of the Baganda, _Journal of the\n   Anthropological Institute_, xxxi, xxxii (London); The Bahima, ibid.,\n   xxxvii (London).\n\n BRUN, P. Croyances et pratiques religieuses des Malink\u00e9s f\u00e9tichistes,\n   _Anthropos_, ii (Salzburg, 1907).\n\n LEONARD, A. G. The Lower Niger and its Tribes (London, 1906).\n\n MILLIGAN, R. H. The Fetish Folk of West Africa (New York, 1912).\n\n\n\n\n INDEX\n\n (The Arabic figures refer to paragraphs)\n\n\n Ablutions, sacred, 197\n\n Abnegation, offering as, 1040\n\n Abraham, abrogation of human sacrifice ascribed to, 847\n\n Abstractions, gods of, 695 ff.\n\n Abydos, chief seat of worship of Osiris, 728\n\n Acts, ritual, magical power in, 1019\n\n Adam Kadmon, 735\n\n \u00c6schines as mystagogue, 1099 n. 1\n\n Aesculapius, shrine of, incubation at, 922\n\n Aeshma, prominent position of, 738\n\n Africa, clan deities in, 645;\n   food restrictions in, 457;\n   myths of clan origins in, 450\n\n Africa, Central, Islam in, 1146\n\n Africa, West, polypsychism in, 39\n\n Agdistis, birth of, 288 n. 2;\n   cult of, 413\n\n Age, mythopoeic, 821\n\n [Greek: agios], sense of, 626 n. 9\n\n Agnosticism, Chinese, 1006\n\n Agriculture, sacrifices in, 1035\n\n Ahura Mazda, relation of, to Varuna, 742\n\n Ainu, the, bear-cult of, 257;\n   gods of, 661, 672\n\n Alexander, deification of, 340, 347\n\n Alexandrian canon, 1130\n\n Ali, deification of, 355\n\n Allah, cultic significance of, 766\n\n Al-L\u00e2t, local nature of, 764\n\n Allegory, science of, 863\n\n Altar, origin of, 297, 1081;\n   religious purification of, 195\n\n Al-Uzza, local nature of, 764\n\n Amenhotep IV, reform of, 727\n\n America, examination of dead in, 76;\n   gods of, 662-665;\n   guardian spirits in, 504;\n   polypsychism in, 39;\n   power of priests in, 532;\n   social organizations in, 499;\n   tribal badges in, 446;\n   trickster heroes in, 633\n\n America, North, food restrictions in, 458\n\n America, Northwest, religiously inferior to the Eastern tribes, 527\n\n Amesha-spentas, the, 320, 703, 738\n\n Amon-Ra, supremacy of, 727\n\n Amulets, phallos and yoni as, 405, 406 n. 3\n\n Anahita, 739\n\n Ancestor-worship, 360 ff.;\n   moral power of, 380;\n   origin of totemism sought in, 544, 549\n\n Anchor, worship offered to, 891\n\n Androgynous deities, 407 ff.\n\n Angels, guardian, 673;\n   as rain-givers, 315 n. 6;\n   originators of arts, 843\n\n Angro Mainyu, 976\n\n Animals, abodes of souls, 25, 31;\n   connection of, with phallic deities, 419;\n   cult of, 241-261;\n   domestication of, ascribed to totemism, 564-569;\n   morning prayers to, 573;\n   whether religious sense in, 12 n. 2\n\n Anthesteria, the, apotropaic element in, 374;\n   prohibition of work in, 602\n\n Aphrodite, history of, 793 f.;\n   represented by a stone, 292\n\n Apocrypha, the, recognition of, 1131\n\n Apollo, development of, 770;\n   Delphian hymn to, 1088\n\n Apostle, Jewish title, 1110 n. 2\n\n Apotheosis, Roman, 353\n\n Apuleius, his conception of Isis, 1114\n\n Arabia, supposed abstract gods in, 698 ff.;\n   worship of morning star in, 717\n\n Aramea, deities of, 764\n\n Areoi, the, church-form of, 1096;\n   future privileges of, 74;\n   tyranny of, 531\n\n Ares, history of, 775\n\n Ark, the Israelite, 291\n\n Arrows, Arab divination by, 918\n\n Arta, Vedic, 688\n\n Artemis, functions of, 788;\n   Ephesian, image of, 300 n. 1\n\n Arval Brothers, the, 800\n\n Asha, Avestan, 688\n\n Ashanti, gods of, 660\n\n Ashera, Hebrew, origin of, 272\n\n Ashtar, relation of, to Ishtar, 763\n\n Ashtart, shem Baal, meaning of, 409\n\n Ashur, god, nature of, 759\n\n Ashurbanipal, dreams of, 922\n\n Assyria, influence of priests in, 1068\n\n Astrology, development of, 850, 914 f.\n\n Asylums, graves as, 369;\n   temples as, 1085\n\n Atargatis, origin and cult of, 399\n\n Aten, as sole ruler, 989\n\n Atharva-Veda, magic in, 902\n\n Athene, history of, 791 f.\n\n Athtar, relation of, to Ishtar, 763\n\n Atonement, Hebrew annual ceremony of, 142\n\n Attis, origin and cult of, 271, 413, 1066;\n   death of, 283\n\n Augustus, religious reconstruction by, 353;\n   temples consecrated to, 347\n\n Australia, absence of sacrifice in, 10;\n   ceremonies of, blood in, 10;\n   creators in, 639;\n   food restrictions in, 452;\n   rain clan in, 136;\n   rites, economic, in, 460;\n   totemism in, 468 ff.\n\n Australia, North, prohibition of eating totem in, 470\n\n Authority, religious, absolute, claim to, 1140\n\n Azazel, head of fallen angels, 692;\n   lord of wilderness and receiver of Jewish national sins, 142\n\n\n Baal-shamem, meaning of, 409\n\n Baalzebub, meaning of, 671;\n   oracle of, 927\n\n Bab, the, function of, 1120\n\n Babe, as child of God, 188\n\n Babylonia, influence of priests in, 1068;\n   local gods in, 650;\n   omens in, 912;\n   Semitic mythopoeic center, 868;\n   unlucky days in, 611\n\n Badges, function of, 501-503;\n   supposed origin of totems, 555\n\n Baetulus, etymology of, 294\n\n Baganda, the, totemistic usages among, 457, 511\n\n Bahaism, success of, 1120\n\n Bah\u00e1u'llah, founder of a church, and claimed to be incarnation\n   of God, 1120\n\n Baiame, clan god, 644\n\n Bakuana, the, food restrictions among, 457\n\n Banana, incarnation of dead chief, 479\n\n Baptism, infant, result of its introduction, 1110;\n   proselyte, 198;\n   quasi-magical power attributed to, 198 n. 3\n\n Bards, Australian, 106\n\n Bathing, removal of taboo by, 616\n\n Bau, goddess of fertility, 761\n\n Bear, as messenger, 1024\n\n Beasts, pantheon of, 248\n\n Beelzebul, origin of, 671\n\n Beings, savage, whether regarded as eternal, 984 f.;\n   two supernatural, opposed to each other, 969\n\n Bene-Israel, the, persistence of Jewish customs among, 224 n. 3\n\n Bengal, oracles in, 927\n\n Bethel, Hebrew, meaning of, 294\n\n Bible, the, results of study of, 1135\n\n Bird, the, symbol of