{"collection":"myth-cosmogony","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_2832/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_2832","id":"gutenberg_2832","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2832","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Archaeology & Anthropology","Category: Mythology, Legends & Folklore","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Myth","Mythology","Paganism","Religion","Rites and ceremonies"],"text":"Produced by Donald Lainson\n\n\n\n\n\nMYTH, RITUAL, AND RELIGION\n\nVolume One\n\n\nBy Andrew Lang\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\n  PREFACE TO NEW IMPRESSION.\n\n  PREFACE TO NEW EDITION.\n\n  CHAPTER I.--SYSTEMS OF MYTHOLOGY.\n\n  Definitions of religion--Contradictory evidence--\"Belief in\n  spiritual beings\"--Objection to Mr. Tylor's definition--Definition\n  as regards this argument--Problem: the contradiction between\n  religion and myth--Two human moods--Examples--Case of Greece--\n  Ancient mythologists--Criticism by Eusebius--Modern mythological\n  systems--Mr. Max Muller--Mannhardt.\n\n\n  CHAPTER II.--NEW SYSTEM PROPOSED.\n\n  Chapter I. recapitulated--Proposal of a new method: Science of\n  comparative or historical study of man--Anticipated in part by\n  Eusebius, Fontenelle, De Brosses, Spencer (of C. C. C., Cambridge),\n  and Mannhardt--Science of Tylor--Object of inquiry: to find\n  condition of human intellect in which marvels of myth are parts of\n  practical everyday belief--This is the savage state--Savages\n  described--The wild element of myth a survival from the savage\n  state--Advantages of this method--Partly accounts for wide\n  DIFFUSION as well as ORIGIN of myths--Connected with general\n  theory of evolution--Puzzling example of myth of the water-\n  swallower--Professor Tiele's criticism of the method--\n  Objections to method, and answer to these--See Appendix B.\n\n\n  CHAPTER III.--THE MENTAL CONDITION OF SAVAGES--CONFUSION WITH\n                  NATURE--TOTEMISM.\n\n  The mental condition of savages the basis of the irrational element\n  in myth--Characteristics of that condition: (1) Confusion of all\n  things in an equality of presumed animation and intelligence;\n  (2) Belief in sorcery; (3) Spiritualism; (4) Curiosity; (5) Easy\n  credulity and mental indolence--The curiosity is satisfied, thanks\n  to the credulity, by myths in answer to all inquiries--Evidence for\n  this--Mr. Tylor's opinion--Mr. Im Thurn--Jesuit missionaries'\n  Relations--Examples of confusion between men, plants, beasts and\n  other natural objects--Reports of travellers--Evidence from\n  institution of totemism--Definition of totemism--Totemism in\n  Australia, Africa, America, the Oceanic Islands, India, North Asia--\n  Conclusions: Totemism being found so widely distributed, is a proof\n  of the existence of that savage mental condition in which no line\n  is drawn between men and the other things in the world.  This\n  confusion is one of the characteristics of myth in all races.\n\n\n  CHAPTER IV.--THE MENTAL CONDITION OF SAVAGES--MAGIC--\n                 METAMORPHOSIS--METAPHYSIC--PSYCHOLOGY.\n\n  Claims of sorcerers--Savage scientific speculation--Theory of\n  causation--Credulity, except as to new religious ideas--\"Post hoc,\n  ergo propter hoc\"--Fundamental ideas of magic--Examples:\n  incantations, ghosts, spirits--Evidence of rank and other\n  institutions in proof of confusions of mind exhibited in magical\n  beliefs.\n\n\n  CHAPTER V.--NATURE MYTHS.\n\n  Savage fancy, curiosity and credulity illustrated in nature myths--\n  In these all phenomena are explained by belief in the general\n  animation of everything, combined with belief in metamorphosis--Sun\n  myths, Asian, Australian, African, Melanesian, Indian, Californian,\n  Brazilian, Maori, Samoan--Moon myths, Australian, Muysca, Mexican,\n  Zulu, Macassar, Greenland, Piute, Malay--Thunder myths--Greek and\n  Aryan sun and moon myths--Star myths--Myths, savage and civilised,\n  of animals, accounting for their marks and habits--Examples of\n  custom of claiming blood kinship with lower animals--Myths of\n  various plants and trees--Myths of stones, and of metamorphosis\n  into stones, Greek, Australian and American--The whole natural\n  philosophy of savages expressed in myths, and survives in folk-lore\n  and classical poetry; and legends of metamorphosis.\n\n\n  CHAPTER VI.--NON-ARYAN MYTHS OF THE ORIGIN OF THE WORLD AND OF MAN.\n\n  Confusions of myth--Various origins of man and of things--Myths of\n  Australia, Andaman Islands, Bushmen, Ovaherero, Namaquas, Zulus,\n  Hurons, Iroquois, Diggers, Navajoes, Winnebagoes, Chaldaeans,\n  Thlinkeets, Pacific Islanders, Maoris, Aztecs, Peruvians--\n  Similarity of ideas pervading all those peoples in various\n  conditions of society and culture.\n\n\n  CHAPTER VII.--INDO-ARYAN MYTHS--SOURCES OF EVIDENCE.\n\n  Authorities--Vedas--Brahmanas--Social condition of Vedic India--\n  Arts--Ranks--War--Vedic fetishism--Ancestor worship--Date of Rig-\n  Veda Hymns doubtful--Obscurity of the Hymns--Difficulty of\n  interpreting the real character of Veda--Not primitive but\n  sacerdotal--The moral purity not innocence but refinement.\n\n\n  CHAPTER VIII.--INDIAN MYTHS OF THE ORIGIN OF THE WORLD AND OF MAN.\n\n  Comparison of Vedic and savage myths--The metaphysical Vedic\n  account of the beginning of things--Opposite and savage fable of\n  world made out of fragments of a man--Discussion of this hymn--\n  Absurdities of Brahmanas--Prajapati, a Vedic Unkulunkulu or Qat--\n  Evolutionary myths--Marriage of heaven and earth--Myths of Puranas,\n  their savage parallels--Most savage myths are repeated in Brahmanas.\n\n\n  CHAPTER IX.--GREEK MYTHS OF THE ORIGIN OF THE WORLD AND MAN.\n\n  The Greeks practically civilised when we first meet them in Homer--\n  Their mythology, however, is full of repulsive features--The\n  hypothesis that many of these are savage survivals--Are there other\n  examples of such survival in Greek life and institutions?--Greek\n  opinion was constant that the race had been savage--Illustrations\n  of savage survival from Greek law of homicide, from magic,\n  religion, human sacrifice, religious art, traces of totemism, and\n  from the mysteries--Conclusion: that savage survival may also be\n  expected in Greek myths.\n\n\n  CHAPTER X.--GREEK COSMOGONIC MYTHS.\n\n  Nature of the evidence--Traditions of origin of the world and man--\n  Homeric, Hesiodic and Orphic myths--Later evidence of historians,\n  dramatists, commentators--The Homeric story comparatively pure--The\n  story in Hesiod, and its savage analogues--The explanations of the\n  myth of Cronus, modern and ancient--The Orphic cosmogony--Phanes\n  and Prajapati--Greek myths of the origin of man--Their savage\n  analogues.\n\n\n  CHAPTER XI.--SAVAGE DIVINE MYTHS.\n\n  The origin of a belief in GOD beyond the ken of history and of\n  speculation--Sketch of conjectural theories--Two elements in all\n  beliefs, whether of backward or civilised races--The Mythical and\n  the Religious--These may be coeval, or either may be older than the\n  other--Difficulty of study--The current anthropological theory--\n  Stated objections to the theory--Gods and spirits--Suggestion that\n  savage religion is borrowed from Europeans--Reply to Mr. Tylor's\n  arguments on this head--The morality of savages.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE TO NEW IMPRESSION.\n\n\nWhen this book first appeared (1886), the philological school of\ninterpretation of religion and myth, being then still powerful in\nEngland, was criticised and opposed by the author. In Science, as on the\nTurkish throne of old, \"Amurath to Amurath succeeds\"; the philological\ntheories of religion and myth have now yielded to anthropological\nmethods. The centre of the anthropological position was the \"ghost\ntheory\" of Mr. Herbert Spencer, the \"Animistic\" theory of Mr. E. R.\nTylor, according to whom the propitiation of ancestral and other spirits\nleads to polytheism, and thence to monotheism. In the second edition\n(1901) of this work the author argued that the belief in a \"relatively\nsupreme being,\" anthropomorphic was as old as, and might be even older,\nthan animistic religion. This theory he exhibited at greater length, and\nwith a larger collection of evidence, in his Making of Religion.\n\nSince 1901, a great deal of fresh testimony as to what Mr. Howitt\nstyles the \"All Father\" in savage and barbaric religions has accrued. As\nregards this being in Africa, the reader may consult the volumes of the\nNew Series of the Journal of the Anthropological Institute, which are\nfull of African evidence, not, as yet, discussed, to my knowledge, by\nany writer on the History of Religion. As late as Man, for July, 1906,\nNo. 66, Mr. Parkinson published interesting Yoruba legends about Oleron,\nthe maker and father of men, and Oro, the Master of the Bull Roarer.\n\nFrom Australia, we have Mr. Howitt's account of the All Father in his\nNative Tribes of South-East Australia, with the account of the All\nFather of the Central Australian tribe, the Kaitish, in North Central\nTribes of Australia, by Messrs. Spencer and Gillen (1904), also The\nEuahlayi Tribe, by Mrs. Langley Parker (1906). These masterly books are\nindispensable to all students of the subject, while, in Messrs. Spencer\nand Gillen's work cited, and in their earlier Native Tribes of Central\nAustralia, we are introduced to savages who offer an elaborate animistic\ntheory, and are said to show no traces of the All Father belief.\n\nThe books of Messrs. Spencer and Gillen also present much evidence as\nto a previously unknown form of totemism, in which the totem is not\nhereditary, and does not regulate marriage. This prevails among the\nArunta \"nation,\" and the Kaitish tribe. In the opinion of Mr. Spencer\n(Report Australian Association for Advancement of Science, 1904) and\nof Mr. J. G. Frazer (Fortnightly Review, September, 1905), this is\nthe earliest surviving form of totemism, and Mr. Frazer suggests an\nanimistic origin for the institution. I have criticised these views in\nThe Secret of the Totem (1905), and proposed a different solution of the\nproblem. (See also \"Primitive and Advanced Totemism\" in Journal of the\nAnthropological Institute, July, 1906.) In the works mentioned will be\nfound references to other sources of information as to these questions,\nwhich are still sub judice. Mrs. Bates, who has been studying the\nhitherto almost unknown tribes of Western Australia, promises a book\non their beliefs and institutions, and Mr. N. W. Thomas is engaged on\na volume on Australian institutions. In this place the author can only\ndirect attention to these novel sources, and to the promised third\nedition of Mr. Frazer's The Golden Bough.\n\nA. L.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE TO NEW EDITION.\n\n\nThe original edition of Myth, Ritual and Religion, published in 1887,\nhas long been out of print. In revising the book I have brought it\ninto line with the ideas expressed in the second part of my Making of\nReligion (1898) and have excised certain passages which, as the book\nfirst appeared, were inconsistent with its main thesis. In some cases\nthe original passages are retained in notes, to show the nature of the\ndevelopment of the author's opinions. A fragment or two of controversy\nhas been deleted, and chapters xi. and xii., on the religion of the\nlowest races, have been entirely rewritten, on the strength of more\nrecent or earlier information lately acquired. The gist of the book as\nit stands now and as it originally stood is contained in the following\nlines from the preface of 1887: \"While the attempt is made to show that\nthe wilder features of myth survive from, or were borrowed from, or were\nimitated from the ideas of people in the savage condition of\nthought, the existence--even among savages--of comparatively pure, if\ninarticulate, religious beliefs is insisted on throughout\". To that\nopinion I adhere, and I trust that it is now expressed with more\nconsistency than in the first edition. I have seen reason, more\nand more, to doubt the validity of the \"ghost theory,\" or animistic\nhypothesis, as explanatory of the whole fabric of religion; and I\npresent arguments against Mr. Tylor's contention that the higher\nconceptions of savage faith are borrowed from missionaries.(1) It is\nvery possible, however, that Mr. Tylor has arguments more powerful than\nthose contained in his paper of 1892. For our information is not yet\nadequate to a scientific theory of the Origin of Religion, and probably\nnever will be. Behind the races whom we must regard as \"nearest the\nbeginning\" are their unknown ancestors from a dateless past, men as\nhuman as ourselves, but men concerning whose psychical, mental and moral\ncondition we can only form conjectures. Among them religion arose, in\ncircumstances of which we are necessarily ignorant. Thus I only venture\non a surmise as to the germ of a faith in a Maker (if I am not to say\n\"Creator\") and Judge of men. But, as to whether the higher religious\nbelief, or the lower mythical stories came first, we are at least\ncertain that the Christian conception of God, given pure, was presently\nentangled, by the popular fancy of Europe, in new Marchen about the\nDeity, the Madonna, her Son, and the Apostles. Here, beyond possibility\nof denial, pure belief came first, fanciful legend was attached after.\nI am inclined to surmise that this has always been the case, and, in the\npages on the legend of Zeus, I show the processes of degeneration, of\nmythical accretions on a faith in a Heaven-God, in action. That \"the\nfeeling of religious devotion\" attests \"high faculties\" in early man\n(such as are often denied to men who \"cannot count up to seven\"), and\nthat \"the same high mental faculties... would infallibly lead him,\nas long as his reasoning powers remained poorly developed, to various\nstrange superstitions and customs,\" was the belief of Mr. Darwin.(2)\nThat is also my view, and I note that the lowest savages are not yet\nguilty of the very worst practices, \"sacrifice of human beings to a\nblood-loving God,\" and ordeals by poison and fire, to which Mr. Darwin\nalludes. \"The improvement of our science\" has freed us from misdeeds\nwhich are unknown to the Andamanese or the Australians. Thus there was,\nas regards these points in morals, degeneracy from savagery as society\nadvanced, and I believe that there was also degeneration in religion.\nTo say this is not to hint at a theory of supernatural revelation to the\nearliest men, a theory which I must, in limine disclaim.\n\n\n(1) Tylor, \"Limits of Savage Religion.\" Journal of the Anthropological\nInstitute, vol. xxi.\n\n(2) Descent of Man, p. 68, 1871.\n\n\nIn vol. ii. p. 19 occurs a reference, in a note, to Mr. Hartland's\ncriticism of my ideas about Australian gods as set forth in the Making\nof Religion. Mr. Hartland, who kindly read the chapters on Australian\nreligion in this book, does not consider that my note on p. 19 meets the\npoint of his argument. As to the Australians, I mean no more than that,\nAMONG endless low myths, some of them possess a belief in a \"maker\nof everything,\" a primal being, still in existence, watching conduct,\npunishing breaches of his laws, and, in some cases, rewarding the\ngood in a future life. Of course these are the germs of a sympathetic\nreligion, even if the being thus regarded is mixed up with immoral or\nhumorous contradictory myths. My position is not harmed by such myths,\nwhich occur in all old religions, and, in the middle ages, new myths\nwere attached to the sacred figures of Christianity in poetry and\npopular tales.\n\nThus, if there is nothing \"sacred\" in a religion because wild or wicked\nfables about the gods also occur, there is nothing \"sacred\" in almost\nany religion on earth.\n\nMr. Hartland's point, however, seems to be that, in the Making of\nReligion, I had selected certain Australian beliefs as especially\n\"sacred\" and to be distinguished from others, because they are\ninculcated at the religious Mysteries of some tribes. His aim, then, is\nto discover low, wild, immoral myths, inculcated at the Mysteries, and\nthus to destroy my line drawn between religion on one hand and myth or\nmere folk-lore on the other. Thus there is a being named Daramulun, of\nwhose rites, among the Coast Murring, I condensed the account of Mr.\nHowitt.(1) From a statement by Mr. Greenway(2) Mr. Hartland learned\nthat Daramulun's name is said to mean \"leg on one side\" or \"lame\". He,\ntherefore, with fine humour, speaks of Daramulun as \"a creator with a\ngame leg,\" though when \"Baiame\" is derived by two excellent linguists,\nMr. Ridley and Mr. Greenway, from Kamilaroi baia, \"to make,\" Mr.\nHartland is by no means so sure of the sense of the name. It happens to\nbe inconvenient to him! Let the names mean what they may, Mr. Hartland\nfinds, in an obiter dictum of Mr. Howitt (before he was initiated), that\nDaramulun is said to have \"died,\" and that his spirit is now aloft.\nWho says so, and where, we are not informed,(3) and the question is\nimportant.\n\n\n(1) J. A. I., xiii. pp. 440-459.\n\n(2) Ibid., xxi. p. 294.\n\n(3) Ibid., xiii. p. 194.\n\n\nFor the Wiraijuri, IN THEIR MYSTERIES, tell a myth of cannibal conduct\nof Daramulun's, and of deceit and failure of knowledge in Baiame.(1)\nOf this I was unaware, or neglected it, for I explicitly said that I\nfollowed Mr. Howitt's account, where no such matter is mentioned. Mr.\nHowitt, in fact, described the Mysteries of the Coast Murring, while\nthe narrator of the low myths, Mr. Matthews, described those of a\nremote tribe, the Wiraijuri, with whom Daramulun is not the chief, but\na subordinate person. How Mr. Matthews' friends can at once hold that\nDaramulun was \"destroyed\" by Baiame (their chief deity), and also that\nDaramulun's voice is heard at their rites, I don't know.(2) Nor do I\nknow why Mr. Hartland takes the myth of a tribe where Daramulun is \"the\nevil spirit who rules the night,\"(3) and introduces it as an argument\nagainst the belief of a distant tribe, where, by Mr. Howitt's account,\nDaramulun is not an evil spirit, but \"the master\" of all, whose abode\nis above the sky, and to whom are attributed powers of omnipotence\nand omnipresence, or, at any rate, the power \"to do anything and to\ngo anywhere.... To his direct ordinances are attributed the social and\nmoral laws of the community.\"(4) This is not \"an evil spirit\"! When Mr.\nHartland goes for scandals to a remote tribe of a different creed\nthat he may discredit the creed of the Coast Murring, he might as well\nattribute to the Free Kirk \"the errors of Rome\". But Mr. Hartland does\nit!(5) Being \"cunning of fence\" he may reply that I also spoke loosely\nof Wiraijuri and Coast Murring as, indifferently, Daramulunites. I did,\nand I was wrong, and my critic ought not to accept but to expose my\nerror. The Wiraijuri Daramulun, who was annihilated, yet who is \"an evil\nspirit that rules the night,\" is not the Murring guardian and founder of\nrecognised ethics.\n\n\n(1) J. A. I., xxv. p. 297.\n\n(2) Ibid., May, 1895, p. 419.\n\n(3) Ibid.\n\n(4) Ibid., xiii. pp. 458, 459.\n\n(5) Folk-Lore, ix., No. iv., p. 299.\n\n\nBut, in the Wiraijuri mysteries, the master, Baiame, deceives the women\nas to the Mysteries! Shocking to US, but to deceive the women as to\nthese arcana, is, to the Australian mind in general, necessary for the\nsafety of the world. Moreover, we have heard of a lying spirit sent\nto deceive prophets in a much higher creed. Finally, in a myth of\nthe Mystery of the Wiraijuri, Baiame is not omniscient. Indeed, even\ncivilised races cannot keep on the level of these religious conceptions,\nand not to keep on that level is--mythology. Apollo, in the hymn to\nHermes, sung on a sacred occasion, needs to ask an old vine-dresser\nfor intelligence. Hyperion \"sees all and hears all,\" but needs to be\ninformed, by his daughters, of the slaughter of his kine. The Lord, in\nthe Book of Job, has to ask Satan, \"Whence comest thou?\" Now for the\nsake of dramatic effect, now from pure inability to live on the level of\nhis highest thought, man mythologises and anthropomorphises, in Greece\nor Israel, as in Australia.\n\nIt does not follow that there is \"nothing sacred\" in his religion. Mr.\nHartland offers me a case in point. In Mrs. Langloh Parker's Australian\nLegendary Tales (pp. 11, 94), are myths of low adventures of Baiame. In\nher More Australian Legendary Tales (pp. 84-99), is a very poetical\nand charming aspect of the Baiame belief. Mr. Hartland says that I will\n\"seek to put\" the first set of stories out of court, as \"a kind of\njoke with no sacredness about it\". Not I, but the Noongahburrah tribe\nthemselves make this essential distinction. Mrs. Langloh Parker says:(1)\n\"The former series\" (with the low Baiame myths) \"were all such legends\nas are told to the black picaninnies; among the present are some they\nwould not be allowed to hear, touching as they do on sacred things,\ntaboo to the young\". The blacks draw the line which I am said to seek to\ndraw.\n\n\n(1) More Legendary Tales, p. xv.\n\n\nIn yet another case(1) grotesque hunting adventures of Baiame are\ntold in the mysteries, and illustrated by the sacred temporary\nrepresentations in raised earth. I did not know it; I merely followed\nMr. Howitt. But I do not doubt it. My reply is, that there was\n\"something sacred\" in Greek mysteries, something purifying, ennobling,\nconsoling. For this Lobeck has collected (and disparaged) the evidence\nof Pindar, Sophocles, Cicero and many others, while even Aristophanes,\nas Prof. Campbell remarks, says: \"We only have bright sun and cheerful\nlife who have been initiated and lived piously in regard to strangers\nand to private citizens\".(2) Security and peace of mind, in this world\nand for the next, were, we know not how, borne into the hearts of Pindar\nand Sophocles in the Mysteries. Yet, if we may at all trust the Fathers,\nthere were scenes of debauchery, as at the Mysteries of the Fijians\n(Nanga) there was buffoonery (\"to amuse the boys,\" Mr. Howitt says of\nsome Australian rites), the story of Baubo is only one example, and, in\nother mysteries than the Eleusinian, we know of mummeries in which an\nabsurd tale of Zeus is related in connection with an oak log. Yet surely\nthere was \"something sacred\" in the faith of Zeus! Let us judge the\nAustralians as we judge Greeks. The precepts as to \"speaking the\nstraightforward truth,\" as to unselfishness, avoidance of quarrels,\nof wrongs to \"unprotected women,\" of unnatural vices, are certainly\ncommunicated in the Mysteries of some tribes, with, in another,\nknowledge of the name and nature of \"Our Father,\" Munganngaur. That a\nTotemistic dance, or medicine-dance of Emu hunting, is also displayed(3)\nat certain Mysteries of a given tribe, and that Baiame is spoken of\nas the hero of this ballet, no more deprives the Australian moral and\nreligious teaching (at the Mysteries) of sacred value, than the stupid\nindecency whereby Baubo made Demeter laugh destroys the sacredness of\nthe Eleusinia, on which Pindar, Sophocles and Cicero eloquently dwell.\nIf the Australian mystae, at the most solemn moment of their lives, are\nshown a dull or dirty divine ballet d'action, what did Sophocles see,\nafter taking a swim with his pig? Many things far from edifying, yet the\nsacred element of religious hope and faith was also represented. So it\nis in Australia.\n\n\n(1) J. A. I., xxiv. p. 416.\n\n(2) Religion in Greek Literature, p. 259. It is to be regretted that the\nlearned professor gives no references. The Greek Mysteries are treated\nlater in this volume.\n\n(3) See A picture of Australia, 1829, p. 264.\n\n\nThese studies ought to be comparative, otherwise they are worthless. As\nMr. Hartland calls Daramulun \"an eternal Creator with a game leg\" who\n\"died,\" he may call Zeus an \"eternal father, who swallowed his wife,\nlay with his mother and sister, made love as a swan, and died, nay, was\nburied, in Crete\". I do not think that Mr. Hartland would call Zeus \"a\nghost-god\" (my own phrase), or think that he was scoring a point against\nme, if I spoke of the sacred and ethical characteristics of the Zeus\nadored by Eumaeus in the Odyssey. He would not be so humorous about\nZeus, nor fall into an ignoratio elenchi. For my point never was\nthat any Australian tribe had a pure theistic conception unsoiled and\nunobliterated by myth and buffoonery. My argument was that AMONG\ntheir ideas is that of a superhuman being, unceasing (if I may not say\neternal), a maker (if I may not say a Creator), a guardian of certain\nby no means despicable ethics, which I never proclaimed as supernormally\ninspired! It is no reply to me to say that, in or out of Mysteries, low\nfables about that being are told, and buffooneries are enacted. For,\nthough I say that certain high ideas are taught in Mysteries, I do not\nthink I say that in Mysteries no low myths are told.\n\nI take this opportunity, as the earliest, to apologise for an error in\nmy Making of Religion concerning a passage in the Primitive Culture of\nmy friend Mr. E. B. Tylor. Mr. Tylor quoted(1) a passage from Captain\nJohn Smith's History of Virginia, as given in Pinkerton, xiii. pp.\n13-39, 1632. In this passage no mention occurs of a Virginian deity\nnamed Ahone but \"Okee,\" another and more truculent god, is named. I\nobserved that, if Mr. Tylor had used Strachey's Historie of Travaile\n(1612), he would have found \"a slightly varying copy\" of Smith's text of\n1632, with Ahone as superior to Okee. I added in a note (p. 253): \"There\nis a description of Virginia, by W. Strachey, including Smith's remarks\npublished in 1612. Strachey interwove some of this work with his own MS.\nin the British Museum.\" Here, as presently will be shown, I erred, in\ncompany with Strachey's editor of 1849, and with the writer on Strachey\nin the Dictionary of National Biography. What Mr. Tylor quoted from an\nedition of Smith in 1632 had already appeared, in 1612, in a book\n(Map of Virginia, with a description of the Countrey) described on the\ntitle-page as \"written by Captain Smith,\" though, in my opinion, Smith\nmay have had a collaborator. There is no evidence whatever that Strachey\nhad anything to do with this book of 1612, in which there is no mention\nof Ahone. Mr. Arber dates Strachey's own MS. (in which Ahone occurs) as\nof 1610-1615.(2) I myself, for reasons presently to be alleged, date\nthe MS. mainly in 1611-1612. If Mr. Arber and I are right, Strachey must\nhave had access to Smith's MS. before it was published in 1612, and we\nshall see how he used it. My point here is that Strachey mentioned Ahone\n(in MS.) before Smith's book of 1612 was published. This could not be\ngathered from the dedication to Bacon prefixed to Strachey's MS., for\nthat dedication cannot be earlier that 1618.(3) I now ask leave to\ndiscuss the evidence for an early pre-Christian belief in a primal\nCreator, held by the Indian tribes from Plymouth, in New England, to\nRoanoke Island, off Southern Virginia.\n\n\n(1) Prim. Cult. ii. p. 342.\n\n(2) Arber's Smith, p. cxxxiii.\n\n(3) Hakluyt Society, Strachey, 1849, pp. xxi., xxii.\n\n\nTHE GOD AHONE.\n\nAn insertion by a manifest plagiary into the work of a detected liar\nis not, usually, good evidence. Yet this is all the evidence, it may be\nurged, which we have for the existence of a belief, in early Virginia,\nas to a good Creator, named Ahone. The matter stands thus: In 1607-1609\nthe famed Captain John Smith endured and achieved in Virginia sufferings\nand adventures. In 1608 he sent to the Council at home a MS. map and\ndescription of the colony. In 1609 he returned to England (October). In\nMay, 1610, William Strachey, gent., arrived in Virginia, where he was\n\"secretary of state\" to Lord De la Warr. In 1612 Strachey and Smith\nwere both in England. In that year Barnes of Oxford published A Map\nof Virginia, with a description, etc., \"written by Captain Smith,\"\naccording to the title-page. There was annexed a compilation from\nvarious sources, edited by \"W. S.,\" that is, NOT William Strachey,\nbut Dr. William Symonds. In the same year, 1612, or in 1611, William\nStrachey wrote his Historie of Travaile into Virginia Britannia, at\nleast as far as page 124 of the Hakluyt edition of 1849.(1)\n\n\n(1) For proof see p. 24. third line from foot of page, where 1612 is\nindicated. Again, see p. 98, line 5, where \"last year\" is dated as\n\"1610, about Christmas,\" which would put Strachey's work at this point\nas actually of 1611; prior, that is, to Smith's publication. Again, p.\n124, \"this last year, myself being at the Falls\" (of the James River),\n\"I found in an Indian house certain clawes... which I brought away and\ninto England\".\n\n\nIf Strachey, who went out with Lord De la Warr as secretary in 1610,\nreturned with him (as is likely), he sailed for England on 28th March,\n1611. In that case, he was in England in 1611, and the passages cited\nleave it dubious whether he wrote his book in 1611, 1612, or in both\nyears.(1)\n\n\n(1) Mr. Arber dates the MS. \"1610-1615,\" and attributes to Strachey Laws\nfor Virginia, 1612.\n\n\nStrachey embodies in his work considerable pieces of Smith's Map of\nVirginia and Description, written in 1608, and published in 1612. He\ncontinually deserts Smith, however, adding more recent information,\nreflections and references to the ancient classics, with allusions to\nhis own travels in the Levant. His glossary is much more extensive than\nSmith's, and he inserts a native song of triumph over the English in the\noriginal.(1) Now, when Strachey comes to the religion of the natives(2)\nhe gives eighteen pages (much of it verbiage) to five of Smith's.(3)\nWhat Smith (1612) says of their chief god I quote, setting Strachey's\nversion (1611-1612) beside it.\n\n\n(1) Strachey, pp. 79-80. He may have got the song from Kemps or\nMachumps, friendly natives.\n\n(2) Pp. 82-100.\n\n(3) Arber, pp. 74-79.\n\n\nSMITH (Published, 1612).\n\nBut their chiefe God they worship is the Diuell. Him they call Oke, and\nserue him more of feare than loue. They say they have conference with\nhim, and fashion themselues as near to his shape as they can imagine.\nIn their Temples, they have his image euile favouredly carved, and then\npainted, and adorned with chaines, copper, and beades; and covered with\na skin, in such manner as the deformity may well suit with such a God.\nBy him is commonly the sepulcher of their Kings.\n\n\nSTRACHEY (Written, 1611-12).\n\nBut their chief god they worship is no other, indeed, then the divell,\nwhome they make presentments of, and shadow under the forme of an idoll,\nwhich they entitle Okeus, and whome they worship as the Romans did their\nhurtful god Vejovis, more for feare of harme then for hope of any good;\nthey saie they have conference with him, and fashion themselves in\ntheir disguisments as neere to his shape as they can imagyn. In every\nterritory of a weroance is a temple and a priest, peradventure two or\nthrie; yet happie doth that weroance accompt himself who can detayne\nwith him a Quiyough-quisock, of the best, grave, lucky, well instructed\nin their misteryes, and beloved of their god; and such a one is noe\nlesse honoured then was Dianae's priest at Ephesus, for whome they\nhave their more private temples, with oratories and chauneells therein,\naccording as is the dignity and reverence of the Quiyough-quisock, which\nthe weroance wilbe at charge to build upon purpose, sometyme twenty\nfoote broad and a hundred in length, fashioned arbour wyse after their\nbuylding, having comonly the dore opening into the east, and at the\nwest end a spence or chauncell from the body of the temple, with hollow\nwyndings and pillers, whereon stand divers black imagies, fashioned\nto the shoulders, with their faces looking down the church, and where\nwithin their weroances, upon a kind of biere of reedes, lye buryed;\nand under them, apart, in a vault low in the ground (as a more secrett\nthing), vailed with a matt, sitts their Okeus, an image ill-favouredly\ncarved, all black dressed, with chaynes of perle, the presentment and\nfigure of that god (say the priests unto the laity, and who religiously\nbelieve what the priests saie) which doth them all the harme they\nsuffer, be yt in their bodies or goods, within doores or abroad; and\ntrue yt is many of them are divers tymes (especyally offendors) shrewdly\nscratched as they walke alone in the woods, yt may well be by the\nsubtyle spirit, the malitious enemy to mankind, whome, therefore, to\npacefie and worke to doe them good (at least no harme) the priests tell\nthem they must do these and these sacrifices unto (them) of these and\nthese things, and thus and thus often, by which meanes not only their\nowne children, but straungers, are sometimes sacrificed unto him: whilst\nthe great god (the priests tell them) who governes all the world, and\nmakes the sun to shine, creating the moone and stars his companyons,\ngreat powers, and which dwell with him, and by whose virtues and\ninfluences the under earth is tempered, and brings forth her fruiets\naccording to her seasons, they calling Ahone; the good and peaceable god\nrequires no such dutyes, nor needes be sacrificed unto, for he intendeth\nall good unto them, and will doe noe harme, only the displeased Okeus,\nlooking into all men's accions, and examining the same according to the\nsevere scale of justice, punisheth them with sicknesse, beats them, and\nstrikes their ripe corn with blastings, stormes, and thunder clapps,\nstirrs up warre, and makes their women falce unto them. Such is the\nmisery and thraldome under which Sathan hath bound these wretched\nmiscreants.\n\n\nI began by calling Strachey a plagiary. The reader will now observe that\nhe gives far more than he takes. For example, his account of the temples\nis much more full than that of Smith, and he adds to Smith's version the\ncharacter and being of Ahone, as what \"the priests tell them\". I submit,\ntherefore, that Strachey's additions, if valid for temples, are not\ndiscredited for Ahone, merely because they are inserted in the framework\nof Smith. As far as I understand the matter, Smith's Map of Virginia\n(1612) is an amended copy, with additions, by Smith or another writer\nof that description, which he sent home to the Council of Virginia,\nin November, 1608.(1) To the book of 1612 was added a portion of\n\"Relations\" by different hands, edited by W. S., namely, Dr. Symonds.\nStrachey's editor, in 1849, regarded W. S. as Strachey, and supposed\nthat Strachey was the real author of Smith's Map of Virginia, so that,\nin his Historie of Travaile, Strachey merely took back his own. He did\nnot take back his own; he made use of Smith's MS., not yet published, if\nMr. Arber and I rightly date Strachey's MS. at 1610-15, or 1611-12.\nWhy Strachey acted thus it is possible to conjecture. As a scholar well\nacquainted with Virginia, and as Secretary for the Colony, he would have\naccess to Smith's MS. of 1608 among the papers of the Council, before\nits publication. Smith professes himself \"no scholer\".(2) On the other\nhand, Strachey likes to show off his Latin and Greek. He has a\ncurious, if inaccurate, knowledge of esoteric Greek and Roman religious\nantiquities, and in writing of religion aims at a comparative method.\nStrachey, however, took the trouble to copy bits of Smith into his own\nlarger work, which he never gave to the printers.\n\n\n(1) Arber, p. 444.\n\n(2) Arber, p. 442.\n\n\nNow as to Ahone. It suits my argument to suppose that Strachey's account\nis no less genuine than his description of the temples (illustrated by\na picture by John White, who had been in Virginia in 1589), and the\naccount of the Great Hare of American mythology.(1) This view of a\nVirginian Creator, \"our chief god\" \"who takes upon him this shape of a\nhare,\" was got, says Strachey, \"last year, 1610,\" from a brother of the\nPotomac King, by a boy named Spilman, who says that Smith \"sold\" him\nto Powhattan.(2) In his own brief narrative Spelman (or Spilman) says\nnothing about the Cosmogonic Legend of the Great Hare. The story came\nup when Captain Argoll was telling Powhattan's brother the account of\ncreation in Genesis (1610).\n\n\n(1) Strachey, p. 98-100.\n\n(2) \"Spilman's Narrative,\" Arber, cx.-cxiv.\n\n\nNow Strachey's Great Hare is accepted by mythologists, while Ahone is\nregarded with suspicion. Ahone does not happen to suit anthropological\nideas, the Hare suits them rather better. Moreover, and more important,\nthere is abundant corroborative evidence for Oke and for the Hare,\nMichabo, who, says Dr. Brinton, \"was originally the highest divinity\nrecognised by them, powerful and beneficent beyond all others, maker of\nthe heavens and the world,\" just like Ahone, in fact. And Dr. Brinton\ninstructs us that Michabo originally meant not Great Hare, but \"the\nspirit of light\".(1) Thus, originally, the Red Men adored \"The Spirit of\nLight, maker of the heavens and the world\". Strachey claims no more than\nthis for Ahone. Now, of course, Dr. Brinton may be right. But I have\nalready expressed my extreme distrust of the philological processes\nby which he extracts \"The Great Light; spirit of light,\" from Michabo,\n\"beyond a doubt!\" In my poor opinion, whatever claims Michabo may have\nas an unique creator of earth and heaven--\"God is Light,\"--he owes his\nmythical aspect as a Hare to something other than an unconscious pun. In\nany case, according to Dr. Brinton, Michabo, regarded as a creator, is\nequivalent to Strachey's Ahone. This amount of corroboration, valeat\nquantum, I may claim, from the Potomac Indians, for the belief in\nAhone on the James River. Dr. Brinton is notoriously not a believer in\nAmerican \"monotheism\".(2)\n\n\n(1) Myths of the New World, p. 178.\n\n(2) Myths of the New World, p. 53.\n\n\nThe opponents of the authenticity of Ahone, however, will certainly\nargue: \"For Oke, or Oki, as a redoubted being or spirit, or general name\nfor such personages, we have plentiful evidence, corroborating that of\nSmith. But what evidence as to Ahone corroborates that of Strachey?\" I\nmust confess that I have no explicit corroborative evidence for Ahone,\nbut then I have no accessible library of early books on Virginia. Now\nit is clear that if I found and produced evidence for Ahone as late\nas 1625, I would be met at once with the retort that, between 1610 and\n1625, Christian ideas had contaminated the native beliefs. Thus if I\nfind Ahone, or a deity of like attributes, after a very early date, he\nis of no use for my purpose. Nor do I much expect to find him. But do we\nfind Winslow's Massachusetts God, Kiehtan, named AFTER 1622 (\"I only\nask for information\"), and if we don't, does that prevent Mr. Tylor from\nciting Kiehtan, with apparent reliance on the evidence?(1)\n\n\n(1) Primitive Culture, ii. p. 342.\n\n\nAgain, Ahone, though primal and creative, is, by Strachey's account,\na sleeping partner. He has no sacrifice, and no temple or idol is\nrecorded. Therefore the belief in Ahone could only be discovered as a\nresult of inquiry, whereas figures of Oke or Okeus, and his services,\nwere common and conspicuous.(1) As to Oke, I cannot quite understand Mr.\nTylor's attitude. Summarising Lafitau, a late writer of 1724, Mr. Tylor\nwrites: \"The whole class of spirits or demons, known to the Caribs by\nthe name of cemi, in Algonkin as manitu, in Huron as oki, Lafitau now\nspells with capital letters, and converts them each into a supreme\nbeing\".(2) Yet in Primitive Culture, ii., 342, 1891, Mr. Tylor had\ncited Smith's Okee (with a capital letter) as the \"chief god\" of the\nVirginians in 1612. How can Lafitau be said to have elevated oki into\nOki, and so to have made a god out of \"a class of spirits or demons,\"\nin 1724, when Mr. Tylor had already cited Smith's Okee, with a capital\nletter and as a \"chief god,\" in 1612? Smith, rebuked for the same by Mr.\nTylor, had even identified Okee with the devil. Lafitau certainly\ndid not begin this erroneous view of Oki as a \"chief god\" among the\nVirginians. If I cannot to-day produce corroboration for a god named\nAhone, I can at least show that, from the north of New England to the\nsouth of Virginia, there is early evidence, cited by Mr. Tylor, for a\nbelief in a primal creative being, closely analogous to Ahone. And this\nevidence, I think, distinctly proves that such a being as Ahone was\nwithin the capacity of the Indians in these latitudes. Mr. Tylor must\nhave thought in 1891 that the natives were competent to a belief in a\nsupreme deity, for he said, \"Another famous native American name for the\nsupreme deity is Oki\".(3) In the essay of 1892, however, Oki does not\nappear to exist as a god's name till 1724. We may now, for earlier\nevidence, turn to Master Thomas Heriot, \"that learned mathematician\"\n\"who spoke the Indian language,\" and was with the company which\nabandoned Virginia on 18th June, 1586. They ranged 130 miles north\nand 130 miles north-west of Roanoke Island, which brings them into the\nneighbourhood of Smith's and Strachey's country. Heriot writes as to the\nnative creeds: \"They believe that there are many gods which they call\nMantoac, but of different sorts and degrees. Also that there is one\nchiefe God that hath beene from all eternitie, who, as they say, when he\npurposed first to make the world, made first other gods of a principall\norder, to be as instruments to be used in the Creation and Government to\nfollow, and after the Sunne, Moone and Starres as pettie gods, and the\ninstruments of the other order more principall.... They thinke that all\nthe gods are of humane shape,\" and represent them by anthropomorphic\nidols. An idol, or image, \"Kewasa\" (the plural is \"Kewasowok\"),\nis placed in the temples, \"where they worship, pray and make many\nofferings\". Good souls go to be happy with the gods, the bad burn in\nPopogusso, a great pit, \"where the sun sets\". The evidence for this\ntheory of a future life, as usual, is that of men who died and revived\nagain, a story found in a score of widely separated regions, down to our\nday, when the death, revival and revelation occurred to the founder\nof the Arapahoe new religion of the Ghost Dance. The belief \"works for\nrighteousness\". \"The common sort... have great care to avoyde torment\nafter death, and to enjoy blesse,\" also they have \"great respect to\ntheir Governors\".\n\n\n(1) Okee's image, as early as 1607, was borne into battle against Smith,\nwho captured the god (Arber, p. 393). Ahone was not thus en evidence.\n\n(2) Journal of Anthrop. Inst., Feb., 1892, pp. 285, 286.\n\n(3) Prim. Cult,, ii. p. 342.\n\n\nThis belief in a chief god \"from all eternitie\" (that is, of unexplained\norigin), may not be convenient to some speculators, but it exactly\ncorroborates Strachey's account of Ahone as creator with subordinates.\nThe evidence is of 1586 (twenty-six years before Strachey), and,\nlike Strachey, Heriot attributes the whole scheme of belief to \"the\npriestes\". \"This is the sum of their religion, which I learned by having\nspeciall familiaritie with some of their priests.\"(1) I see no escape\nfrom the conclusion that the Virginians believed as Heriot says they\ndid, except the device of alleging that they promptly borrowed some of\nHeriot's ideas and maintained that these ideas had ever been their own.\nHeriot certainly did not recognise the identity. \"Through conversing\nwith us they were brought into great doubts of their owne (religion),\nand no small admiration of ours; of which many desired to learne more\nthan we had the meanes for want of utterance in their language to\nexpresse.\" So Heriot could not be subtle in the native tongue. Heriot\ndid what he could to convert them: \"I did my best to make His immortall\nglory knowne\". His efforts were chiefly successful by virtue of the\nsavage admiration of our guns, mathematical instruments, and so forth.\nThese sources of an awakened interest in Christianity would vanish\nwith the total destruction and discomfiture of the colony, unless a few\ncaptives, later massacred, taught our religion to the natives.(2)\n\n\n(1) According to Strachey, Heriot could speak the native language.\n\n(2) Heriot's Narrative, pp. 37-39. Quaritch, London, 1893.\n\n\nI shall cite another early example of a New England deity akin to Ahone,\nwith a deputy, a friend of sorcerers, like Okee. This account is in\nSmith's General History of New England, 1606-1624. We sent out a colony\nin 1607; \"they all returned in the yeere 1608,\" esteeming the country \"a\ncold, barren, mountainous rocky desart\". I am apt to believe that\nthey did not plant the fructifying seeds of grace among the natives in\n1607-1608. But the missionary efforts of French traders may, of course,\nhave been blessed; nor can I deny that a yellow-haired man, whose corpse\nwas found in 1620 with some objects of iron, may have converted the\nnatives to such beliefs as they possessed. We are told, however, that\nthese tenets were of ancestral antiquity. I cite E. Winslow, as edited\nby Smith (1623-24):--\n\n\"Those where in this Plantation (New Plymouth) say Kiehtan(1) made all\nthe other Gods: also one man and one woman, and with them all mankinde,\nbut how they became so dispersed they know not. They say that at first\nthere was no king but Kiehtan, that dwelleth far westerly above the\nheavens, whither all good men go when they die, and have plentie of all\nthings. The bad go thither also and knock at the door, but ('the door is\nshut') he bids them go wander in endless want and misery, for they shall\nnot stay there. They never saw Kiehtan,(2) but they hold it a great\ncharge and dutie that one race teach another; and to him they make\nfeasts and cry and sing for plenty and victory, or anything that is\ngood.\n\n\n(1) In 1873 Mr. Tylor regarded Dr. Brinton's etymology of Kiehtan as =\nKittanitowit = \"Great Living Spirit,\" as \"plausible\". In his edition\nof 1891 he omits this etymology. Personally I entirely distrust the\nphilological theories of the original sense of old divine names as a\ngeneral rule.\n\n(2) \"They never saw Kiehtan.\" So, about 1854, \"The common answer\nof intelligent black fellows on the Barwon when asked if they know\nBaiame... is this: 'Kamil zaia zummi Baiame, zaia winuzgulda'; 'I have\nnot seen Baiame, I have heard or perceived him'. If asked who made\nthe sky, the earth, the animals and man, they always answer 'Baiame'.\"\nDaramulun, according to the same authority in Lang's Queensland, was\nthe familiar of sorcerers, and appeared as a serpent. This answers, as I\nshow, to Hobamock the subordinate power to Kiehtan in New England and to\nOkee, the familiar of sorcerers in Virginia. (Ridley, J. A. I., 1872, p.\n277.)\n\n\n\"They have another Power they call Hobamock, which we conceive the\nDevill, and upon him they call to cure their wounds and diseases; when\nthey are curable he persuades them he sent them, because they have\ndispleased him; but, if they be mortal, then he saith, 'Kiehtan sent\nthem'; which makes them never call on him in their sickness. They say\nthis Hobamock appears to them sometimes like a man, a deer, or an eagle,\nbut most commonly like a snake; not to all but to their Powahs to cure\ndiseases, and Undeses... and these are such as conjure in Virginia, and\ncause the people to do what they list.\" Winslow (or rather Smith editing\nWinslow here), had already said, \"They believe, as do the Virginians,\nof many divine powers, yet of one above all the rest, as the Southern\nVirginians call their chief god Kewassa (an error), and that we now\ninhabit Oke.... The Massachusetts call their great god Kiehtan.\"(1)\n\n\n(1) Arber, pp. 767, 768.\n\n\nHere, then, in Heriot (1586), Strachey (1611-12) and Winslow (1622), we\nfind fairly harmonious accounts of a polydaemonism with a chief, primal,\ncreative being above and behind it; a being unnamed, and Ahone and\nKiehtan.\n\nIs all this invention? Or was all this derived from Europeans before\n1586, and, if so, from what Europeans? Mr. Tylor, in 1873, wrote, \"After\ndue allowance made for misrendering of savage answers, and importation\nof white men's thoughts, it can hardly be judged that a divine being,\nwhose characteristics are often so unlike what European intercourse\nwould have suggested, and who is heard of by such early explorers among\nsuch distant tribes, could be a deity of foreign origin\". NOW, he \"can\nHARDLY be ALTOGETHER a deity of foreign origin\".(1) I agree with\nMr. Tylor's earlier statement. In my opinion Ahone--Okeus,\nKiehtan--Hobamock, correspond, the first pair to the usually unseen\nAustralian Baiame (a crystal or hypnotic vision of Baiame scarcely\ncounts), while the second pair, Okeus and Hobamock, answer to the\nAustralian familiars of sorcerers, Koin and Brewin; the American\n\"Powers\" being those of peoples on a higher level of culture. Like\nTharramulun where Baiame is supreme, Hobamock appears as a snake\n(Asclepius).\n\n\n(1) Prim. Cult., ii. 340, 1873, 1892.\n\n\nFor all these reasons I am inclined to accept Strachey's Ahone as a\nveritable element in Virginian belief. Without temple or service, such a\nbeing was not conspicuous, like Okee and other gods which had idols and\nsacrifices.\n\nAs far as I see, Strachey has no theory to serve by inventing Ahone. He\nasks how any races \"if descended from the people of the first creation,\nshould maintain so general and gross a defection from the true knowledge\nof God\". He is reduced to suppose that, as descendants of Ham, they\ninherit \"the ignorance of true godliness.\" (p. 45). The children of Shem\nand Japheth alone \"retained, until the coming of the Messias, the only\nknowledge of the eternal and never-changing Trinity\". The Virginians,\non the other hand, fell heir to the ignorance, and \"fearful and\nsuperstitious instinct of nature\" of Ham (p. 40). Ahone, therefore, is\nnot invented by Strachey to bolster up a theory (held by Strachey),\nof an inherited revelation, or of a sensus numinis which could not go\nwrong. Unless a proof be given that Strachey had a theory, or any other\npurpose, to serve by inventing Ahone, I cannot at present come into the\nopinion that he gratuitously fabled, though he may have unconsciously\nexaggerated.\n\nWhat were Strachey's sources? He was for nine months, if not more, in\nthe colony: he had travelled at least 115 miles up the James River, he\noccasionally suggests modifications of Smith's map, he refers to Smith's\nadventures, and his glossary is very much larger than Smith's; its\naccuracy I leave to American linguists. Such a witness, despite his\nadmitted use of Smith's text (if it is really all by Smith throughout)\nis not to be despised, and he is not despised in America.(1) Strachey,\nit is true, had not, like Smith, been captured by Indians and either\ntreated with perfect kindness and consideration (as Smith reported at\nthe time), or tied to a tree and threatened with arrows, and laid out\nto have his head knocked in with a stone; as he alleged sixteen years\nlater! Strachey, not being captured, did not owe his release (1) to\nthe magnanimity of Powhattan, (2) to his own ingenious lies, (3) to\nthe intercession of Pocahontas, as Smith, and his friends for him, at\nvarious dates inconsistently declared. Smith certainly saw more of the\nnatives at home: Strachey brought a more studious mind to what he could\nlearn of their customs and ideas; and is not a convicted braggart. I\nconjecture that one of Strachey's sources was a native named Kemps.\nSmith had seized Kemps and Kinsock in 1609. Unknown authorities (Powell?\nand Todkill?) represent these two savages as \"the most exact villaines\nin the country\".(2) They were made to labour in fetters, then were set\nat liberty, but \"little desired it\".(3) Some \"souldiers\" ran away to the\nliberated Kemps, who brought them back to Smith.(4) Why Kemps and his\nfriend are called \"two of the most exact villains in the country\"\ndoes not appear. Kemps died \"of the surveye\" (scurvey, probably) at\nJamestown, in 1610-11. He was much made of by Lord De la Warr, \"could\nspeak a pretty deal of our English, and came orderly to church every day\nto prayers\". He gave Strachey the names of Powhattan's wives, and told\nhim, truly or not, that Pocahontas was married, about 1610, to an Indian\nnamed Kocoum.(5) I offer the guess that Kemps and Machumps, who came\nand went from Pocahontas, and recited an Indian prayer which Strachey\nneglected to copy out, may have been among Strachey's authorities. I\nshall, of course, be told that Kemps picked up Ahone at church. This did\nnot strike Strachey as being the fact; he had no opinion of the creed in\nwhich Ahone was a factor, \"the misery and thraldome under which Sathan\nhas bound these wretched miscreants\". According to Strachey, the\npriests, far from borrowing any part of our faith, \"feare and tremble\nlest the knowledge of God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ be taught in\nthese parts\".\n\n\n(1) Arber, cxvii. Strachey mentions that (before his arrival in\nVirginia) Pocahontas turned cart-wheels, naked, in Jamestown, being then\nunder twelve, and not yet wearing the apron. Smith says she was ten\nin 1608, but does not mention the cart-wheels. Later, he found it\nconvenient to put her age at twelve or thirteen in 1608. Most American\nscholars, such as Mr. Adams, entirely distrust the romantic later\nnarratives of Smith.\n\n(2) The Proeeedings, etc., by W. S. Arber, p. 151.\n\n(3) Ibid., p. 155.\n\n(4) Ibid., p. 157.\n\n(5) Strachey, pp. 54, 55.\n\n\nStrachey is therefore for putting down the priests, and, like Smith\n(indeed here borrowing from Smith), accuses them of sacrificing\nchildren. To Smith's statement that such a rite was worked at\nQuiyough-cohanock, Strachey adds that Sir George Percy (who was with\nSmith) \"was at, and observed\" a similar mystery at Kecoughtan. It is\nplain that the rite was not a sacrifice, but a Bora, or initiation, and\nthe parallel of the Spartan flogging of boys, with the retreat of the\nboys and their instructors, is very close, and, of course, unnoted by\nclassical scholars except Mr. Frazer. Strachey ends with the critical\nremark that we shall not know all the certainty of the religion and\nmysteries till we can capture some of the priests, or Quiyough-quisocks.\n\nStudents who have access to a good library of Americana may do more\nto elucidate Ahone. I regard him as in a line with Kiehtan and the God\nspoken of by Heriot, and do not believe (1) that Strachey lied; (2) that\nnatives deceived Strachey; (3) that Ahone was borrowed from \"the God of\nCaptain Smith\".\n\n\n\n\nMYTH, RITUAL, AND RELIGION.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I. SYSTEMS OF MYTHOLOGY.\n\nDefinitions of religion--Contradictory evidence--\"Belief in spiritual\nbeings\"--Objection to Mr. Tylor's definition--Definition as regards\nthis argument--Problem: the contradiction between religion and myth--Two\nhuman moods--Examples--Case of Greece--Ancient mythologists--Criticism\nby Eusebius--Modern mythological systems--Mr. Max Muller--Mannhardt.\n\n\nThe word \"Religion\" may be, and has been, employed in many different\nsenses, and with a perplexing width of significance. No attempt to\ndefine the word is likely to be quite satisfactory, but almost any\ndefinition may serve the purpose of an argument, if the writer who\nemploys it states his meaning frankly and adheres to it steadily. An\nexample of the confusions which may arise from the use of the term\n\"religion\" is familiar to students. Dr. J. D. Lang wrote concerning the\nnative races of Australia: \"They have nothing whatever of the character\nof religion, or of religious observances, to distinguish them from the\nbeasts that perish\". Yet in the same book Dr. Lang published evidence\nassigning to the natives belief in \"Turramullun, the chief of demons,\nwho is the author of disease, mischief and wisdom\".(1) The belief in\na superhuman author of \"disease, mischief and wisdom\" is certainly\na religious belief not conspicuously held by \"the beasts\"; yet all\nreligion was denied to the Australians by the very author who prints\n(in however erroneous a style) an account of part of their creed. This\nwriter merely inherited the old missionary habit of speaking about the\ngod of a non-Christian people as a \"demon\" or an \"evil spirit\".\n\n\n(1) See Primitive Culture, second edition, i. 419.\n\n\nDr. Lang's negative opinion was contradicted in testimony published by\nhimself, an appendix by the Rev. Mr. Ridley, containing evidence of\nthe belief in Baiame. \"Those who have learned that 'God' is the name by\nwhich we speak of the Creator, say that Baiame is God.\"(1)\n\n\n(1) Lang's Queensland, p. 445, 1861.\n\n\nAs \"a minimum definition of religion,\" Mr. Tylor has suggested \"the\nbelief in spiritual beings\". Against this it may be urged that, while we\nhave no definite certainty that any race of men is destitute of belief\nin spiritual beings, yet certain moral and creative deities of low races\ndo not seem to be envisaged as \"spiritual\" at all. They are regarded\nas EXISTENCES, as BEINGS, unconditioned by Time, Space, or Death, and\nnobody appears to have put the purely metaphysical question, \"Are these\nbeings spiritual or material?\"(1) Now, if a race were discovered which\nbelieved in such beings, yet had no faith in spirits, that race could\nnot be called irreligious, as it would have to be called in Mr. Tylor's\n\"minimum definition\". Almost certainly, no race in this stage of belief\nin nothing but unconditioned but not expressly spiritual beings is\nextant. Yet such a belief may conceivably have existed before men had\ndeveloped the theory of spirits at all, and such a belief, in creative\nand moral unconditioned beings, not alleged to be spiritual, could not\nbe excluded from a definition of religion.(2)\n\n\n(1) See The Making of Religion, pp. 201-210.\n\n(2) \"The history of the Jews, nay, the history of our own mind, proves\nto demonstration that the thought of God is a far easier thought, and a\nfar earlier, than that of a spirit.\" Father Tyrrell, S. J., The Month,\nOctober, 1898. As to the Jews, the question is debated. As to our own\ninfancy, we are certainly taught about God before we are likely to be\ncapable of the metaphysical notion of spirit. But we can scarcely reason\nfrom children in Christian houses to the infancy of the race.\n\n\nFor these reasons we propose (merely for the purpose of the present\nwork) to define religion as the belief in a primal being, a Maker,\nundying, usually moral, without denying that the belief in spiritual\nbeings, even if immoral, may be styled religious. Our definition is\nexpressly framed for the purpose of the argument, because that argument\nendeavours to bring into view the essential conflict between religion\nand myth. We intend to show that this conflict between the religious\nand the mythical conception is present, not only (where it has been\nuniversally recognised) in the faiths of the ancient civilised peoples,\nas in Greece, Rome, India and Egypt, but also in the ideas of the lowest\nknown savages.\n\nIt may, of course, be argued that the belief in Creator is itself a\nmyth. However that may be, the attitude of awe, and of moral obedience,\nin face of such a supposed being, is religious in the sense of the\nChristian religion, whereas the fabrication of fanciful, humorous, and\nwildly irrational fables about that being, or others, is essentially\nmythical in the ordinary significance of that word, though not absent\nfrom popular Christianity.\n\nNow, the whole crux and puzzle of mythology is, \"Why, having attained\n(in whatever way) to a belief in an undying guardian, 'Master of Life,'\ndid mankind set to work to evolve a chronique scandaleuse about HIM?\nAnd why is that chronique the elaborately absurd set of legends which we\nfind in all mythologies?\"\n\nIn answering, or trying to answer, these questions, we cannot go behind\nthe beliefs of the races now most immersed in savage ignorance. About\nthe psychology of races yet more undeveloped we can have no historical\nknowledge. Among the lowest known tribes we usually find, just as in\nancient Greece, the belief in a deathless \"Father,\" \"Master,\" \"Maker,\"\nand also the crowd of humorous, obscene, fanciful myths which are in\nflagrant contradiction with the religious character of that belief. That\nbelief is what we call rational, and even elevated. The myths, on the\nother hand, are what we call irrational and debasing. We regard low\nsavages as very irrational and debased characters, consequently the\nnature of their myths does not surprise us. Their religious conception,\nhowever, of a \"Father\" or \"Master of Life\" seems out of keeping with\nthe nature of the savage mind as we understand it. Still, there the\nreligious conception actually is, and it seems to follow that we do not\nwholly understand the savage mind, or its unknown antecedents. In\nany case, there the facts are, as shall be demonstrated. However the\nancestors of Australians, or Andamanese, or Hurons arrived at their\nhighest religious conception, they decidedly possess it.(1) The\ndevelopment of their mythical conceptions is accounted for by those\nqualities of their minds which we do understand, and shall illustrate at\nlength. For the present, we can only say that the religious conception\nuprises from the human intellect in one mood, that of earnest\ncontemplation and submission: while the mythical ideas uprise from\nanother mood, that of playful and erratic fancy. These two moods are\nconspicuous even in Christianity. The former, that of earnest and\nsubmissive contemplation, declares itself in prayers, hymns, and \"the\ndim religious light\" of cathedrals. The second mood, that of playful\nand erratic fancy, is conspicuous in the buffoonery of Miracle Plays, in\nMarchen, these burlesque popular tales about our Lord and the Apostles,\nand in the hideous and grotesque sculptures on sacred edifices. The two\nmoods are present, and in conflict, through the whole religious history\nof the human race. They stand as near each other, and as far apart, as\nLove and Lust.\n\n\n(1) The hypothesis that the conception was borrowed from European\ncreeds will be discussed later. See, too, \"Are Savage Gods borrowed from\nMissionaries?\" Nineteenth Century, January, 1899.\n\n\nIt will later be shown that even some of the most backward savages make\na perhaps half-conscious distinction between their mythology and their\nreligion. As to the former, they are communicative; as to the latter,\nthey jealously guard their secret in sacred mysteries. It is improbable\nthat reflective \"black fellows\" have been morally shocked by the\nflagrant contradictions between their religious conceptions and their\nmythical stories of the divine beings. But human thought could not come\ninto explicit clearness of consciousness without producing the sense of\nshock and surprise at these contradictions between the Religion and the\nMyth of the same god. Of this we proceed to give examples.\n\nIn Greece, as early as the sixth century B. C., we are all familiar with\nXenophanes' poem(1) complaining that the gods were credited with the\nworst crimes of mortals--in fact, with abominations only known in the\norgies of Nero and Elagabalus. We hear Pindar refusing to repeat the\ntale which told him the blessed were cannibals.(2) In India we read the\npious Brahmanic attempts to expound decently the myths which made Indra\nthe slayer of a Brahman; the sinner, that is, of the unpardonable sin.\nIn Egypt, too, we study the priestly or philosophic systems by which the\nclergy strove to strip the burden of absurdity and sacrilege from their\nown deities. From all these efforts of civilised and pious believers to\nexplain away the stories about their own gods we may infer one fact--the\nmost important to the student of mythology--the fact that myths were not\nevolved in times of clear civilised thought. It is when Greece is just\nbeginning to free her thought from the bondage of too concrete language,\nwhen she is striving to coin abstract terms, that her philosophers and\npoets first find the myths of Greece a stumbling-block.\n\n\n(1) Ritter and Preller, Hist. Philos., Gothae, 1869, p. 82.\n\n(2) Olympic Odes, i., Myers's translation: \"To me it is impossible to\ncall one of the blessed gods a cannibal.... Meet it is for a man that\nconcerning the gods he speak honourably, for the reproach is less. Of\nthee, son of Tantalus, I will speak contrariwise to them who have gone\nbefore me.\" In avoiding the story of the cannibal god, however, Pindar\ntells a tale even more offensive to our morality.\n\n\nAll early attempts at an interpretation of mythology are so many efforts\nto explain the myths on some principle which shall seem not unreasonable\nto men living at the time of the explanation. Therefore the pious\nremonstrances and the forced constructions of early thinkers like\nXenophanes, of poets like Pindar, of all ancient Homeric scholars and\nPagan apologists, from Theagenes of Rhegium (525 B. C.), the early\nHomeric commentator, to Porphyry, almost the last of the heathen\nphilosophers, are so many proofs that to Greece, as soon as she had\na reflective literature, the myths of Greece seemed impious and\nIRRATIONAL. The essays of the native commentators on the Veda, in the\nsame way, are endeavours to put into myths felt to be irrational and\nimpious a meaning which does not offend either piety or reason. We may\ntherefore conclude that it was not men in an early stage of philosophic\nthought (as philosophy is now understood)--not men like Empedocles and\nHeraclitus, nor reasonably devout men like Eumaeus, the pious swineherd\nof the Odyssey--who evolved the blasphemous myths of Greece, of Egypt\nand of India. We must look elsewhere for an explanation. We must try to\ndiscover some actual and demonstrable and widely prevalent condition\nof the human mind, in which tales that even to remote and rudimentary\ncivilisations appeared irrational and unnatural would seem natural and\nrational. To discover this intellectual condition has been the aim of\nall mythologists who did not believe that myth is a divine tradition\ndepraved by human weakness, or a distorted version of historical events.\n\nBefore going further, it is desirable to set forth what our aim is, and\nto what extent we are seeking an interpretation of mythology. It is not\nour purpose to explain every detail of every ancient legend, either as a\ndistorted historical fact or as the result of this or that confusion of\nthought caused by forgetfulness of the meanings of language, or in any\nother way; nay, we must constantly protest against the excursions of\ntoo venturesome ingenuity. Myth is so ancient, so complex, so full of\nelements, that it is vain labour to seek a cause for every phenomenon.\nWe are chiefly occupied with the quest for an historical condition of\nthe human intellect to which the element in myths, regarded by us as\nirrational, shall seem rational enough. If we can prove that such a\nstate of mind widely exists among men, and has existed, that state of\nmind may be provisionally considered as the fount and ORIGIN of the\nmyths which have always perplexed men in a reasonable modern mental\ncondition. Again, if it can be shown that this mental stage was one\nthrough which all civilised races have passed, the universality of the\nmythopoeic mental condition will to some extent explain the universal\nDIFFUSION of the stories.\n\nNow, in all mythologies, whether savage or civilised, and in all\nreligions where myths intrude, there exist two factors--the factor\nwhich we now regard as rational, and that which we moderns regard as\nirrational. The former element needs little explanation; the latter\nhas demanded explanation ever since human thought became comparatively\ninstructed and abstract.\n\nTo take an example; even in the myths of savages there is much that\nstill seems rational and transparent. If savages tell us that some wise\nbeing taught them all the simple arts of life, the use of fire, of the\nbow and arrow, the barbing of hooks, and so forth, we understand them\nat once. Nothing can be more natural than that man should believe in an\noriginal inventor of the arts, and should tell tales about the imaginary\ndiscoverers if the real heroes be forgotten. So far all is plain\nsailing. But when the savage goes on to say that he who taught the use\nof fire or who gave the first marriage laws was a rabbit or a crow, or a\ndog, or a beaver, or a spider, then we are at once face to face with the\nelement in myths which seems to us IRRATIONAL. Again, among civilised\npeoples we read of the pure all-seeing Varuna in the Vedas, to whom\nsin is an offence. We read of Indra, the Lord of Thunder, borne in his\nchariot, the giver of victory, the giver of wealth to the pious; here\nonce more all seems natural and plain. The notion of a deity who guides\nthe whirlwind and directs the storm, a god of battles, a god who blesses\nrighteousness, is familiar to us and intelligible; but when we read how\nIndra drank himself drunk and committed adulteries with Asura women, and\ngot himself born from the same womb as a bull, and changed himself into\na quail or a ram, and suffered from the most abject physical terror, and\nso forth, then we are among myths no longer readily intelligible; here,\nwe feel, are IRRATIONAL stories, of which the original ideas, in their\nnatural sense, can hardly have been conceived by men in a pure and\nrational early civilisation. Again, in the religions of even the\nlowest races, such myths as these are in contradiction with the ethical\nelements of the faith.\n\nIf we look at Greek religious tradition, we observe the coexistence of\nthe RATIONAL and the apparently IRRATIONAL elements. The RATIONAL myths\nare those which represent the gods as beautiful and wise beings. The\nArtemis of the Odyssey \"taking her pastime in the chase of boars and\nswift deer, while with her the wild wood-nymphs disport them, and high\nover them all she rears her brow, and is easily to be known where all\nare fair,\"(1) is a perfectly RATIONAL mythic representation of a divine\nbeing. We feel, even now, that the conception of a \"queen and goddess,\nchaste and fair,\" the abbess, as Paul de Saint-Victor calls her, of\nthe woodlands, is a beautiful and natural fancy, which requires no\nexplanation. On the other hand, the Artemis of Arcadia, who is confused\nwith the nymph Callisto, who, again, is said to have become a she-bear,\nand later a star; and the Brauronian Artemis, whose maiden ministers\ndanced a bear-dance,(2) are goddesses whose legend seems unnatural,\nand needs to be made intelligible. Or, again, there is nothing not\nexplicable and natural in the conception of the Olympian Zeus as\nrepresented by the great chryselephantine statue of Zeus at Olympia,\nor in the Homeric conception of Zeus as a god who \"turns everywhere his\nshining eyes, and beholds all things, and protects the righteous, and\ndeals good or evil fortune to men.\" But the Zeus whose grave was shown in\nCrete, or the Zeus who played Demeter an obscene trick by the aid of\na ram, or the Zeus who, in the shape of a swan, became the father of\nCastor and Pollux, or the Zeus who deceived Hera by means of a feigned\nmarriage with an inanimate object, or the Zeus who was afraid of Attes,\nor the Zeus who made love to women in the shape of an ant or a cuckoo,\nis a being whose myth is felt to be unnatural and bewildering.(3) It\nis this IRRATIONAL and unnatural element, as Mr. Max Muller says, \"the\nsilly, senseless, and savage element,\" that makes mythology the puzzle\nwhich men have so long found it. For, observe, Greek myth does\nnot represent merely a humorous play of fancy, dealing with things\nreligiously sacred as if by way of relief from the strained reverential\ncontemplation of the majesty of Zeus. Many stories of Greek mythology\nare such as could not cross, for the first time, the mind of a civilised\nXenophanes or Theagenes, even in a dream. THIS was the real puzzle.\n\n\n(1) Odyssey, vi. 102.\n\n(2) (Greek word omitted); compare Harpokration on this word.\n\n(3) These are the features in myth which provoke, for example, the\nwonder of Emeric-David. \"The lizard, the wolf, the dog, the ass,\nthe frog, and all the other brutes so common on religious monuments\neverywhere, do they not all imply a THOUGHT which we must divine?\" He\nconcludes that these animals, plants, and monsters of myths are so many\n\"enigmas\" and \"symbols\" veiling some deep, sacred idea, allegories of\nsome esoteric religious creed. Jupiter, Paris, 1832, p. lxxvii.\n\n\nWe have offered examples--Savage, Indian, and Greek--of that element in\nmythology which, as all civilised races have felt, demands explanation.\n\nTo be still more explicit, we may draw up a brief list of the chief\nproblems in the legendary stories attached to the old religions of the\nworld--the problems which it is our special purpose to notice. First we\nhave, in the myths of all races, the most grotesque conceptions of the\ncharacter of gods when mythically envisaged. Beings who, in religion,\nleave little to be desired, and are spoken of as holy, immortal,\nomniscient, and kindly, are, in myth, represented as fashioned in the\nlikeness not only of man, but of the beasts; as subject to death, as\nignorant and impious.\n\nMost pre-Christian religions had their \"zoomorphic\" or partially\nzoomorphic idols, gods in the shape of the lower animals, or with the\nheads and necks of the lower animals. In the same way all mythologies\nrepresent the gods as fond of appearing in animal forms. Under these\ndisguises they conduct many amours, even with the daughters of men, and\nGreek houses were proud of their descent from Zeus in the shape of an\neagle or ant, a serpent or a swan; while Cronus and the Vedic Tvashtri\nand Poseidon made love as horses, and Apollo as a dog. Not less wild\nare the legends about the births of gods from the thigh, or the head,\nor feet, or armpits of some parent; while tales describing and pictures\nrepresenting unspeakable divine obscenities were frequent in the\nmythology and in the temples of Greece. Once more, the gods were said\nto possess and exercise the power of turning men and women into birds,\nbeasts, fishes, trees, and stones, so that there was scarcely a familiar\nnatural object in the Greek world which had not once (according to\nlegend) been a man or a woman. The myths of the origin of the world and\nman, again, were in the last degree childish and disgusting. The Bushmen\nand Australians have, perhaps, no story of the origin of species quite\nso barbarous in style as the anecdotes about Phanes and Prajapati which\nare preserved in the Orphic hymns and in the Brahmanas. The conduct\nof the earlier dynasties of classical gods towards each other was as\nnotoriously cruel and loathsome as their behaviour towards mortals was\ntricksy and capricious. The classical gods, with all their immortal\nmight, are, by a mythical contradiction of the religious conception,\nregarded as capable of fear and pain, and are led into scrapes as\nludicrous as those of Brer Wolf or Brer Terrapin in the tales of\nthe Negroes of the Southern States of America. The stars, again,\nin mythology, are mixed up with beasts, planets and men in the same\nembroglio of fantastic opinion. The dead and the living, men, beasts and\ngods, trees and stars, and rivers, and sun, and moon, dance through the\nregion of myths in a burlesque ballet of Priapus, where everything may\nbe anything, where nature has no laws and imagination no limits.\n\nSuch are the irrational characteristics of myths, classic or Indian,\nEuropean or American, African or Asiatic, Australian or Maori. Such\nis one element we find all the world over among civilised and savage\npeople, quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus. It is no wonder that\npious and reflective men have, in so many ages and in so many ways,\ntried to account to themselves for their possession of beliefs closely\nconnected with religion which yet seemed ruinous to religion and\nmorality.\n\nThe explanations which men have given of their own sacred stories, the\napologies for their own gods which they have been constrained to offer\nto themselves, were the earliest babblings of a science of mythology.\nThat science was, in its dim beginnings, intended to satisfy a moral\nneed. Man found that his gods, when mythically envisaged, were not made\nin his own moral image at its best, but in the image sometimes of the\nbeasts, sometimes of his own moral nature at its very worst: in the\nlikeness of robbers, wizards, sorcerers, and adulterers. Now, it\nis impossible here to examine minutely all systems of mythological\ninterpretation. Every key has been tried in this difficult lock; every\ncause of confusion has been taken up and tested, deemed adequate, and\nfinally rejected or assigned a subordinate place. Probably the first\nattempts to shake off the burden of religious horror at mythical impiety\nwere made by way of silent omission. Thus most of the foulest myths of\nearly India are absent, and presumably were left out, in the Rig-Veda.\n\"The religious sentiment of the hymns, already so elevated, has\ndiscarded most of the tales which offended it, but has not succeeded\nin discarding them all.\"(1) Just as the poets of the Rig-Veda prefer to\navoid the more offensive traditions about Indra and Tvashtri, so Homer\nsucceeds in avoiding the more grotesque and puerile tales about his own\ngods.(2) The period of actual apology comes later. Pindar declines, as\nwe have seen, to accuse a god of cannibalism. The Satapatha Brahmana\ninvents a new story about the slaying of Visvarupa. Not Indra, but\nTrita, says the Brahmana apologetically, slew the three-headed son of\nTvashtri. \"Indra assuredly was free from that sin, for he is a god,\"\nsays the Indian apologist.(3) Yet sins which to us appear far more\nmonstrous than the peccadillo of killing a three-headed Brahman are\nattributed freely to Indra.\n\n\n(1) Les Religions de l'Inde, Barth, p. 14. See also postea, \"Indian\nMyths\".\n\n(2) The reasons for Homer's reticence are probably different in\ndifferent passages. Perhaps in some cases he had heard a purer version\nof myth than what reached Hesiod; perhaps he sometimes purposely (like\nPindar) purified a myth; usually he must have selected, in conformity\nwith the noble humanity and purity of his taste, the tales that best\nconformed to his ideal. He makes his deities reluctant to drag out in\ndispute old scandals of their early unheroic adventures, some of which,\nhowever, he gives, as the kicking of Hephaestus out of heaven, and the\nimprisonment of Ares in a vessel of bronze. Compare Professor Jebb's\nHomer, p. 83: \"whatever the instinct of the great artist has tolerated,\nat least it has purged these things away.\" that is, divine amours in\nbestial form.\n\n(3) Satapatha Brahmana, Oxford, 1882, vol. i. p. 47.\n\n\nWhile poets could but omit a blasphemous tale or sketch an apology\nin passing, it became the business of philosophers and of antiquarian\nwriters deliberately to \"whitewash\" the gods of popular religion.