soul, 25\n\n Birth, supposed cause of, 34\n\n Blood, connection of, with life, 23;\n   expiatory power of, 1026;\n   inoculation with, in marriages, 178;\n   kinship of, totemic, 441\n\n Body, the, as seat of life, 26;\n   regarded as by nature nonsacred, 205\n\n Boedromia, the, 845\n\n Bombay, Parsiism in, 1145\n\n Bones, animal, not to be broken, 127;\n   divination by, 920\n\n Borneo, harvest taboos in, 599;\n   oracles in, 927\n\n Bo-tree, the, worship under, 281\n\n Boundaries, gods of, 704\n\n Bowels, the, as seat of emotion, 27\n\n Brahma, impersonal, 730;\n   meaning of, 703\n\n Brain, the, relation of, to thought, 28;\n   Arabic conception of, 28\n\n Brides, taboos on, 179\n\n Brotherhood, blood-, 169\n\n Buddhism, agnosticism of, 1007;\n   canons of, 1129;\n   diffusion of, 1142, 1147\n\n Bull, the, worship of, 258\n\n Bunjil, Australian, nature of, 644\n\n Burma, Buddhism in, 1142\n\n Bush, burning, god in, 279\n\n Bushmen, cult of mantis by, 257\n\n Byblos, sacred prostitution at, 1066\n\n\n Cadmus, culture-hero, 843\n\n C\u00e6lus, 722\n\n C\u00e6sar, Julius, deified, 353\n\n Cainites, the, 693\n\n \u00c7akti, cult of, 734\n\n \u00c7aktism, cultic significance of, 406\n\n Calendars, savage, 210 f.\n\n Calif Omar, embassy of, to Persia, 916\n\n California, cosmogony in, 829;\n   ghost dance in, 108\n\n Caligula, divine honors accorded to, 347\n\n Canaan, sun-cult in, 753\n\n Canons, religious, 1128 ff.\n\n \u00c7aoshyan\u00e7, the, prophetic function of, 348\n\n Caracalla, enrollment of, among the heroes, 353 n. 2\n\n Carthage, cult of Tanit in, 410\n\n Ceremonies, marriage-, whether essentially religious, 178-183;\n   religious, merrymaking in, 1057;\n   religious, later interpretation of, 103\n\n Ceres, origin of, 803\n\n Ceylon, Buddhism in, 1142\n\n Chaldeans, astrological science of, 914 f.;\n   charlatanry of, 927\n\n Chaos, philosophical conception of, 685\n\n Charms, animal and vegetable, 229;\n   attitude of men toward, 239\n\n Chastity, origin of demand for, 594\n\n Chiefs, relief from taboo by, 615;\n   sacredness of, 595\n\n Child, death of, ceremonies at, 191 n. 4;\n   name of, how chosen, 187;\n   newborn, purification of, by water, 197;\n   perils of, 589;\n   prenatal influence on, 481\n\n Childbirth, future of women dying in, 75\n\n Children, first-born, sacrifice of, 134;\n   savage training of, 146\n\n China, Buddhism in, 1142;\n   conception of kinship with the dead in, 193;\n   divinization of emperor in, 345;\n   expulsion of spirits in, 140;\n   no priestly class in national religion of, 1074;\n   official religion of, 748;\n   polypsychism in, 39;\n   sky and earth as progenitors in, 992;\n   stress on earthly life in, 992;\n   supremacy of Heaven in, 992;\n   tutelary gods in, 672\n\n Christendom, development of ritual in, 1060\n\n Christian canon, formation of, 1131\n\n Christian monachism, 1126\n\n Christian writers, early, interpretation of myths by, 873\n\n Christianity, diffusion of, 1144, 1147;\n   dualism of, 977\n\n Chunder Sen, church-founder, 1119\n\n Church, Buddhistic, 1106;\n   pre-Christian idea of, 1101\n\n Churches, origin and function of, 1095 ff.;\n   influence of, 1137 ff.;\n   temptations of, 1139\n\n Cicero, on cerebrum as seat of mind, 28;\n   on origin of the soul, 36\n\n Circumambulation, object of, 112\n\n Circumcision, 153-168\n\n \u00c7iva, 733\n\n Civilization, mythical origin of, 843\n\n Clan, rain-, Australian, 136;\n   relation of, to marriage customs, 423;\n   supposed deliberate choice of totem by, 554\n\n Clans, mythical origin of, 450;\n   non-exogamous totemic, 436\n\n Clanship, totemic, religious side of, 571\n\n Climate, effect of, on totemic usages, 470;\n   Iranian, 976 n. 3\n\n Clothing, origin of, 114\n\n Code, moral, regarded as will of God, 1166\n\n Codes, good and bad, accepted by religion, 1162 f.\n\n Conceptional theory of the origin of totemism, 548\n\n Conceptions, mythical, historical development of, 871\n\n Conduct, association of, with religion, 1161\n\n Confucianism not ecclesiastical, 1103\n\n Confucius, deified, 354;\n   teaching of, 1103\n\n Congo, death of souls held in, 48\n\n Conscience, religious development of, 1170\n\n Consecration by sacrifice, 1033\n\n Constitution, savage social, composite character of, 620\n\n Control, supernatural, common to all religions, 1149\n\n Corpse, savage attitude toward, 590\n\n Corruption, monachistic, 1127\n\n Cosmogonies, civilized, 829 ff.;\n   savage, 255, 829\n\n Cosmogony, Babylonian, 316;\n   Hebrew, 830 n. 5\n\n Courtesans, temple-, in West Africa and India, 1066\n\n Couvade, the, 589;\n   origin of, 185\n\n Coyote, the, malicious, 634;\n   place of soul of, 31 n. 4\n\n Creation, Iranian, out of nothing, 830 n. 3;\n   myths of, 828-833\n\n Creatianism, 37\n\n Creators, American, 678;\n   mutually antagonistic, 831\n\n Creeds, value of elasticity in, 1136\n\n Crests, relation of, to totem, 502\n\n Criminals, detection of, by divination, 918\n\n Cult, synagogal, national character of, 1108\n\n Cults, alien, adoption of, 1148 n. 1;\n   collocation of, 279;\n   individuality of, how obscured, 1153;\n   orgiastic, derived from Asia Minor, 1101;\n   popular, polytheistic, 986\n\n Culture, as basis of classification of religions, 1150\n\n Culture-heroes, 637 ff.\n\n Curse, conditional, 926\n\n Curses and blessings, relation of, to worship, 1090\n\n Customs, mythical origin of, 844 f.