\nSystematic explanations of the sacred stories, whether as preserved\nin poetry or as told by priests, had to be provided. India had her\netymological and her legendary school of mythology.(1) Thus, while the\nhymn SEEMED to tell how the Maruts were gods, \"born together with the\nspotted deer,\" the etymological interpreters explained that the word for\ndeer only meant the many-coloured lines of clouds.(2) In the armoury of\napologetics etymology has been the most serviceable weapon. It is\neasy to see that by aid of etymology the most repulsive legend may be\ncompelled to yield a pure or harmless sense, and may be explained as\nan innocent blunder, caused by mere verbal misunderstanding. Brahmans,\nGreeks, and Germans have equally found comfort in this hypothesis. In\nthe Cratylus of Plato, Socrates speaks of the notion of explaining myths\nby etymological guesses at the meaning of divine names as \"a philosophy\nwhich came to him all in an instant\". Thus we find Socrates shocked by\nthe irreverence which styled Zeus the son of Cronus, \"who is a proverb\nfor stupidity\". But on examining philologically the name Kronos,\nSocrates decides that it must really mean Koros, \"not in the sense of\na youth, but signifying the pure and garnished mind\". Therefore,\nwhen people first called Zeus the son of Cronus, they meant nothing\nirreverent, but only that Zeus is the child of the pure mind or pure\nreason. Not only is this etymological system most pious and consolatory,\nbut it is, as Socrates adds, of universal application. \"For now I\nbethink me of a very new and ingenious notion,... that we may put in and\npull out letters at pleasure, and alter the accents.\"(3)\n\n\n(1) Rig-Veda Sanhita. Max Muller, p. 59.\n\n(2) Postea, \"Indian Divine Myths\".\n\n(3) Jowett's Plato, vol. i. pp. 632, 670.\n\n\nSocrates, of course, speaks more than half in irony, but there is a\ncertain truth in his account of etymological analysis and its dependence\non individual tastes and preconceived theory.\n\nThe ancient classical schools of mythological interpretation, though\nunscientific and unsuccessful, are not without interest. We find\nphilosophers and grammarians looking, just as we ourselves are looking,\nfor some condition of the human intellect out of which the absurd\nelement in myths might conceivably have sprung. Very naturally the\nphilosophers supposed that the human beings in whose brain and\nspeech myths had their origin must have been philosophers like\nthemselves--intelligent, educated persons. But such persons, they\nargued, could never have meant to tell stories about the gods so full of\nnonsense and blasphemy.\n\nTherefore the nonsense and blasphemy must originally have had some\nharmless, or even praiseworthy, sense. What could that sense have been?\nThis question each ancient mythologist answered in accordance with his\nown taste and prejudices, and above all, and like all other and later\nspeculators, in harmony with the general tendency of his own studies.\nIf he lived when physical speculation was coming into fashion, as in\nthe age of Empedocles, he thought that the Homeric poems must contain a\nveiled account of physical philosophy. This was the opinion of Theagenes\nof Rhegium, who wrote at a period when a crude physicism was disengaging\nitself from the earlier religious and mythical cosmogonic systems of\nGreece. Theagenes was shocked by the Homeric description of the battle\nin which the gods fought as allies of the Achaeans and Trojans. He\ntherefore explained away the affair as a veiled account of the strife\nof the elements. Such \"strife\" was familiar to readers of the physical\nspeculations of Empedocles and of Heraclitus, who blamed Homer for his\nprayer against Strife.(1)\n\n\n(1) Is. et Osir., 48.\n\n\nIt did not occur to Theagenes to ask whether any evidence existed\nto show that the pre-Homeric Greeks were Empedoclean or Heraclitean\nphilosophers. He readily proved to himself that Apollo, Helios, and\nHephaestus were allegorical representations, like what such philosophers\nwould feign,--of fire, that Hera was air, Poseidon water, Artemis the\nmoon, and the rest he disposed of in the same fashion.(1)\n\n\n(1) Scholia on Iliad, xx. 67. Dindorf (1877), vol. iv. p. 231. \"This\nmanner of apologetics is as old as Theagenes of Rhegium. Homer offers\ntheological doctrine in the guise of physical allegory.\"\n\n\nMetrodorus, again, turned not only the gods, but the Homeric heroes into\n\"elemental combinations and physical agencies\"; for there is nothing new\nin the mythological philosophy recently popular, which saw the sun, and\nthe cloud, and the wind in Achilles, Athene, and Hermes.(1)\n\n\n(1) Grote, Hist, of Greece, ed. 1869, i. p. 404.\n\n\nIn the Bacchae (291-297), Euripides puts another of the mythological\nsystems of his own time into the mouth of Cadmus, the Theban king, who\nadvances a philological explanation of the story that Dionysus was sewn\nup in the thigh of Zeus. The most famous of the later theories was that\nof Euhemerus (316 B.C.). In a kind of philosophical romance, Euhemerus\ndeclared that he had sailed to some No-man's-land, Panchaea, where he\nfound the verity about mythical times engraved on pillars of bronze.\nThis truth he published in the Sacra Historia, where he rationalised\nthe fables, averring that the gods had been men, and that the myths were\nexaggerated and distorted records of facts. (See Eusebius, Praep. E.,\nii 55.) The Abbe Banier (La Mythologie expliquee par l'Histoire, Paris,\n1738, vol. ii. p. 218) attempts the defence of Euhemerus, whom most of\nthe ancients regarded as an atheist. There was an element of truth in\nhis romantic hypothesis.(1)\n\n\n(1) See Block, Euhemere et sa Doctrine, Mons, 1876.\n\n\nSometimes the old stories were said to conceal a moral, sometimes a\nphysical, sometimes a mystical or Neo-platonic sort of meaning. As\nevery apologist interpreted the legends in his own fashion, the\ninterpretations usually disagreed and killed each other. Just as one\nmodern mythologist sees the wind in Aeetes and the dawn in Medea, while\nanother of the same school believes, on equally good evidence, that both\nAeetes and Medea are the moon, so writers like Porphyry (270 A. D.)\nand Plutarch (60 A. D.) made the ancient deities types of their own\nfavourite doctrines, whatever these might happen to be.\n\nWhen Christianity became powerful, the Christian writers naturally\nattacked heathen religion where it was most vulnerable, on the side of\nthe myths, and of the mysteries which were dramatic representations\nof the myths. \"Pretty gods you worship,\" said the Fathers, in effect,\n\"homicides, adulterers, bulls, bears, mice, ants, and what not.\" The\nheathen apologists for the old religion were thus driven in the early\nages of Christianity to various methods of explaining away the myths of\ntheir discredited religion.\n\nThe early Christian writers very easily, and with considerable\nargumentative power, disposed of the apologies for the myths advanced by\nPorphyry and Plutarch. Thus Eusebius in the Praeparatio Evangelica\nfirst attacks the Egyptian interpretations of their own bestial or\nsemi-bestial gods. He shows that the various interpretations destroy\neach other, and goes on to point out that Greek myth is in essence only\na veneered and varnished version of the faith of Egypt. He ridicules,\nwith a good deal of humour, the old theories which resolved so many\nmythical heroes into the sun; he shows that while one system is\ncontented to regard Zeus as mere fire and air, another system recognises\nin him the higher reason, while Heracles, Dionysus, Apollo, and\nAsclepius, father and child, are all indifferently the sun.\n\nGranting that the myth-makers were only constructing physical\nallegories, why did they wrap them up, asks Eusebius, in what WE\nconsider abominable fictions? In what state were the people who could\nnot look at the pure processes of Nature without being reminded of\nthe most hideous and unnatural offences? Once more: \"The physical\ninterpreters do not even agree in their physical interpretations\". All\nthese are equally facile, equally plausible, and equally incapable of\nproof. Again, Eusebius argues, the interpreters take for granted in the\nmakers of the myths an amount of physical knowledge which they certainly\ndid not possess. For example, if Leto were only another name for Hera,\nthe character of Zeus would be cleared as far as his amour with Leto is\nconcerned. Now, the ancient believers in the \"physical phenomena theory\"\nof myths made out that Hera, the wife of Zeus, was really the same\nperson under another name as Leto, his mistress. \"For Hera is the earth\"\n(they said at other times that Hera was the air), \"and Leto is the\nnight; but night is only the shadow of the earth, and therefore Leto\nis only the shadow of Hera.\" It was easy, however, to prove that this\nscientific view of night as the shadow of earth was not likely to be\nknown to myth-makers, who regarded \"swift Night\" as an actual person.\nPlutarch, too, had an abstruse theory to explain the legend about the\ndummy wife,--a log of oak-wood, which Zeus pretended to marry when at\nvariance with Hera.(1)\n\n\n(1) Pausanias, ix. 31.\n\n\nThis quarrel, he said, was merely the confusion and strife of elements.\nZeus was heat, Hera was cold (she had already been explained as earth\nand air), the dummy wife of oak-wood was a tree that emerged after a\nflood, and so forth. Of course, there was no evidence that mythopoeic\nmen held Plutarchian theories of heat and cold and the conflict of\nthe elements; besides, as Eusebius pointed out, Hera had already been\ndefined once as an allegory of wedded life, and once as the earth, and\nagain as the air, and it was rather too late to assert that she was also\nthe cold and watery element in the world. As for his own explanation of\nthe myths, Eusebius holds that they descend from a period when men in\ntheir lawless barbarism knew no better than to tell such tales. \"Ancient\nfolk, in the exceeding savagery of their lives, made no account of God,\nthe universal Creator (here Eusebius is probably wrong)... but betook\nthem to all manner of abominations. For the laws of decent existence\nwere not yet established, nor was any settled and peaceful state\nordained among men, but only a loose and savage fashion of wandering\nlife, while, as beasts irrational, they cared for no more than to fill\ntheir bellies, being in a manner without God in the world.\" Growing\na little more civilised, men, according to Eusebius, sought after\nsomething divine, which they found in the heavenly bodies. Later,\nthey fell to worshipping living persons, especially \"medicine men\" and\nconjurors, and continued to worship them even after their decease,\nso that Greek temples are really tombs of the dead.(1) Finally, the\ncivilised ancients, with a conservative reluctance to abandon their\nold myths (Greek text omitted), invented for them moral or physical\nexplanations, like those of Plutarch and others, earlier and later.(2)\n\n\n(1) Praep. E., ii. 5.\n\n(2) Ibid., 6,19.\n\n\nAs Eusebius, like Clemens of Alexandria, Arnobius, and the other early\nChristian disputants, had no prejudice in favour of Hellenic mythology,\nand no sentimental reason for wishing to suppose that the origin of\nits impurities was pure, he found his way almost to the theory of the\nirrational element in mythology which we propose to offer.\n\nEven to sketch the history of mythological hypothesis in modern times\nwould require a book to itself. It must suffice here to indicate the\nvarious lines which speculation as to mythology has pursued.\n\nAll interpretations of myth have been formed in accordance with the\nideas prevalent in the time of the interpreters. The early Greek\nphysicists thought that mythopoeic men had been physicists. Aristotle\nhints that they were (like himself) political philosophers.(1)\nNeo-platonists sought in the myths for Neo-platonism; most Christians\n(unlike Eusebius) either sided with Euhemerus, or found in myth the\ninventions of devils, or a tarnished and distorted memory of the\nBiblical revelation.\n\n\n(1) Met., xi. 8,19.\n\n\nThis was the theory, for example, of good old Jacob Bryant, who saw\neverywhere memories of the Noachian deluge and proofs of the correctness\nof Old Testament ethnology.(1)\n\n\n(1) Bryant, A New System, wherein an Attempt is made to Divest Tradition\nof Fable, 1774.\n\n\nMuch the same attempt to find the Biblical truth at the bottom of savage\nand ancient fable has been recently made by the late M. Lenormant, a\nCatholic scholar.(1)\n\n\n(1) Les Origines de l'Histoire d'apres le Bible, 1880-1884.\n\n\nIn the beginning of the present century Germany turned her attention to\nmythology. As usual, men's ideas were biassed by the general nature of\ntheir opinions. In a pious kind of spirit, Friedrich Creuzer sought to\nfind SYMBOLS of some pure, early, and Oriental theosophy in the myths\nand mysteries of Greece. Certainly the Greeks of the philosophical\nperiod explained their own myths as symbols of higher things, but\nthe explanation was an after-thought.(1) The great Lobeck, in his\nAglaophamus (1829), brought back common sense, and made it the guide of\nhis vast, his unequalled learning. In a gentler and more genial\nspirit, C. Otfried Muller laid the foundation of a truly scientific\nand historical mythology.(2) Neither of these writers had, like Alfred\nMaury,(3) much knowledge of the myths and faiths of the lower races, but\nthey often seem on the point of anticipating the ethnological method.\n\n\n(1) Creuzer, Symbolik und Mythologie, 2d edit., Leipzig, 1836-43.\n\n(2) Introduction to a Scientific System of Mythology, English trans.,\nLondon, 1844.\n\n(3) Histoire des Religions de la Grece Antique, Paris, 1857.\n\n\nWhen philological science in our own century came to maturity, in\nphilology, as of old in physics and later in symbols, was sought the\nkey of myths. While physical allegory, religious and esoteric symbolism,\nverbal confusion, historical legend, and an original divine tradition,\nperverted in ages of darkness, have been the most popular keys in other\nages, the scientific nineteenth century has had a philological key\nof its own. The methods of Kuhn, Breal, Max Muller, and generally the\nphilological method, cannot be examined here at full length.(1) Briefly\nspeaking, the modern philological method is intended for a scientific\napplication of the old etymological interpretations. Cadmus in the\nBacchae of Euripides, Socrates in the Cratylus of Plato, dismiss\nunpalatable myths as the results of verbal confusion. People had\noriginally said something quite sensible--so the hypothesis runs--but\nwhen their descendants forgot the meaning of their remarks, a new and\nabsurd meaning followed from a series of unconscious puns.(2) This view\nwas supported in ancient times by purely conjectural and impossible\netymologies. Thus the myth that Dionysus was sewn up in the THIGH of\nZeus (Greek text omitted) was explained by Euripides as the result of a\nconfusion of words. People had originally said that Zeus gave a pledge\n(Greek text omitted) to Hera. The modern philological school relies for\nexplanations of untoward and other myths on similar confusions. Thus\nDaphne is said to have been originally not a girl of romance, but the\ndawn (Sanskirt, dahana: ahana) pursued by the rising sun. But as the\noriginal Aryan sense of Dahana or Ahana was lost, and as Daphne came to\nmean the laurel--the wood which burns easily--the fable arose that the\ntree had been a girl called Daphne.(3)\n\n\n(1) See Mythology in Encyclop. Brit. and in La Mythologie (A. L.),\nParis, 1886, where Mr. Max Muller's system is criticised. See also\nCustom and Myth and Modern Mythology.\n\n(2) That a considerable number of myths, chiefly myths of place names,\narise from popular etymologies is certain: what is objected to is the\nvast proportion given to this element in myths.\n\n(3) Max Muller, Nineteenth Century, December, 1885; \"Solar Myths,\"\nJanuary, 1886; Myths and Mythologists (A. L). Whitney, Mannhardt,\nBergaigne, and others dispute the etymology. Or. and Ling. Studies,\n1874, p. 160; Mannhardt, Antike Wald und Feld Kultus (Berlin, 1877), p.\nxx.; Bergaigne, La Religion Vedique, iii. 293; nor does Curtius like it\nmuch, Principles of Greek Etymology, English trans., ii. 92, 93; Modern\nMythology (A. L.), 1897.\n\n\nThis system chiefly rests on comparison between the Sanskrit names in\nthe Rig-Veda and the mythic names in Greek, German, Slavonic, and other\nAryan legends. The attempt is made to prove that, in the common speech\nof the undivided Aryan race, many words for splendid or glowing natural\nphenomena existed, and that natural processes were described in a\nfigurative style. As the various Aryan families separated, the sense of\nthe old words and names became dim, the nomina developed into numina,\nthe names into gods, the descriptions of elemental processes into myths.\nAs this system has already been criticised by us elsewhere with minute\nattention, a reference to these reviews must suffice in this place.\nBriefly, it may be stated that the various masters of the school--Kuhn,\nMax Muller, Roth, Schwartz, and the rest--rarely agree where agreement\nis essential, that is, in the philological foundations of their\nbuilding. They differ in very many of the etymological analyses of\nmythical names. They also differ in the interpretations they put on the\nnames, Kuhn almost invariably seeing fire, storm, cloud, or lightning\nwhere Mr. Max Muller sees the chaste Dawn. Thus Mannhardt, after having\nbeen a disciple, is obliged to say that comparative Indo-Germanic\nmythology has not borne the fruit expected, and that \"the CERTAIN gains\nof the system reduce themselves to the scantiest list of parallels,\nsuch as Dyaus = Zeus = Tius, Parjanya = Perkunas, Bhaga = Bog, Varuna =\nUranos\" (a position much disputed), etc. Mannhardt adds his belief that\na number of other \"equations\"--such as Sarameya = Hermeias, Saranyus =\nDemeter Erinnys, Kentauros = Gandharva, and many others--will not stand\ncriticism, and he fears that these ingenious guesses will prove\nmere jeux d'esprit rather than actual facts.(1) Many examples of the\nprecarious and contradictory character of the results of philological\nmythology, many instances of \"dubious etymologies,\" false logic, leaps\nat foregone conclusions, and attempts to make what is peculiarly Indian\nin thought into matter of universal application, will meet us in the\nchapters on Indian and Greek divine legends.(2) \"The method in its\npractical working shows a fundamental lack of the historical sense,\"\nsays Mannhardt. Examples are torn from their contexts, he observes;\nhistorical evolution is neglected; passages of the Veda, themselves\ntotally obscure, are dragged forward to account for obscure Greek\nmythical phenomena. Such are the accusations brought by the regretted\nMannhardt against the school to which he originally belonged, and\nwhich was popular and all-powerful even in the maturity of his own more\nclear-sighted genius. Proofs of the correctness of his criticism will\nbe offered abundantly in the course of this work. It will become evident\nthat, great as are the acquisitions of Philology, her least certain\ndiscoveries have been too hastily applied in alien \"matter,\" that is, in\nthe region of myth. Not that philology is wholly without place or part\nin the investigation of myth, when there is agreement among philologists\nas to the meaning of a divine name. In that case a certain amount of\nlight is thrown on the legend of the bearer of the name, and on its\norigin and first home, Aryan, Greek, Semitic, or the like. But how rare\nis agreement among philologists!\n\n\n(1) Baum und Feld Kultus, p. xvii. Kuhn's \"epoch-making\" book is Die\nHerabkunft des Feuers, Berlin, 1859. By way of example of the disputes\nas to the original meaning of a name like Prometheus, compare Memoires\nde la Societe de Linguistique de Paris, t. iv. p. 336.\n\n(2) See especially Mannhardt's note on Kuhn's theories of Poseidon and\nHermes, B. u. F. K., pp. xviii., xix., note 1.\n\n\n\"The philological method,\" says Professor Tiele,(1) \"is inadequate and\nmisleading, when it is a question of discovering the ORIGIN of a myth,\nor the physical explanation of the oldest myths, or of accounting for\nthe rude and obscene element in the divine legends of civilised races.\nBut these are not the only problems of mythology. There is, for example,\nthe question of the GENEALOGICAL relations of myths, where we have\nto determine whether the myths of peoples whose speech is of the same\nfamily are special modifications of a mythology once common to the race\nwhence these peoples have sprung. The philological method alone can\nanswer here.\" But this will seem a very limited province when we find\nthat almost all races, however remote and unconnected in speech, have\npractically much the same myths.\n\n\n(1) Rev. de l'Hist. des Rel., xii. 3, 260, Nov., Dec., 1885.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II. NEW SYSTEM PROPOSED.\n\nChap. I. recapitulated--Proposal of a new method: Science of\ncomparative or historical study of man--Anticipated in part by\nEusebius, Fontenelle, De Brosses, Spencer (of C. C. C., Cambridge), and\nMannhardt--Science of Tylor--Object of inquiry: to find condition of\nhuman intellect in which marvels of myth are parts of practical everyday\nbelief--This is the savage state--Savages described--The wild element of\nmyth a survival from the savage state--Advantages of this method--Partly\naccounts for wide DIFFUSION as well as ORIGIN of myths--Connected\nwith general theory of evolution--Puzzling example of myth of the\nwater-swallower--Professor Tiele's criticism of the method--Objections\nto method, and answer to these--See Appendix B.\n\n\nThe past systems of mythological interpretation have been briefly\nsketched. It has been shown that the practical need for a reconciliation\nbetween RELIGION and MORALITY on one side, and the MYTHS about the gods\non the other, produced the hypotheses of Theagenes and Metrodorus, of\nSocrates and Euemerus, of Aristotle and Plutarch. It has been shown that\nin each case the reconcilers argued on the basis of their own ideas and\nof the philosophies of their time. The early physicist thought that\nmyth concealed a physical philosophy; the early etymologist saw in it a\nconfusion of language; the early political speculator supposed that myth\nwas an invention of legislators; the literary Euhemerus found the secret\nof myths in the course of an imaginary voyage to a fabled island.\nThen came the moment of the Christian attacks, and Pagan philosophers,\ntouched with Oriental pantheism, recognised in myths certain pantheistic\nsymbols and a cryptic revelation of their own Neo-platonism. When the\ngods were dead and their altars fallen, then antiquaries brought their\ncuriosity to the problem of explaining myth. Christians recognised in it\na depraved version of the Jewish sacred writings, and found the ark on\nevery mountain-top of Greece. The critical nineteenth century brought\nin, with Otfried Muller and Lobeck, a closer analysis; and finally, in\nthe sudden rise of comparative philology, it chanced that philologists\nannexed the domain of myths. Each of these systems had its own amount of\ntruth, but each certainly failed to unravel the whole web of tradition\nand of foolish faith.\n\nMeantime a new science has come into existence, the science which\nstudies man in the sum of all his works and thoughts, as evolved\nthrough the whole process of his development. This science, Comparative\nAnthropology, examines the development of law out of custom; the\ndevelopment of weapons from the stick or stone to the latest repeating\nrifle; the development of society from the horde to the nation. It is a\nstudy which does not despise the most backward nor degraded tribe, nor\nneglect the most civilised, and it frequently finds in Australians\nor Nootkas the germ of ideas and institutions which Greeks or Romans\nbrought to perfection, or retained, little altered from their early\nrudeness, in the midst of civilisation.\n\nIt is inevitable that this science should also try its hand on\nmythology. Our purpose is to employ the anthropological method--the\nstudy of the evolution of ideas, from the savage to the barbarous, and\nthence to the civilised stage--in the province of myth, ritual, and\nreligion. It has been shown that the light of this method had dawned on\nEusebius in his polemic with the heathen apologists. Spencer, the head\nof Corpus, Cambridge (1630-93), had really no other scheme in his mind\nin his erudite work on Hebrew Ritual.(1) Spencer was a student of man's\nreligions generally, and he came to the conclusion that Hebrew ritual\nwas but an expurgated, and, so to speak, divinely \"licensed\" adaptation\nof heathen customs at large. We do but follow his guidance on less\nperilous ground when we seek for the original forms of classical rite\nand myth in the parallel usages and legends of the most backward races.\n\n\n(1) De Legibus Hebraeorum Ritualibus, Tubingae, 1782.\n\n\nFontenelle in the last century, stated, with all the clearness of the\nFrench intellect, the system which is partially worked out in this\nessay--the system which explains the irrational element in myth as\ninherited from savagery. Fontenelle's paper (Sur l'Origine des Fables)\nis brief, sensible, and witty, and requires little but copious evidence\nto make it adequate. But he merely threw out the idea, and left it to be\nneglected.(1)\n\n\n(1) See Appendix A., Fontenelle's Origine des Fables.\n\n\nAmong other founders of the anthropological or historical school of\nmythology, De Brosses should not be forgotten. In his Dieux Fetiches\n(1760) he follows the path which Eusebius indicated--the path of Spencer\nand Fontenelle--now the beaten road of Tylor and M'Lennan and Mannhardt.\n\nIn anthropology, in the science of Waitz, Tylor, and M'Lennan, in\nthe examination of man's faith in the light of his social, legal, and\nhistorical conditions generally, we find, with Mannhardt, some of the\nkeys of myth. This science \"makes it manifest that the different stages\nthrough which humanity has passed in its intellectual evolution have\nstill their living representatives among various existing races.\nThe study of these lower races is an invaluable instrument for the\ninterpretation of the survivals from earlier stages, which we meet in\nthe full civilisation of cultivated peoples, but whose origins were in\nthe remotest fetichism and savagery.\"(1)\n\n\n(1) Mannhardt op. cit. p. xxiii.\n\n\nIt is by following this road, and by the aid of anthropology and\nof human history, that we propose to seek for a demonstrably actual\ncondition of the human intellect, whereof the puzzling qualities of myth\nwould be the natural and inevitable fruit. In all the earlier theories\nwhich we have sketched, inquirers took it for granted that the\nmyth-makers were men with philosophic and moral ideas like their\nown--ideas which, from some reason of religion or state, they expressed\nin bizarre terms of allegory. We shall attempt, on the other hand, to\nprove that the human mind has passed through a condition quite unlike\nthat of civilised men--a condition in which things seemed natural and\nrational that now appear unnatural and devoid of reason, and in which,\ntherefore, if myths were evolved, they would, if they survived into\ncivilisation, be such as civilised men find strange and perplexing.\n\nOur first question will be, Is there a stage of human society and of\nthe human intellect in which facts that appear to us to be monstrous\nand irrational--facts corresponding to the wilder incidents of myth--are\naccepted as ordinary occurrences of everyday life? In the region of\nromantic rather than of mythical invention we know that there is such\na state. Mr. Lane, in his preface to the Arabian Nights, says that the\nArabs have an advantage over us as story-tellers. They can introduce\nsuch incidents as the change of a man into a horse, or of a woman into a\ndog, or the intervention of an Afreet without any more scruple than our\nown novelists feel in describing a duel or the concealment of a will.\nAmong the Arabs the agencies of magic and of spirits are regarded as at\nleast as probable and common as duels and concealments of wills seem\nto be thought by European novelists. It is obvious that we need look no\nfarther for the explanation of the supernatural events in Arab romances.\nNow, let us apply this system to mythology. It is admitted that Greeks,\nRomans, Aryans of India in the age of the Sanskrit commentators, and\nEgyptians of the Ptolemaic and earlier ages, were as much puzzled as\nwe are by the mythical adventures of their gods. But is there any\nknown stage of the human intellect in which similar adventures, and\nthe metamorphoses of men into animals, trees, stars, and all else\nthat puzzles us in the civilised mythologies, are regarded as possible\nincidents of daily human life? Our answer is, that everything in the\ncivilised mythologies which we regard as irrational seems only part of\nthe accepted and natural order of things to contemporary savages, and in\nthe past seemed equally rational and natural to savages concerning whom\nwe have historical information.(1) Our theory is, therefore, that the\nsavage and senseless element in mythology is, for the most part, a\nlegacy from the fancy of ancestors of the civilised races who were once\nin an intellectual state not higher, but probably lower, than that of\nAustralians, Bush-men, Red Indians, the lower races of South America,\nand other worse than barbaric peoples. As the ancestors of the Greeks,\nAryans of India, Egyptians and others advanced in civilisation, their\nreligious thought was shocked and surprised by myths (originally dating\nfrom the period of savagery, and natural in that period, though even\nthen often in contradiction to morals and religion) which were preserved\ndown to the time of Pausanias by local priesthoods, or which were\nstereotyped in the ancient poems of Hesiod and Homer, or in the\nBrahmanas and Vedas of India, or were retained in the popular religion\nof Egypt. This theory recommended itself to Lobeck. \"We may believe that\nancient and early tribes framed gods like unto themselves in action and\nin experience, and that the allegorical softening down of myths is the\nexplanation added later by descendants who had attained to purer ideas\nof divinity, yet dared not reject the religion of their ancestors.\"(2)\nThe senseless element in the myths would, by this theory, be for the\nmost part a \"survival\"; and the age and condition of human thought\nwhence it survived would be one in which our most ordinary ideas about\nthe nature of things and the limits of possibility did not yet exist,\nwhen all things were conceived of in quite other fashion; the age, that\nis, of savagery.\n\n\n(1) We have been asked to DEFINE a savage. He cannot be defined in an\nepigram, but by way of choice of a type:--\n\n1. In material equipment the perfect savage is he who employs tools of\nstone and wood, not of metal; who is nomadic rather than settled; who\nis acquainted (if at all) only with the rudest forms of the arts of\npotting, weaving, fire-making, etc.; and who derives more of his food\nfrom the chase and from wild roots and plants than from any kind of\nagriculture or from the flesh of domesticated animals.\n\n2. In psychology the savage is he who (extending unconsciously to the\nuniverse his own implicit consciousness of personality) regards all\nnatural objects as animated and intelligent beings, and, drawing no hard\nand fast line between himself and the things in the world, is readily\npersuaded that men may be metamorphosed into plants, beasts and stars;\nthat winds and clouds, sun and dawn, are persons with human passions\nand parts; and that the lower animals especially may be creatures more\npowerful than himself, and, in a sense, divine and creative.\n\n3. In religion the savage is he who (while often, in certain moods,\nconscious of a far higher moral faith) believes also in ancestral\nghosts or spirits of woods and wells that were never ancestral; prays\nfrequently by dint of magic; and sometimes adores inanimate objects, or\neven appeals to the beasts as supernatural protectors.\n\n4. In society the savage is he who (as a rule) bases his laws on the\nwell-defined lines of totemism--that is, claims descent from or other\nclose relation to natural objects, and derives from the sacredness of\nthose objects the sanction of his marriage prohibitions and blood-feuds,\nwhile he makes skill in magic a claim to distinguished rank.\n\nSuch, for our purpose, is the savage, and we propose to explain the more\n\"senseless\" factors in civilised mythology as \"survivals\" of these ideas\nand customs preserved by conservatism and local tradition, or, less\nprobably, borrowed from races which were, or had been, savage.\n\n(2) Aglaoph., i. 153. Had Lobeck gone a step farther and examined the\nmental condition of veteres et priscae gentes, this book would have\nbeen, superfluous. Nor did he know that the purer ideas were also\nexisting among certain low savages.\n\n\nIt is universally admitted that \"survivals\" of this kind do account for\nmany anomalies in our institutions, in law, politics, society, even in\ndress and manners. If isolated fragments of earlier ages abide in these,\nit is still more probable that other fragments will survive in anything\nso closely connected as is mythology with the conservative religious\nsentiment and tradition. Our object, then, is to prove that the \"silly,\nsavage, and irrational\" element in the myths of civilised peoples is,\nas a rule, either a survival from the period of savagery, or has been\nborrowed from savage neighbours by a cultivated people, or, lastly,\nis an imitation by later poets of old savage data.(1) For example,\nto explain the constellations as metamorphosed men, animals, or other\nobjects of terrestrial life is the habit of savages,(2)--a natural habit\namong people who regard all things as on one level of personal life and\nintelligence. When the stars, among civilised Greeks or Aryans of India,\nare also popularly regarded as transformed and transfigured men, animals\nand the like, this belief may be either a survival from the age when the\nancestors of Greeks and Indians were in the intellectual condition\nof the Australian Murri; or the star-name and star-myth may have been\nborrowed from savages, or from cultivated peoples once savage or apt to\ncopy savages; or, as in the case of the Coma Berenices, a poet of a late\nage may have invented a new artificial myth on the old lines of savage\nfancy.\n\n\n(1) We may be asked why do savages entertain the irrational ideas which\nsurvive in myth? One might as well ask why they eat each other, or\nuse stones instead of metal. Their intellectual powers are not fully\ndeveloped, and hasty analogy from their own unreasoned consciousness\nis their chief guide. Myth, in Mr. Darwin's phrase, is one of the\n\"miserable and indirect consequences of our highest faculties\". Descent\nof Man, p. 69.\n\n(2) See Custom and Myth, \"Star-Myths\".\n\n\nThis method of interpreting a certain element in mythology is, we must\nrepeat, no new thing, though, to judge from the protests of several\nmythologists, it is new to many inquirers. We have seen that Eusebius\nthrew out proposals in this direction; that Spencer, De Brosses, and\nFontenelle unconsciously followed him; and we have quoted from Lobeck\na statement of a similar opinion. The whole matter has been stated as\nclearly as possible by Mr. B. B. Tylor:--\n\n\"Savages have been for untold ages, and still are, living in the\nmyth-making stage of the human mind. It was through sheer ignorance and\nneglect of this direct knowledge how and by what manner of men myths\nare really made that their simple philosophy has come to be buried under\nmasses of commentator's rubbish...\"(1) Mr. Tylor goes on thus (and his\nwords contain the gist of our argument): \"The general thesis maintained\nis that myth arose in the savage condition prevalent in remote ages\namong the whole human race; that it remains comparatively unchanged\namong the rude modern tribes who have departed least from these\nprimitive conditions, while higher and later civilisations, partly by\nretaining its actual principles, and partly by carrying on its inherited\nresults in the form of ancestral tradition, continued it not merely in\ntoleration, but in honour\".(2) Elsewhere Mr. Tylor points out that by\nthis method of interpretation we may study myths in various stages\nof evolution, from the rude guess of the savage at an explanation of\nnatural phenomena, through the systems of the higher barbarisms, or\nlower civilisations (as in ancient Mexico), and the sacerdotage of\nIndia, till myth reaches its most human form in Greece. Yet even in\nGreek myth the beast is not wholly cast out, and Hellas by no means \"let\nthe ape and tiger die\". That Mr. Tylor does not exclude the Aryan\nrace from his general theory is plain enough.(3) \"What is the Aryan\nconception of the Thunder-god but a poetic elaboration of thoughts\ninherited from the savage stage through which the primitive Aryans had\npassed?\"(4)\n\n\n(1) Primitive Culture, 2nd edit., i. p. 283.\n\n(2) Op. cit., p. 275.\n\n(3) Primitive Culture, 2nd edit., ii. 265.\n\n(4) Pretty much the same view seems to be taken by Mr. Max Muller\n(Nineteenth Century, January, 1882) when he calls Tsui Goab (whom the\nHottentots believe to be a defunct conjuror) \"a Hottentot Indra or\nZeus\".\n\n\nThe advantages of our hypothesis (if its legitimacy be admitted) are\nobvious. In the first place, we have to deal with an actual demonstrable\ncondition of the human intellect. The existence of the savage state\nin all its various degrees, and of the common intellectual habits and\nconditions which are shared by the backward peoples, and again the\nsurvival of many of these in civilisation, are indubitable facts. We are\nnot obliged to fall back upon some fanciful and unsupported theory of\nwhat \"primitive man\" did, and said, and thought. Nay, more; we escape\nall the fallacies connected with the terms \"primitive man\". We are not\ncompelled (as will be shown later)(1) to prove that the first men of all\nwere like modern savages, nor that savages represent primitive man.\nIt may be that the lowest extant savages are the nearest of existing\npeoples to the type of the first human beings. But on this point it is\nunnecessary for us to dogmatise. If we can show that, whether men began\ntheir career as savages or not, they have at least passed through the\nsavage status or have borrowed the ideas of races in the savage\nstatus, that is all we need. We escape from all the snares of theories\n(incapable of historical proof) about the really primeval and original\ncondition of the human family.\n\n\n(1) Appendix B.\n\n\nOnce more, our theory naturally attaches itself to the general system\nof Evolution. We are enabled to examine mythology as a thing of gradual\ndevelopment and of slow and manifold modifications, corresponding in\nsome degree to the various changes in the general progress of society.\nThus we shall watch the barbaric conditions of thought which produce\nbarbaric myths, while these in their turn are retained, or perhaps\npurified, or perhaps explained away, by more advanced civilisations.\nFurther, we shall be able to detect the survival of the savage ideas\nwith least modification, and the persistence of the savage myths with\nleast change, among the classes of a civilised population which have\nshared least in the general advance. These classes are, first, the\nrustic peoples, dwelling far from cities and schools, on heaths or by\nthe sea; second, the conservative local priesthoods, who retain the more\ncrude and ancient myths of the local gods and heroes after these\nhave been modified or rejected by the purer sense of philosophers and\nnational poets. Thus much of ancient myth is a woven warp and woof of\nthree threads: the savage donnee, the civilised and poetic modification\nof the savage donnee, the version of the original fable which survives\nin popular tales and in the \"sacred chapters\" of local priesthoods. A\ncritical study of these three stages in myth is in accordance with the\nrecognised practice of science. Indeed, the whole system is only an\napplication to this particular province, mythology, of the method by\nwhich the development either of organisms or of human institutions is\ntraced. As the anomalies and apparently useless and accidental features\nin the human or in other animal organisms may be explained as stunted or\nrudimentary survivals of organs useful in a previous stage of life, so\nthe anomalous and irrational myths of civilised races may be explained\nas survivals of stories which, in an earlier state of thought and\nknowledge, seemed natural enough. The persistence of the myths\nis accounted for by the well-known conservatism of the religious\nsentiment--a conservatism noticed even by Eusebius. \"In later days, when\nthey became ashamed of the religious beliefs of their ancestors, they\ninvented private and respectful interpretations, each to suit himself.\nFor no one dared to shake the ancestral beliefs, as they honoured at a\nvery high rate the sacredness and antiquity of old associations, and of\nthe teaching they had received in childhood.\"(1)\n\n\n(1) Praep. E., ii. 6, 19.\n\n\nThus the method which we propose to employ is in harmony both with\nmodern scientific procedure and with the views of a clear-sighted Father\nof the Church. Consequently no system could well be less \"heretical\" and\n\"unorthodox\".\n\nThe last advantage of our hypothesis which need here be mentioned is\nthat it helps to explain the DIFFUSION no less than the ORIGIN of the\nwild and crazy element in myth. We seek for the origin of the savage\nfactor of myth in one aspect of the intellectual condition of savages.\nWe say \"in one aspect\" expressly; to guard against the suggestion that\nthe savage intellect has no aspect but this, and no saner ideas than\nthose of myth. The DIFFUSION of stories practically identical in every\nquarter of the globe may be (provisionally) regarded as the result of\nthe prevalence in every quarter, at one time or another, of similar\nmental habits and ideas. This explanation must not be pressed too hard\nnor too far. If we find all over the world a belief that men can change\nthemselves and their neighbours into beasts, that belief will account\nfor the appearance of metamorphosis in myth. If we find a belief that\ninanimate objects are really much on a level with man, the opinion\nwill account for incidents of myth such as that in which the wooden\nfigure-head of the Argo speaks with a human voice. Again, a widespread\nbelief in the separability of the soul or the life from the body will\naccount for the incident in nursery tales and myths of the \"giant who\nhad no heart in his body,\" but kept his heart and life elsewhere. An\nancient identity of mental status and the working of similar mental\nforces at the attempt to explain the same phenomena will account,\nwithout any theory of borrowing, or transmission of myth, or of\noriginal unity of race, for the world-wide diffusion of many mythical\nconceptions.\n\nBut this theory of the original similarity of the savage mind everywhere\nand in all races will scarcely account for the world-wide distribution\nof long and intricate mythical PLOTS, of consecutive series of adroitly\ninterwoven situations. In presence of these long romances, found among\nso many widely severed peoples, conjecture is, at present, almost\nidle. We do not know, in many instances, whether such stories were\nindependently developed, or carried from a common centre, or borrowed by\none race from another, and so handed on round the world.\n\nThis chapter may conclude with an example of a tale whose DIFFUSION may\nbe explained in divers ways, though its ORIGIN seems undoubtedly savage.\nIf we turn to the Algonkins, a stock of Red Indians, we come on a\npopular tradition which really does give pause to the mythologist. Could\nthis story, he asks himself, have been separately invented in widely\ndifferent places, or could the Iroquois have borrowed from the\nAustralian blacks or the Andaman Islanders? It is a common thing in most\nmythologies to find everything of value to man--fire, sun, water--in\nthe keeping of some hostile power. The fire, or the sun, or the water\nis then stolen, or in other ways rescued from the enemy and restored\nto humanity. The Huron story (as far as water is concerned) is told by\nFather Paul Le Jeune, a Jesuit missionary, who lived among the Hurons\nabout 1636. The myth begins with the usual opposition between two\nbrothers, the Cain and Abel of savage legend. One of the brothers, named\nIoskeha, slew the other, and became the father of mankind (as known\nto the Red Indians) and the guardian of the Iroquois. The earth was at\nfirst arid and sterile, but Ioskeha destroyed the gigantic frog which\nhad swallowed all the waters, and guided the torrents into smooth\nstreams and lakes.(1)\n\n\n(1) Relations de la Nouvelle France, 1636, p. 103 (Paris, Cramoisy,\n1637).\n\n\nNow where, outside of North America, do we find this frog who swallowed\nall the water? We find him in Australia.\n\n\"The aborigines of Lake Tyers,\" remarks Mr. Brough Smyth, \"say that at\none time there was no water anywhere on the face of the earth. All the\nwaters were contained in the body of a huge frog, and men and women\ncould get none of them. A council was held, and... it was agreed that\nthe frog should be made to laugh, when the waters would run out of his\nmouth, and there would be plenty in all parts.\"\n\nTo make a long story short, all the animals played the jester before\nthe gigantic solemn frog, who sat as grave as Louis XV. \"I do not like\nbuffoons who don't make me laugh,\" said that majestical monarch. At last\nthe eel danced on the tip of his tail, and the gravity of the prodigious\nBatrachian gave way. He laughed till he literally split his sides,\nand the imprisoned waters came with a rush. Indeed, many persons were\ndrowned, though this is not the only Australian version of the Deluge.\n\nThe Andaman Islanders dwell at a very considerable distance from\nAustralia and from the Iroquois, and, in the present condition of the\nnatives of Australia and Andaman, neither could possibly visit the\nother. The frog in the Andaman version is called a toad, and he came to\nswallow the waters in the following way: One day a woodpecker was eating\nhoney high up in the boughs of a tree. Far below, the toad was a witness\nof the feast, and asked for some honey. \"Well, come up here, and you\nshall have some,\" said the woodpecker. \"But how am I to climb?\" \"Take\nhold of that creeper, and I will draw you up,\" said the woodpecker; but\nall the while he was bent on a practical joke. So the toad got into a\nbucket he happened to possess, and fastened the bucket to the creeper.\n\"Now, pull!\" Then the woodpecker raised the toad slowly to the level of\nthe bough where the honey was, and presently let him down with a run,\nnot only disappointing the poor toad, but shaking him severely. The toad\nwent away in a rage and looked about him for revenge. A happy thought\noccurred to him, and he drank up all the water of the rivers and lakes.\nBirds and beasts were perishing, woodpeckers among them, of thirst. The\ntoad, overjoyed at his success, wished to add insult to the injury, and,\nvery thoughtlessly, began to dance in an irritating manner at his foes.\nBut then the stolen waters gushed out of his mouth in full volume, and\nthe drought soon ended. One of the most curious points in this myth is\nthe origin of the quarrel between the woodpecker and the toad. The same\nbeginning--the tale of an insult put on an animal by hauling up and\nletting him down with a run--occurs in an African Marchen.(1)\n\n\n(1) Brough Smyth, Aborigines of Victoria, i. 429, 430; Brinton, American\nHero Myths, i. 55. Cf. also Relations de la Nouvelle France, 1636, 1640,\n1671; (Sagard, Hist. du Canada, 1636, p. 451;) Journal Anthrop. Inst.,\n1881.\n\n\nNow this strangely diffused story of the slaying of the frog which had\nswallowed all the water seems to be a savage myth of which the more\nheroic conflict of Indra with Vrittra (the dragon which had swallowed\nall the waters) is an epic and sublimer version.(1) \"The heavenly water,\nwhich Vrittra withholds from the world, is usually the prize of the\ncontest.\"\n\n\n(1) Ludwig, Der Rig-Veda, iii. p. 337. See postea, \"Divine Myths of\nIndia\".\n\n\nThe serpent of Vedic myth is, perhaps, rather the robber-guardian than\nthe swallower of the waters, but Indra is still, like the Iroquois\nIoskeha, \"he who wounds the full one\".(1) This example of the wide\ndistribution of a myth shows how the question of diffusion, though\nconnected with, is yet distinct from that of origin. The advantage\nof our method will prove to be, that it discovers an historical and\ndemonstrable state of mind as the origin of the wild element in\nmyth. Again, the wide prevalence in the earliest times of this mental\ncondition will, to a certain extent, explain the DISTRIBUTION of\nmyth. Room must be left, of course, for processes of borrowing and\ntransmission, but how Andamanese, Australians and Hurons could borrow\nfrom each other is an unsolved problem.\n\n\n(1) Gubernatis, Zoological Myth. ii. 395, note 2. \"When Indra kills the\nserpent he opens the torrent of the waters\" (p. 393). See also Aitareya\nBrahmana, translated by Haug, ii. 483.\n\n\nFinally, our hypothesis is not involved in dubious theories of race. To\nus, myths appear to be affected (in their origins) much less by the race\nthan by the stage of culture attained by the people who cherish them.\nA fight for the waters between a monstrous dragon like Vrittra and a\nheroic god like Indra is a nobler affair than a quarrel for the\nwaters between a woodpecker and a toad. But the improvement and\ntransfiguration, so to speak, of a myth at bottom the same is due to the\nsuperior culture, not to the peculiar race, of the Vedic poets, except\nso far as culture itself depends on race. How far the purer culture was\nattained to by the original superiority of the Aryan over the Andaman\nbreed, it is not necessary for our purpose to inquire. Thus, on the\nwhole, we may claim for our system a certain demonstrable character,\nwhich helps to simplify the problems of mythology, and to remove\nthem from the realm of fanciful guesses and conflicting etymological\nconjectures into that of sober science. That these pretensions are not\nunacknowledged even by mythologists trained in other schools is proved\nby the remarks of Dr. Tiele.(1)\n\n\n(1) Rev. de l'Hist. des Rel., \"Le Mythe de Cronos,\" January, 1886. Dr.\nTiele is not, it must be noted, a thorough adherent of our theory. See\nModern Mythology: \"The Question of Allies\".\n\n\nDr. Tiele writes: \"If I were obliged to choose between this method\" (the\nsystem here advocated) \"and that of comparative philology, it is the\nformer that I would adopt without the slightest hesitation. This method\nalone enables us to explain the fact, which has so often provoked\namazement, that people so refined as the Greeks,... or so rude, but\nmorally pure, as the Germans,... managed to attribute to their gods\nall manner of cowardly, cruel and disorderly conduct. This method alone\nexplains the why and wherefore of all those strange metamorphoses\nof gods into beasts and plants, and even stones, which scandalised\nphilosophers, and which the witty Ovid played on for the diversion of\nhis contemporaries. In short, this method teaches us to recognise in all\nthose strange stories the survivals of a barbaric age, long passed away,\nbut enduring to later times in the form of religious traditions, of all\ntraditions the most persistent.... Finally, this method alone enables us\nto explain the origin of myths, because it endeavours to study them\nin their rudest and most primitive shape, thus allowing their true\nsignificance to be much more clearly apparent than it can be in the\nmyths (so often touched, retouched, augmented and humanised) which are\ncurrent among races arrived at a certain degree of culture.\"\n\nThe method is to this extent applauded by a most competent authority,\nand it has been warmly accepted by a distinguished French school of\nstudents, represented by M. Gaidoz. But it is obvious that the method\nrests on a double hypothesis: first, that satisfactory evidence as to\nthe mental conditions of the lower and backward races is obtainable;\nsecond, that the civilised races (however they began) either passed\nthrough the savage state of thought and practice, or borrowed very\nfreely from people in that condition. These hypotheses have been\nattacked by opponents; the trustworthiness of our evidence, especially,\nhas been assailed. By way of facilitating the course of the exposition\nand of lessening the disturbing element of controversy, a reply to\nthe objections and a defence of the evidence has been relegated to an\nAppendix.(1) Meanwhile we go on to examine the peculiar characteristics\nof the mental condition of savages and of peoples in the lower and upper\nbarbarisms.\n\n\n(1) Appendix B.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III. THE MENTAL CONDITION OF SAVAGES--CONFUSION WITH\nNATURE--TOTEMISM.\n\n\nThe mental condition of savages the basis of the irrational element in\nmyth--Characteristics of that condition: (1) Confusion of all things\nin an equality of presumed animation and intelligence; (2) Belief in\nsorcery; (3) Spiritualism; (4) Curiosity; (5) Easy credulity and mental\nindolence--The curiosity is satisfied, thanks to the credulity, by myths\nin answer to all inquiries--Evidence for this--Mr. Tylor's opinion--Mr.\nIm Thurn--Jesuit missionaries' Relations--Examples of confusion\nbetween men, plants, beasts and other natural objects--Reports of\ntravellers--Evidence from institution of totemism--Definition of\ntotemism--Totemism in Australia, Africa, America, the Oceanic Islands,\nIndia, North Asia--Conclusions: Totemism being found so widely\ndistributed, is a proof of the existence of that savage mental condition\nin which no line is drawn between men and the other things in the world.\nThis confusion is one of the characteristics of myth in all races.\n\n\nWe set out to discover a stage of human intellectual development which\nwould necessarily produce the essential elements of myth. We think we\nhave found that stage in the condition of savagery. We now proceed to\narray the evidence for the mental processes of savages. We intend to\ndemonstrate the existence in practical savage life of the ideas which\nmost surprise us when we find them in civilised sacred legends.\n\nFor the purposes of this inquiry, it is enough to select a few special\npeculiarities of savage thought.\n\n1. First we have that nebulous and confused frame of mind to which all\nthings, animate or inanimate, human, animal, vegetable, or inorganic,\nseem on the same level of life, passion and reason. The savage, at all\nevents when myth-making, draws no hard and fast line between himself and\nthe things in the world. He regards himself as literally akin to animals\nand plants and heavenly bodies; he attributes sex and procreative powers\neven to stones and rocks, and he assigns human speech and human feelings\nto sun and moon and stars and wind, no less than to beasts, birds and\nfishes.(1)\n\n\n(1) \"So fasst auch das Alterthum ihren Unterschied von den Menschen\nganz anders als die spatere Zeit.\"--Grimm, quoted by Liebrecht, Zur\nVolkskunde, p. 17.\n\n\n2. The second point to note in savage opinion is the belief in magic and\nsorcery. The world and all the things in it being vaguely conceived of\nas sensible and rational, obey the commands of certain members of the\ntribe, chiefs, jugglers, conjurors, or what you will. Rocks open at\ntheir order, rivers dry up, animals are their servants and hold converse\nwith them. These magicians cause or heal diseases, and can command even\nthe weather, bringing rain or thunder or sunshine at their will.(1)\nThere are few supernatural attributes of \"cloud-compelling Zeus\" or of\nApollo that are not freely assigned to the tribal conjuror. By virtue,\ndoubtless, of the community of nature between man and the things in the\nworld, the conjuror (like Zeus or Indra) can assume at will the shape\nof any animal, or can metamorphose his neighbours or enemies into animal\nforms.\n\n\n(1) See Roth in North-West Central Queensland Aborigines, chapter xii.,\n1897.\n\n\n3. Another peculiarity of savage belief naturally connects itself with\nthat which has just been described. The savage has very strong ideas\nabout the persistent existence of the souls of the dead. They retain\nmuch of their old nature, but are often more malignant after death than\nthey had been during life. They are frequently at the beck and call of\nthe conjuror, whom they aid with their advice and with their magical\npower. By virtue of the close connection already spoken of between\nman and the animals, the souls of the dead are not rarely supposed to\nmigrate into the bodies of beasts, or to revert to the condition of that\nspecies of creatures with which each tribe supposes itself to be related\nby ties of kinship or friendship. With the usual inconsistency of\nmythical belief, the souls of the dead are spoken of, at other times,\nas if they inhabited a spiritual world, sometimes a paradise of flowers,\nsometimes a gloomy place, which mortal men may visit, but whence no one\ncan escape who has tasted of the food of the ghosts.\n\n4. In connection with spirits a far-reaching savage philosophy\nprevails. It is not unusual to assign a ghost to all objects, animate or\ninanimate, and the spirit or strength of a man is frequently regarded as\nsomething separable, capable of being located in an external object,\nor something with a definite locality in the body. A man's strength\nand spirit may reside in his kidney fat, in his heart, in a lock of his\nhair, or may even be stored by him in some separate receptacle. Very\nfrequently a man is held capable of detaching his soul from his body,\nand letting it roam about on his business, sometimes in the form of a\nbird or other animal.\n\n5. Many minor savage beliefs might be named, such as the common faith in\nfriendly or protecting animals, and the notion that \"natural deaths\" (as\nwe call them) are always UNNATURAL, that death is always caused by some\nhostile spirit or conjuror. From this opinion comes the myth that man is\nnaturally not subject to death: that death was somehow introduced into\nthe world by a mistake or misdeed is a corollary. (See \"Myths of the\nOrigin of Death\" in Modern Mythology.)\n\n6. One more mental peculiarity of the savage mind remains to be\nconsidered in this brief summary. The savage, like the civilised man, is\ncurious. The first faint impulses of the scientific spirit are at work\nin his brain; he is anxious to give himself an account of the world\nin which he finds himself. But he is not more curious than he is, on\noccasion, credulous. His intellect is eager to ask questions, as is the\nhabit of children, but his intellect is also lazy, and he is content\nwith the first answer that comes to hand. \"Ils s'arretent aux premieres\nnotions qu'ils en ont,\" says Pere Hierome Lalemant.(1) \"Nothing,\" says\nSchoolcraft, \"is too capacious (sic) for Indian belief.\"(2) The replies\nto his questions he receives from tradition or (when a new problem\narises) evolves an answer for himself in the shape of STORIES. Just as\nSocrates, in the Platonic dialogues, recalls or invents a myth in the\ndespair of reason, so the savage has a story for answer to almost\nevery question that he can ask himself. These stories are in a sense\nscientific, because they attempt a solution of the riddles of the world.\nThey are in a sense religious, because there is usually a supernatural\npower, a deus ex machina, of some sort to cut the knot of the problem.\nSuch stories, then, are the science, and to a certain extent the\nreligious tradition, of savages.(3)\n\n\n(1) Relations de la Nouvelle France, 1648, p. 70.\n\n(2) Algic Researches, i. 41.\n\n(3) \"The Indians (Algonkins) conveyed instruction--moral, mechanical and\nreligious--through traditionary fictions and tales.\"--Schoolcraft, Algic\nResearches, i. 12.\n\n\nNow these tales are necessarily cast in the mould of the savage ideas of\nwhich a sketch has been given. The changes of the heavenly bodies, the\nprocesses of day and night, the existence of the stars, the invention\nof the arts, the origin of the world (as far as known to the savage),\nof the tribe, of the various animals and plants, the origin of death\nitself, the origin of the perplexing traditional tribal customs, are all\naccounted for in stories. At the same time, an actual divine Maker is\nsometimes postulated. The stories, again, are fashioned in accordance\nwith the beliefs already named: the belief in human connection with and\nkinship with beasts and plants; the belief in magic; the belief in the\nperpetual possibility of metamorphosis or \"shape shifting\"; the belief\nin the permanence and power of the ghosts of the dead; the belief in the\npersonal and animated character of all the things in the world, and so\nforth.\n\nNo more need be said to explain the wild and (as it seems to us moderns)\nthe irrational character of savage myth. It is a jungle of foolish\nfancies, a walpurgis nacht of gods and beasts and men and stars and\nghosts, all moving madly on a level of common personality and animation,\nand all changing shapes at random, as partners are changed in some\nfantastic witches' revel. Such is savage mythology, and how could it\nbe otherwise when we consider the elements of thought and belief out of\nwhich it is mainly composed? We shall see that part of the mythology of\nthe Greeks or the Aryans of India is but a similar walpurgis nacht, in\nwhich an incestuous or amorous god may become a beast, and the object\nof his pursuit, once a woman, may also become a beast, and then shift\nshapes to a tree or a bird or a star. But in the civilised races the\ngenius of the people tends to suppress, exclude and refine away the wild\nelement, which, however, is never wholly eliminated. The Erinyes soon\nstop the mouth of the horse of Achilles when he begins, like the horse\nin Grimm's Goose Girl, to hold a sustained conversation.(1) But the\nancient, cruel, and grotesque savage element, nearly overcome by Homer\nand greatly reduced by the Vedic poets, breaks out again in Hesiod, in\ntemple legends and Brahmanic glosses, and finally proves so strong that\nit can only be subdued by Christianity, or rather by that break between\nthe educated classes and the traditional past of religion which has\nresulted from Christianity. Even so, myth lingers in the folk-lore of\nthe non-progressive classes of Europe, and, as in Roumania, invades\nreligion.\n\n\n(1) Iliad, xix. 418.\n\n\nWe have now to demonstrate the existence in the savage intellect of\nthe various ideas and habits which we have described, and out of which\nmythology springs. First, we have to show that \"a nebulous and confused\nstate of mind, to which all things, animate or inanimate, human, animal,\nvegetable or inorganic, seem on the same level of life, passion and\nreason,\" does really exist.(1) The existence of this condition of the\nintellect will be demonstrated first on the evidence of the statements\nof civilised observers, next on the evidence of the savage institutions\nin which it is embodied.\n\n\n(1) Creuzer and Guigniaut, vol. i. p. 111.\n\n\nThe opinion of Mr. Tylor is naturally of great value, as it is formed\non as wide an acquaintance with the views of the lower races as any\ninquirers can hope to possess. Mr. Tylor observes: \"We have to inform\nourselves of the savage man's idea, which is very different from the\ncivilised man's, of the nature of the lower animals.... The sense of an\nabsolute psychical distinction between man and beast, so prevalent in\nthe civilised world, is hardly to be found among the lower races.\"(1)\nThe universal attribution of \"souls\" to all things--the theory known as\n\"Animism\"--is another proof that the savage draws no hard and fast line\nbetween man and the other things in the world. The notion of the Italian\ncountry-people, that cruelty to an animal does not matter because it is\nnot a \"Christian,\" has no parallel in the philosophy of the savage,\nto whom all objects seem to have souls, just as men have. Mr. Im Thurn\nfound the absence of any sense of a difference between man and nature\na characteristic of his native companions in Guiana. \"The very phrase,\n'Men and other animals,' or even, as it is often expressed, 'Men and\nanimals,' based as it is on the superiority which civilised man feels\nover other animals, expresses a dichotomy which is in no way recognised\nby the Indian.... It is therefore most important to realise how\ncomparatively small really is the difference between men in a state of\nsavagery and other animals, and how completely even such difference as\nexists escapes the notice of savage men... It is not, therefore, too\nmuch to say that, according to the view of the Indians, other animals\ndiffer from men only in bodily form and in their various degrees of\nstrength; in spirit they do not differ at all.\"(2) The Indian's notion\nof the life of plants and stones is on the same level of unreason, as we\nmoderns reckon reason. He believes in the spirits of rocks and stones,\nundeterred by the absence of motion in these objects. \"Not only many\nrocks, but also many waterfalls, streams, and indeed material objects of\nevery sort, are supposed each to consist of a body and a spirit, as does\nman.\"(3) It is not our business to ask here how men came by the belief\nin universal animation. That belief is gradually withdrawn, distinctions\nare gradually introduced, as civilisation and knowledge advance. It is\nenough for us if the failure to draw a hard and fast line between man\nand beasts, stones and plants, be practically universal among\nsavages, and if it gradually disappears before the fuller knowledge of\ncivilisation. The report which Mr. Im Thurn brings from the Indians of\nGuiana is confirmed by what Schoolcraft says of the Algonkin races of\nthe northern part of the continent. \"The belief of the narrators and\nlisteners in every wild and improbable thing told helps wonderfully in\nthe original stories, in joining all parts together. The Indian believes\nthat the whole visible and invisible creation is animated.... To make\nthe matter worse, these tribes believe that animals of the lowest as\nwell as highest class in the chain of creation are alike endowed with\nreasoning powers and faculties. As a natural conclusion they endow\nbirds, beasts and all other animals with souls.\"(4) As an example of the\nease with which the savage recognises consciousness and voluntary\nmotion even in stones, may be cited Kohl's account of the beliefs of the\nObjibeways.(5) Nearly every Indian has discovered, he says, an object\nin which he places special confidence, and to which he sacrifices more\nzealously than to the Great Spirit. The \"hope\" of Otamigan (a companion\nof the traveller) was a rock, which once advanced to meet him, swayed,\nbowed and went back again. Another Indian revered a Canadian larch,\n\"because he once heard a very remarkable rustling in its branches\".\nIt thus appears that while the savage has a general kind of sense that\ninanimate things are animated, he is a good deal impressed by their\nconduct when he thinks that they actually display their animation. In\nthe same way a devout modern spiritualist probably regards with more\nreverence a table which he has seen dancing and heard rapping than a\ntable at which he has only dined. Another general statement of failure\nto draw the line between men and the irrational creation is found in\nthe old Jesuit missionary Le Jeune's Relations de la Nouvelle France.(6)\n\"Les sauvages se persuadent que non seulement les hommes et les autres\nanimaux, mais aussi que toutes les autres choses sont animees.\" Again:\n\"Ils tiennent les poissons raisonnables, comme aussi les cerfs\". In the\nSolomon Islands, Mr. Romilly sailed with an old chief who used violent\nlanguage to the waves when they threatened to dash over the boat, and\n\"old Takki's exhortations were successful\".(7) Waitz(8) discovers the\nsame attitude towards the animals among the negroes. Man, in their\nopinion, is by no means a separate sort of person on the summit of\nnature and high above the beasts; these he rather regards as dark and\nenigmatic beings, whose life is full of mystery, and which he therefore\nconsiders now as his inferiors, now as his superiors. A collection of\nevidence as to the savage failure to discriminate between human and\nnon-human, animate and inanimate, has been brought together by Sir John\nLubbock.(9)\n\n\n(1) Primitive Culture, i. 167-169.\n\n(2) Among the Indians of Guiana (1883), p. 350.\n\n(3) Op. Cit., 355.\n\n(4) Schoolcraft, Algic Researches, i. 41.\n\n(5) Kohl, Wanderings Round Lake Superior, pp. 58, 59; Muller, Amerikan\nUrrelig., pp. 62-67.\n\n(6) 1636, p. 109.\n\n(7) Western Pacific, p. 84.\n\n(8) Anthropologie der Natur-Volker, ii. 177.\n\n(9) Origin of Civilisation, p. 33. A number of examples of this mental\nattitude among the Bushmen will be found in chap. v., postea.\n\n\nTo a race accustomed like ourselves to arrange and classify, to people\nfamiliar from childhood and its games with \"vegetable, animal and\nmineral,\" a condition of mind in which no such distinctions are drawn,\nany more than they are drawn in Greek or Brahmanic myths, must\nnaturally seem like what Mr. Max Muller calls \"temporary insanity\".\nThe imagination of the savage has been defined by Mr. Tylor as \"midway\nbetween the conditions of a healthy, prosaic, modern citizen, and of a\nraving fanatic, or of a patient in a fever-ward\". If any relics of\nsuch imagination survive in civilised mythology, they will very closely\nresemble the productions of a once universal \"temporary insanity\". Let\nit be granted, then, that \"to the lower tribes of man, sun and stars,\ntrees and rivers, winds and clouds, become personal, animate creatures,\nleading lives conformed to human or animal analogies, and performing\ntheir special functions in the universe with the aid of limbs like\nbeasts, or of artificial instruments like men; or that what men's eyes\nbehold is but the instrument to be used or the material to be shaped,\nwhile behind it there stands some prodigious but yet half-human\ncreature, who grasps it with his hands or blows it with his breath. The\nbasis on which such ideas as these are built is not to be narrowed\ndown to poetic fancy and transformed metaphor. They rest upon a\nbroad philosophy of nature; early and crude, indeed, but thoughtful,\nconsistent, and quite really and seriously meant.\"(1)\n\n\n(1) Primtive Culture, i. 285.\n\n\nFor the sake of illustration, some minor examples must next be given\nof this confusion between man and other things in the world, which\nwill presently be illustrated by the testimony of a powerful and long\ndiffused set of institutions.\n\nThe Christian Quiches of Guatemala believe that each of them has a beast\nas his friend and protector, just as in the Highlands \"the dog is\nthe friend of the Maclaines\". When the Finns, in their epic poem the\nKalewala, have killed a bear, they implore the animal to forgive them.\n\"Oh, Ot-so,\" chant the singers, \"be not angry that we come near thee.\nThe bear, the honey-footed bear, was born in lands between sun and moon,\nand he died, not by men's hands, but of his own will.\"(1) The Red Men of\nNorth America(2) have a tradition showing how it is that the bear does\nnot die, but, like Herodotus with the sacred stories of the Egyptian\npriests, Mr. Schoolcraft \"cannot induce himself to write it out\".(3) It\nis a most curious fact that the natives of Australia tell a similar tale\nof THEIR \"native bear\". \"He did not die\" when attacked by men.(4) In\nparts of Australia it is a great offence to skin the native bear,\njust as on a part of the west coast of Ireland, where seals are\nsuperstitiously regarded, the people cannot be bribed to skin them. In\nNew Caledonia, when a child tries to kill a lizard, the men warn him to\n\"beware of killing his own ancestor\".(5) The Zulus spare to destroy a\ncertain species of serpents, believed to be the spirits of kinsmen, as\nthe great snake which appeared when Aeneas did sacrifice was held to\nbe the ghost of Anchises. Mexican women(6) believed that children born\nduring an eclipse turn into mice. In Australia the natives believe\nthat the wild dog has the power of speech; whoever listens to him is\npetrified; and a certain spot is shown where \"the wild dog spoke and\nturned the men into stone\";(7) and the blacks run for their lives as\nsoon as the dog begins to speak. What it said was \"Bones\".\n\n\n(1) Kalewala, in La Finlande, Leouzon Le Duc (1845), vol. ii. p. 100;\ncf. also the Introduction.\n\n(2) Schoolcraft, v. 420.\n\n(3) See similar ceremonies propitiatory of the bear in Jewett's\nAdventures among the Nootkas, Edinburgh, 1824.\n\n(4) Brough Smyth, i. 449.\n\n(5) J. J. Atkinson's MS.\n\n(6) Sahagun, ii. viii. 250; Bancroft, iii. 111. Compare stories of\nwomen who give birth to animals in Melusine, 1886, August-November. The\nBatavians believe that women, when delivered of a child, are frequently\ndelivered at the same time of a young crocodile as a twin. Hawkesworth's\nVoyages, iii. 756. Liebrecht, Zur Volkskunde, p. 17 et seq.\n\n(7) Brough Smyth, Aborigines of Victoria, i. 497.\n\n\nThese are minor examples of a form of opinion which is so strong that\nit is actually the chief constituent in savage society. That society,\nwhether in Ashantee or Australia, in North America or South Africa,\nor North Asia or India, or among the wilder tribes of ancient Peru,\nis based on an institution generally called \"totemism\". This very\nextraordinary institution, whatever its origin, cannot have arisen\nexcept among men capable of conceiving kinship and all human\nrelationships as existing between themselves and all animate and\ninanimate things. It is the rule, and not the exception, that savage\nsocieties are founded upon this belief. The political and social conduct\nof the backward races is regulated in such matters as blood-feud and\nmarriage by theories of the actual kindred and connection by descent, or\nby old friendship, which men have in common with beasts, plants, the sun\nand moon, the stars, and even the wind and the rain. Now, in whatever\nway this belief in such relations to beasts and plants may have arisen,\nit undoubtedly testifies to a condition of mind in which no hard and\nfast line was drawn between man and animate and inanimate nature. The\ndiscovery of the wide distribution of the social arrangements based\non this belief is entirely due to Mr. J. F. M'Lennan, the author of\nPrimitive Marriage. Mr. M'Lennan's essays (\"The Worship of Plants and\nAnimals,\" \"Totems and Totemism\") were published in the Fortnightly\nReview, 1869-71. Any follower in the footsteps of Mr. M'Lennan has it\nin his power to add a little evidence to that originally set forth, and\nperhaps to sift the somewhat uncritical authorities adduced.(1)\n\n\n(1) See also Mr. Frazer's Totemism, and Golden Bough, with chapter on\nTotemism in Modern Mythology.\n\n\nThe name \"Totemism\" or \"Totamism\" was first applied at the end of the\nlast century by Long(1) to the Red Indian custom which acknowledges\nhuman kinship with animals. This institution had already been recognised\namong the Iroquois by Lafitau,(2) and by other observers. As to the\nword \"totem,\" Mr. Max Muller(3) quotes an opinion that the interpreters,\nmissionaries, Government inspectors, and others who apply the name\ntotem to the Indian \"family mark\" must have been ignorant of the Indian\nlanguages, for there is in them no such word as totem. The right word,\nit appears, is otem; but as \"totemism\" has the advantage of possessing\nthe ground, we prefer to say \"totemism\" rather than \"otemism\". The facts\nare the same, whatever name we give them. As Mr. Muller says himself,(4)\n\"every warrior has his crest, which is called his totem\";(5) and he\ngoes on to describe a totem of an Indian who died about 1793. We may\nnow return to the consideration of \"otemism\" or totemism. We approach\nit rather as a fact in the science of mythology than as a stage in the\nevolution of the modern family system. For us totemism is interesting\nbecause it proves the existence of that savage mental attitude which\nassumes kindred and alliance between man and the things in the world.\nAs will afterwards be seen, totemism has also left its mark on the\nmythologies of the civilised races. We shall examine the institution\nfirst as it is found in Australia, because the Australian form of\ntotemism shows in the highest known degree the savage habit of confusing\nin a community of kinship men, stars, plants, beasts, the heavenly\nbodies, and the forces of Nature. When this has once been elucidated, a\nshorter notice of other totemistic races will serve our purpose.\n\n\n(1) Voyages and Travels, 1791.\n\n(2) Moeurs des Sauvages (1724), p. 461.\n\n(3) Academy, December 15, 1883.\n\n(4) Selected Essays (1881), ii. 376.\n\n(5) Compare Mr. Max Muller's Contributions to the Science of Mythology.\n\n\nThe society of the Murri or black fellows of Australia is divided into\nlocal tribes, each of which possesses, or used to possess, and hunt\nover a considerable tract of country. These local tribes are united by\ncontiguity, and by common local interests, but not necessarily by blood\nkinship. For example, the Port Mackay tribe, the Mount Gambier tribe,\nthe Ballarat tribe, all take their names from their district. In the\nsame way we might speak of the people of Strathclyde or of Northumbria\nin early English history. Now, all these local tribes contain an\nindefinite number of stocks of kindred, of men believing themselves to\nbe related by the ties of blood and common descent. That descent the\ngroups agree in tracing, not from some real or idealised human parent,\nbut from some animal, plant, or other natural object, as the kangaroo,\nthe emu, the iguana, the pelican, and so forth. Persons of the pelican\nstock in the north of Queensland regard themselves as relations of\npeople of the same stock in the most southern parts of Australia. The\ncreature from which each tribe claims descent is called \"of the same\nflesh,\" while persons of another stock are \"fresh flesh\". A native may\nnot marry a woman of \"his own flesh\"; it is only a woman of \"fresh\" or\n\"strange\" flesh he may marry. A man may not eat an animal of \"his own\nflesh\"; he may only eat \"strange flesh\". Only under great stress of need\nwill an Australian eat the animal which is the flesh-and-blood cousin\nand protector of his stock.