\n\n Cyprus, supposed bisexual deity in, 411\n\n\n Dahomi, cult of indwelling spirit in, 43 n. 2;\n   ghost as family protector in, 533;\n   gods of, 660\n\n _Daimonia_, Greek, as demons, 890\n\n Dance, Green Corn, Cherokee, 490;\n   Snake, economic, 461 n. 1\n\n Dances, cultic r\u00f4le of, 106 ff.;\n   symbolic, 1032\n\n Danger, magical, origin of, 586\n\n Daniel, book of, resurrection in, 90\n\n Daramulun, origin of, 644\n\n Dead, the, as advocates, 94;\n   as underground deities, 372;\n   Babylonian prayer to, 371;\n   Brahmanic ceremonies for, 96;\n   charms for, 95 n. 5;\n   cult of, 350 ff.;\n   dependent on the living, 361;\n   magical coercion of, 1021\n\n Death, infection of air by, 591;\n   origin of, 834;\n   savage view of, 38\n\n Deconsecration by sacrifice, 1033\n\n Dedication, Jewish feast of, 1089\n\n Deities, female, minor Roman, 803;\n   immoralities of, 1013;\n   nature of, defined by science, 1157;\n   need of caution in approaching, 196;\n   Roman, primitive, 797\n\n Delphi, sacred fire at, 321\n\n Demeter, origin of, 784\n\n Demigods, dedivinization of, 358\n\n Demiurge, Gnostic, 13\n\n Demons, dwelling in plants, 266;\n   exorcism of, 139;\n   future torture by, 75;\n   relation of, to gods, 694;\n   religious utility of, 690\n\n Depravity, total, religious view of, 1172\n\n Devil, the, grandmother of, 643 n. 1;\n   in New Testament, 977\n\n Diana, nature of, 806\n\n Dido, self-immolation of, 1048\n\n _Dies Irae_, the, 940\n\n Dionysiac cult, partly Hellenized, 1099\n\n Dionysus, history of, 776 ff.\n\n Divination, definition of, 905;\n   organization of, 906\n\n Diviner, the, civil and social recognition of, 908;\n   ecstatic state of, 907\n\n Divinity, tutelary, tenderness for, 653\n\n Doctrines, religious, tried by moral standards, 1164\n\n Dodona, history of oak of, 279\n\n Dog, name of male sacred prostitutes, 1066\n\n Dogmas, religious, philosophical character of, 880\n\n Domestication of animals and plants, relation of, to totemism, 523,\n   564 ff.\n\n Dough, images of, eaten in Mexico, 222\n\n Dreams, as presages, 921 f.\n\n Dualism, 968 ff.;\n   alleged, of Iroquois, 970;\n   of mind and matter, 1004, 1007;\n   Manich\u00e6an, 1115;\n   monachistic, 1121;\n   Persian, 976;\n   savage, 683 ff.\n\n Dukduk, the, police r\u00f4le of, 531\n\n Dupuis, stellar theory of, 864, 866\n\n Durga, reverence for, 693\n\n Dusares, origin of, 764\n\n Dyaks, Sea-, deities of, 659\n\n Dyaus, r\u00f4le of, 734\n\n Dylan, Celtic deity, 974\n\n Dynasties, divine, 721 ff.\n\n\n Ea, origin and growth of, 756\n\n Eating, whether sacramental in Australia, 128\n\n Eclipses, mythical cause of, 849\n\n Economic questions, relation of religion to, 1163\n\n Ecstasy as condition of revelation, 906 f.\n\n Eden, magical trees of, 275;\n   story of, 959\n\n Effects, magical, how set aside, 886\n\n Egbo, the, police r\u00f4le of, 531\n\n Egypt, abstract gods of, 701;\n   divine animals slain in, 888;\n   kings of, deified after death, 352;\n   phallicism in, 397;\n   power of priests in, 1067;\n   Ptolemaic monks in, 1123;\n   specialized gods in, 666;\n   sun-cult of, 712;\n   tree-worship in, 281;\n   unlucky days in, 611\n\n El, meaning of, 766\n\n Elder, Jewish title, 1110 n. 2\n\n Elegba, phallic character of, 393\n\n Elohim, use of, in Old Testament, 766\n\n Endor, the woman of, 895\n\n Enlil, nature of, 757\n\n Enoch, book of, Azazel in, 692;\n   resurrection in, 90;\n   satans in, 689;\n   Sheol in, 85\n\n Entrails, divination by, 919\n\n Epicurus, atomic theory of, 1008;\n   practical atheism of, 1006\n\n Equinoxes, calendars fixed by, 211, 215 f.;\n   Peruvian ceremonies at, 216\n\n Eremites, Brahmanic, 1122\n\n Erinyes, the, function of, 974\n\n Erythr\u00e6, Sibyl of, 937\n\n Eshmun, character of, 764\n\n Eskimo, the animals revered by, 505;\n   destruction of the soul held by, 46\n\n Essenes, the, 1125\n\n Eternal, a term not found in savage thought, 985\n\n Ethics, relation of, to religion, 1161 ff.\n\n Euhemerism, 359, 382\n\n Europe, Islam in, 1146\n\n Evil, moral, existence of, how treated by religion, 1171\n\n Exogamy, origin of, 429 ff.\n\n Expiation by sacrifice, 1033\n\n Eye, the, palpitation of, omen, 916\n\n Ezekiel, taboos in ritual of, 597\n\n\n Family, the, Polynesian social unit, 485\n\n Fasting, religious, 204-208\n\n Fate, in Homer and Hesiod, 998\n\n Fates, the, 687\n\n Father, the, perils of, 589\n\n Fathers, the, Hindu and Persian, worship paid to, 371\n\n Feasts, communal, economical function of, 1023;\n   funeral, origin of, 190 n. 3, 364;\n   Mithraic, 1043, 1046\n\n Ferryman, souls conducted by, 65\n\n Festivals, licentious, nonreligious, 387;\n   Priapic, 402;\n   religious, influence of, 1089\n\n Fetish, definition of, 230 n. 2;\n   African, cult of, 540\n\n Figures, divine, composite, 725, 861\n\n Fiji, examination of dead in, 78, 81;\n   extinction of soul held in, 48;\n   future punishment in, 72;\n   polypsychism in, 39;\n   village deities in, 482\n\n Fire, sacredness of, 318 ff.;\n   theft of, 318 n. 1\n\n Flood, great, stories of, 832\n\n Folk-lore, material of, 859\n\n Folk-tales, scurrilous feature in, 247\n\n Food, sacramental sharing of, 1023\n\n Force, personal, moral, religious conception of, 1158\n\n Form, literary, of myths, 856\n\n Forms, liturgical, symbolical interpretation of, 1061\n\n Fortune, personalized as deity, 702\n\n Fortunes, human, determined on new year's day, 214\n\n Founders, shrines to, 357;\n   the three great, 1151\n\n Fravashis, the, as guardians, 673\n\n Frazer, J. G., on the death of the god, 1047\n\n Fuegians, fear anger of a supernatural being, 1161\n\n Funerals, buffoonery at, 364 n. 5\n\n Fung-Shui, nature of, 926\n\n Fusion, social, basis of religious unity, 1147\n\n\n Gad, deity, whether abstract, 699\n\n Gehenna, New Testament conception of, 85\n\n Genealogies, savage and civilized, 840 f.