(1) (These rules of marriage and blood,\nhowever, do not apply among the Arunta of Central Australia, whose\nTotems (if Totems they should be called) have been developed on very\ndifferent lines.(2)) Clearer evidence of the confusion between man and\nbeast, of the claiming of kin between man and beast, could hardly be.\n\n\n(1) Dawson, Aborigines, pp. 26, 27; Howitt and Fison, Kamilaroi and\nKurnai, p. 169.\n\n(2) Spencer and Gillen, Native Tribes of Central Australia.\n\n\nBut the Australian philosophy of the intercommunion of Nature goes still\nfarther than this. Besides the local divisions and the kindred\nstocks which trace their descent from animals, there exist among many\nAustralian tribes divisions of a kind still unexplained. For example,\nevery man of the Mount Gambier local tribe is by birth either a Kumite\nor a Kroki. This classification applies to the whole of the sensible\nuniverse. Thus smoke and honeysuckle trees belong to the division\nKumite, and are akin to the fishhawk stock of men. On the other hand,\nthe kangaroo, summer, autumn, the wind and the shevak tree belong to\nthe division Kroki, and are akin to the black cockatoo stock of men. Any\nhuman member of the Kroki division has thus for his brothers the sun,\nthe wind, the kangaroo, and the rest; while any man of the Kumite\ndivision and the crow surname is the brother of the rain, the thunder,\nand the winter. This extraordinary belief is not a mere idle fancy--it\ninfluences conduct. \"A man does not kill or use as food any of the\nanimals of the same subdivision (Kroki or Kumite) with himself,\nexcepting when hunger compels, and then they express sorrow for having\nto eat their wingong (friends) or tumanang (their flesh). When using the\nlast word they touch their breasts, to indicate the close relationship,\nmeaning almost a portion of themselves. To illustrate: One day one of\nthe blacks killed a crow. Three or four days afterwards a Boortwa (a man\nof the crow surname and stock), named Larry, died. He had been ailing\nfor some days, but the killing of his wingong (totem) hastened his\ndeath.\"(1) Commenting on this statement, Mr. Fison observes: \"The South\nAustralian savage looks upon the universe as the Great Tribe, to one\nof whose divisions he himself belongs; and all things, animate and\ninanimate, which belong to his class are parts of the body corporate\nwhereof he himself is part\". This account of the Australian beliefs and\ncustoms is borne out, to a certain extent, by the evidence of Sir George\nGrey,(2) and of the late Mr. Gideon Scott Lang.(3) These two writers\ntake no account of the singular \"dichotomous\" divisions, as of Kumite\nand Kroki, but they draw attention to the groups of kindred which derive\ntheir surnames from animals, plants, and the like. \"The origin of these\nfamily names,\" says Sir George Grey, \"is attributed by the natives to\ndifferent causes.... One origin frequently assigned by the natives is,\nthat they were derived from some vegetable or animal being very common\nin the district which the family inhabited.\" We have seen from\nthe evidence of Messrs. Fison and Howitt that a more common native\nexplanation is based on kinship with the vegetable or plant which\nbestows the family surname. Sir George Gray mentions that the families\nuse their plant or animal as a crest or kobong (totem), and he adds that\nnatives never willingly kill animals of their kobong, holding that some\none of that species is their nearest friend. The consequences of eating\nforbidden animals vary considerably. Sometimes the Boyl-yas (that is,\nghosts) avenge the crime. Thus when Sir George Grey ate some mussels\n(which, after all, are not the crest of the Greys), a storm followed,\nand one of his black fellow improvised this stave:--\n\n\n     Oh, wherefore did he eat the mussels?\n     Now the Boyl-yas storms and thunders make;\n     Oh, wherefore would he eat the mussels?\n\n\n(1) Kamilaroi and Kurnai, p. 169.\n\n(2) Travels, ii. 225.\n\n(3) Lang, Lecture on Natives of Australia, p. 10.\n\n\nThere are two points in the arrangements of these stocks of kindred\nnamed from plants and animals which we shall find to possess a high\nimportance. No member of any such kindred may marry a woman of the same\nname and descended from the same object.(1) Thus no man of the Emu stock\nmay marry an Emu woman; no Blacksnake may marry a Blacksnake woman, and\nso forth. This point is very strongly put by Mr. Dawson, who has had\nmuch experience of the blacks. \"So strictly are the laws of marriage\ncarried out, that, should any sign of courtship or affection be observed\nbetween those 'of one flesh,' the brothers or male relatives of the\nwoman beat her severely.\" If the incestuous pair (though not in the\nleast related according to our ideas) run away together, they are\n\"half-killed\"; and if the woman dies in consequence of her punishment,\nher partner in iniquity is beaten again. No \"eric\" or blood-fine of any\nkind is paid for her death, which carries no blood-feud. \"Her punishment\nis legal.\"(2) This account fully corroborates that of Sir George\nGrey.(3)\n\n\n(1) Taplin, The Nerrinyeri. p. 2. \"Every tribe, regarded by them as a\nfamily, has its ngaitge, or tutelary genius or tribal symbol, in the\nshape of some bird, beast, fish, reptile, insect, or substance. Between\nindividuals of the same tribe no marriage can take place.\" Among the\nNarrinyeri kindred is reckoned (p. 10) on the father's side. See\nalso (p. 46) ngaitge = Samoan aitu. \"No man or woman will kill their\nngaitge,\" except with precautions, for food.\n\n(2) Op. cit., p. 28.\n\n(3) Ibid., ii. 220.\n\n\nOur conclusion is that the belief in \"one flesh\" (a kinship shared\nwith the animals) must be a thoroughly binding idea, as the notion is\nsanctioned by capital punishment.\n\nAnother important feature in Australian totemism strengthens our\nposition. The idea of the animal kinship must be an ancient one in the\nrace, because the family surname, Emu, Bandicoot, or what not, and the\ncrest, kobong, or protecting and kindred animal, are inherited through\nthe mother's side in the majority of stocks. This custom, therefore,\nbelongs to that early period of human society in which the woman is the\npermanent and recognised factor in the family while male parentage is\nuncertain.(1) One other feature of Australian totemism must be mentioned\nbefore we leave the subject. There is some evidence that in certain\ntribes the wingong or totem of each man is indicated by a tattooed\nrepresentation of it upon his flesh. The natives are very licentious,\nbut men would shrink from an amour with a woman who neither belonged to\ntheir own district nor spoke their language, but who, in spite of that,\nwas of their totem. To avoid mistakes, it seems that some tribes mark\nthe totem on the flesh with incised lines.(2) The natives frequently\ndesign figures of some kind on the trees growing near the graves of\ndeceased warriors. Some observers have fancied that in these designs\nthey recognised the totem of the dead men; but on this subject evidence\nis by no means clear. We shall see that this primitive sort of heraldry,\nthis carving or painting of hereditary blazons, is common among the Red\nMen of America.(3)\n\n\n(1) Cf. Bachofen, Das Mutterrecht; M'Lennan, Primitive Marriage, passim;\nEncycl. Brit. s. v. Family.\n\n(2) Fison, op. cit., p. 66.\n\n(3) Among other recent sources see Howitt in \"Organisation of Australian\nTribes\" (Transactions of Royal Society of Victoria, 1889), and Spencer\nand Gillen, Natives of Central Australia. In Central Australia there is\na marked difference in the form of Totemism.\n\n\nThough a large amount of evidence might be added to that already put\nforward, we may now sum up the inferences to be drawn from the study\nof totemism in Australia. It has been shown (1) that the natives think\nthemselves actually akin to animals, plants, the sun, and the wind, and\nthings in general; (2) that those ideas influence their conduct, and\neven regulate their social arrangements, because (3) men and women of\nthe kinship of the same animal or plant may not intermarry, while men\nare obliged to defend, and in case of murder to avenge, persons of the\nstock of the family or plant from which they themselves derive their\nfamily name. Thus, on the evidence of institutions, it is plain that\nthe Australians are (or before the influence of the Europeans became\nprevalent were) in a state of mind which draws no hard and fast line\nbetween man and the things in the world. If, therefore, we find that\nin Australian myth, men, gods, beasts, and things all shift shapes\nincessantly, and figure in a coroboree dance of confusion, there will\nbe nothing to astonish us in the discovery. The myths of men in the\nAustralian intellectual condition, of men who hold long conversations\nwith the little \"native bear,\" and ask him for oracles, will naturally\nand inevitably be grotesque and confused.(1)\n\n\n(1) Brough Smyth, i. 447, on MS. authority of W. Thomas.\n\n\nIt is \"a far cry\" from Australia to the West Coast of Africa, and it\nis scarcely to be supposed that the Australians have borrowed ideas and\ninstitutions from Ashantee, or that the people of Ashantee have derived\ntheir conceptions of the universe from the Murri of Australia. We find,\nhowever, on the West African Coast, just as we do in Australia, that\nthere exist large local divisions of the natives. These divisions are\nspoken of by Mr. Bowditch (who visited the country on a mission in 1817)\nas nations, and they are much more populous and powerful (as the people\nare more civilised) than the local tribes of Australia. Yet, just as\namong the local tribes of Australia, the nations of the West African\nCoast are divided into stocks of kindred, each STOCK having its\nrepresentatives in each NATION. Thus an Ashantee or a Fantee may belong\nto the same stock of kindred as a member of the Assin or Akini nation.\nWhen an Ashantee of the Annona stock of kindred meets a Warsaw man of\nthe same stock they salute and acknowledge each other as brothers.\nIn the same way a Ballarat man of the Kangaroo stock in Australia\nrecognises a relative in a Mount Gambier man who is also a Kangaroo.\nNow, with one exception, all the names of the twelve stocks of West\nAfrican kindreds, or at least all of them which Mr. Bowditch could get\nthe native interpreters to translate, are derived from animals, plants\nand other natural objects, just as in Australia.(1) Thus Quonna is a\nbuffalo, Abrootoo is a cornstalk, Abbradi a plantain. Other names are,\nin English, the parrot, the wild cat, red earth, panther and dog. Thus\nall the natives of this part of Africa are parrots, dogs, buffaloes,\npanthers, and so forth, just as the Australians are emus, iguanas, black\ncockatoos, kangaroos, and the rest. It is remarkable that there is an\nIncra stock, or clan of ants, in Ashantee, just as there was a race of\nMyrmidons, believed to be descended from or otherwise connected with\nants, in ancient Greece. Though Bowditch's account of these West African\nfamily divisions is brief, the arrangement tallies closely with that\nof Australia. It is no great stretch of imagination to infer that the\nAfrican tribes do, or once did, believe themselves to be of the kindred\nof the animals whose names they bear.(2) It is more or less confirmatory\nof this hypothesis that no family is permitted to use as food the\nanimal from which it derives its name. We have seen that a similar rule\nprevails, as far as hunger and scarcity of victuals permit it to be\nobeyed, among the natives of Australia. The Intchwa stock in Ashantee\nand Fantee is particularly unlucky, because its members may not eat\nthe dog, \"much relished by native epicures, and therefore a serious\nprivation\". Equally to be pitied were the ancient Egyptians, who, if\nthey belonged to the district of the sheep, might not eat mutton,\nwhich their neighbours, the Lycopolitae, devoured at pleasure. These\nrestrictions appear to be connected with the almost universal dislike\nof cannibals to eat persons of their own kindred except as a pious\nduty. This law of the game in cannibalism has not yet been thoroughly\nexamined, though we often hear of wars waged expressly for the purpose\nof securing food (human meat), while some South American tribes\nactually bred from captive women by way of securing constant supplies of\npermitted flesh.(3) When we find stocks, then, which derive their names\nfrom animals and decline to eat these animals, we may at least SUSPECT\nthat they once claimed kinship with the name-giving beasts. The refusal\nto eat them raises a presumption of such faith. Old Bosman(4) had\nnoticed the same practices. \"One eats no mutton, another no goat's\nflesh, another no beef, swine's flesh, wild fowl, cocks with white\nfeathers, and they say their ancestors did so from the beginning of the\nworld.\"\n\n\n(1) The evidence of native interpreters may be viewed with suspicion.\nIt is improbable, however, that in 1817 the interpreters were\nacquainted with the totemistic theory of mythologists, and deliberately\nmistranslated the names of the stocks, so as to make them harmonise with\nIndian, Australian, and Red Indian totem kindreds. This, indeed, is an\nexample where the criterion of \"recurrence\" or \"coincidence\" seems to be\nvaluable. Bowditch's Mission to Ashantee (1873), p. 181.\n\n(2) This view, however, does not prevail among the totemistic tribes of\nBritish Columbia, for example.\n\n(3) Cieza de Leon (Hakluyt Society), p. 50. This amazing tale is\nsupported by the statement that kinship went by the female side (p.\n49); the father was thus not of the kin of his child by the alien woman.\nCieza was with Validillo in 1538.\n\n(4) In Pinkerton, xvi. 400.\n\n\nWhile in the case of the Ashantee tribes, we can only infer the\nexistence of a belief in kinship with the animals from the presence\nof the other features of fully developed totemism (especially from the\nrefusal to eat the name-giving animal), we have direct evidence for the\nopinion in another part of Africa, among the Bechuanas.(1) Casalis,\nwho passed twenty-three years as a missionary in South Africa, thus\ndescribes the institution: \"While the united communities usually bear\nthe name of their chief or of the district which they inhabit\" (local\ntribes, as in Australia), \"each stock (tribu) derives its title from\nan animal or a vegetable. All the Bechuanas are subdivided thus into\nBakuenas (crocodile-men), Batlapis (men of the fish), Banarer (of the\nbuffalo), Banukus (porcupines), Bamoraras (wild vines), and so forth.\nThe Bakuenas call the crocodile their father, sing about him in their\nfeasts, swear by him, and mark the ears of their cattle with an incision\nwhich resembles the open jaws of the creature.\" This custom of marking\nthe cattle with the crest, as it were, of the stock, takes among some\nraces the shape of deforming themselves, so as the more to resemble the\nanimal from which they claim descent. \"The chief of the family which\nholds the chief rank in the stock is called 'The Great Man of the\nCrocodile'. Precisely in the same way the Duchess of Sutherland is\nstyled in Gaelic 'The Great Lady of the Cat,'\" though totemism is\nprobably not the origin of this title.\n\n\n(1) E. Casalis, Les Bassoutos, 1859.\n\n\nCasalis proceeds: \"No one would dare to eat the flesh or wear the skin\nof the animal whose name he bears. If the animal be dangerous--the\nlion, for example--people only kill him after offering every apology and\nasking his pardon. Purification must follow such a sacrifice.\" Casalis\nwas much struck with the resemblance between these practices and the\nsimilar customs of North American races. Livingstone's account(1) on the\nwhole corroborates that of Casalis, though he says the Batau (tribe\nof the lion) no longer exists. \"They use the word bina 'to dance,' in\nreference to the custom of thus naming themselves, so that when you wish\nto ascertain what tribe they belong to, you say, 'What do you dance?'\nIt would seem as if this had been part of the worship of old.\" The\nmythological and religious knowledge of the Bushmen is still imparted in\ndances; and when a man is ignorant of some myth he will say, \"I do not\ndance that dance,\" meaning that he does not belong to the guild which\npreserves that particular \"sacred chapter\".(2)\n\n\n(1) Missionary Travels (1857), p. 13.\n\n(2) Orpen, Cape Monthly Magazine, 1872.\n\n\nCasalis noticed the similarity between South African and Red Indian\nopinion about kinship with vegetables and beasts. The difficulty in\ntreating the Red Indian belief is chiefly found in the abundance of the\nevidence. Perhaps the first person who ever used the word \"totemism,\"\nor, as he spells it, \"totamism,\" was (as we said) Mr. Long, an\ninterpreter among the Chippeways, who published his Voyages in 1791.\nLong was not wholly ignorant of the languages, as it was his business to\nspeak them, and he was an adopted Indian. The ceremony of adoption was\npainful, beginning with a feast of dog's flesh, followed by a Turkish\nbath and a prolonged process of tattooing.(1) According to Long,(2)\n\"The totam, they conceive, assumes the form of some beast or other, and\ntherefore they never kill, hurt, or eat the animal whose form they think\nthis totam bears\". One man was filled with religious apprehensions, and\ngave himself up to the gloomy belief of Bunyan and Cowper, that he had\ncommitted the unpardonable sin, because he dreamed he had killed his\ntotem, a bear.(3) This is only one example, like the refusal of the\nOsages to kill the beavers, with which they count cousins,(4) that the\nRed Man's belief is an actual creed, and does influence his conduct.\n\n\n(1) Long, pp. 46-49.\n\n(2) Ibid., p. 86.\n\n(3) Ibid., p. 87.\n\n(4) Schoolcraft, i. 319.\n\n\nAs in Australia, the belief in common kin with beasts is most clearly\nproved by the construction of Red Indian society. The \"totemistic\" stage\nof thought and manners prevails. Thus Charlevoix says,(1) \"Plusieurs\nnations ont chacune trois familles ou tribus principales, AUSSI\nANCIENNES, A CE QU'IL PAROIT, QUE LEUR ORIGINE. Chaque tribu porte le\nnom d'un animal, et la nation entiere a aussi le sien, dont elle\nprend le nom, et dont la figure est sa marque, ou, se l'on veut, ses\narmoiries, on ne signe point autrement les traites qu'en traceant ces\nfigures.\" Among the animal totems Charlevoix notices porcupine, bear,\nwolf and turtle. The armoiries, the totemistic heraldry of the peoples\nof Virginia, greatly interested a heraldic ancestor of Gibbon the\nhistorian,(2) who settled in the colony. According to Schoolcraft,(3)\nthe totem or family badge, of a dead warrior is drawn in a reverse\nposition on his grave-post. In the same way the leopards of England are\ndrawn reversed on the shield of an English king opposite the mention\nof his death in old monkish chronicles. As a general rule,(4) persons\nbearing the same totem in America cannot intermarry. \"The union must be\nbetween various totems.\" Moreover, as in the case of the Australians,\n\"the descent of the chief is in the female line\". We thus find among\nthe Red Men precisely the same totemistic regulations as among the\nAborigines of Australia. Like the Australians, the Red Men \"never\"\n(perhaps we should read \"hardly ever\") eat their totems. Totemists,\nin short, spare the beasts that are their own kith and kin. To avoid\nmultiplying details which all corroborate each other, it may suffice to\nrefer to Schoolcraft for totemism among the Iowas(5) and the Pueblos;(6)\nfor the Iroquois, to Lafitau, a missionary of the early part of the\neighteenth century. Lafitau was perhaps the first writer who ever\nexplained certain features in Greek and other ancient myths and\npractices as survivals from totemism. The Chimera, a composite creature,\nlion, goat and serpent, might represent, Lafitau thought, a league\nof three totem tribes, just as wolf, bear and turtle represented the\nIroquois League.\n\n\n(1) Histoire de la France-Nouvelle, iii. 266.\n\n(2) Introductio ad Latinam Blasoniam, by John Gibbon, Blue Mantle,\nLondon, 1682. \"The dancers, were painted some party per pale, gul and\nsab, some party per fesse of the same colours;\" whence Gibbon concluded\n\"that heraldry was ingrafted naturally into the sense of the humane\nrace\".\n\n(3) Vol. i. p. 356.\n\n(4) Schoolcraft, v. 73.\n\n(5) Ibid., iii. 268.\n\n(6) Ibid., iv. 86.\n\n\nThe martyred Pere Rasles, again, writing in 1723,(1) says that one stock\nof the Outaonaks claims descent from a hare (\"the great hare was a man\nof prodigious size\"), while another stock derive their lineage from the\ncarp, and a third descends from a bear; yet they do not scruple, after\ncertain expiatory rites, to eat bear's flesh. Other North American\nexamples are the Kutchin, who have always possessed the system of\ntotems.(2)\n\n\n(1) Kip's Jesuits in America i. 33.\n\n(2) Dall's Alaska, pp. 196-198.\n\n\nIt is to be noticed, as a peculiarity of Red Indian totemism which we\nhave not observed (though it may exist) in Africa, that certain stocks\nclaim relations with the sun. Thus Pere Le Petit, writing from New\nOrleans in 1730, mentions the Sun, or great chief of the Natchez\nIndians.(1) The totem of the privileged class among the Natchez was the\nsun, and in all myths the sun is regarded as a living being, who can\nhave children, who may be beaten, who bleeds when cut, and is simply\non the same footing as men and everything else in the world. Precisely\nsimilar evidence comes from South America. In this case our best\nauthority is almost beyond suspicion. He knew the native languages well,\nbeing himself a half-caste. He was learned in the European learning\nof his time; and as a son of the Incas, he had access to all surviving\nPeruvian stores of knowledge, and could collect without difficulty the\ntestimonies of his countrymen. It will be seen(2) that Don Garcilasso\nde la Vega could estimate evidence, and ridiculed the rough methods and\nfallacious guesses of Spanish inquirers. Garcilasso de la Vega was\nborn about 1540, being the son of an Inca princess and of a Spanish\nconqueror. His book, Commentarias Reales,(3) was expressly intended to\nrectify the errors of such Spanish writers as Acosta. In his account of\nPeruvian religion, Garcilasso distinguishes between the beliefs of the\ntribes previous to the rise of the Inca empire and the sun-worship of\nthe Incas. But it is plain, from Garcilasso's own account and from other\nevidence, that under the Incas the older faiths and fetichisms survived,\nin subordination to sun-worship, just as Pagan superstitions survived\nin custom and folk-lore after the official recognition of Christianity.\nSun-worship, in Peru, and the belief in a Supreme Creator there, seem\neven, like Catholicism in Mexico, China and elsewhere, to have made a\nkind of compromise with the lower beliefs, and to have been content\nto allow a certain amount of bowing down in the temples of the elder\nfaiths. According, then, to Garcilasso's account of Peruvian totemism,\n\"An Indian was not looked upon as honourable unless he was descended\nfrom a fountain, river,(4) or lake, or even from the sea, OR FROM A WILD\nANIMAL, such as a bear, lion, tiger, eagle, or the bird they call cuntur\n(condor), or some other bird of prey \".(5) A certain amount of worship\nwas connected with this belief in kinship with beasts and natural\nobjects. Men offered up to their totems \"what they usually saw them\neat\".(6) On the seacoasts \"they worshipped sardines, skates, dog-fish,\nand, for want of larger gods, crabs.... There was not an animal, how\nvile and filthy soever, that they did not worship as a god,\" including\n\"lizards, toads and frogs.\" Garcilasso (who says they ate the fish\nthey worshipped) gives his own theory of the origin of totemism. In the\nbeginning men had only sought for badges whereby to discriminate one\nhuman stock from another. \"The one desired to have a god different from\nthe other.... They only thought of making one different from another.\"\nWhen the Inca emperors began to civilise the totemistic stocks, they\npointed out that their own father, the sun, possessed \"splendour and\nbeauty\" as contrasted with \"the ugliness and filth of the frogs and\nother vermin they looked upon as gods\".(7) Garcilasso, of course, does\nnot use the North American word totem (or ote or otem) for the family\nbadge which represented the family ancestors. He calls these things, as\na general rule, pacarissa. The sun was the pacarissa of the Incas, as it\nwas of the chief of the Natchez. The pacarissa of other stocks was\nthe lion, bear, frog, or what not. Garcilasso accounts for the belief\naccorded to the Incas, when they claimed actual descent from the sun, by\nobserving(8) that \"there were tribes among their subjects who professed\nsimilar fabulous descents, though they did not comprehend how to select\nancestors so well as the Incas, but adored animals and other low and\nearthly objects\". As to the fact of the Peruvian worship of beasts, if\nmore evidence is wanted, it is given, among others, by Cieza de Leon,(9)\nwho contrasts the adoration of the Roman gods with that offered in Peru\nto brutes. \"In the important temple of Pacha-camac (the spiritual deity\nof Peru) they worshipped a she-fox or vixen and an emerald.\" The devil\nalso \"appeared to them and spoke in the form of a tiger, very fierce\".\nOther examples of totemism in South America may be studied in the\ntribes on the Amazon.(10) Mr. Wallace found the Pineapple stock, the\nMosquitoes, Woodpeckers, Herons, and other totem kindreds. A curious\nexample of similar ideas is discovered among the Bonis of Guiana. These\npeople were originally West Coast Africans imported as slaves, who have\nwon their freedom with the sword. While they retain a rough belief in\nGadou (God) and Didibi (the devil), they are divided into totem stocks\nwith animal names. The red ape, turtle and cayman are among the chief\ntotems.(11)\n\n\n(1) Kip, ii. 288.\n\n(2) Appendix B.\n\n(3) See translation in Hakluyt Society's Collection.\n\n(4) Like many Greek heroes. Odyssey, iii. 489. \"Orsilochus, the child\nbegotten of Alpheus.\"\n\n(5) Comm. Real., i. 75.\n\n(6) Ibid., 53.\n\n(7) Ibid., 102.\n\n(8) Ibid., 83.\n\n(9) Cieza de Leon (Hakluyt Society), p. 183.\n\n(10) Acuna, p. 103; Wallace, Travels on Amazon (1853), pp. 481-506.\n\n(11) Crevaux, Voyages dans l'Amerique du Sud, p. 59.\n\n\nAfter this hasty examination of the confused belief in kinship with\nanimals and other natural objects which underlies institutions in\nAustralia, West and South Africa, North and South America, we may glance\nat similar notions among the non-Aryan races of India. In Dalton's\nEthnology of Bengal,(1) he tells us that the Garo clans are divided into\nmaharis or motherhoods. Children belong to the mahari of the mother,\njust as (in general) they derive their stock name and totem from the\nmother's side in Australia and among the North American Indians. No man\nmay marry (as among the Red Indians and Australians) a woman belonging\nto his own stock, motherhood or mahari. So far the maharis of Bengal\nexactly correspond to the totem kindred. But do the Maharis also take\ntheir names from plants and animals, and so forth? We know that the\nKillis, similar communities among the Bengal Hos and Mundos, do this.(2)\n\"The Mundaris, like the Oraons, adopt as their tribal distinction the\nname of some animal, and the flesh of that animal is tabooed to them as\nfood; for example, the eel, the tortoise.\" This is exactly the state of\nthings in Ashanti. Dalton mentions also(3) a princely family in Nagpur\nwhich claims descent from \"a great hooded snake\". Among the Oraons he\nfound(4) tribes which might not eat young mice (considered a dainty) or\ntortoises, and a stock which might not eat the oil of the tree which\nwas their totem, nor even sit in its shade. \"The family or tribal names\"\n(within which they may not marry) \"are usually those of animals or\nplants, and when this is the case, the flesh of some part of the animal\nor the fruit of the tree is tabooed to the tribe called after it.\"\n\n\n(1) Dalton, p. 63.\n\n(2) Ibid., p. 189.\n\n(3) Ibid., p. 166.\n\n(4) Ibid., p. 254.\n\n\nAn excellent sketch of totemism in India is given by Mr. H. H. Risley of\nthe Bengal Civil Service:--(1)\n\n\n(1) The Asiatic Quarterly, No. 3, Essay on \"Primitive Marriage in\nBengal.\"\n\n\n\"At the bottom of the social system, as understood by the average Hindu,\nstands a large body of non-Aryan castes and tribes, each of which is\nbroken up into a number of what may be called totemistic exogamous\nsepts. Each sept bears the name of an animal, a tree, a plant, or of\nsome material object, natural or artificial, which the members of that\nsept are prohibited from killing, eating, cutting, burning, carrying,\nusing, etc.\"(1)\n\n\n(1) Here we may note that the origin of exogamy itself is merely part\nof a strict totemistic prohibition. A man may not \"use\" an object within\nthe totem kin, nor a woman of the kin. Compare the Greek idiom (Greek\ntext omitted).\n\n\nMr. Risley finds that both Kolarians, as the Sonthals, and Dravidians,\nas the Oraons, are in this state of totemism, like the Hos and Mundas.\nIt is most instructive to learn that, as one of these tribes rises in\nthe social scale, it sloughs off its totem, and, abandoning the common\nname derived from bird, beast, or plant, adopts that of an eponymous\nancestor. A tendency in this direction has been observed by Messrs.\nFison and Howitt even in Australia. The Mahilis, Koras and Kurmis,\nwho profess to be members of the Hindu community, still retain the\ntotemistic organisation, with names derived from birds, beasts and\nplants. Even the Jagannathi Kumhars of Orissa, taking rank immediately\nbelow the writer-caste, have the totems tiger, snake, weasel, cow, frog,\nsparrow and tortoise. The sub-castes of the Khatlya Kumhars explain away\ntheir totem-names \"as names of certain saints, who, being present at\nDaksha's Horse-sacrifice, transformed themselves into animals to escape\nthe wrath of Siva,\" like the gods of Egypt when they fled in bestial\nform from the wrath of Set.\n\nAmong the non-Aryan tribes the marriage law has the totemistic sanction.\nNo man may marry a woman of his totem kin. When the totem-name is\nchanged for an eponym, the non-Aryan, rising in the social scale,\nis practically in the same position as the Brahmans, \"divided into\nexogamous sections (gotras), the members of which profess to be\ndescended from the mythical rishi or inspired saint whose name the gotra\nbears\". There is thus nothing to bar the conjecture that the exogamous\ngotras of the whole Brahmans were once a form of totem-kindred,\nwhich (like aspiring non-Aryan stocks at the present day) dropped the\ntotem-name and renamed the septs from some eponymous hero, medicine-man,\nor Rishi.\n\nConstant repetition of the same set of facts becomes irksome, and yet\nis made necessary by the legitimate demand for trustworthy and abundant\nevidence. As the reader must already have reflected, this living\nmythical belief in the common confused equality of men, gods, plants,\nbeasts, rivers, and what not, which still regulates savage society,(1)\nis one of the most prominent features in mythology. Porphyry remarked\nand exactly described it among the Egyptians--\"common and akin to men\nand gods they believed the beasts to be.\"(2) The belief in such equality\nis alien to modern civilisation. We have shown that it is common and\nfundamental in savagery. For instance, in the Pacific, we might quote\nTurner,(3) and for Melanesia, Codrington,(4) while for New Zealand we\nhave Taylor.(5) For the Jakuts, along the banks of the Lena in Northern\nAsia, we have the evidence of Strahlenberg, who writes: \"Each tribe of\nthese people look upon some particular creature as sacred, e.g., a swan,\ngoose, raven, etc., and such is not eaten by that tribe\" though the\nothers may eat it.(6) As the majority of our witnesses were quite\nunaware that the facts they described were common among races of whom\nmany of them had never even heard, their evidence may surely be accepted\nas valid, especially as the beliefs testified to express themselves in\nmarriage laws, in the blood-feud, in abstinence from food, on pillars\nover graves, in rude heraldry, and in other obvious and palpable\nshapes. If we have not made out, by the evidence of institutions, that\na confused credulity concerning the equality and kinship of man and the\nobjects in nature is actually a ruling belief among savages, and even\nhigher races, from the Lena to the Amazon, from the Gold Coast to\nQueensland, we may despair of ever convincing an opponent. The survival\nof the same beliefs and institutions among civilised races, Aryan and\nothers, will later be demonstrated.(7) If we find that the mythology of\ncivilised races here agrees with the actual practical belief of savages,\nand if we also find that civilised races retain survivals of the\ninstitutions in which the belief is expressed by savages, then we may\nsurely infer that the activity of beasts in the myths of Greece springs\nfrom the same sources as the similar activity of beasts in the myths of\nIroquois or Kaffirs. That is to say, part of the irrational element\nin Greek myth will be shown to be derived (whether by inheritance or\nborrowing) from an ascertained condition of savage fancy.\n\n\n(1) See some very curious and disgusting examples of this confusion in\nLiebrecht's Zur Volkskunde, pp. 395, 396 (Heilbronn, 1879).\n\n(2) De Abst., ii. 26.\n\n(3) Nineteen Years in Polynesia, p. 238, and Samoa by the same author.\nComplete totemism is not asserted here, and is denied for Melanesia.\n\n(4) Journ. Anthrop. Inst., \"Religious Practices in Melanesia\".\n\n(5) New Zealand, \"Animal Intermarriage with Men\".\n\n(6) Description of Asia (1783), p. 383.\n\n(7) Professor Robertson Smith, Kinship in Arabia, attempts to show\nthat totemism existed in the Semitic races. The topic must be left to\nOrientalists.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV. THE MENTAL CONDITION OF\nSAVAGES--MAGIC--METAMORPHOSIS--METAPHYSIC--PSYCHOLOGY.\n\n\nClaims of sorcerers--Savage scientific speculation--Theory of\ncausation--Credulity, except as to new religious ideas--\"Post hoc,\nergo propter hoc\"--Fundamental ideas of magic--Examples: incantations,\nghosts, spirits--Evidence of rank and other institutions in proof of\nconfusions of mind exhibited in magical beliefs.\n\n\n\"I mean eftsoons to have a fling at magicians for their abominable lies\nand monstrous vanities.\"--PLINY, ap. Phil. Holland.\n\n\"Quoy de ceux qui naturellement se changent en loups, en juments, et\npuis encores en hommes?\"--MONTAIGNE, Apologie pour Raymond de Sebonde.\n\n\nThe second feature in the savage intellectual condition which we\npromised to investigate was the belief in magic and sorcery. The world\nand all the things in it being conceived of vaguely as sensible and\nrational, are supposed to obey the commands of certain members of each\ntribe, such as chiefs, jugglers, or conjurors. These conjurors, like\nZeus or Indra, can affect the weather, work miracles, assume what\nshapes, animal, vegetable, or inorganic, they please, and can\nmetamorphose other persons into similar shapes. It has already been\nshown that savage man has regarded all THINGS as PERSONS much on a level\nwith himself. It has now to be shown WHAT KIND OF PERSON HE CONCEIVES\nHIMSELF TO BE. He does not look on men as civilised races regard them,\nthat is, as beings with strict limitations. On the other hand, he thinks\nof certain members of his tribe as exempt from most of the limitations,\nand capable of working every miracle that tradition has ever attributed\nto prophets or gods. Nor are such miraculous powers, such practical\nomnipotence, supposed by savages to be at all rare among themselves.\nThough highly valued, miraculous attainments are not believed to be\nunusual. This must be kept steadily in mind. When myth-making man\nregards the sky or sun or wind as a person, he does not mean merely\na person with the limitations recognised by modern races. He means a\nperson with the miraculous powers of the medicine-man. The sky, sun,\nwind or other elemental personage can converse with the dead, and can\nturn himself and his neighbours into animals, stones and trees.\n\nTo understand these functions and their exercise, it is necessary to\nexamine what may be called savage science, savage metaphysics, and the\nsavage theory of the state of the dead. The medicine-man's supernatural\nclaims are rooted in the general savage view of the world, of what is\npossible, and of what (if anything) is impossible. The savage, even more\nthan the civilised man, may be described as a creature \"moving about in\nworlds not realised\". He feels, no less than civilised man, the need of\nmaking the world intelligible, and he is active in his search for causes\nand effects. There is much \"speculation in these eyes that he doth glare\nwithal\". This is a statement which has been denied by some persons\nwho have lived with savages. Thus Mr. Bates, in his Naturalist on the\nAmazon,(1) writes: \"Their want of curiosity is extreme.... Vicente (an\nIndian companion) did not know the cause of thunder and lightning. I\nasked him who made the sun, the stars, the trees. He didn't know, and\nhad never heard the subject mentioned in his tribe.\" But Mr. Bates\nadmits that even Vicente had a theory of the configuration of the world.\n\"The necessity of a theory of the earth and water had been felt, and\na theory had been suggested.\" Again, Mr. Bates says about a certain\nBrazilian tribe, \"Their sluggish minds seem unable to conceive or feel\nthe want of a theory of the soul\"; and he thinks the cause of this\nindolence is the lack \"of a written language or a leisured class\". Now\nsavages, as a rule, are all in the \"leisured class,\" all sportsmen.\nMr. Herbert Spencer, too, has expressed scepticism about the curiosity\nattributed to savages. The point is important, because, in our view, the\nmedicine-man's powers are rooted in the savage theory of things, and if\nthe savage is too sluggish to invent or half consciously evolve a theory\nof things, our hypothesis is baseless. Again, we expect to find in\nsavage myths the answer given by savages to their own questions. But\nthis view is impossible if savages do not ask themselves, and never have\nasked themselves, any questions at all about the world. On this topic\nMr. Spencer writes: \"Along with absence of surprise there naturally\ngoes absence of intelligent curiosity\".(2) Yet Mr. Spencer admits that,\naccording to some witnesses, \"the Dyaks have an insatiable curiosity,\"\nthe Samoans \"are usually very inquisitive,\" and \"the Tahitians are\nremarkably curious and inquisitive\". Nothing is more common than to\nfind travellers complaining that savages, in their ardently inquiring\ncuriosity, will not leave the European for a moment to his own\nundisturbed devices. Mr. Spencer's savages, who showed no curiosity,\ndisplayed this impassiveness when Europeans were trying to make them\nexhibit signs of surprise. Impassivity is a point of honour with many\nuncivilised races, and we cannot infer that a savage has no curiosity\nbecause he does not excite himself over a mirror, or when his European\nvisitors try to swagger with their mechanical appliances. Mr. Herbert\nSpencer founds, on the statements of Mr. Bates already quoted, a notion\nthat \"the savage, lacking ability to think and the accompanying desire\nto know, is without tendency to speculate\". He backs Mr. Bates's\nexperience with Mungo Park's failure to \"draw\" the negroes about the\ncauses of day and night. They had never indulged a conjecture nor formed\nan hypothesis on the matter. Yet Park avers that \"the belief in one God\nis entire and universal among them\". This he \"pronounces without the\nsmallest shadow of doubt\". As to \"primitive man,\" according to Mr.