\n\n Genesia, the Greek, 1089\n\n Genesis, book of, accounts of creation in, 830 n. 5;\n   table of nations in, 841\n\n Genius, the, 672;\n   resemblance of, to mana, 233;\n   not a separate personality, 43\n\n Ghosts, Australian belief in, 18;\n   difference of, from gods, 635;\n   fear of, 139, 366;\n   occupations of, 61;\n   police function of, 379;\n   prayers addressed to, 367\n\n Giants, Greek and Teutonic, 686\n\n Gifts, to gods, material of, 1022;\n   utilized by worshipers, 1023\n\n Gilgamesh, adventures of, 853;\n   consultation of, 927;\n   myth of, 959\n\n Girls, marriage of, to trees, 274\n\n God, the, definition of, 635, 643;\n   genesis of, 636\n\n God, Sons of, in Old Testament, 343;\n   transcendence of, 1004\n\n Goddesses, Babylonian and Assyrian, 760 ff.;\n   Egyptian, 729;\n   Greek, 781 ff.;\n   Hindu, 784;\n   maiden, 785;\n   Roman, 803 ff.\n\n Gods, abstract, 695 ff.;\n   ancient, universal, 958;\n   antagonism of, to men, 958;\n   capture of, 290 n. 1;\n   complicated functions of, 708;\n   conflicts between, meaning of, 858;\n   connection of, with planets, 715, 915;\n   death of, 50 n. 5;\n   departmental, development of, 656;\n   identification of, with animals, 577;\n   otiose, Epicurean, 1006;\n   process of growth of, 720;\n   rain, local deities as, 314;\n   relation of their humanization to polytheism and monotheism, 964;\n   separation of, from phenomena, 720;\n   stones entered by, 298;\n   supremacy of, how determined, 724;\n   whether developed out of totems, 577\n\n Golden Rule, the, formulations of, 1162\n\n Goodwin Sands, origin of, 891 n. 8\n\n Grandfather, divine title, 643;\n   chameleon as, 449\n\n Great Hare, the, 856\n\n Great Mother, Ephesian, 789;\n   Phrygian, Roman cult of, 938\n\n Greece, abstract gods of, 702;\n   consultation of dead in, 927;\n   functions of priests in, 1072;\n   omens in, 912;\n   specialized gods in, 667;\n   taboo days in, 603;\n   theistic scheme of, 795\n\n Greek Church, canon of, 1131\n\n Greenland, repair of souls in, 30\n\n Groves, as places of worship, 268\n\n Growth, social, religious, 1015\n\n Guardians, animal, 496;\n   plant, 267\n\n Guinea, New, hunting-charms in, 129;\n   tribal badges in, 445\n\n\n Hades, god, moral significance of, 780\n\n Hades, place, Greek and Roman gods of, 682;\n   organization of, 69;\n   submarine, 67\n\n Hadith, value of, 1133\n\n Hadrian, address of, to soul, 25 n. 3\n\n Half-sister, marriage with, 428\n\n Hammurabi, code of, ordeal in, 925\n\n Hannibal, oath of, 308\n\n Hanuman, monkey-god, not totemic, 577 n. 3\n\n Haoma, deification of, 270\n\n Haram, Arabian, sanctity of, 1082\n\n Haruspex, function of, 931\n\n Hawaii, death of souls held in, 48;\n   fishery taboos in, 599;\n   despotism of taboo in, 621;\n   overthrow of taboo in, 629\n\n Hearth, sacredness of, 236\n\n Heaven, feeble Semitic recognition of, 753;\n   of Indra, 731\n\n Heaven and Earth, Hindu, 734;\n   Maori, 678;\n   marriage-embrace of, 329\n\n Heavenly bodies, cult of, 328 ff.;\n   sex of, 331\n\n Hebrews, ordeal in law of, 925;\n   taboo days of, 603;\n   tree-cult of, 272\n\n Hekate, function of, 790\n\n Hera, origin of, 782 f.\n\n Heracles, labors of, 853\n\n Heraclitus, sayings of, 1004\n\n Hemaphroditos, 415 f.\n\n Hermes, development of, 772\n\n Herodotus, phallic cults mentioned by, 397\n\n Heroes, cult of, in Greece, 373;\n   in Torres Straits islands, 475;\n   identification of, with animals, 577\n\n Hesiod, division of universe by, 779;\n   half-gods of, 652;\n   unlucky days mentioned by, 611\n\n Hestia, significance of, 787\n\n Hiawatha, how made into a god, 358 n. 5\n\n Hierapolis, phallic cult at, 399\n\n Histories, tribal, in stones, 302\n\n Holocaust, expiation by, 1045\n\n Homage, offering as expression of, 1040\n\n Home, the, as center of religious development, 654\n\n Homer, meaning of _dios_ in, 347\n\n Homilies, Clementine, annihilation in, 52\n\n Honover, the Mazdean, magical use of, 900\n\n Horseshoes, witches restrained by, 145\n\n Horus, conflict of, with Set, 726;\n   kings identified with, 339;\n   original character of, 726;\n   victory of, not absolute, 186\n\n Hubert and Mauss, their theory of sacrifice, 1049 f.\n\n Humanism, 1158\n\n Hymns, Egyptian, Babylonian and Assyrian, Hebrew, Hindu, Avestan,\n   Greek, 1087 f.\n\n\n Idolatry, r\u00f4le of, 1091 ff.\n\n Images, eaten by Mexicans, 1047;\n   formal development of, 1091;\n   ithyphallic, 389, 402 ff.;\n   symbolical interpretation of, 1093\n\n Immersion, symbolic significance of, 198\n\n Imru'l-Kais, treatment of oracle by, 927\n\n Inca, the, ecclesiastical power of, 1117\n\n Incarnation, Ismailic and Babist, 344\n\n Incense, food of deity, 1025\n\n Incest, cause of horror of, 435\n\n Indecency, savage, 107\n\n India, abstract gods of, 703;\n   birthplace of monachism, 1122;\n   bisexual cult in, 416;\n   harmful Powers not organized in, 975;\n   heaven and hell in, 82;\n   ordeals in, 925;\n   power of priests in, 1070;\n   Sankhya philosophy of, 1007;\n   sun-cult of, 713;\n   theistic bodies in, 1119 n. 3\n\n Individualism, fostered by churches, 1138\n\n Indra, development of, 731, 830\n\n Infibulation, 162\n\n Infinite, the, sense of, 9\n\n Interpretations of sacred books, 1136\n\n Intervention, divine, rejected by science, 1010\n\n Intoxication, inspiration by, 899\n\n Introcision, Australian, 162\n\n Isaiah, book of, supposed mention of phallus in, 398;\n   secret cults described in, 1100 n. 2\n\n Ishtar, origin and development of, 762 f.;\n   descent of, to Hades, 283;\n   myth of, 959\n\n Isis, origin of, 729;\n   late cult of, ceremonies in, 1059;\n   organization of the cult, 1114\n\n Isis, as magician, 729;\n   as model wife and mother, 729\n\n Islam, canon of, 1133;\n   conquests of, 1146 f.;\n   no priesthood in, 1080;\n   not a church, 1116\n\n Ismailic movement, the, 1116\n\n Israel, organization of priesthood in, 1069\n\n\n Jacob, anointment of stone by, 294\n\n Jainism, a nontheistic church, 1107\n\n Jamnia, synod of, 1130\n\n Janus, nature of, 799\n\n Japan, divinization of emperor in, 346;\n   phallicism in, 395\n\n Jensen, mythical theory of, 870\n\n Jephthah, daughter of, ceremony of mourning for, 845, 1100\n\n Jesus, object of his teaching, 1110;\n   not an Essene, 1125;\n   resurrection of, 1011 n.\n\n Jews, formation of canon of, 1130;\n   genius of, for organization of public religion, 1108\n\n Jubilee, Hebrew, object of, 223\n\n Judaism, diffusion of, 1143;\n   failure of, to create a church, 1108\n\n Juno, nature of, 804\n\n Juno, the, not a separate personality, 43;\n   representative of woman's personality, 804\n\n Jupiter, origin and development of, 798;\n   represented by a stone, 292\n\n\n Kaaba, the, black stone of, 295\n\n Kafirs, effigies erected by, 370\n\n Kalevala, the, mythology of, 856, 955\n\n Kami, Shinto, meaning of, 645\n\n Karens, the, Christianization of, 1144\n\n Karma, Buddhistic, 1007\n\n Ker, the, as form of soul, 25 n. 3\n\n Khonds, the, deities of, 659\n\n Khuen-Aten, reform of, 989\n\n Kindness to fellows, universal, 1162\n\n Kings, Babylonian, whether worshiped, 341\n\n Koran, the, relation of, to Moslem science, 1135;\n   prayer against witches in, 895\n\n Kore, the, origin of, 786\n\n Korea, Buddhism in, 1142\n\n Krishna, ethical significance of, 733\n\n Kronids, the, governmental r\u00f4le of, 779\n\n Kronos, 768 n. 3\n\n Kteis, the, veneration of, 406\n\n Kybele, cult of, 413\n\n\n Lamas, Grand, ascription of divinity to, 348\n\n Language, origin of, no myths of, 642\n\n Lao-tsze, system of, 749\n\n _Lapis manalis_, function of, 289\n\n Lapps, the, primacy of, in magic, 902\n\n Law, civil, relation of, to taboo, 614;\n   idea of, in charms, 1020;\n   natural, germinal conception of, 7;\n   natural, domination of, 1158\n\n League, Iroquois, 489\n\n Legend, connection of, with myth, 859\n\n Lemuria, the, apotropaic element in, 374;\n   prohibition of work in, 602\n\n Leto, Titaness, 788 n. 1\n\n License, in festivals, 135, 219;\n   sexual, adopted by religion, 1163\n\n Life, annihilation of, 46, 51;\n   identified with breath, 21;\n   mysteriousness of, 385;\n   nobility given to, by religion, 1166, 1173;\n   relation of blood to, 23;\n   unitary character of, 14\n\n Light, as symbol, 857;\n   significance of, in myths, 858\n\n Linga, the, worship of, in India, 394\n\n Liver, the, as seat of life, 27;\n   divination by, 919\n\n Living, the, cult of, 336 ff.\n\n Llew, Celtic deity, 974\n\n Loki, not independent creator of evil, 974;\n   tricksy traits in, 638 n. 4\n\n Lot, wife of, 288\n\n Lots, divinatory use of, 918\n\n Love, toward the deity, 5;\n   as a divine personality, 704\n\n Luck, relation of, to magic, 238\n\n Lunation, the, divisions of, 606\n\n Lupercalia, the, purification in, 201\n\n\n Maccabees, Second, resurrection in, 90\n\n Macrobiotes, 835\n\n Macrobius, on a bisexual cult, 411\n\n Magi, the, Mazdean, 897\n\n Magic, in religion, 1090;\n   methods of, 886;\n   no worship in, 888;\n   relation of, to taboo, 618 f.;\n   to totemism, 574;\n   use of, for procuring food, 129 ff.;\n   when under the ban, 891;\n   white, 901\n\n Magician, office of, preparation for, 894\n\n Magicians, sometimes political rulers, 898 n. 4\n\n Magna Mater of Pessinus, 291\n\n Maia, conjecture as to origin of, 845\n\n Mamertius, expulsion of, 143\n\n Man, early, logicalness of, 246;\n   medicine, 493;\n   prehistoric, whether religious, 12\n\n Mana, definition of, 231-236;\n   producer of sympathy between all things, 886;\n   relation of, to taboo, 586;\n   synonyms of, 231 n. 1\n\n Manich\u00e6ism, as a church, 1115;\n   causes of its success, 978\n\n Mantis, Bushman cult of, 257\n\n _Mantis_, Greek, function of, 931\n\n Marduk, cult of, 758, 990\n\n Marriage, restrictions on, 177 n. 2, 439\n\n Mars, development of, 800;\n   shield of, 845\n\n Martyr, spirit of, where shown, 1167\n\n Masai, the, two chief gods of, 660\n\n Mashalists, Hebrew, 862 n. 1\n\n Massebas, Canaanite, 293\n\n Masters and servants, exchange of places between, 219\n\n Masturbation, savage practice of, 163 n. 1\n\n Materialism, deistic, 1008\n\n Matter, eternity of, 1005, 1007\n\n Maui, Polynesian, r\u00f4le of, 678\n\n Mazdaism, origin and nature of, 740, 745;\n   canon of, 1132\n\n Meal, communal, reconciliation of deity by, 1043;\n   communion in, between human participants, 1044;\n   eucharistic, in \"Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,\" 1046\n\n Medicine man, the, 892\n\n Melanesia, animal incarnations in, 676;\n   cult of divinized men in, 647;\n   descent from totem in, 449;\n   food restrictions in, 454;\n   power of chiefs in, 538;\n   protection of property by taboo in, 600;\n   specialization of divine functions in, 658\n\n Meleager, life of, dependent on a piece of wood, 274\n\n Men, race of, preceding the present, 833\n\n Mendes, goat-god of, 774 n. 6\n\n Meni, god, whether abstract, 699\n\n Mercurius, Roman development of, not traceable, 802\n\n Merneptah, dream of, 922\n\n Mexico, gods of, 664;\n   prominence of priests in, 1075;\n   sun-cult of, 711\n\n Minerva, development of, 807\n\n Miracles, belief in, periods of, 1156 ff.;\n   grounds of objection to, 1011;\n   when not demanded, 1159\n\n Mithra, birth of, 288 n. 2;\n   organisation of cult of, 1113\n\n Mithraism, mysteries of, 1059\n\n Mitra, association of, with Varuna, 730\n\n Mohads, the, organization of, 1116\n\n Monachism, 1121 ff.\n\n Monasteries, functions of, 1127\n\n Monolatry, Hebrew, influence of, 994 f.\n\n Monotheism, alleged savage, 985;\n   development of, 987 ff.\n\n Moon, the, cultic history of, 714\n\n Morabits, the, organization of, 1116\n\n Morality, conflict of, with taboo, 632\n\n Mother, the, magical perils of, 589\n\n Mother, the Great, 1066\n\n Mother-in-law, the, taboos on, 593\n\n Motifs, mythical, tabulation of, 879\n\n Mountains as abodes of souls, 65\n\n Mourning-usages, savage, 363\n\n Mozoomdar, theistic reformation of, 1119\n\n M\u00fcller, F. Max, solar theory of, 865, 876\n\n M\u00fcller, K. O., treatment of myths by, 875\n\n Murder, purification after, 195\n\n Music, temple-, 1088\n\n Mylitta, temple of, prostitution at, 1066\n\n Mysteries, Eleusinian, 845;\n   failure of, 1097 f.;\n   Greek, ceremonies of, 1059;\n   survival of effects of, 1101\n\n Mystery, New Testament use of the term, 1101\n\n Mythology, relation of, to culture, 951 ff.