\nSpencer, \"the need for explanations about surrounding appearances does\nnot occur to him\". We have disclaimed all knowledge about \"primitive\nman,\" but it is easy to show that Mr. Spencer grounds his belief in the\nlack of speculation among savages on a frail foundation of evidence.\n\n\n(1) Vol. ii. p. 162.\n\n(2) Sociology, p. 98.\n\n\nMr. Spencer has admitted speculation, or at least curiosity, among New\nCaledonians, New Guinea people, Dyaks, Samoans and Tahitians. Even where\nhe denies its existence, as among the Amazon tribes mentioned by Mr.\nBates, we happen to be able to show that Mr. Bates was misinformed.\nAnother traveller, the American geologist, Professor Hartt of Cornell\nUniversity, lived long among the tribes of the Amazon. But Professor\nHartt did not, like Mr. Bates, find them at all destitute of theories of\nthings--theories expressed in myths, and testifying to the intellectual\nactivity and curiosity which demands an answer to its questions.\nProfessor Hartt, when he first became acquainted with the Indians of the\nAmazon, knew that they were well supplied with myths, and he set to work\nto collect them. But he found that neither by coaxing nor by offers of\nmoney could he persuade an Indian to relate a myth. Only by accident,\n\"while wearily paddling up the Paranamirim of the Ituki,\" did he\nhear the steersman telling stories to the oarsmen to keep them awake.\nProfessor Hartt furtively noted down the tale, and he found that by\n\"setting the ball rolling,\" and narrating a story himself, he could make\nthe natives throw off reserve and add to his stock of tales. \"After one\nhas obtained his first myth, and has learned to recite it accurately and\nspiritedly, the rest is easy.\" The tales published by Professor Hartt\nare chiefly animal stories, like those current in Africa and among the\nRed Indians, and Hartt even believed that many of the legends had been\nimported by Negroes. But as the majority of the Negro myths, like\nthose of the Australians, give a \"reason why\" for the existence of some\nphenomenon or other, the argument against early man's curiosity and\nvivacity of intellect is rather injured, even if the Amazonian myths\nwere imported from Africa. Mr. Spencer based his disbelief in the\nintellectual curiosity of the Amazonian tribes and of Negroes on the\nreports of Mr. Bates and of Mungo Park. But it turns out that both\nNegroes and Amazonians have stories which do satisfy an unscientific\ncuriosity, and it is even held that the Negroes lent the Amazonians\nthese very stories.(1) The Kamschadals, according to Steller, \"give\nthemselves a reason why for everything, according to their own lively\nfancy, and do not leave the smallest matter uncriticised\".(2) As far,\nthen, as Mr. Spencer's objections apply to existing savages, we may\nconsider them overweighed by the evidence, and we may believe in a naive\nsavage curiosity about the world and desire for explanations of the\ncauses of things. Mr. Tylor's opinion corroborates our own: \"Man's\ncraving to know the causes at work in each event he witnesses, the\nreasons why each state of things he surveys is such as it is and no\nother, is no product of high civilisation, but a characteristic of his\nrace down to its lowest stages. Among rude savages it is already an\nintellectual appetite, whose satisfaction claims many of the moments not\nengrossed by war or sport, food or sleep. Even in the Botocudo or\nthe Australian, scientific speculation has its germ in actual\nexperience.\"(3) It will be shown later that the food of the savage\nintellectual appetite is offered and consumed in the shape of\nexplanatory myths.\n\n\n(1) See Amazonian Tortoise-Myth., pp. 5, 37, 40; and compare Mr.\nHarris's Preface to Nights with Uncle Remus.\n\n(2) Steller, p. 267. Cf. Farrer's Primitive Manners, p. 274.\n\n(3) Primitive Culture, i. 369.\n\n\nBut we must now observe that the \"actual experience,\" properly so\ncalled, of the savage is so limited and so coloured by misconception and\nsuperstition, that his knowledge of the world varies very much from the\nconceptions of civilised races. He seeks an explanation, a theory of\nthings, based on his experience. But his knowledge of physical causes\nand of natural laws is exceedingly scanty, and he is driven to fall back\nupon what we may call metaphysical, or, in many cases \"supernatural\"\nexplanations. The narrower the range of man's knowledge of physical\ncauses, the wider is the field which he has to fill up with\nhypothetical causes of a metaphysical or \"supernatural\" character. These\n\"supernatural\" causes themselves the savage believes to be matters of\nexperience. It is to his mind a matter of experience that all nature\nis personal and animated; that men may change shapes with beasts; that\nincantations and supernatural beings can cause sunshine and storm.\n\nA good example of this is given in Charlevoix's work on French\nCanada.(1) Charlevoix was a Jesuit father and missionary among the\nHurons and other tribes of North America. He thus describes the\nphilosophy of the Red Men: \"The Hurons attribute the most ordinary\neffects to supernatural causes\".(2) In the same page the good father\nhimself attributes the welcome arrival of rainy weather and the cure\nof certain savage patients to the prayers of Pere Brebeuf and to the\nexhibition of the sacraments. Charlevoix had considerably extended\nthe field in which natural effects are known to be produced by natural\ncauses. He was much more scientifically minded than his savage flock,\nand was quite aware that an ordinary clock with a pendulum cannot bring\nbad luck to a whole tribe, and that a weather-cock is not a magical\nmachine for securing unpleasant weather. The Hurons, however, knowing\nless of natural causes and nothing of modern machinery, were as\nconvinced that his clock was ruining the luck of the tribe and his\nweather-cock spoiling the weather, as Father Charlevoix could be of\nthe truth of his own inferences. One or two other anecdotes in the good\nfather's history and letters help to explain the difference between the\nphilosophies of wild and of Christian men. The Pere Brebeuf was once\nsummoned at the instigation of a Huron wizard or \"medicine-man\" before\na council of the tribe. His judges told the father that nothing had gone\nright since he appeared among them. To this Brebeuf replied by \"drawing\nthe attention of the savages to the absurdity of their principles\". He\nadmitted(3) the premise that nothing had turned out well in the tribe\nsince his arrival. \"But the reason,\" said he, \"plainly is that God is\nangry with your hardness of heart.\" No sooner had the good father thus\ndemonstrated the absurdity of savage principles of reasoning, than the\nmalignant Huron wizard fell down dead at his feet! This event naturally\nadded to the confusion of the savages.\n\n\n(1) Histoire de la France-Nouvelle.\n\n(2) Vol. i. p. 191.\n\n(3) Vol. i. p. 192.\n\n\nCoincidences of this sort have a great effect on savage minds. Catlin,\nthe friend of the Mandan tribe, mentions a chief who consolidated his\npower by aid of a little arsenic, bought from the whites. The chief used\nto prophesy the sudden death of his opponents, which always occurred at\nthe time indicated. The natural results of the administration of arsenic\nwere attributed by the barbarous people to supernatural powers in the\npossession of the chief.(1) Thus the philosophy of savages seeks causas\ncognoscere rerum, like the philosophy of civilised men, but it flies\nhastily to a hypothesis of \"supernatural\" causes which are only guessed\nat, and are incapable of demonstration. This frame of mind prevails\nstill in civilised countries, as the Bishop of Nantes showed when, in\n1846, he attributed the floods of the Loire to \"the excesses of the\npress and the general disregard of Sunday\". That \"supernatural\" causes\nexist and may operate, it is not at all our intention to deny. But\nthe habit of looking everywhere for such causes, and of assuming their\ninterference at will, is the main characteristic of savage speculation.\nThe peculiarity of the savage is that he thinks human agents can work\nsupernaturally, whereas even the Bishop reserved his supernatural\nexplanations for the Deity. On this belief in man's power to affect\nevents beyond the limits of natural possibility is based the whole\ntheory of MAGIC, the whole power of sorcerers. That theory, again, finds\nincessant expression in myth, and therefore deserves our attention.\n\n\n(1) Catlin, Letters, ii. 117.\n\n\nThe theory requires for its existence an almost boundless credulity.\nThis credulity appears to Europeans to prevail in full force among\nsavages. Bosman is amazed by the African belief that a spider created\nthe world. Moffat is astonished at the South African notion that the sea\nwas accidentally created by a girl. Charlevoix says, \"Les sauvages\nsont d'une facilite a croire ce qu'on leur dit, que les plus facheuse\nexperiences n'ont jamais pu guerir\".(1) But it is a curious fact that\nwhile savages are, as a rule, so credulous, they often laugh at\nthe religious doctrines taught them by missionaries. Elsewhere they\nrecognise certain essential doctrines as familiar forms of old.\nDr. Moffat remarks, \"To speak of the Creation, the Fall and the\nResurrection, seemed more fabulous, extravagant and ludicrous to them\nthan their own vain stories of lions and hyaenas.\" Again, \"The Gospel\nappeared too preposterous for the most foolish to believe\".(2) While\nthe Zulus declared that they used to accept their own myths without\ninquiry,(3) it was a Zulu who suggested to Bishop Colenso his doubts\nabout the historical character of the Noachian Deluge. Hearne(4) knew\na Red Man, Matorabhee, who, \"though a perfect bigot with regard to the\narts and tricks of the jugglers, could yet by no means be impressed with\na belief of any part of OUR religion\". Lieutenant Haggard, R.N., tells\nthe writer that during an eclipse at Lamoo he ridiculed the native\nnotion of driving away a beast which devours the moon, and explained the\nreal cause of the phenomenon. But his native friend protested that \"he\ncould not be expected to believe such a story\". Yet other savages aver\nan old agreement with the belief in a moral Creator.\n\n\n(1) Vol. ii. p. 378.\n\n(2) Missionary Labours, p. 245.\n\n(3) Callaway, Religion of Amazulus, i. 35.\n\n(4) Journey among the Indians, 1795, p. 350.\n\n\nWe have already seen sufficient examples of credulity in savage\ndoctrines about the equal relations of men and beasts, stars, clouds\nand plants. The same readiness of belief, which would be surprising in\na Christian child, has been found to regulate the rudimentary political\norganisations of grey barbarians. Add to this credulity a philosophy\nwhich takes resemblance, or contiguity in space, or nearness in time as\na sufficient reason for predicating the relations of cause and effect,\nand we have the basis of savage physical science. Yet the metaphysical\ntheories of savages, as expressed in Maori, Polynesian, and Zuni hymns,\noften amaze us by their wealth of abstract ideas. Coincidence elsewhere\nstands for cause.\n\nPost hoc, ergo propter hoc, is the motto of the savage philosophy of\ncausation. The untutored reasoner speculates on the principles of the\nEgyptian clergy, as described by Herodotus.(1) \"The Egyptians have\ndiscovered more omens and prodigies than any other men; for when aught\nprodigious occurs, they keep good watch, and write down what follows;\nand then, if anything like the prodigy be repeated, they expect the same\nevents to follow as before.\" This way of looking at things is the very\nessence of superstition.\n\n\n(1) II. p. 82.\n\n\nSavages, as a rule, are not even so scientific as the Egyptians. When\nan untoward event occurs, they look for its cause among all the less\nfamiliar circumstances of the last few days, and select the determining\ncause very much at random. Thus the arrival of the French missionaries\namong the Hurons was coincident with certain unfortunate events;\ntherefore it was argued that the advent of the missionaries was the\ncause of the misfortune. When the Bechuanas suffered from drought, they\nattributed the lack of rain to the arrival of Dr. Moffat, and especially\nto his beard, his church bell, and a bag of salt in his possession. Here\nthere was not even the pretence of analogy between cause and effect.\nSome savages might have argued (it is quite in their style), that as\nsalt causes thirst, a bag of salt causes drought; but no such case could\nbe made out against Dr. Moffat's bell and beard. To give an example from\nthe beliefs of English peasants. When a cottage was buried by a little\navalanche in 1772, the accident was attributed to the carelessness of\nthe cottagers, who had allowed a light to be taken out of their dwelling\nin Christmas-tide.(1) We see the same confusion between antecedence and\nconsequence in time on one side, and cause and effect on the other, when\nthe Red Indians aver that birds actually bring winds and storms or fair\nweather. They take literally the sense of the Rhodian swallow-song:--\n\n\n     The swallow hath come,\n     Bringing fair hours,\n     Bringing fair seasons,\n     On black back and white breast.(2)\n\n\n(1) Shropshire Folk-Lore, by Miss Burne, iii. 401.\n\n(2) Brinton, Myths of New World, p. 107.\n\n\nAgain, in the Pacific the people of one island always attribute\nhurricanes to the machinations of the people of the nearest island to\nwindward. The wind comes from them; therefore (as their medicine-men can\nnotoriously influence the weather), they must have sent the wind. This\nunneighbourly act is a casus belli, and through the whole of a group\nof islands the banner of war, like the flag of freedom in Byron, flies\nagainst the wind. The chief principle, then, of savage science is that\nantecedence and consequence in time are the same as effect and cause.(1)\nAgain, savage science holds that LIKE AFFECTS LIKE, that you can injure\na man, for example, by injuring his effigy. On these principles the\nsavage explains the world to himself, and on these principles he tries\nto subdue to himself the world. Now the putting of these principles into\npractice is simply the exercise of art magic, an art to which nothing\nseems impossible. The belief that his Shamans or medicine-men practise\nthis art is universal among savages. It seriously affects their conduct,\nand is reflected in their myths.\n\n\n(1) See account of Zuni metaphysics in chapter on American Divine Myths.\n\n\nThe one general rule which governs all magical reasoning is, that casual\nconnection in thought is equivalent to causative connection in fact.\nLike suggests like to human thought by association of ideas; wherefore\nlike influences like, or produces analogous effects in practice. Any\nobject once in a man's possession, especially his hair or his nails, is\nsupposed to be capable of being used against him by a sorcerer. The\npart suggests the whole. A lock of a man's hair was part of the man; to\ndestroy the hair is to destroy its former owner. Again, whatever event\nfollows another in time suggests it, and may have been caused by\nit. Accompanying these ideas is the belief that nature is peopled by\ninvisible spiritual powers, over which magicians and sorcerers possess\ninfluence. The magic of the lower races chiefly turns on these two\nbeliefs. First, \"man having come to associate in thought those things\nwhich he found by experience to be connected in fact, proceeded\nerroneously to invert their action, and to conclude that association in\nthought must involve similar connection in reality. He thus attempted to\ndiscover, to foretell, and to cause events, by means of processes\nwhich we now see to have only an ideal significance.\"(1) Secondly,\nman endeavoured to make disembodied spirits of the dead, or any other\nspirits, obedient to his will. Savage philosophy presumes that the\nbeliefs are correct, and that their practical application is successful.\nExamples of the first of the two chief magical ideas are as common in\nunscientific modern times or among unscientific modern people as in the\nsavage world.\n\n\n(1) Primitive Culture, i. 14.\n\n\nThe physicians of the age of Charles II. were wont to give their\npatients \"mummy powder,\" that is, pulverised mummy. They argued that the\nmummy had lasted for a very long time, and that the patients ought to do\nso likewise. Pliny imagined that diamonds must be found in company with\ngold, because these are the most perfect substances in the world, and\nlike should draw to like. Aurum potabile, or drinkable gold, was a\nfavourite medical nostrum of the Middle Ages, because gold, being\nperfect, should produce perfect health. Among savages the belief that\nlike is caused by like is exemplified in very many practices. The New\nCaledonians, when they wish their yam plots to be fertile, bury in them\nwith mystic ceremonies certain stones which are naturally shaped like\nyams. The Melanesians have reduced this kind of magic to a system. Among\nthem certain stones have a magical efficacy, which is determined in each\ncase by the shape of the stone. \"A stone in the shape of a pig, of a\nbread-fruit, of a yam, was a most valuable find. No garden was planted\nwithout the stones which were to increase the crop.\"(1) Stones with a\nrude resemblance to beasts bring the Zuni luck in the chase.\n\n\n(1) Rev. R. H. Codrington, Journ. Anth. Inst., February, 1881.\n\n\nThe spiritual theory in some places is mixed up with the \"like to like\"\ntheory, and the magical stones are found where the spirits have been\nheard twittering and whistling. \"A large stone lying with a number of\nsmall ones under it, like a sow among her sucklings, was good for a\nchildless woman.\"(1) It is the savage belief that stones reproduce\ntheir species, a belief consonant with the general theory of universal\nanimation and personality. The ancient belief that diamonds gendered\ndiamonds is a survival from these ideas. \"A stone with little disks upon\nit was good to bring in money; any fanciful interpretation of a mark\nwas enough to give a character to the stone and its associated Vui\" or\nspirit in Melanesia. In Scotland, stones shaped like various parts\nof the human body are expected to cure the diseases with which these\nmembers may be afflicted. \"These stones were called by the names of the\nlimbs which they represented, as 'eye-stone,' 'head-stone'.\" The patient\nwashed the affected part of the body, and rubbed it well with the stone\ncorresponding.(2)\n\n\n(1) Codrington, Journ. Anth. Soc., x. iii. 276.\n\n(2) Gregor, Folk-Lore of North-East Counties, p. 40.\n\n\nTo return from European peasant-magic to that of savages, we find that\nwhen the Bushmen want wet weather they light fires, believing that\nthe black smoke clouds will attract black rain clouds; while the Zulus\nsacrifice black cattle to attract black clouds of rain.(1) Though this\nmagic has its origin in savage ignorance, it survives into civilisation.\nThus the sacrifices of the Vedic age were imitations of the natural\nphenomena which the priests desired to produce.(2) \"C'etait un moyen de\nfaire tombre la pluie en realisant, par les representations terrestres\ndes eaux du nuage et de l'eclair, les conditions dans lesquelles\ncelui-ci determine dans le ciel l'epanchement de celles-la.\" A good\nexample of magical science is afforded by the medical practice of the\nDacotahs of North America.(3) When any one is ill, an image of his\ndisease, a boil or what not, is carved in wood. This little image is\nthen placed in a bowl of water and shot at with a gun. The image of the\ndisease being destroyed, the disease itself is expected to disappear.\nCompare the magic of the Philistines, who made golden images of the\nsores which plagued them and stowed them away in the ark.(4) The custom\nof making a wax statuette of an enemy, and piercing it with pins or\nmelting it before the fire, so that the detested person might waste\nas his semblance melted, was common in mediaeval Europe, was known to\nPlato, and is practised by Negroes. Some Australians take some of the\nhair of an enemy, mix it with grease and the feathers of the eagle, and\nburn it in the fire. This is \"bar\" or black magic. The boarding under\nthe chair of a magistrate in Barbadoes was lifted not long ago, and the\nground beneath was found covered with wax images of litigants stuck full\nof pins.\n\n\n(1) Callaway, i. 92.\n\n(2) Bergaigne, Religion Vedique, i. 126-138, i., vii., viii.\n\n(3) Schoolcraft, iv. 491.\n\n(4) 1 Samuel vi. 4, 5.\n\n\nThe war-magic of the Dacotahs works in a similar manner. Before a party\nstarts on the war-trail, the chief, with various ceremonies, takes his\nclub and stands before his tent. An old witch bowls hoops at him; each\nhoop represents an enemy, and for each he strikes a foeman is expected\nto fall. A bowl of sweetened water is also set out to entice the spirits\nof the enemy.(1) The war-magic of the Aryans in India does not differ\nmuch in character from that of the Dacotahs. \"If any one wishes his army\nto be victorious, he should go beyond the battle-line, cut a stalk of\ngrass at the top and end, and throw it against the hostile army with the\nwords, Prasahe kas trapasyati?--O Prasaha, who sees thee? If one who has\nsuch knowledge cuts a stalk of grass and throws the parts at the hostile\narmy, it becomes split and dissolved, just as a daughter-in-law becomes\nabashed and faints when seeing her father-in-law,\"--an allusion,\napparently, to the widespread tabu which makes fathers-in-law,\ndaughters-in-law, sons-in-law, and mothers-in-law avoid each other.(2)\n\n\n(1) Schoolcraft, iv. 496.\n\n(2) Aitareya Brahmana, iii. 22.\n\n\nThe hunt-dances of the Red Indians and Australians are arranged like\ntheir war-magic. Effigies of the bears, deer, or kangaroos are made, or\nsome of the hunters imitate the motions of these animals. The rest of\nthe dancers pretend to spear them, and it is hoped that this will ensure\nsuccess among the real bears and kangaroos.\n\nHere is a singular piece of magic in which Europeans and Australian\nblacks agree. Boris Godunoff made his servants swear never to injure him\nby casting spells with the dust on which his feet or his carriage wheels\nhad left traces.(1) Mr. Howitt finds the same magic among the Kurnai.(2)\n\"Seeing a Tatungolung very lame, I asked him what was the matter. He\nsaid, 'Some fellow has put BOTTLE in my foot'. I found he was probably\nsuffering from acute rheumatism. He explained that some enemy must have\nfound his foot-track and have buried in it a piece of broken bottle. The\nmagic influence, he believed, caused it to enter his foot.\" On another\noccasion a native told Mr. Howitt that he had seen black fellows putting\npoison in his foot-tracks. Bosman mentions a similar practice among the\npeople of Guinea. In Scottish folk-lore a screw nail is fixed into the\nfootprint of the person who is to be injured.\n\n\n(1) Rambaud's History of Russia, English trans., i. 351.\n\n(2) Kamilaroi and Kurnai, p. 250.\n\n\nJust as these magical efforts to influence like by like work their way\ninto Vedic and other religions, so they are introduced into the religion\nof the savage. His prayers are addresses to some sort of superior being,\nbut the efficacy of the prayer is often eked out by a little magic,\nunless indeed we prefer to suppose that the words of the supplication\nare interpreted by gesture-speech. Sproat writes: \"Set words and\ngestures are used according to the thing desired. For instance, in\npraying for salmon, the native rubs the backs of his hands, looks\nupwards, and mutters the words, 'Many salmon, many salmon'. If he wishes\nfor deer, he carefully rubs both eyes; or, if it is geese, he rubs the\nback of his shoulder, uttering always in a sing-song way the accustomed\nformula.... All these practices in praying no doubt have a meaning. We\nmay see a steady hand is needed in throwing the salmon-spear, and clear\neyesight in finding deer in the forest.\"(1)\n\n\n(1) Savage Life, p. 208.\n\n\nIn addition to these forms of symbolical magic (which might be\nmultiplied to any extent), we find among savages the belief in the power\nof songs of INCANTATION. This is a feature of magic which specially\ndeserves our attention. In myths, and still more in marchen or household\ntales, we shall constantly find that the most miraculous effects are\ncaused when the hero pronounces a few lines of rhyme. In Rome, as we\nhave all read in the Latin Delectus, it was thought that incantations\ncould draw down the moon. In the Odyssey the kinsfolk of Odysseus sing\n\"a song of healing\" over the wound which was dealt him by the boar's\ntusk. Jeanne d'Arc, wounded at Orleans, refused a similar remedy.\nSophocles speaks of the folly of muttering incantations over wounds\nthat need the surgeon's knife. The song that salved wounds occurs in\nthe Kalewala, the epic poem of the Finns. In many of Grimm's marchen,\nmiracles are wrought by the repetition of snatches of rhyme. This belief\nis derived from the savage state of fancy. According to Kohl,(1) \"Every\nsorrowful or joyful emotion that opens the Indian's mouth is at once\nwrapped up in the garb of a wabanonagamowin (chanson magicale). If you\nask one of them to sing you a simple innocent hymn in praise of Nature,\na spring or jovial hunting stave, he never gives you anything but a form\nof incantation, with which he says you will be able to call to you all\nthe birds from the sky, and all the foxes and wolves from their caves\nand burrows.\"(2) The giant's daughter in the Scotch marchen, Nicht,\nNought, Nothing, is thus enabled to call to her aid \"all the birds of\nthe sky\". In the same way, if you ask an Indian for a love-song, he\nwill say that a philtre is really much more efficacious. The savage, in\nshort, is extremely practical. His arts, music and drawing, exist not\npour l'art, but for a definite purpose, as methods of getting something\nthat the artist wants. The young lover whom Kohl knew, like the lover\nof Bombyca in Theocritus, believed in having an image of himself and an\nimage of the beloved. Into the heart of the female image he thrust magic\npowders, and he said that this was common, lovers adding songs, \"partly\nelegiac, partly malicious, and almost criminal forms of incantation\".(3)\n\n\n(1) Page 395.\n\n(2) Cf. Comparetti's Traditional Poetry of the Finns.\n\n(3) Kitchi gami, pp. 395, 397.\n\n\nAmong the Indo-Aryans the masaminik or incantations of the Red Man are\nknown as mantras.(1) These are usually texts from the Veda, and are\nchanted over the sick and in other circumstances where magic is believed\nto be efficacious. Among the New Zealanders the incantations are called\nkarakias, and are employed in actual life. There is a special karakia to\nraise the wind. In Maori myths the hero is very handy with his karakia.\nRocks split before him, as before girls who use incantations in Kaffir\nand Bushman tales. He assumes the shape of any animal at will, or flies\nin the air, all by virtue of the karakia or incantation.(2)\n\n\n(1) Muir, Sanskrit Texts, v. 441, \"Incantations from the Atharva Veda\".\n\n(2) Taylor's New Zealand; Theal's Kaffir Folk-Lore, South-African\nFolk-Lore Journal, passim; Shortland's Traditions of the New Zealanders,\npp. 130-135.\n\n\nWithout multiplying examples in the savage belief that miracles can be\nwrought by virtue of physical CORRESPONDANCES, by like acting on like,\nby the part affecting the whole, and so forth, we may go on to the\nmagical results produced by the aid of spirits. These may be either\nspirits of the dead or spiritual essences that never animated mortal\nmen. Savage magic or science rests partly on the belief that the\nworld is peopled by a \"choir invisible,\" or rather by a choir only\noccasionally visible to certain gifted people, sorcerers and diviners.\nAn enormous amount of evidence to prove the existence of these tenets\nhas been collected by Mr. Tylor, and is accessible to all in the\nchapters on \"Animism\" in his Primitive Culture. It is not our business\nhere to account for the universality of the belief in spirits. Mr.\nTylor, following Lucretius and Homer, derives the belief from the\nreasonings of early men on the phenomena of dreams, fainting, shadows,\nvisions caused by narcotics, hallucinations, and other facts which\nsuggest the hypothesis of a separable life apart from the bodily\norganism. It would scarcely be fair not to add that the kind of \"facts\"\ninvestigated by the Psychical Society--such \"facts\" as the appearance\nof men at the moment of death in places remote from the scene of their\ndecease, with such real or delusive experiences as the noises and\nvisions in haunted houses--are familiar to savages. Without discussing\nthese obscure matters, it may be said that they influence the thoughts\neven of some scientifically trained and civilised men. It is natural,\ntherefore, that they should strongly sway the credulous imagination of\nbackward races, in which they originate or confirm the belief that life\ncan exist and manifest itself after the death of the body.(1)\n\n\n(1) See the author's Making of Religion, 1898.\n\n\nSome examples of savage \"ghost-stories,\" precisely analogous to the\n\"facts\" of the Psychical Society's investigations, may be adduced. The\nfirst is curious because it offers among the Kanekas an example of a\nbelief current in Breton folk-lore. The story is vouched for by Mr. J.\nJ. Atkinson, late of Noumea, New Caledonia. Mr. Atkinson, we have reason\nto believe, was unacquainted with the Breton parallel. To him one day a\nKaneka of his acquaintance paid a visit, and seemed loth to go away. He\ntook leave, returned, and took leave again, till Mr. Atkinson asked him\nthe reason of his behaviour. He then explained that he was about to die,\nand would never see his English friend again. As he seemed in perfect\nhealth, Mr. Atkinson rallied him on his hypochondria; but the poor\nfellow replied that his fate was sealed. He had lately met in the wood\none whom he took for the Kaneka girl of his heart; but he became aware\ntoo late that she was no mortal woman, but a wood-spirit in the guise of\nthe beloved. The result would be his death within three days, and, as a\nmatter of fact, he died. This is the groundwork of the old Breton ballad\nof Le Sieur Nan, who dies after his intrigue with the forest spectre.(1)\nA tale more like a common modern ghost-story is vouched for by Mr. C.\nJ. Du Ve, in Australia. In the year 1860, a Maneroo black fellow died in\nthe service of Mr. Du Ve. \"The day before he died, having been ill some\ntime, he said that in the night his father, his father's friend, and a\nfemale spirit he could not recognise, had come to him and said that he\nwould die next day, and that they would wait for him. Mr. Du Ye adds\nthat, though previously the Christian belief had been explained to this\nman, it had entirely faded, and that he had gone back to the belief of\nhis childhood.\" Mr. Fison, who prints this tale in his Kamilaroi and\nKurnai,(2) adds, \"I could give many similar instances which have come\nwithin my own knowledge among the Fijians, and, strange to say, the\ndying man in all these cases kept his appointment with the ghosts to the\nvery day\".\n\n\n(1) It may, of course, be conjectured that the French introduced this\nbelief into New Caledonia.\n\n(2) Page 247.\n\n\nIn the Cruise of the Beagle is a parallel anecdote of a Fuegian, Jimmy\nButton, and his father's ghost.\n\nWithout entering into a discussion of ghosts, it is plain that the kind\nof evidence, whatever its value may be, which convinces many educated\nEuropeans of the existence of \"veridical\" apparitions has also played\nits part in the philosophy of uncivilised races. On this belief in\napparitions, then, is based the power of the savage sorcerers and\nnecromants, of the men who converse with the dead and are aided by\ndisembodied spirits. These men have greatly influenced the beginnings\nof mythology. Among certain Australian tribes the necromants are called\nBirraark.(1) \"The Kurnai tell me,\" says Mr. Howitt, \"that a Birraark\nwas supposed to be initiated by the 'Mrarts (ghosts) when they met\nhim wandering in the bush.... It was from the ghosts that he obtained\nreplies to questions concerning events passing at a distance or yet to\nhappen, which might be of interest or moment to his tribe.\" Mr. Howitt\nprints an account of a spiritual seance in the bush.(2) \"The fires were\nlet go down. The Birraark uttered a cry 'coo-ee' at intervals. At\nlength a distant reply was heard, and shortly afterwards the sound as of\npersons jumping on the ground in succession. A voice was then heard in\nthe gloom asking in a strange intonation, 'What is wanted?' Questions\nwere put by the Birraark and replies given. At the termination of the\nseance, the spirit-voice said, 'We are going'. Finally, the Birraark was\nfound in the top of an almost inaccessible tree, apparently asleep.\"(3)\nThere was one Birraark at least to every clan. The Kurnai gave the name\nof \"Brewin\" (a powerful evil spirit) to a Birraark who was once carried\naway for several days by the Mrarts or spirits.(4) It is a belief with\nthe Australians, as, according to Bosman, it was with the people of\nthe Gold Coast, that a very powerful wizard lives far inland, and the\nNegroes held that to this warlock the spirits of the dead went to be\njudged according to the merit of their actions in life. Here we have a\ndoctrine answering to the Greek belief in \"the wizard Minos,\" Aeacus,\nand Rhadamanthus, and to the Egyptian idea of Osiris as judge of the\ndeparted.(5) The pretensions of the sorcerer to converse with the dead\nare attested by Mr. Brough Smyth.(6) \"A sorcerer lying on his stomach\nspoke to the deceased, and the other sitting by his side received the\nprecious messages which the dead man told.\" As a natural result of these\nbeliefs, the Australian necromant has great power in the tribe. Mr.\nHowitt mentions a case in which a group of kindred, ceasing to use their\nold totemistic surname, called themselves the children of a famous\ndead Birraark, who thus became an eponymous hero, like Ion among the\nIonians.(7) Among the Scotch Highlanders the position and practice\nof the seer were very like those of the Birraark. \"A person,\" says\nScott,(8) \"was wrapped up in the skin of a newly slain bullock and\ndeposited beside a waterfall or at the bottom of a precipice, or in some\nother strange, wild and unusual situation, where the scenery around him\nsuggested nothing but objects of horror. In this situation he revolved\nin his mind the question proposed and whatever was impressed on him by\nhis exalted imagination PASSED FOR THE INSPIRATION OF THE DISEMBODIED\nSPIRITS who haunt these desolate recesses.\" A number of examples are\ngiven in Martin's Description of the Western Islands.(9) In the Century\nmagazine (July, 1882) is a very full report of Thlinkeet medicine-men\nand metamorphoses.\n\n\n(1) Kamilaroi and Kurnai, p. 253.\n\n(2) Page 254.\n\n(3) In the Jesuit Relations (1637), p. 51, we read that the Red Indian\nsorcerer or Jossakeed was credited with power to vanish suddenly away\nout of sight of the men standing around him. Of him, as of Homeric\ngods, it might be said, \"Who has power to see him come or go against his\nwill?\"\n\n(4) Here, in the first edition, occurred the following passage: \"The\nconception of Brewin is about as near as the Kurnai get to the idea of a\nGod; their conferring of his name on a powerful sorcerer is therefore\na point of importance and interest\". Mr. Howitt's later knowledge\ndemonstrates an error here.\n\n(5) Bosman in Pinkerton, xvi. p. 401.\n\n(6) Aborigines of Australia, i. 197.\n\n(7) In Victoria, after dark the wizard goes up to the clouds and brings\ndown a good spirit. Dawkins, p. 57. For eponymous medicine-men see\nKamilaroi and Kurnai, p. 231.\n\n(8) Lady of the Lake, note 1 to Canto iv.\n\n(9) P. 112.\n\n\nThe sorcerer among the Zulus is, apparently, of a naturally hysterical\nand nervous constitution. \"He hears the spirits who speak by whistlings\nspeaking to him.\"(1) Whistling is also the language of the ghosts in New\nCaledonia, where Mr. Atkinson informs us that he has occasionally put\nan able-bodied Kaneka to ignominious flight by whistling softly in the\ndusk. The ghosts in Homer make a similar sound, \"and even as bats flit\ngibbering in the secret place of a wondrous cavern,... even so the\nsouls gibbered as they fared together\" (Odyssey, xxiv. 5). \"The familiar\nspirits make him\" (that Zulu sorcerer) \"acquainted with what is about\nto happen, and then he divines for the people.\" As the Birraarks learn\nsongs and dance-music from the Mrarts, so the Zulu Inyanga or diviners\nlearn magical couplets from the Itongo or spirits.(2)\n\n\n(1) Callaway, Religious System of the Amazules, p. 265.\n\n(2) On all this, see \"Possession\" in The Making of Religion.\n\n\nThe evidence of institutions confirms the reports about savage belief\nin magic. The political power of the diviners is very great, as may be\nobserved from the fact that a hereditary chief needs their consecration\nto make him a chief de jure.(1) In fact, the qualities of the diviner\nare those which give his sacred authority to the chief. When he has\nobtained from the diviners all their medicines and information as to the\nmode of using the isitundu (a magical vessel), it is said that he often\norders them to be killed. Now, the chief is so far a medicine-man that\nhe is lord of the air. \"The heaven is the chief's,\" say the Zulus;\nand when he calls out his men, \"though the heaven is clear, it becomes\nclouded by the great wind that arises\". Other Zulus explain this as the\nmere hyperbole of adulation. \"The word of the chief gives confidence to\nhis troops; they say, 'We are going; the chief has already seen all that\nwill happen in his vessel'. Such then are chiefs; they use a vessel\nfor divination.\"(2) The makers of rain are known in Zululand as\n\"heaven-herds\" or \"sky-herds,\" who herd the heaven that it may not break\nout and do its will on the property of the people. These men are, in\nfact, (Greek text omitted), \"cloud-gatherers,\" like the Homeric Zeus,\nthe lord of the heavens. Their name of \"herds of the heavens\" has a\nVedic sound. \"The herd that herds the lightning,\" say the Zulus, \"does\nthe same as the herder of the cattle; he does as he does by whistling;\nhe says, 'Tshu-i-i-i. Depart and go yonder. Do not come here.'\" Here\nlet it be observed that the Zulus conceive of the thunder-clouds and\nlightning as actual creatures, capable of being herded like sheep. There\nis no metaphor or allegory about the matter,(3) and no forgetfulness of\nthe original meaning of words. The cloud-herd is just like the cowherd,\nexcept that not every man, but only sorcerers, and they who have eaten\nthe \"lightning-bird\" (a bird shot near the place where lightning has\nstruck the earth), can herd the clouds of heaven. The same ideas prevail\namong the Bushmen, where the rainmaker is asked \"to milk a nice gentle\nfemale rain\"; the rain-clouds are her hair. Among the Bushmen Rain is a\nperson. Among the Red Indians no metaphor seems to be intended when it\nis said that \"it is always birds who make the wind, except that of the\neast\". The Dacotahs once killed a thunder-bird(4) behind Little Crow's\nvillage on the Missouri. It had a face like a man with a nose like an\neagle's bill.