\n\n Myths, borrowing of, 823 ff.;\n   educational value of, 862;\n   Indo-European, character of, 960 ff.;\n   persistence of, 881;\n   purification of, 1157;\n   savage origin of, 822\n\n\n Nabonidus, centralizing effort of, 751\n\n Nagual, meaning of, 672\n\n Names, demonic, 691;\n   divine, magical power of, 899;\n   divine, Persian, 743;\n   proper, of gods, 646\n\n Nana, goddess, nature of, 761;\n   carried off, 888\n\n Nandi, the, grain of, blessed by the god, 220;\n   months how named by, 213\n\n Natchez, the, sun-cult of, 710\n\n Naturalism, 1158\n\n Navahos, the, creative beings of, 639, 645\n\n Nazirite, the, restrictions on, 597\n\n Ndengei, other-world god, 680\n\n Necessity, Plato's conception of, 1001\n\n Necromancy, Hebrew, 377\n\n Neith, inscription in temple of, 729\n\n Nemi, priest of, 274\n\n Neptunus, 802\n\n New Testament, Satan in, 689\n\n Nicknames, supposed origin of totemism, 557\n\n Nightmare, as ghost, 61 n. 4\n\n Nikkal, Panjab god, 337\n\n Niobe, relation of, to stone-cult, 288\n\n Nose, the, boring through septum of, 151\n\n\n Obelisks, Egyptian, function of, 299\n\n Odin, humanization of, 358;\n   self-immolation of, 1048\n\n Offerings, cannibal, 1027;\n   unbloody, placatory virtue of, 1038\n\n Officer, French, worshiped after death, 351\n\n Ogboni, the, police r\u00f4le of, 531\n\n Old Testament, the, conception of sacrifice in, 1037;\n   kings in, not deified, 343;\n   stars and planets in, 716\n\n Olympus, as council-house, 305\n\n On, seat of worship of Ra, 727\n\n Ophites, the, 693\n\n Optimism, religious, ethical value of, 1173\n\n Oracles, 927 ff.; Sibylline, Jewish, 939 f.\n\n Ordeals, 308, 924 f.\n\n Order, Chinese stress on, 747\n\n Organization, churchly, Hindu approach to, 1118;\n   nontotemic, 526;\n   religious, Jewish capacity for, 995;\n   social, of animals, 242;\n   theistic, Greek, 997\n\n Osiris, death of, 283;\n   myth of, 958;\n   mythical biography of, 728\n\n\n Paintings, totemic, 117\n\n Palmistry, 917\n\n Pan, development of, 773 f.\n\n Panbabylonianism, 866 f.\n\n Pantheism, ethical, difficulties of, 1005;\n   Hindu, 705\n\n Pantheon, Greek, 767;\n   Roman, 796;\n   Yoruban, 678\n\n Paradise, earthly, 835\n\n Parentalia, the, 374\n\n Patriarch, the, jealousy of, 432\n\n Patron, divine, of individual, 550\n\n Pausanias, local cults described by, 651\n\n Pele, nature of, 890\n\n Pelews, the, theistic material of, 484\n\n Persecution, religious, 1163\n\n Persia, abstract gods of, 763;\n   Babism in, at the present day, 1120\n\n Peru, cult of, compared with Chinese, 993;\n   functions of priests in, 1075;\n   gods of, 665;\n   negation of religious freedom in, 1117;\n   sun-cult of, 711\n\n Pesah, Hebrew ceremony of, 144\n\n Peter, Apocalypse of, future punishment in, 86\n\n Phallicism, 388 ff.\n\n Pharmakos, the, expulsion of, 143\n\n Philo, allegorical interpretation of, 863;\n   combination of Platonism and Judaism by, 1104;\n   description of the Therapeutae by, 1124\n\n Philosophers, Greek, attitude of, toward divination, 941 n. 1;\n   theistic views of, 1000 f.\n\n Philosophy, Greek, not ecclesiastical, 1104\n\n Phimosis, supposed prevention of, 157\n\n Phoenicia, deities of, 764\n\n Photographs, suspicion of, 22 n. 2\n\n Phratry, the, origin of, 423 f.\n\n Phrygia, cults of, 414\n\n Piaculum, the, origin and nature of, 1045 f.\n\n Pig as divine messenger, 1024\n\n Pillar, Hermes-, as waymark, 296\n\n Planets, connection of, with gods, 715\n\n Plants, history of domestication of, 564 ff.\n\n Plato, description of Tartarus by, 84, 87;\n   divination highly esteemed\n by, 931;\n   function of brain, how regarded by, 28\n\n Platonopolis, a, proposed, 1104\n\n Pleiades, the, Arab cult of, 717;\n   savage observation of, 216\n\n Plouton, function of, 780\n\n Poets, Greek, theistic views of, 999\n\n Poles, house-, crests carved on, 445\n\n Polygamy, recognition of, by religion, 1163\n\n Polynesia, antitotemic governments of, 538;\n   family the social unit in, 485;\n   sacredness of chiefs in, 336;\n   specialization of divine functions in, 658\n\n Porphyry, his conception of sacrifice, 1037\n\n Poseidon, power of, 771\n\n Powers, divine, coercion of, 3\n\n Prajapati, primacy of, 730\n\n Prayer, animals approached by, 125;\n   unifying influence of, 880\n\n Prayers, difference of, from charms, 1020\n\n Pregnancy, mysterious nature of, 588\n\n Prepuce, magical power of, 166\n\n Priest, relation of, to magician, 893\n\n Priest, term, use of in Christian churches, 1080\n\n Priestesses, functions of, 1064\n\n Priests, as diviners, 929 f.;\n   as interpreters of dreams, 923;\n   moral influence of, 1077 f.;\n   quasi-divine authority of, 203\n\n Prithivi, 734\n\n Prohibitions, civil, difference of, from magical, 584\n\n Prometheus, victory of, over a god, 888\n\n Promiscuity, early, 430;\n   whether primitive, 180\n\n Prophet, the, excited by dance, 110;\n   relation of, to magician, 893\n\n Proselytes, Jewish, influence of, 1108\n\n Prostitution, sacred, 1065 ff.