(5)\n\n\n(1) Callaway, p. 340.\n\n(2) Callaway, Religions System of the Amazules, p. 343.\n\n(3) Ibid., p. 385.\n\n(4) Schoolcraft, iii. 486.\n\n(5) Compare Callaway, p. 119.\n\n\nThe political and social powers which come into the hands of the\nsorcerers are manifest, even in the case of the Australians. Tribes and\nindividuals can attempt few enterprises without the aid of the man who\nlistens to the ghosts. Only he can foretell the future, and, in the case\nof the natural death of a member of the tribe, can direct the vengeance\nof the survivors against the hostile magician who has committed a murder\nby \"bar\" or magic. Among the Zulus we have seen that sorcery gives the\nsanction to the power of the chief. \"The winds and weather are at the\ncommand\" of Bosman's \"great fetisher\". Inland from the Gold Coast,(1)\nthe king of Loango, according to the Abbe Proyart, \"has credit to make\nrain fall on earth\". Similar beliefs, with like political results, will\nbe found to follow from the superstition of magic among the Red Indians\nof North America. The difficulty of writing about sorcerers among the\nRed Indians is caused by the abundance of the evidence. Charlevoix\nand the other early Jesuit missionaries found that the jongleurs,\nas Charlevoix calls the Jossakeeds or medicine-men, were their chief\nopponents. As among the Scotch Highlanders, the Australians and the\nZulus, the Red Indian jongleur is visited by the spirits. He covers\na hut with the skin of the animal which he commonly wears, retires\nthither, and there converses with the bodiless beings.(2) The good\nmissionary like Mr. Moffat in Africa, was convinced that the exercises\nof the Jossakeeds were verily supernatural. \"Ces seducteurs ont un\nveritable commerce avec le pere du mensonge.\"(3) This was denied\nby earlier and wiser Jesuit missionaries. Their political power was\nnaturally great. In time of war \"ils avancent et retardent les marches\ncomme il leur plait\". In our own century it was a medicine-man, Ten Squa\nTa Way, who by his magical processes and superstitious rites stirred up\na formidable war against the United States.(4) According to Mr. Pond,(5)\nthe native name of the Dacotah medicine-men, \"Wakan,\" signifies \"men\nsupernaturally gifted\". Medicine-men are believed to be \"wakanised\"\nby mystic intercourse with supernatural beings. The business of the\nwakanised man is to discern future events, to lead and direct parties on\nthe war-trail, \"to raise the storm or calm the tempest, to converse with\nthe lightning or thunder as with familiar friends\".(6) The wakanised\nman, like the Australian Birraark and the Zulu diviner, \"dictates chants\nand prayers\". In battle \"every Dacotah warrior looks to the Wakan man\nas almost his only resource\". Belief in Wakan men is, Mr. Pond says,\nuniversal among the Dacotahs, except where Christianity has undermined\nit. \"Their influence is deeply felt by every individual of the tribe,\nand controls all their affairs.\" The Wakan man's functions are absorbed\nby the general or war-chief of the tribe, and in Schoolcraft (iv. 495),\nCaptain Eastman prints copies of native scrolls showing the war-chief\nat work as a wizard. \"The war-chief who leads the party to war is always\none of these medicine-men.\" In another passage the medicine-men are\ndescribed as \"having a voice in the sale of land\". It must be observed\nthat the Jossakeed, or medicine-man, pure and simple, exercises a power\nwhich is not in itself hereditary. Chieftainship, when associated with\ninheritance of property, is hereditary; and when the chief, as among the\nZulus, absorbs supernatural power, then the same man becomes diviner\nand chief, and is a person of great and sacred influence. The liveliest\naccount of the performances of the Maori \"tohunga\" or sorcerer is to be\nfound in Old New Zealand,(7) by the Pakeha Maori, an English gentleman\nwho had lived with the natives like one of themselves. The tohunga, says\nthis author,(8) presided over \"all those services and customs which had\nsomething approaching to a religious character. They also pretended to\npower by means of certain familiar spirits, to foretell future events,\nand even in some cases to control them.... The spirit 'entered into'\nthem, and, on being questioned, gave a response in a sort of half\nwhistling, half-articulate voice, supposed to be the proper language\nof spirits.\" In New South Wales, Mrs. Langlot Parker has witnessed\na similar exhibition. The \"spirits\" told the truth in this case. The\nPakeha Maori was present in a darkened village-hall when the spirit of\na young man, a great friend of his own, was called up by a tohunga.\n\"Suddenly, without the slightest warning, a voice came out of the\ndarkness.... The voice all through, it is to be remembered, was not the\nvoice of the tohunga, but a strange melancholy sound, like the sound of\na wind blowing into a hollow vessel. 'It is well with me; my place is a\ngood place.' The spirit gave an answer to a question which proved to\nbe correct, and then 'Farewell,' cried the spirit FROM DEEP BENEATH THE\nGROUND. 'Farewell,' again, FROM HIGH IN AIR. 'Farewell,' once more came\nmoaning through the distant darkness of the night.\" As chiefs in New\nZealand no less than tohungas can exercise the mystical and magical\npower of tabu, that is, of imparting to any object or person an\ninviolable character, and can prevent or remit the mysterious punishment\nfor infringement of tabu, it appears probable that in New Zealand,\nas well as among the Zulus and Red Indians, chiefs have a tendency to\nabsorb the sacred character and powers of the tohungas. This is natural\nenough, for a tohunga, if he plays his cards well, is sure to acquire\nproperty and hereditary wealth, which, in combination with magical\ninfluence, are the necessary qualifications for the office of the\nchieftain.\n\n\n(1) Pinkerton, xvi. 401.\n\n(2) Charlevoix, i. 105. See \"Savage Spiritualism\" in Cock Lane and\nCommon Sense.\n\n(3) Ibid., iii. 362.\n\n(4) Catlin, ii. 17.\n\n(5) In Schoolcraft, iv. 402.\n\n(6) Pond, in Schoolcraft, iv. 647.\n\n(7) Auckland, 1863.\n\n(8) Page 148.\n\n\nHere is the place to mention a fact which, though at first sight it may\nappear to have only a social interest, yet bears on the development of\nmythology. Property and rank seem to have been essential to each other\nin the making of social rank, and where one is absent among contemporary\nsavages, there we do not find the other. As an example of this, we might\ntake the case of two peoples who, like the Homeric Ethiopians, are the\noutermost of men, and dwell far apart at the ends of the world. The\nEskimos and the Fuegians, at the extreme north and south of the American\ncontinent, agree in having little or no private property and no chiefs.\nYet magic is providing a kind of basis of rank. The bleak plains of ice\nand rock are, like Attica, \"the mother of men without master or lord\".\nAmong the \"house-mates\" of the smaller settlements there is no head-man,\nand in the larger gatherings Dr. Rink says that \"still less than among\nthe house-mates was any one belonging to such a place to be considered\na chief\". The songs and stories of the Eskimo contain the praises of men\nwho have risen up and killed any usurper who tried to be a ruler over\nhis \"place-mates\". No one could possibly establish any authority on\nthe basis of property, because \"superfluous property, implements, etc.,\nrarely existed\". If there are three boats in one household, one of the\nboats is \"borrowed\" by the community, and reverts to the general fund.\nIf we look at the account of the Fuegians described in Admiral Fitzroy's\ncruise, we find a similar absence of rank produced by similar causes.\n\"The perfect equality among the individuals composing the tribes must\nfor a long time retard their civilisation.... At present even a piece of\ncloth is torn in shreds and distributed, and no one individual becomes\nricher than another. On the other hand, it is difficult to understand\nhow a chief can arise till there is property of some sort by which he\nmight manifest and still increase his authority.\" In the same book,\nhowever, we get a glimpse of one means by which authority can be\nexercised. \"The doctor-wizard of each party has much influence over his\ncompanions.\" Among the Eskimos this element in the growth of authority\nalso exists. A class of wizards called Angakut have power to cause fine\nweather, and, by the gift of second-sight and magical practices,\ncan detect crimes, so that they necessarily become a kind of civil\nmagistrates. These Angekkok or Angakut have familiar spirits called\nTorngak, a word connected with the name of their chief spiritual being,\nTorngarsak. The Torngak is commonly the ghost of a deceased parent of\nthe sorcerer. \"These men,\" says Egede, \"are held in great honour and\nesteem among this stupid and ignorant nation, insomuch that nobody dare\never refuse the strictest obedience when they command him in the name of\nTorngarsak.\" The importance and actual existence of belief in magic\nhas thus been attested by the evidence of institutions, even among\nAustralians, Fuegians and Eskimos.\n\nIt is now necessary to pass from examples of tribes who have\nsuperstitious respect for certain individuals, but who have no property\nand no chiefs, to peoples who exhibit the phenomenon of superstitious\nreverence attached to wealthy rulers or to judges. To take the example\nof Ireland, as described in the Senchus Mor, we learn that the chiefs,\njust like the Angakut of the Eskimos, had \"power to make fair or foul\nweather\" in the literal sense of the words.(1) In Africa, in the same\nway, as Bosman, the old traveller, says, \"As to what difference there\nis between one negro and another, the richest man is the most honoured,\"\nyet the most honoured man has the same magical power as the poor\nAngakuts of the Eskimos.\n\n\n(1) Early History of Institutions, p. 195.\n\n\n\"In the Solomon Islands,\" says Dr. Codrington, \"there is nothing to\nprevent a common man from becoming a chief, if he can show that he has\nthe mana (supernatural power) for it.\"(1)\n\n\n(1) Journ. Anth. Inst., x. iii. 287, 300, 309.\n\n\nThough it is anticipating a later stage of this inquiry, we must here\nobserve that the sacredness, and even the magical virtues of barbarous\nchiefs seem to have descended to the early leaders of European races.\nThe children of Odin and of Zeus were \"sacred kings\". The Homeric\nchiefs, like those of the Zulus and the Red Men, and of the early Irish\nand Swedes, exercised an influence over the physical universe. Homer(1)\nspeaks of \"a blameless king, one that fears the gods, and reigns among\nmany men and mighty, and the black earth bears wheat and barley, and the\nsheep bring forth and fail not, and the sea gives store of fish, and all\nout of his good sovereignty\".\n\n\n(1) Od., xix. 109.\n\n\nThe attributes usually assigned by barbarous peoples to their\nmedicine-men have not yet been exhausted. We have found that they can\nforesee and declare the future; that they control the weather and the\nsensible world; that they can converse with, visit and employ about\ntheir own business the souls of the dead. It would be easy to show at\neven greater length that the medicine-man has everywhere the power of\nmetamorphosis. He can assume the shapes of all beasts, birds, fishes,\ninsects and inorganic matters, and he can subdue other people to the\nsame enchantment. This belief obviously rests on the lack of recognised\ndistinction between man and the rest of the world, which we have so\nfrequently insisted on as a characteristic of savage and barbarous\nthought. Examples of accredited metamorphosis are so common everywhere,\nand so well known, that it would be waste of space to give a long\naccount of them. In Primitive Culture(1) a cloud of witnesses to the\nbelief in human tigers, hyaenas, leopards and wolves is collected.(2)\nMr. Lane(3) found metamorphosis by wizards as accredited a working\nbelief at Cairo as it is among Abipones, Eskimo, or the people of\nAshangoland. In various parts of Scotland there is a tale of a witch who\nwas shot at when in the guise of a hare. In this shape she was\nwounded, and the same wound was found on her when she resumed her human\nappearance. Lafitau, early in the last century, found precisely the\nsame tale, except that the wizards took the form of birds, not of hares,\namong the Red Indians. The birds were wounded by the magical arrows of\nan old medicine-man, Shonnoh Koui Eretsi, and these bolts were found\nin the bodies of the human culprits. In Japan, as we learn from several\nstories in Mr. Mitford's Tales of Old Japan, people chiefly metamorphose\nthemselves into foxes and badgers. The sorcerers of Honduras(4) \"possess\nthe power of transforming men into wild beasts, and were much feared\naccordingly\". Among the Cakchiquels, a cultivated people of Guatemala,\nthe very name of the clergy, haleb, was derived from their power of\nassuming animal shapes, which they took on as easily as the Homeric\ngods.(5) Regnard, the French dramatist, who travelled among the Lapps at\nthe end of the seventeenth century (1681), says: \"They believe witches\ncan turn men into cats;\" and again, \"Under the figures of swans, crows,\nfalcons and geese, they call up tempests and destroy ships\".(6) Among\nthe Bushmen \"sorcerers assume the forms of beasts and jackals\".(7)\nDobrizhoffer (1717-91), a missionary in Paraguay, found that \"sorcerers\narrogate to themselves the power of transforming themselves into\ntigers\".(8) He was present when the Abipones believed that a conversion\nof this sort was actually taking place: \"Alas,\" cried the people, \"his\nwhole body is beginning to be covered with tiger-spots; his nails are\ngrowing\". Near Loanda, Livingstone found that a \"chief may metamorphose\nhimself into a lion, kill any one he choses, and then resume his proper\nform\".(9) Among the Barotse and Balonda, \"while persons are still\nalive they may enter into lions and alligators\".(10) Among the Mayas of\nCentral America \"sorcerers could transform themselves into dogs,\npigs and other animals; their glance was death to a victim\".(11) The\nThlinkeets think that their Shamans can metamorphose themselves into\nanimals at pleasure; and a very old raven was pointed out to Mr. C. E.\nS. Wood as an incarnation of the soul of a Shaman.(12) Sir A. C. Lyall\nfinds a similar belief in flourishing existence in India. The European\nsuperstition of the were-wolf is too well known to need description.\nPerhaps the most curious legend is that told by Giraldus Cambrensis\nabout a man and his wife metamorphosed into wolves by an abbot. They\nretained human speech, made exemplary professions of Christian faith,\nand sent for priests when they found their last hours approaching. In an\nold Norman ballad a girl is transformed into a white doe, and hunted and\nslain by her brother's hounds. The \"aboriginal\" peoples of India retain\nsimilar convictions. Among the Hos,(13) an old sorcerer called Pusa\nwas known to turn himself habitually into a tiger, and to eat his\nneighbour's goats, and even their wives. Examples of the power of\nsorcerers to turn, as with the Gorgon's head, their enemies into stone,\nare peculiarly common in America.(14) Hearne found that the Indians\nbelieved they descended from a dog, who could turn himself into a\nhandsome young man.(15)\n\n\n(1) Vol. i. pp. 309-315.\n\n(2) See also M'Lennan on Lykanthropy in Encyclopedia Britannica.\n\n(3) Arabian Nights, i. 51.\n\n(4) Bancroft, Races of Pacific Coast, i. 740.\n\n(5) Brinton, Annals of the Cakchiquels, p. 46.\n\n(6) Pinkerton, i. 471.\n\n(7) Bleek, Brief Account of Bushman Folk-Lore, pp. 15, 40.\n\n(8) English translation of Dobrizhoffer's Abipones, i. 163.\n\n(9) Missionary Travels, p. 615.\n\n(10) Livingstone, p. 642.\n\n(11) Bancroft, ii.\n\n(12) Century Magazine, July, 1882.\n\n(13) Dalton's Ethnology of Bengal, p. 200.\n\n(14) Dorman, pp. 130, 134; Report of Ethnological Bureau, Washington,\n1880-81.\n\n(15) A Journey, etc., p. 342.\n\n\nLet us recapitulate the powers attributed all over the world, by the\nlower people, to medicine-men. The medicine-man has all miracles at his\ncommand. He rules the sky, he flies into the air, he becomes visible\nor invisible at will, he can take or confer any form at pleasure, and\nresume his human shape. He can control spirits, can converse with the\ndead, and can descend to their abodes.\n\nWhen we begin to examine the gods of MYTHOLOGY, savage or civilised, as\ndistinct from deities contemplated, in devotion, as moral and creative\nguardians of ethics, we shall find that, with the general, though\nnot invariable addition of immortality, they possess the very same\naccomplishments as the medicine-man, peay, tohunga, jossakeed, birraark,\nor whatever name for sorcerer we may choose. Among the Greeks, Zeus,\nmythically envisaged, enjoys in heaven all the attributes of the\nmedicine-man; among the Iroquois, as Pere le Jeune, the old Jesuit\nmissionary, observed,(1) the medicine-man enjoys on earth all the\nattributes of Zeus. Briefly, the miraculous and supernatural\nendowments of the gods of MYTH, whether these gods be zoomorphic or\nanthropomorphic, are exactly the magical properties with which the\nmedicine-man is credited by his tribe. It does not at all follow, as\nEuemerus and Mr. Herbert Spencer might argue, that the god was once a\nreal living medicine-man. But myth-making man confers on the deities of\nmyth the magical powers which he claims for himself.\n\n\n(1) Relations (1636), p. 114.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V. NATURE MYTHS.\n\n\nSavage fancy, curiosity and credulity illustrated in nature myths--In\nthese all phenomena are explained by belief in the general animation\nof everything, combined with belief in metamorphosis--Sun myths, Asian,\nAustralian, African, Melanesian, Indian, Californian, Brazilian,\nMaori, Samoan--Moon myths, Australian, Muysca, Mexican, Zulu, Macassar,\nGreenland, Piute, Malay--Thunder myths--Greek and Aryan sun and moon\nmyths--Star myths--Myths, savage and civilised, of animals, accounting\nfor their marks and habits--Examples of custom of claiming blood kinship\nwith lower animals--Myths of various plants and trees--Myths of stones,\nand of metamorphosis into stones, Greek, Australian and American--The\nwhole natural philosophy of savages expressed in myths, and survives in\nfolk-lore and classical poetry; and legends of metamorphosis.\n\n\nThe intellectual condition of savages which has been presented and\nestablished by the evidence both of observers and of institutions, may\nnow be studied in savage myths. These myths, indeed, would of themselves\ndemonstrate that the ideas which the lower races entertain about the\nworld correspond with our statement. If any one were to ask himself,\nfrom what mental conditions do the following savage stories arise? he\nwould naturally answer that the minds which conceived the tales were\ncurious, indolent, credulous of magic and witchcraft, capable of drawing\nno line between things and persons, capable of crediting all things\nwith human passions and resolutions. But, as myths analogous to those\nof savages, when found among civilised peoples, have been ascribed to a\npsychological condition produced by a disease of language acting after\ncivilisation had made considerable advances, we cannot take the savage\nmyths as proof of what savages think, believe and practice in the course\nof daily life. To do so would be, perhaps, to argue in a circle. We must\ntherefore study the myths of the undeveloped races in themselves.\n\nThese myths form a composite whole, so complex and so nebulous that it\nis hard indeed to array them in classes and categories. For example,\nif we look at myths concerning the origin of various phenomena, we find\nthat some introduce the action of gods or extra-natural beings, while\nothers rest on a rude theory of capricious evolution; others, again,\ninvoke the aid of the magic of mortals, and most regard the great\nnatural forces, the heavenly bodies, and the animals, as so many\npersonal characters capable of voluntarily modifying themselves or of\nbeing modified by the most trivial accidents. Some sort of arrangement,\nhowever, must be attempted, only the student is to understand that the\nlines are never drawn with definite fixity, that any category may glide\ninto any other category of myth.\n\nWe shall begin by considering some nature myths--myths, that is to say,\nwhich explain the facts of the visible universe. These range from tales\nabout heaven, day, night, the sun and the stars, to tales accounting\nfor the red breast of the ousel, the habits of the quail, the spots and\nstripes of wild beasts, the formation of rocks and stones, the foliage\nof trees, the shapes of plants. In a sense these myths are the science\nof savages; in a sense they are their sacred history; in a sense they\nare their fiction and romance. Beginning with the sun, we find, as Mr.\nTylor says, that \"in early philosophy throughout the world the sun and\nmoon are alive, and, as it were, human in their nature\".(1) The mass of\nthese solar myths is so enormous that only a few examples can be given,\nchosen almost at random out of the heap. The sun is regarded as a\npersonal being, capable not only of being affected by charms and\nincantations, but of being trapped and beaten, of appearing on earth, of\ntaking a wife of the daughters of men. Garcilasso de la Vega has a\nstory of an Inca prince, a speculative thinker, who was puzzled by the\nsun-worship of his ancestors. If the sun be thus all-powerful, the Inca\ninquired, why is he plainly subject to laws? why does he go his daily\nround, instead of wandering at large up and down the fields of heaven?\nThe prince concluded that there was a will superior to the sun's will,\nand he raised a temple to the Unknown Power. Now the phenomena which\nput the Inca on the path of monotheistic religion, a path already\ntraditional, according to Garcilasso, have also struck the fancy of\nsavages. Why, they ask, does the sun run his course like a tamed beast?\nA reply suited to a mind which holds that all things are personal is\ngiven in myths. Some one caught and tamed the sun by physical force or\nby art magic.\n\n\n(1) Primitive Culture, i. 288.\n\n\nIn Australia the myth says that there was a time when the sun did not\nset. \"It was at all times day, and the blacks grew weary.\" Norralie\nconsidered and decided that the sun should disappear at intervals. He\naddressed the sun in an incantation (couched like the Finnish Kalewala\nin the metre of Longfellow's Hiawatha); and the incantation is thus\ninterpreted: \"Sun, sun, burn your wood, burn your internal substance,\nand go down\". The sun therefore now burns out his fuel in a day, and\ngoes below for fresh firewood.(1)\n\n\n(1) Brough Smyth, Aborigines of Victoria, i. 430.\n\n\nIn New Zealand the taming of the sun is attributed to the great hero\nMaui, the Prometheus of the Maoris. He set snares to catch the sun,\nbut in vain, for the sun's rays bit them through. According to another\naccount, while Norralie wished to hasten the sun's setting, Maui wanted\nto delay it, for the sun used to speed through the heavens at a racing\npace. Maui therefore snared the sun, and beat him so unmercifully that\nhe has been lame ever since, and travels slowly, giving longer days.\n\"The sun, when beaten, cried out and revealed his second great name,\nTaura-mis-te-ra.\"(1) It will be remembered that Indra, in his abject\nterror when he fled after the slaying of Vrittra, also revealed his\nmystic name. In North America the same story of the trapping and laming\nof the sun is told, and attributed to a hero named Tcha-ka-betch. In\nSamoa the sun had a child by a Samoan woman. He trapped the sun with a\nrope made of a vine and extorted presents. Another Samoan lassoed\nthe sun and made him promise to move more slowly.(2) These Samoan and\nAustralian fancies are nearly as dignified as the tale in the Aitareya\nBrahmana. The gods, afraid \"that the sun would fall out of heaven,\npulled him up and tied him with five ropes\". These ropes are recognised\nas verses in the ritual, but probably the ritual is later than the\nropes. In Mexico we find that the sun himself (like the stars in most\nmyths) was once a human or pre-human devotee, Nanahuatzin, who leapt\ninto a fire to propitiate the gods.(3) Translated to heaven as the sun,\nNanahuatzin burned so very fiercely that he threatened to reduce\nthe world to a cinder. Arrows were therefore shot at him, and this\npunishment had as happy an effect as the beatings administered by Maui\nand Tcha-ka-betch. Among the Bushmen of South Africa the sun was once a\nman, from whose armpit a limited amount of light was radiated round his\nhut. Some children threw him up into the sky, and there he stuck, and\nthere he shines.(4) In the Homeric hymn to Helios, as Mr. Max Muller\nobserves, \"the poet looks on Helios as a half god, almost a hero, who\nhad once lived on earth,\" which is precisely the view of the Bushmen.(5)\nAmong the Aztecs the sun is said to have been attacked by a hunter\nand grievously wounded by his arrows.(6) The Gallinomeros, in Central\nCalifornia, seem at least to know that the sun is material and\nimpersonal. They say that when all was dark in the beginning, the\nanimals were constantly jostling each other. After a painful encounter,\nthe hawk and the coyote collected two balls of inflammable substance;\nthe hawk (Indra was occasionally a hawk) flew up with them into heaven,\nand lighted them with sparks from a flint. There they gave light as sun\nand moon. This is an exception to the general rule that the heavenly\nbodies are regarded as persons. The Melanesian tale of the bringing\nof night is a curious contrast to the Mexican, Maori, Australian and\nAmerican Indian stories which we have quoted. In Melanesia, as in\nAustralia, the days were long, indeed endless, and people grew tired;\nbut instead of sending the sun down below by an incantation when night\nwould follow in course of nature, the Melanesian hero went to Night\n(conceived of as a person) and begged his assistance. Night (Qong)\nreceived Qat (the hero) kindly, darkened his eyes, gave him sleep,\nand, in twelve hours or so, crept up from the horizon and sent the sun\ncrawling to the west.(7) In the same spirit Paracelsus is said to have\nattributed night, not to the absence of the sun, but to the apparition\nof certain stars which radiate darkness. It is extraordinary that a myth\nlike the Melanesian should occur in Brazil. There was endless day till\nsome one married a girl whose father \"the great serpent,\" was the owner\nof night. The father sent night bottled up in a gourd. The gourd was not\nto be uncorked till the messengers reached the bride, but they, in their\ncuriosity, opened the gourd, and let night out prematurely.(8)\n\n\n(1) Taylor, New Zealand, p. 131.\n\n(2) Turner, Samoa, p. 20.\n\n(3) Sahagun, French trans., vii. ii.\n\n(4) Bleck, Hottentot Fables, p. 67; Bushman Folk-Lore, pp. 9, 11.\n\n(5) Compare a Californian solar myth: Bancroft, iii. pp. 85, 86.\n\n(6) Bancroft, iii. 73, quoting Burgoa, i. 128, 196.\n\n(7) Codrington, Journ. Anthrop. Inst., February, 1881.\n\n(8) Contes Indiens du Bresil, pp. 1-9, by Couto de Magalhaes. Rio de\nJaneiro, 1883. M. Henri Gaidoz kindly presented the author with this\nwork.\n\n\nThe myths which have been reported deal mainly with the sun as a person\nwho shines, and at fixed intervals disappears. His relations with the\nmoon are much more complicated, and are the subject of endless stories,\nall explaining in a romantic fashion why the moon waxes and wanes,\nwhence come her spots, why she is eclipsed, all starting from the\npremise that sun and moon are persons with human parts and passions.\nSometimes the moon is a man, sometimes a woman and the sex of the sun\nvaries according to the fancy of the narrators. Different tribes of the\nsame race, as among the Australians, have different views of the sex of\nmoon and sun. Among the aborigines of Victoria, the moon, like the sun\namong the Bushmen, was a black fellow before he went up into the sky.\nAfter an unusually savage career, he was killed with a stone hatchet\nby the wives of the eagle, and now he shines in the heavens.(1) Another\nmyth explanatory of the moon's phases was found by Mr. Meyer in 1846\namong the natives of Encounter Bay. According to them the moon is a\nwoman, and a bad woman to boot. She lives a life of dissipation among\nmen, which makes her consumptive, and she wastes away till they drive\nher from their company. While she is in retreat, she lives on nourishing\nroots, becomes quite plump, resumes her gay career, and again wastes\naway. The same tribe, strangely enough, think that the sun also is a\nwoman. Every night she descends among the dead, who stand in double\nlines to greet her and let her pass. She has a lover among the dead, who\nhas presented her with a red kangaroo skin, and in this she appears at\nher rising. Such is the view of rosy-fingered Dawn entertained by the\nblacks of Encounter Bay. In South America, among the Muyscas of Bogota,\nthe moon, Huythaca, is the malevolent wife of the child of the sun; she\nwas a woman before her husband banished her to the fields of space.(2)\nThe moon is a man among the Khasias of the Himalaya, and he was guilty\nof the unpardonable offence of admiring his mother-in-law. As a general\nrule, the mother-in-law is not even to be spoken to by the savage\nson-in-law. The lady threw ashes in his face to discourage his passion,\nhence the moon's spots. The waning of the moon suggested the most\nbeautiful and best known of savage myths, that in which the moon sends\na beast to tell mortals that, though they die like her, like her they\nshall be born again.(3) Because the spots in the moon were thought to\nresemble a hare they were accounted for in Mexico by the hypothesis\nthat a god smote the moon in the face with a rabbit;(4) in Zululand and\nThibet by a fancied translation of a good or bad hare to the moon.\n\n\n(1) Brough Smyth, Aborigines of Victoria, i. 432.\n\n(2) Tylor, Primitive Culture, i. 353.\n\n(3) Bleek, Reynard in South Africa, pp. 69-74.\n\n(4) Sahagun, viii. 2.\n\n\nThe Eskimos have a peculiar myth to account for the moon's spots. Sun\nand moon were human brother and sister. In the darkness the moon once\nattempted the virtue of the sun. She smeared his face over with ashes,\nthat she might detect him when a light was brought. She did discover who\nher assailant had been, fled to the sky, and became the sun. The moon\nstill pursues her, and his face is still blackened with the marks of\nashes.(1) Gervaise(2) says that in Macassar the moon was held to be with\nchild by the sun, and that when he pursued her and wished to beat her,\nshe was delivered of the earth. They are now reconciled. About the\nalternate appearance of sun and moon a beautifully complete and adequate\ntale is told by the Piute Indians of California. No more adequate\nand scientific explanation could possibly be offered, granting the\nhypothesis that sun and moon are human persons and savage persons. The\nmyth is printed as it was taken down by Mr. De Quille from the lips of\nTooroop Eenah (Desert Father), a chief of the Piutes, and published in a\nSan Francisco newspaper.\n\n\n(1) Crantz's History of Greenland, i. 212.\n\n(2) Royaume de Macacar, 1688.\n\n\n\"The sun is the father and ruler of the heavens. He is the big chief.\nThe moon is his wife and the stars are their children. The sun eats his\nchildren whenever he can catch them. They flee before him, and are all\nthe time afraid when he is passing through the heavens. When he (their\nfather) appears in the morning, you see all the stars, his children, fly\nout of sight--go away back into the blue of the above--and they do not\nwake to be seen again until he, their father, is about going to his bed.\n\n\"Down deep under the ground--deep, deep, under all the ground--is a\ngreat hole. At night, when he has passed over the world, looked down on\neverything and finished his work, he, the sun, goes into his hole, and\nhe crawls and creeps along it till he comes to his bed in the middle\npart of the earth. So then he, the sun, sleeps there in his bed all\nnight.\n\n\"This hole is so little, and he, the sun, is so big, that he cannot\nturn round in it; and so he must, when he has had all his sleep, pass\non through, and in the morning we see him come out in the east. When he,\nthe sun, has so come out, he begins to hunt up through the sky to catch\nand eat any that he can of the stars, his children, for if he does not\nso catch and eat he cannot live. He, the sun, is not all seen. The shape\nof him is like a snake or a lizard. It is not his head that we can see,\nbut his belly, filled up with the stars that times and times he has\nswallowed.\n\n\"The moon is the mother of the heavens and is the wife of the sun. She,\nthe moon, goes into the same hole as her husband to sleep her naps. But\nalways she has great fear of the sun, her husband, and when he comes\nthrough the hole to the nobee (tent) deep in the ground to sleep, she\ngets out and comes away if he be cross.\n\n\"She, the moon, has great love for her children, the stars, and is happy\nto travel among them in the above; and they, her children, feel safe,\nand sing and dance as she passes along. But the mother, she cannot help\nthat some of her children must be swallowed by the father every month.\nIt is ordered that way by the Pah-ah (Great Spirit), who lives above the\nplace of all.\n\n\"Every month that father, the sun, does swallow some of the stars, his\nchildren, and then that mother, the moon, feels sorrow. She must mourn;\nso she must put the black on her face for to mourn the dead. You see the\nPiute women put black on their faces when a child is gone. But the dark\nwill wear away from the face of that mother, the moon, a little and a\nlittle every day, and after a time again we see all bright the face of\nher. But soon more of her children are gone, and again she must put on\nher face the pitch and the black.\"\n\nHere all the phenomena are accounted for, and the explanation is as\nadvanced as the Egyptian doctrine of the hole under the earth where the\nsun goes when he passes from our view. And still the Great Spirit is\nover all: Religion comes athwart Myth.\n\nMr. Tylor quotes(1) a nature myth about sun, moon and stars which\nremarkably corresponds to the speculation of the Piutes. The Mintira of\nthe Malayan Peninsula say that both sun and moon are women. The stars\nare the moon's children; once the sun had as many. They each agreed\n(like the women of Jerusalem in the famine), to eat their own children;\nbut the sun swallowed her whole family, while the moon concealed hers.\nWhen the sun saw this she was exceedingly angry, and pursued the moon to\nkill her. Occasionally she gets a bite out of the moon, and that is an\neclipse. The Hos of North-East India tell the same tale, but say\nthat the sun cleft the moon in twain for her treachery, and that she\ncontinues to be cut in two and grow again every month. With these sun\nand moon legends sometimes coexists the RELIGIOUS belief in a Creator of\nthese and of all things.\n\n\n(1) Primitive Culture, i. 356.\n\n\nIn harmony with the general hypothesis that all objects in nature\nare personal, and human or bestial, in real shape, and in passion\nand habits, are the myths which account for eclipses. These have so\nfrequently been published and commented on(1) that a long statement\nwould be tedious and superfluous. To the savage mind, and even to the\nChinese and the peasants of some European countries, the need of an\nexplanation is satisfied by the myth that an evil beast is devouring the\nsun or the moon. The people even try by firing off guns, shrieking, and\nclashing cymbals, to frighten the beast (wolf, pig, dragon, or what not)\nfrom his prey. What the hungry monster in the sky is doing when he is\nnot biting the sun or moon we are not informed. Probably he herds with\nthe big bird whose wings, among the Dacotahs of America and the Zulus\nof Africa, make thunder; or he may associate with the dragons, serpents,\ncows and other aerial cattle which supply the rain, and show themselves\nin the waterspout. Chinese, Greenland, Hindoo, Finnish, Lithunian and\nMoorish examples of the myth about the moon-devouring beasts are vouched\nfor by Grimm.(2) A Mongolian legend has it that the gods wished to\npunish the maleficent Arakho for his misdeeds, but Arakho hid so\ncleverly that their limited omnipotence could not find him. The sun,\nwhen asked to turn spy, gave an evasive answer. The moon told the truth.\nArakho was punished, and ever since he chases sun and moon. When he\nnearly catches either of them, there is an eclipse, and the people\ntry to drive him off by making a hideous uproar with musical and other\ninstruments.(3) Captain Beeckman in 1704 was in Borneo, when the natives\ndeclared that the devil \"was eating the moon\".\n\n\n(1) Tylor, Primitive Culture, vol. i.; Lefebure, Les Yeux d'Horus.\n\n(2) Teutonic Mythology, English trans., ii. 706.\n\n(3) Moon-Lore by Rev. T. Harley, p. 167.\n\n\nDr. Brinton in his Myths and Myth-Makers gives examples from Peruvians,\nTupis, Creeks, Iroquois and Algonkins. It would be easy, and is perhaps\nsuperfluous, to go on multiplying proofs of the belief that sun and moon\nare, or have been, persons. In the Hervey Isles these two luminaries are\nthought to have been made out of the body of a child cut in twain by his\nparents. The blood escaped from the half which is the moon, hence her\npallor.(1) This tale is an exception to the general rule, but reminds us\nof the many myths which represent the things in the world as having\nbeen made out of a mutilated man, like the Vedic Purusha. It is hardly\nnecessary, except by way of record, to point out that the Greek myths\nof sun and moon, like the myths of savages, start from the conception\nof the solar and lunar bodies as persons with parts and passions, human\nloves and human sorrows. As in the Mongolian myth of Arakho, the sun\n\"sees all and hears all,\" and, less honourable than the Mongolian sun,\nhe plays the spy for Hephaestus on the loves of Ares and Aphrodite. He\nhas mistresses and human children, such as Circe and Aeetes.(2)\n\n\n(1) Gill, Myths and Songs, p. 45.\n\n(2) See chapter on Greek Divine Myths.\n\n\nThe sun is all-seeing and all-penetrating. In a Greek song of to-day a\nmother sends a message to an absent daughter by the sun; it is but\nan unconscious repetition of the request of the dying Ajax that the\nheavenly body will tell his fate to his old father and his sorrowing\nspouse.(1)\n\n\n(1) Sophocles, Ajax, 846.\n\n\nSelene, the moon, like Helios, the sun, was a person, and amorous.\nBeloved by Zeus, she gave birth to Pandia, and Pan gained her affection\nby the simple rustic gift of a fleece.(1) The Australian Dawn, with her\npresent of a red kangaroo skin, was not more lightly won than the chaste\nSelene. Her affection for Endymion is well known, and her cold white\nglance shines through the crevices of his mountain grave, hewn in a\nrocky wall, like the tombs of Phrygia.(2) She is the sister of the sun\nin Hesiod, the daughter (by his sister) of Hyperion in the Homeric hymns\nto Helios.