\n\n Psalter, the Old Testament, moral and religious tone of, 1087\n\n Puberty, mysteriousness of, 146\n\n Purge, purificatory power of, 205\n\n Purim, feast of, 1089\n\n Puskita (busk), the Creek, religious significance of, 201\n\n Pythagoreanism, traces of, in Essenism, 1125;\n   South Italian, 1098\n\n Pythia, the, moral influence of, 927\n\n\n Qat, r\u00f4le of, 640, 677\n\n Quetzalcoatl, myths of, 847 n. 1\n\n\n Rainbow, the, no cult of, 718\n\n Ramadan, fast of, moral effects of, 208\n\n Rammohun Roy, 1119\n\n Raven, the, myths of, 640 n. 2\n\n Raymi, feast of, 321\n\n Reason, basis of religious belief, 1155\n\n Redemption, element of, in sacrifice, 1048;\n   senses of, 1151\n\n Reform Judaism, racial character of, 1143\n\n Reincarnation, 55 ff.;\n   moral value of, 89;\n   of ancestor in child, 186;\n   supposed relation of, to immortality, 59\n\n Relationship, in blood, 426;\n   basis of classification, 425\n\n Religion, definition of, 1;\n   adoption of taboo by, 633;\n   codes adopted by, 1162 f.;\n   coeval with science, 1;\n   communal character of, 103;\n   decoration used in, 120 f.;\n   impersonal cult in, 2;\n   influence of, on ethics, 1165;\n   influence of priesthood in, 1076;\n   alliance of, with the state, 1117, 1140;\n   isolation of, 1137;\n   pre-animistic, 2 n. 2;\n   primitive form of, whether monotheistic, 982;\n   relation of, to magic;\n   relation of, to totemism, 570 ff.;\n   utilitarian point of view in, 5\n\n Religions, classifications of, 1148;\n   higher, culture-myths in, 641;\n   national, differences among, 810;\n   never nonethical, 1013;\n   of single founders, 1151;\n   redemptive, organization in, 1059\n\n \"Republic,\" the, mendicant prophets mentioned in, 1099 n. 1\n\n Revelation, supposed primitive, 982\n\n Rewards and punishments, as motives, 1165\n\n Rhapsodists, Greek, 862 n. 1\n\n Rice, soul of, 265 n. 1\n\n Right-doing, egoistic element in, 1170\n\n Ritual, development of, 1055;\n   magical, 1057;\n   origin of, 15;\n   relation of, to myth, 846\n\n Roman Church, canon of, 1131\n\n Rome, abstract gods of, 702;\n   influence of priests in, 1073;\n   omens in, 912;\n   specialized gods in, 668 ff.;\n   taboo days in, 603;\n   unlucky days in, 611\n\n Romulus, divinized founder, 357\n\n Rules, ethical, origin of, 582\n\n\n Sabbath, Hebrew, relation of, to full moon, 608\n\n _Sacer_, sense of, 626 n. 9\n\n _Sacra gentilicia_, 1043\n\n Sacred books, study induced by, 1135\n\n Sacred flesh, reconciliation by sharing, 1042\n\n Sacred places, connection of, with myths, 848\n\n Sacrifice, animal, movement against, 1053;\n   as gift to a deity, 1040;\n   human, 1029 ff.;\n   individual, 1034;\n   in marriage ceremonies, 181 n. 2;\n   occasions of, 1033 ff.;\n   purificatory power of, 200;\n   removal of taboo by, 616;\n   Vedic, as embassy, 1024\n\n Saint, the, function of, 1168\n\n Saints, as patrons of fertility, 420;\n   as rechristened old gods, 301\n\n Sallustius, philosopher, faith of, 1152 n. 2\n\n Salvation, physical and moral, 1149\n\n Sama, Fijian god, 48\n\n Samoa, divination in, 911;\n   taboo on potato fields in, 599\n\n Samson, solar interpretation of, 853\n\n Sanctions, supernatural, how far effective, 1165\n\n Sanctity, Brahmanic, 1122\n\n Sancus, Roman development of, obscure, 802\n\n Sankhya philosophy, 1007\n\n Satan, development of, 689\n\n Saturn, history of, 801\n\n Saturnalia, the, 801\n\n _Saturnia regna_, 801\n\n Saul, consultation of Samuel by, 927\n\n Savages, beliefs not formulated by, 20;\n   cultic discrimination of, 227;\n   ethical codes of, 76;\n   isolated groups of, 103\n\n Scandinavia, storm-myths of, 851\n\n Science, primitive, 1, 1156;\n   relation of, to religion, 1154 ff.\n\n Scriptures, sacred, influence of, 1134 ff.\n\n Seasons, agricultural, solemn, 135\n\n Secretions, human, potency of, 156\n\n Self, the, doubles of, 22, 24\n\n Sen, reformer, worshiped as god, 348\n\n Sentiment, religious, alliances of, 15\n\n Senussi, the, organization of, 1116 n. 2\n\n Sequence, savage theory of, 883 ff.\n\n Serpent, cult of, 250, 257;\n   divine, in Genesis, 275\n\n Servius, on bisexual cult, 411\n\n Set, conflict of, with Horus, 726\n\n Sexes, the, animal patrons of, 472;\n   early separation of, 182\n\n Shades, powers of, 91\n\n Shaman, the, wherein different from the priest, 1062\n\n Shamanism, 661\n\n _Shedu_, the, character of, 890\n\n Shinto, term, meaning of, 750\n\n Shrines, oracular, 927\n\n Siam, Buddhism in, 1142\n\n Siberia, Big Grandfather of, 640\n\n Sibyls, 933 ff.;\n   the Cum\u00e6an, 277\n\n Signs manual, crests as, 445\n\n Sikhs, the, churchly form of, 1118\n\n Simplification, religious, process of, 944\n\n Siren, form of soul, 25 n. 3\n\n Skulls, oracular responses by, 192, 369\n\n Sky, the, abode of departed souls, 64\n\n Slavery, recognized by religion, 1163\n\n Slaves, slaughter of, as offering, 1028\n\n Smith, W. R., his theory of sacrifice, 1045 f.\n\n Sneezing, ominous significance of, 916\n\n Societies, secret, savage, 174, 1096;\n   voluntary, antitotemic, 529\n\n Society, magical, supposed origin of totemism, 546\n\n Socrates, his belief in divination, 931\n\n Soil, fertilization of, by blood, 133\n\n Solidarity, tribal, religious significance of, 1041\n\n Solomon, as magician, 902 n. 4\n\n Solstices, fixing of calendars by, 211, 215 f.\n\n Soma, deification of, 270\n\n Songs, savage, 106\n\n Sortes vergilianae, 918\n\n Soul, the, function of, in dreams, 921;\n   as god, 62;\n   hidden, 31;\n   terms for, 21 n. 1\n\n Souls, number of, how determined, 42;\n   transmigration of, 243\n\n Space, Endless, personalized, 703\n\n Spirit, definition of, 100;\n   guardian, adoption of, by individual, 533;\n   lying, sent by Yahweh, 922 second n. 1;\n   relation of, to soul, 43\n\n Spirits, corporeal nature of, 140;\n   how different from gods, 635;\n   guardian, function of, 504\n\n Sponsors, savage, 174 n. 2\n\n Stability, offerings for, 1028\n\n Statius, gods produced by fear, 6 n. 3\n\n Stigmata, 118 n. 6\n\n Stonehenge, 296\n\n Stones, supposed to be phalli, 400\n\n Stucken, astral theory of, 866\n\n Styx, the, oath by, 308\n\n Substitution, sacrificial, 1054\n\n Suffering, as expiatory, 1041\n\n Suicide, a, body of, why feared, 590\n\n Suicide, effect of, on future state, 75\n\n Sun, the, as old man, 849;\n   deification of, 709 ff.\n\n Sun-gods, 726 f., 730, 753, 797, 972\n\n Swan-maiden, the, 243\n\n Swoon, produced by withdrawal of soul, 29\n\n Systems, philosophical, not churches, 1102;\n   religious, groups of, 944\n\n\n Taboo, conflict of, with morality, 632;\n   infection of, 586\n\n Taboos, priestly, 1063;\n   rearrangement of, 149\n\n Tales, fairy, 881\n\n _Tam[=e]_, Hebrew, significance of, 626\n\n Tammuz, cult of, not a mystery, 1100;\n   mourning for, 959 n. 5;\n   relation of, to Adonis, 271;\n   to Ishtar, 1066\n\n Tanit, 410, 764\n\n _Tao_, meaning of, 749\n\n Taoism, how made a religion, 1103\n\n Tari, Khond, as opponent of sun-god, 972\n\n Tarsus, seat of Mithraic worship, 1101\n\n Tartarus, punishments in, 84\n\n Tattoo, religious significance of, 116, 72\n\n Taylor, Jeremy, his view of prayer, 120 n. 3\n\n Teknonymy, origin of, 187\n\n Telugus, the, Christianization of, 1144\n\n _Temenos_, sanctity of, 1082\n\n Temple, the, development of, 1083 ff.\n\n Temples, called mountains, 305 n. 1;\n   fire-, Persian, 320\n\n Teraphim, nature of, 1092\n\n Terrors, supernatural, devised by clan-leaders, 150\n\n Testament, New, resurrection in, 90\n\n Thanksgiving, by sacrifice, 1033\n\n Theism, Semitic and Indo-European, 810 ff.\n\n Thesmophoria, the, sadness in, 221\n\n Things, nonhuman, future existence of, 97\n\n Thousand and One Nights, magicians in, 902\n\n Thrace, orgiastic cults derived from, 1101\n\n Threshold, sacredness of, 236\n\n Thugs, the, piety of, 693\n\n _Thumos_, the, character of, in Homer, 43\n\n Thunder-bird, the, 334\n\n Tiamat, conquest of, 686;\n   cosmogonic function of, 316\n\n Tibet, Buddhism in, 1142\n\n Tiele, C. P., his theory of sacrifice, 1051 f.\n\n Tierra del Fuego, social and religious organization in, 13\n\n Time, divinization of, 698, 703 n. 6;\n   Endless, 703\n\n Tistrya, divine character of, 718\n\n Titans, the, war of, against Zeus, 974\n\n Tobacco, food offered to gods, 1025\n\n Todas, the, buffalo-ritual of, 1056;\n   dairy fire of, 321;\n   dairymen of, 337;\n   diviners of, 929;\n   taboo days of, 604\n\n Tooth, knocking out of, 151\n\n Totem, the, not a god, 559;\n   sacramental eating of, 579\n\n Totemism, beginnings of, 561 f.;\n   coalescence of, with tree-worship, 273;\n   definition of, 463, 520 f.\n\n Totems, artificial, origin of, 463 n. 2\n\n Traducianism, 37\n\n Triad, Babylonian, 757\n\n Trinity, the, doctrine of, 1002\n\n Turtle, the, cult of, 257;\n   use of, as messenger, 1024\n\n Twins, presage of misfortune, 913\n\n Tylor, E. B., mythical theory of, 877\n\n\n Unclean, meaning of, in Old Testament, 38\n\n Underworld, the, ethical conceptions of, 80;\n   gods of, 680 ff.;\n   Plato's construction of, 87;\n   separation in, between good and bad, 81 f.\n\n Union with God, idea of, moral influence of, 1054\n\n Unitary view of divine control, 1149\n\n Unity, religious, basis of, 1147;\n   savage and civilized, 1152\n\n Universality, religious, test of, 1141\n\n Universe, perfectness of, how held to be implied, 1173\n\n Upanishads, the, produced no devotional organization, 1103\n\n Urim and thummim, nature of, 918\n\n Uzza, Al-, not star-god, 717\n\n\n Vampire, the, 88\n\n Varro, abode assigned the dead by, 85 n. 6\n\n Varuna, comparison of, with Iranian Ahura, 991;\n   nature of, 730\n\n Vastoshpati, 672\n\n Veda, the, local deities in, 651;\n   tree-spirits in, 278\n\n Veddas, the, social and religious organization of, 13\n\n Vegetation, as source of myths, 55;\n   Osiris as deity of, 728\n\n Venus, development of, 808 f.;\n   the bearded, 408\n\n Vesta, origin of, 805\n\n Vestalia, the, sadness in, 221\n\n Vetala, original character of, 645\n\n Victory as god, origin of, 696\n\n Vishnu, history of, 733\n\n Volcanus, origin of, obscure, 802\n\n Voltaire, the \"Candide\" of, 1173 n.\n\n\n Wakes, Irish, origin of, 364\n\n War, future of those killed in, 75;\n   sacrifices in, 1035\n\n Water, substitutes for, in purificatory ceremonies, 199\n\n Waters, sacred, 306 ff.\n\n Week, the seven-day, 607, 610\n\n Werwolf, the, 243\n\n Wicked, the, annihilation of, 52\n\n Winds, whether divinized, 326 f.\n\n Wisdom of Solomon, the Devil in, 689\n\n Witches, Thessalian, 895\n\n Wives, slaughter of, as offering, 1028\n\n Wollunqua, the, unique kind of totem, 576\n\n Woman, magical dread of, 592\n\n Women, alleged early scarcity of, 430;\n   devotion of, to cult of linga, 394;\n   exclusion of, from ceremonies, 592;\n   favored by Therapeutae, 1124;\n   honor shown to, after death, 370;\n   magical power of, 895 f.;\n   of Baganda, economic function of, 461\n\n Word \"church,\" larger sense of, 1112\n\n World, the, future destruction of, 836;\n   relation of, to God, 1159;\n   savage conception of unity of, 885 f.\n\n Worship, forms of, 1081 ff.;\n   phallic, whether connected with circumcision, 158;\n   practically universal, 1017\n\n\n Xanthus, the, river or god in the Iliad, 312\n\n\n Ya\u00e7na xvii, conception of worship in, 320\n\n Yahweh, development of, 765;\n   dreams sent by, 922;\n   early cult of, 649;\n   pillars of temple of, 299\n\n Yama, history of, 735 ff.\n\n Year, sabbatic, Hebrew, 622\n\n Yeast, prohibition of, 265 n. 1\n\n Yezidis, the, attitude of, toward Satan, 693\n\n Yggdrasil, nature of, 276\n\n Yima, 735\n\n Yoni, the, veneration of, 406\n\n Yoruba, gods of, 660;\n   rebellion in, against old custom, 628\n\n\n Zealand, New, cosmology of, 670 n. 4;\n   despotism of taboo in, 621;\n   planting-taboos in, 599\n\n Zeus, 768 f.;\n   dream sent by, 922\n\n Zikkurat (Ziggurat), the, Babylonian and Assyrian, 1086\n\n Zodiac, signs of, cult of, 716\n\n Zoroaster, 745;\n   verses ascribed to, 1132\n\n Zoroastrianism, pre-Sassanian, 1109\n\n Zu\u00f1i, the, economic ceremonies of, 497","title":"Introduction to the History of Religions: Handbooks on the History of Religions, Volume IV","tradition":"myth-cosmogony","translated_text":null,"word_count":251315}