\n\n\n(1) Virgil, Georgics, iii. 391.\n\n(2) Preller, Griech. Myth., i. 163.\n\n\nIn Greece the aspects of sun and moon take the most ideal human forms,\nand show themselves in the most gracious myths. But, after all, these\nretain in their anthropomorphism the marks of the earliest fancy, the\nfancy of Eskimos and Australians. It seems to be commonly thought that\nthe existence of solar myths is denied by anthropologists. This is a\nvulgar error. There is an enormous mass of solar myths, but they are not\ncaused by \"a disease of language,\" and--all myths are not solar!\n\nThere is no occasion to dwell long on myths of the same character in\nwhich the stars are accounted for as transformed human adventurers.\nIt has often been shown that this opinion is practically of world-wide\ndistribution.(1) We find it in Australia, Persia, Greece, among the\nBushmen, in North and South America, among the Eskimos, in ancient\nEgypt, in New Zealand, in ancient India--briefly, wherever we look. The\nSanskrit forms of these myths have been said to arise from confusion\nas to the meaning of words. But is it credible that, in all languages,\nhowever different, the same kind of unconscious puns should have led to\nthe same mistaken beliefs? As the savage, barbarous and Greek star-myths\n(such as that of Callisto, first changed into a bear and then into a\nconstellation) are familiar to most readers, a few examples of Sanskrit\nstar-stories are offered here from the Satapatha Brahmana.(2) Fires are\nnot, according to the Brahmana ritual, to be lighted under the stars\ncalled Krittikas, the Pleiades. The reason is that the stars were the\nwives of the bears (Riksha), for the group known in Brahmanic times as\nthe Rishis (sages) were originally called the Rikshas (bears). But the\nwives of the bears were excluded from the society of their husbands, for\nthe bears rise in the north and their wives in the east. Therefore\nthe worshipper should not set up his fires under the Pleiades, lest\nhe should thereby be separated from the company of his wife. The\nBrahmanas(3) also tell us that Prajapati had an unholy passion for his\ndaughter, who was in the form of a doe. The gods made Rudra fire an\narrow at Prajapati to punish him; he was wounded, and leaped into the\nsky, where he became one constellation and his daughter another, and the\narrow a third group of stars. In general, according to the Brahmanas,\n\"the stars are the lights of virtuous men who go to the heavenly\nworld\".(4)\n\n\n(1) Custom and Myth, \"Star-Myths\"; Primitive Culture, i. 288, 291; J. G.\nMuller, Amerikanischen Urreligionen, pp. 52, 53.\n\n(2) Sacred Books of the East, i. 283-286.\n\n(3) Aitareya Bramana, iii. 33.\n\n(4) Satapatha Brahmana, vi. 5, 4, 8. For Greek examples, Hesiod,\nOvid, and the Catasterismoi, attributed to Eratosthenes, are useful\nauthorities. Probably many of the tales in Eratosthenes are late\nfictions consciously moulded on traditional data.\n\n\nPassing from savage myths explanatory of the nature of celestial bodies\nto myths accounting for the formation and colour and habits of beasts,\nbirds and fishes, we find ourselves, as an old Jesuit missionary says,\nin the midst of a barbarous version of Ovid's Metamorphoses. It has been\nshown that the possibility of interchange of form between man and beast\nis part of the working belief of everyday existence among the lower\npeoples. They regard all things as on one level, or, to use an old\npolitical phrase, they \"level up\" everything to equality with the human\nstatus. Thus Mr. Im Thurn, a very good observer, found that to the\nIndians of Guiana \"all objects, animate or inaminate, seem exactly\nof the same nature, except that they differ by the accident of bodily\nform\". Clearly to grasp this entirely natural conception of primitive\nman, the civilised student must make a great effort to forget for a time\nall that science has taught him of the differences between the objects\nwhich fill the world.(1) \"To the ear of the savage, animals certainly\nseem to talk.\" \"As far as the Indians of Guiana are concerned, I do not\nbelieve that they distinguish such beings as sun and moon, or such other\nnatural phenomena as winds and storms, from men and other animals,\nfrom plants and other inanimate objects, or from any other objects\nwhatsoever.\" Bancroft says about North American myths, \"Beasts and birds\nand fishes fetch and carry, talk and act, in a way that leaves even\nAesop's heroes quite in the shade\".(2)\n\n\n(1) Journ. Anthrop. Inst., xi. 366-369. A very large and rich collection\nof testimonies as to metamorphosis will be found in J. G. Muller's\nAmerikanischen Urreligionen, p. 62 et seq.; while, for European\nsuperstitions, Bodin on La Demonomanie des Sorciers, Lyon, 1598, may be\nconsulted.\n\n(2) Vol. iii. p. 127.\n\n\nThe savage tendency is to see in inanimate things animals, and in\nanimals disguised men. M. Reville quotes in his Religions des Peuples\nNon-Civilise's, i. 64, the story of some Negroes, who, the first time\nthey were shown a cornemuse, took the instrument for a beast, the two\nholes for its eyes. The Highlander who looted a watch at Prestonpans,\nand observing, \"She's teed,\" sold it cheap when it ran down, was in the\nsame psychological condition. A queer bit of savage science is displayed\non a black stone tobacco-pipe from the Pacific Coast.(1) The savage\nartist has carved the pipe in the likeness of a steamer, as a steamer is\nconceived by him. \"Unable to account for the motive power, he imagines\nthe paddle to be linked round the tongue of a coiled serpent, fastened\nto the tail of the vessel,\" and so he represents it on the black stone\npipe. Nay, a savage's belief that beasts are on his own level is so\nliteral, that he actually makes blood-covenants with the lower animals,\nas he does with men, mingling his gore with theirs, or smearing both\ntogether on a stone;(2) while to bury dead animals with sacred rites is\nas usual among the Bedouins and Malagasies to-day as in ancient Egypt\nor Attica. In the same way the Ainos of Japan, who regard the bear as a\nkinsman, sacrifice a bear once a year. But, to propitiate the animal and\nhis connections, they appoint him a \"mother,\" an Aino girl, who looks\nafter his comforts, and behaves in a way as maternal as possible. The\nbear is now a kinsman, (Greek text omitted), and cannot avenge himself\nwithin the kin. This, at least, seems to be the humour of it. In\nLagarde's Reliquiae Juris Ecclesiastici Antiquissimae a similar Syrian\ncovenant of kinship with insects is described. About 700 A. D., when a\nSyrian garden was infested by caterpillars, the maidens were assembled,\nand one caterpillar was caught. Then one of the virgins was \"made its\nmother,\" and the creature was buried with due lamentations. The \"mother\"\nwas then brought to the spot where the pests were, her companions\nbewailed her, and the caterpillars perished like their chosen kinsman,\nbut without extorting revenge.(3) Revenge was out of their reach.\nThey had been brought within the kin of their foes, and there were no\nErinnyes, \"avengers of kindred blood,\" to help them. People in this\ncondition of belief naturally tell hundreds of tales, in which men,\nstones, trees, beasts, shift shapes, and in which the modifications of\nanimal forms are caused by accident, or by human agency, or by magic,\nor by metamorphosis. Such tales survive in our modern folk-lore. To make\nour meaning clear, we may give the European nursery-myth of the\norigin of the donkey's long ears, and, among other illustrations, the\nAustralian myth of the origin of the black and white plumage of the\npelican. Mr. Ralston has published the Russian version of the myth\nof the donkey's ears. The Spanish form, which is identical with the\nRussian, is given by Fernan Caballero in La Gaviota.\n\n\n(1) Magazine of Art, January, 1883.\n\n(2) \"Malagasy Folk-Tales,\" Folk-Lore Journal, October, 1883.\n\n(3) We are indebted to Professor Robertson Smith for this example, and\nto Miss Bird's Journal, pp. 90, 97, for the Aino parallel.\n\n\n\"Listen! do you know why your ears are so big?\" (the story is told to\na stupid little boy with big ears). \"When Father Adam found himself in\nParadise with the animals, he gave each its name; those of THY species,\nmy child, he named 'donkeys'. One day, not long after, he called the\nbeasts together, and asked each to tell him its name. They all answered\nright except the animals of THY sort, and they had forgotten their name!\nThen Father Adam was very angry, and, taking that forgetful donkey by\nthe ears, he pulled them out, screaming 'You are called DONKEY!' And\nthe donkey's ears have been long ever since.\" This, to a child, is a\ncredible explanation. So, perhaps, is another survival of this form of\nscience--the Scotch explanation of the black marks on the haddock; they\nwere impressed by St. Peter's finger and thumb when he took the piece of\nmoney for Caesar's tax out of the fish's mouth.\n\nTurning from folk-lore to savage beliefs, we learn that from one end of\nAfrica to another the honey-bird, schneter, is said to be an old woman\nwhose son was lost, and who pursued him till she was turned into a bird,\nwhich still shrieks his name, \"Schneter, Schneter\".(1) In the same way\nthe manners of most of the birds known to the Greeks were accounted for\nby the myth that they had been men and women. Zeus, for example, turned\nCeyx and Halcyon into sea-fowls because they were too proud in their\nmarried happiness.(2) To these myths of the origin of various animals\nwe shall return, but we must not forget the black and white Australian\npelican. Why is the pelican parti-coloured?(3) For this reason: After\nthe Flood (the origin of which is variously explained by the Murri), the\npelican (who had been a black fellow) made a canoe, and went about\nlike a kind of Noah, trying to save the drowning. In the course of his\nbenevolent mission he fell in love with a woman, but she and her friends\nplayed him a trick and escaped from him. The pelican at once prepared to\ngo on the war-path. The first thing to do was to daub himself white,\nas is the custom of the blacks before a battle. They think the white\npipe-clay strikes terror and inspires respect among the enemy. But when\nthe pelican was only half pipe-clayed, another pelican came past, and,\n\"not knowing what such a queer black and white thing was, struck the\nfirst pelican with his beak and killed him. Before that pelicans were\nall black; now they are black and white. That is the reason.\"(4)\n\n\n(1) Barth, iii. 358.\n\n(2) Apollodorus, i. 7 (13, 12).\n\n(3) Sahagun, viii. 2, accounts for colours of eagle and tiger. A number\nof races explain the habits and marks of animals as the result of a\ncurse or blessing of a god or hero. The Hottentots, the Huarochiri of\nPeru, the New Zealanders (Shortland, Traditions, p. 57), are among the\npeoples which use this myth.\n\n(4) Brough Symth, Aborigines of Australia, i. 477, 478.\n\n\n\"That is the reason.\" Therewith native philosopy is satisfied, and does\nnot examine in Mr. Darwin's laborious manner the slow evolution of the\ncolour of the pelican's plumage. The mythological stories about animals\nare rather difficult to treat, because they are so much mixed up with\nthe topic of totemism. Here we only examine myths which account by means\nof a legend for certain peculiarities in the habits, cries, or colours\nand shapes of animals. The Ojibbeways told Kohl they had a story for\nevery creature, accounting for its ways and appearance. Among the\nGreeks, as among Australians and Bushmen, we find that nearly every\nnotable bird or beast had its tradition. The nightingale and the\nswallow have a story of the most savage description, a story reported\nby Apollodorus, though Homer(1) refers to another, and, as usual, to\na gentler and more refined form of the myth. Here is the version of\nApollodorus. \"Pandion\" (an early king of Athens) \"married Zeuxippe, his\nmother's sister, by whom he had two daughters, Procne and Philomela, and\ntwo sons, Erechtheus and Butes. A war broke out with Labdas about some\ndebatable land, and Erechtheus invited the alliance of Tereus of Thrace,\nthe son of Ares. Having brought the war, with the aid of Tereus, to a\nhappy end, he gave him his daughter Procne to wife. By Procne, Tereus\nhad a son, Itys, and thereafter fell in love with Philomela, whom\nhe seduced, pretending that Procne was dead, whereas he had really\nconcealed her somewhere in his lands. Thereon he married Philomela, and\ncut out her tongue. But she wove into a robe characters that told\nthe whole story, and by means of these acquainted Procne with her\nsufferings. Thereon Procne found her sister, and slew Itys, her own son,\nwhose body she cooked, and served up to Tereus in a banquet. Thereafter\nProcne and her sister fled together, and Tereus seized an axe and\nfollowed after them. They were overtaken at Daulia in Phocis, and prayed\nto the gods that they might be turned into birds. So Procne became the\nnightingale, and Philomela the swallow, while Tereus was changed into a\nhoopoe.\"(2) Pausanias has a different legend; Procne and Philomela died\nof excessive grief.\n\n\n(1) Odyssey, xix. 523.\n\n(2) A Red Indian nightingale-myth is alluded to by J. G. Muller, Amerik.\nUrrel., p. 175. Some one was turned into a nightingale by the sun, and\nstill wails for a lost lover.\n\n\nThese ancient men and women metamorphosed into birds were HONOURED AS\nANCESTORS by the Athenians.(1) Thus the unceasing musical wail of the\nnightingale and the shrill cry of the swallow were explained by a\nGreek story. The birds were lamenting their old human sorrow, as the\nhoney-bird in Africa still repeats the name of her lost son.\n\n\n(1) Pausanias, i. v. Pausanias thinks such things no longer occur.\n\n\nWhy does the red-robin live near the dwellings of men, a bold and\nfriendly bird? The Chippeway Indians say he was once a young brave whose\nfather set him a task too cruel for his strength, and made him starve\ntoo long when he reached man's estate. He turned into a robin, and said\nto his father, \"I shall always be the friend of man, and keep near their\ndwellings. I could not gratify your pride as a warrior, but I will cheer\nyou by my songs.\"(1) The converse of this legend is the Greek myth of\nthe hawk. Why is the hawk so hated by birds? Hierax was a benevolent\nperson who succoured a race hated by Poseidon. The god therefore changed\nhim into a hawk, and made him as much detested by birds, and as fatal\nto them, as he had been beloved by and gentle to men.(2) The Hervey\nIslanders explain the peculiarities of several fishes by the share they\ntook in the adventures of Ina, who stamped, for example, on the sole,\nand so flattened him for ever.(3) In Greece the dolphins were, according\nto the Homeric hymn to Dionysus, metamorphosed pirates who had insulted\nthe god. But because the dolphin found the hidden sea-goddess whom\nPoseidon loved, the dolphin, too, was raised by the grateful sea-god to\nthe stars.(4) The vulture and the heron, according to Boeo (said to have\nbeen a priestess in Delphi and the author of a Greek treatise on the\ntraditions about birds), were once a man named Aigupios (vulture) and\nhis mother, Boulis. They sinned inadvertently, like Oedipus and Jocasta;\nwherefore Boulis, becoming aware of the guilt, was about to put out the\neyes of her son and slay herself. Then they were changed, Boulis into\nthe heron, \"which tears out and feeds on the eyes of snakes, birds and\nfishes, and Aigupios into the vulture which bears his name\". This\nstory, of which the more repulsive details are suppressed, is much less\npleasing and more savage than the Hervey Islanders' myth of the origin\nof pigs. Maaru was an old blind man who lived with his son Kationgia.\nThere came a year of famine, and Kationgia had great difficulty in\nfinding food for himself and his father. He gave the blind old man\npuddings of banana roots and fishes, while he lived himself on sea-slugs\nand shellfish, like the people of Terra del Fuego. But blind old Maaru\nsuspected his son of giving him the worst share and keeping what was\nbest for himself. At last he discovered that Kationgia was really being\nstarved; he felt his body, and found that he was a mere living skeleton.\nThe two wept together, and the father made a feast of some cocoa-nuts\nand bread-fruit, which he had reserved against the last extremity. When\nall was finished, he said he had eaten his last meal and was about to\ndie. He ordered his son to cover him with leaves and grass, and return\nto the spot in four days. If worms were crawling about, he was to throw\nleaves and grass over them and come back four days later. Kationgia did\nas he was instructed, and, on his second visit to the grave, found the\nwhole mass of leaves in commotion. A brood of pigs, black, white and\nspeckled, had sprung up from the soil; famine was a thing of the past,\nand Kationgia became a great chief in the island.(5)\n\n\n(1) Schoolcraft, ii. 229, 230.\n\n(1) Boeo, quoted by Antoninus Liberalis.\n\n(3) Gill, South Sea Myths, pp. 88-95.\n\n(4) Artemidorus in his Love Elegies, quoted by the Pseud-Eratosthenes.\n\n(5) Gill, Myths and Songs from South Pacific, pp. 135-138.\n\n\n\"The owl was a baker's daughter\" is the fragment of Christian mythology\npreserved by Ophelia. The baker's daughter behaved rudely to our Lord,\nand was changed into the bird that looks not on the sun. The Greeks had\na similar legend of feminine impiety by which they mythically explained\nthe origin of the owl, the bat and the eagle-owl. Minyas of Orchomenos\nhad three daughters, Leucippe, Arsippe and Alcathoe, most industrious\nwomen, who declined to join the wild mysteries of Dionysus. The god\ntook the shape of a maiden, and tried to win them to his worship. They\nrefused, and he assumed the form of a bull, a lion, and a leopard as\neasily as the chiefs of the Abipones become tigers, or as the chiefs\namong the African Barotse and Balonda metamorphose themselves into\nlions and alligators.(1) The daughters of Minyas, in alarm, drew lots to\ndetermine which of them should sacrifice a victim to the god. Leucippe\ndrew the lot and offered up her own son. They then rushed to join the\nsacred rites of Dionysus, when Hermes transformed them into the bat,\nthe owl and the eagle-owl, and these three hide from the light of the\nsun.(2)\n\n\n(1) Livingstone, Missionary Travels, pp. 615, 642.\n\n(2) Nicander, quoted by Antoninus Liberalis.\n\n\nA few examples of Bushman and Australian myths explanatory of the\ncolours and habits of animals will probably suffice to establish the\nresemblance between savage and Hellenic legends of this character. The\nBushman myth about the origin of the eland (a large antelope) is not\nprinted in full by Dr. Bleek, but he observes that it \"gives an account\nof the reasons for the colours of the gemsbok, hartebeest, eland, quagga\nand springbok\".(1) Speculative Bushmen seem to have been puzzled to\naccount for the wildness of the eland. It would be much more convenient\nif the eland were tame and could be easily captured. They explain\nits wildness by saying that the eland was \"spoiled\" before Cagn, the\ncreator, or rather maker of most things, had quite finished it. Cagn's\nrelations came and hunted the first eland too soon, after which all\nother elands grew wild. Cagn then said, \"Go and hunt them and try to\nkill one; that is now your work, for it was you who spoilt them\".(2)\nThe Bushmen have another myth explanatory of the white patches on\nthe breasts of crows in their country. Some men tarried long at their\nhunting, and their wives sent out crows in search of their husbands.\nRound each crow's neck was hung a piece of fat to serve as food on the\njourney. Hence the crows have white patches on breast and neck.\n\n\n(1) Brief Account of Bushmen Folk-Lore, p. 7.\n\n(2) Cape Monthly Magazine, July, 1874.\n\n\nIn Australia the origins of nearly all animals appear to be explained\nin myths, of which a fair collection is printed in Mr. Brough Symth's\nAborigines of Victoria.(1) Still better examples occur in Mrs. Langloh\nParker's Australian Legends. Why is the crane so thin? Once he was a\nman named Kar-ween, the second man fashioned out of clay by Pund-jel, a\nsingular creative being, whose chequered career is traced elsewhere in\nour chapter on \"Savage Myths of the Origin of the World and of Man\".\nKar-ween and Pund-jel had a quarrel about the wives of the former,\nwhom Pund-jel was inclined to admire. The crafty Kar-ween gave a dance\n(jugargiull, corobboree), at which the creator Pund-jel was disporting\nhimself gaily (like the Great Panjandrum), when Kar-ween pinned him with\na spear. Pund-jel threw another which took Kar-ween in the knee-joint,\nso that he could not walk, but soon pined away and became a mere\nskeleton. \"Thereupon Pund-jel made Kar-ween a crane,\" and that is why\nthe crane has such attenuated legs. The Kortume, Munkari and Waingilhe,\nnow birds, were once men. The two latter behaved unkindly to their\nfriend Kortume, who shot them out of his hut in a storm of rain, singing\nat the same time an incantation. The three then turned into birds, and\nwhen the Kortume sings it is a token that rain may be expected.\n\n\n(1) Vol. i. p. 426 et seq.\n\n\nLet us now compare with these Australian myths of the origin of certain\nspecies of birds the Greek story of the origin of frogs, as told by\nMenecrates and Nicander.(1) The frogs were herdsmen metamorphosed by\nLeto, the mother of Apollo. But, by way of showing how closely akin are\nthe fancies of Greeks and Australian black fellows, we shall tell the\nlegend without the proper names, which gave it a fictitious dignity.\n\n\n(1) Antoninus Liberalis, xxxv.\n\n\nTHE ORIGIN OF FROGS.\n\n\"A woman bore two children, and sought for a water-spring wherein to\nbathe them. She found a well, but herdsmen drove her away from it that\ntheir cattle might drink. Then some wolves met her and led her to a\nriver, of which she drank, and in its waters she bathed her children.\nThen she went back to the well where the herdsmen were now bathing, and\nshe turned them all into frogs. She struck their backs and shoulders\nwith a rough stone and drove them into the waters, and ever since that\nday frogs live in marshes and beside rivers.\"\n\nA volume might be filled with such examples of the kindred fancies of\nGreeks and savages. Enough has probably been said to illustrate our\npoint, which is that Greek myths of this character were inherited from\nthe period of savagery, when ideas of metamorphosis and of the kinship\nof men and beasts were real practical beliefs. Events conceived to be\ncommon in real life were introduced into myths, and these myths were\nsavage science, and were intended to account for the Origin of Species.\nBut when once this train of imagination has been fired, it burns on both\nin literature and in the legends of the peasantry. Every one who\nwrites a Christmas tale for children now employs the machinery of\nmetamorphosis, and in European folk-lore, as Fontenelle remarked,\nstories persist which are precisely similar in kind to the minor myths\nof savages.\n\nReasoning in this wise, the Mundas of Bengal thus account for\npeculiarities of certain animals. Sing Bonga, the chief god, cast\ncertain people out of heaven; they fell to earth, found iron ore, and\nbegan smelting it. The black smoke displeased Sing Bonga, who sent two\nking crows and an owl to bid people cease to pollute the atmosphere.\nBut the iron smelters spoiled these birds' tails, and blackened the\npreviously white crow, scorched its beak red, and flattened its head.\nSing Bonga burned man, and turned woman into hills and waterspouts.(1)\n\n\n(1) Dalton, pp. 186, 187.\n\n\nExamples of this class of myth in Indo-Aryan literature are not hard\nto find. Why is dawn red? Why are donkeys slow? Why have mules no young\nones? Mules have no foals because they were severely burned when Agni\n(fire) drove them in a chariot race. Dawn is red, not because (as in\nAustralia) she wears a red kangaroo cloak, but because she competed in\nthis race with red cows for her coursers. Donkeys are slow because they\nnever recovered from their exertions in the same race, when the Asvins\ncalled on their asses and landed themselves the winners.(1) And cows\nare accommodated with horns for a reason no less probable and\nsatisfactory.(2)\n\n\n(1) Aitareya Brahmana, ii. 272, iv. 9.\n\n(2) iv. 17.\n\n\nThough in the legends of the less developed peoples men and women are\nmore frequently metamorphosed into birds and beasts than into stones\nand plants, yet such changes of form are by no means unknown. To the\nnorth-east of Western Point there lies a range of hills, inhabited,\naccording to the natives of Victoria, by a creature whose body is made\nof stone, and weapons make no wound in so sturdy a constitution. The\nblacks refuse to visit the range haunted by the mythic stone beast.\n\"Some black fellows were once camped at the lakes near Shaving Point.\nThey were cooking their fish when a native dog came up. They did not\ngive him anything to eat. He became cross and said, 'You black fellows\nhave lots of fish, but you give me none'. So he changed them all into a\nbig rock. This is quite true, for the big rock is there to this day, and\nI have seen it with my own eyes.\"(1) Another native, Toolabar, says that\nthe women of the fishing party cried out yacka torn, \"very good\". A dog\nreplied yacka torn, and they were all changed into rocks. This very man,\nToolabar, once heard a dog begin to talk, whereupon he and his father\nfled. Had they waited they would have become stones. \"We should have\nbeen like it, wallung,\" that is, stones.\n\n\n(1) Native narrator, ap. Brough Smyth, i. 479.\n\n\nAmong the North American Indians any stone which has a resemblance to\nthe human or animal figure is explained as an example of metamorphosis.\nThree stones among the Aricaras were a girl, her lover and her dog, who\nfled from home because the course of true love did not run smooth, and\nwho were petrified. Certain stones near Chinook Point were sea-giants\nwho swallowed a man. His brother, by aid of fire, dried up the bay and\nreleased the man, still alive, from the body of the giant. Then the\ngiants were turned into rocks.(1) The rising sun in Popol Vuh (if the\nevidence of Popol Vuh, the Quichua sacred book, is to be accepted)\nchanged into stone the lion, serpent and tiger gods. The Standing Rock\non the Upper Missouri is adored by the Indians, and decorated with\ncoloured ribbons and skins of animals. This stone was a woman, who, like\nNiobe, became literally petrified with grief when her husband took a\nsecond wife. Another stone-woman in a cave on the banks of the Kickapoo\nwas wont to kill people who came near her, and is even now approached\nwith great respect. The Oneidas and Dacotahs claim descent from stones\nto which they ascribe animation.(2) Montesinos speaks of a sacred stone\nwhich was removed from a mountain by one of the Incas. A parrot flew out\nof it and lodged in another stone, which the natives still worship.(3)\nThe Breton myth about one of the great stone circles (the stones were\npeasants who danced on a Sunday) is a well-known example of this kind\nof myth surviving in folk-lore. There is a kind of stone Actaeon(4)\nnear Little Muniton Creek, \"resembling the bust of a man whose head\nis decorated with the horns of a stag\".(5) A crowd of myths of\nmetamorphosis into stone will be found among the Iroquois legends in\nReport of Bureau of Ethnology, 1880-81. If men may become stones, on\nthe other hand, in Samoa (as in the Greek myth of Deucalion), stones\nmay become men.(6) Gods, too, especially when these gods happen to be\ncuttlefish, might be petrified. They were chased in Samoa by an Upolu\nhero, who caught them in a great net and killed them. \"They were changed\ninto stones, and now stand up in a rocky part of the lagoon on the\nnorth side of Upolu.\"(7) Mauke, the first man, came out of a stone.\nIn short,(8) men and stones and beasts and gods and thunder have\ninterchangeable forms. In Mangaia(9) the god Ra was tossed up into the\nsky by Maui and became pumice-stone. Many samples of this petrified\ndeity are found in Mangaia. In Melanesia matters are so mixed that it is\nnot easy to decide whether a worshipful stone is the dwelling of a dead\nman's soul or is of spiritual merit in itself, or whether \"the stone is\nthe spirit's outward part or organ\". The Vui, or spirit, has much the\nsame relations with snakes, owls and sharks.(10) Qasavara, the mythical\nopponent of Qat, the Melanesian Prometheus, \"fell dead from heaven\"\n(like Ra in Mangia), and was turned into a stone, on which sacrifices\nare made by those who desire strength in fighting.\n\n\n(1) See authorities ap. Dorman, Primitive Superstitions, pp. 130-138.\n\n(2) Dorman, p. 133.\n\n(3) Many examples are collected by J. G. Muller, Amerikanischen\nUrreligionen, pp. 97, 110, 125, especially when the stones have a\nlikeness to human form, p. 17a. \"Im der That werden auch einige in\nSteine, oder in Thiere and Pflanzen verwandelt.\" Cf. p. 220. Instances\n(from Balboa) of men turned into stone by wizards, p. 309.\n\n(4) Preller thinks that Actaeon, devoured by his hounds after being\nchanged into a stag, is a symbol of the vernal year. Palaephatus (De\nFab. Narrat.) holds that the story is a moral fable.\n\n(5) Dorman, p. 137.\n\n(6) Turner's Samoa, p. 299.\n\n(7) Samoa, p. 31.\n\n(8) Op. cit., p. 34.\n\n(9) Gill, Myths and Songs, p. 60.\n\n(10) Codrington, Journ. Anthrop. Inst., February, 1881.\n\n\nWithout delaying longer among savage myths of metamorphosis into stones,\nit may be briefly shown that the Greeks retained this with all the other\nvagaries of early fancy. Every one remembers the use which Perseus made\nof the Gorgon's head, and the stones on the coast of Seriphus, which,\nlike the stones near Western Point in Victoria, had once been men, the\nenemies of the hero. \"Also he slew the Gorgon,\" sings Pindar, \"and bare\nhome her head, with serpent tresses decked, to the island folk a stony\ndeath.\" Observe Pindar's explanatory remark: \"I ween there is no marvel\nimpossible if gods have wrought thereto\". In the same pious spirit a\nTurk in an isle of the Levant once told Mr. Newton a story of how a man\nhunted a stag, and the stag spoke to him. \"The stag spoke?\" said Mr.\nNewton. \"Yes, by Allah's will,\" replied the Turk. Like Pindar, he was\nrepeating an incident quite natural to the minds of Australians, or\nBushmen, or Samoans, or Red Men, but, like the religious Pindar, he\nfelt that the affair was rather marvellous, and accounted for it by\nthe exercise of omnipotent power.(1) The Greek example of Niobe and\nher children may best be quoted in Mr. Bridges' translation from the\nIliad:--\n\n\n     And somewhere now, among lone mountain rocks\n     On Sipylus, where couch the nymphs at night\n     Who dance all day by Achelous' stream,\n     The once proud mother lies, herself a rook,\n     And in cold breast broods o'er the goddess' wrong.\n                         --Prometheus the fire-bringer.(2)\n\n\nIn the Iliad it is added that Cronion made the people into stones. The\nattitude of the later Greek mind towards these myths may be observed\nin a fragment of Philemon, the comic poet. \"Never, by the gods, have I\nbelieved, nor will believe, that Niobe the stone was once a woman. Nay,\nby reason of her calamities she became speechless, and so, from her\nsilence, was called a stone.\"(3)\n\n\n(1) Pindar, Pyth. x., Myers's translation.\n\n(2) xxiv. 611.\n\n(3) The Scholiast on Iliad, xxiv. 6, 7.\n\n\nThere is another famous petrification in the Iliad. When the prodigy\nof the snake and the sparrows had appeared to the assembled Achaeans\nat Aulis, Zeus displayed a great marvel, and changed into a stone the\nserpent which swallowed the young of the sparrow. Changes into stone,\nthough less common than changes into fishes, birds and beasts, were thus\nobviously not too strange for the credulity of Greek mythology, which\ncould also believe that a stone became the mother of Agdestis by Zeus.\n\nAs to interchange of shape between men and women and PLANTS, our\ninformation, so far as the lower races are concerned, is less copious.\nIt has already been shown that the totems of many stocks in all parts\nof the world are plants, and this belief in connection with a plant by\nitself demonstrates that the confused belief in all things being on one\nlevel has thus introduced vegetables into the dominion of myth. As far\nas possessing souls is concerned, Mr. Tylor has proved that plants are\nas well equipped as men or beasts or minerals.(1) In India the doctrine\nof transmigration widely and clearly recognises the idea of trees or\nsmaller plants being animated by human souls. In the well-known ancient\nEgyptian story of \"The Two Brothers,\"(2) the life of the younger is\npractically merged in that of the acacia tree where he has hidden his\nheart; and when he becomes a bull and is sacrificed, his spiritual part\npasses into a pair of Persea trees. The Yarucaris of Bolivia say that a\ngirl once bewailed in the forest her loverless estate. She happened to\nnotice a beautiful tree, which she adorned with ornaments as well as she\nmight. The tree assumed the shape of a handsome young man--\n\n\n     She did not find him so remiss,\n     But, lightly issuing through,\n     He did repay her kiss for kiss,\n     With usury thereto.(3)\n\n\nJ. G. Muller, who quotes this tale from Andree, says it has \"many\nanalogies with the tales of metamorphosis of human beings into trees\namong the ancients, as reported by Ovid\". The worship of plants and\ntrees is a well-known feature in religion, and probably implies\n(at least in many cases) a recognition of personality. In Samoa,\nmetamorphosis into vegetables is not uncommon. For example, the king of\nFiji was a cannibal, and (very naturally) \"the people were melting away\nunder him\". The brothers Toa and Pale, wishing to escape the royal oven,\nadopted various changes of shape. They knew that straight timber was\nbeing sought for to make a canoe for the king, so Pale, when he assumed\na vegetable form, became a crooked stick overgrown with creepers, but\nToa \"preferred standing erect as a handsome straight tree\". Poor Toa\nwas therefore cut down by the king's shipwrights, though, thanks to\nhis brother's magic wiles, they did not make a canoe out of him after\nall.(4) In Samoa the trees are so far human that they not only go to\nwar with each other, but actually embark in canoes to seek out distant\nenemies.(5) The Ottawa Indians account for the origin of maize by a\nmyth in which a wizard fought with and conquered a little man who had a\nlittle crown of feathers. From his ashes arose the maize with its crown\nof leaves and heavy ears of corn.(6)\n\n\n(1) Primitive Culture, i. 145; examples of Society Islanders, Dyaks,\nKarens, Buddhists.\n\n(2) Maspero, Contes Egyptiens, p. 25.\n\n(3) J. G. Muller, Amerik. Urrel., p. 264.\n\n(4) Turner's Samoa, p. 219.\n\n(5) Ibid.. p. 213.\n\n(6) Amerik. Urrel., p. 60.\n\n\nIn Mangaia the myth of the origin of the cocoa-nut tree is a series\nof transformation scenes, in which the persons shift shapes with the\nalacrity of medicine-men. Ina used to bathe in a pool where an eel\nbecame quite familiar with her. At last the fish took courage and made\nhis declaration. He was Tuna, the chief of all eels. \"Be mine,\" he\ncried, and Ina was his. For some mystical reason he was obliged to leave\nher, but (like the White Cat in the fairy tale) he requested her to cut\noff his eel's head and bury it. Regretfully but firmly did Ina comply\nwith his request, and from the buried eel's head sprang two cocoa\ntrees, one from each half of the brain of Tuna. As a proof of this be it\nremarked, that when the nut is husked we always find on it \"the two\neyes and mouth of the lover of Ina\".(1) All over the world, from ancient\nEgypt to the wigwams of the Algonkins, plants and other matters are said\nto have sprung from a dismembered god or hero, while men are said to\nhave sprung from plants.(2) We may therefore perhaps look on it as a\nproved point that the general savage habit of \"levelling up\" prevails\neven in their view of the vegetable world, and has left traces (as we\nhave seen) in their myths.\n\n\n(1) Gill, Myths and Songs, p. 79.\n\n(2) Myths of the Beginning of Things.\n\n\nTurning now to the mythology of Greece, we see that the same rule holds\ngood. Metamorphosis into plants and flowers is extremely common; the\ninstances of Daphne, Myrrha, Hyacinth, Narcissus and the sisters of\nPhaethon at once occur to the memory.\n\nMost of those myths in which everything in Nature becomes personal and\nhuman, while all persons may become anything in Nature, we explain,\nthen, as survivals or imitations of tales conceived when men were in\nthe savage intellectual condition. In that stage, as we demonstrated, no\nline is drawn between things animate and inanimate, dumb or \"articulate\nspeaking,\" organic or inorganic, personal or impersonal. Such a mental\nstage, again, is reflected in the nature-myths, many of which are merely\n\"aetiological,\"--assign a cause, that is, for phenomena, and satisfy an\nindolent and credulous curiosity.\n\nWe may be asked again, \"But how did this intellectual condition come to\nexist?\" To answer that is no part of our business; for us it is enough\nto trace myth, or a certain element in myth, to a demonstrable and\nactual stage of thought. But this stage, which is constantly found to\nsurvive in the minds of children, is thus explained or described by Hume\nin his Essay on Natural Religion: \"There is an universal tendency in\nmankind to conceive all beings like themselves, and to transfer to every\nobject those qualities... of which they are intimately conscious\".(1)\nNow they believe themselves to be conscious of magical and supernatural\npowers, which they do not, of course, possess. These powers of effecting\nmetamorphosis, of \"shape-shifting,\" of flying, of becoming invisible\nat will, of conversing with the dead, of miraculously healing the sick,\nsavages pass on to their gods (as will be shown in a later chapter),\nand the gods of myth survive and retain the miraculous gifts after their\nworshippers (become more reasonable) have quite forgotten that they\nthemselves once claimed similar endowments. So far, then, it has\nbeen shown that savage fancy, wherever studied, is wild; that savage\ncuriosity is keen; that savage credulity is practically boundless. These\nconsiderations explain the existence of savage myths of sun, stars,\nbeasts, plants and stones; similar myths fill Greek legend and the\nSanskrit Brahmanes. We conclude that, in Greek and Sanskrit, the myths\nare relics (whether borrowed or inherited) of the savage mental STATUS.\n\n\n(1) See Appendix B.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI. NON-ARYAN MYTHS OF THE ORIGIN OF THE WORLD AND OF MAN.\n\n\nConfusions of myth--Various origins of man and of things--Myths of\nAustralia, Andaman Islands, Bushmen, Ovaherero, Namaquas, Zulus, Hurons,\nIroquois, Diggers, Navajoes, Winnebagoes, Chaldaeans, Thlinkeets,\nPacific Islanders, Maoris, Aztecs, Peruvians--Similarity of ideas\npervading all those peoples in various conditions of society and\nculture.\n\n\nThe difficulties of classification which beset the study of mythology\nhave already been described. Nowhere are they more perplexing than when\nwe try to classify what may be styled Cosmogonic Myths. The very word\ncosmogonic implies the pre-existence of the idea of a cosmos, an orderly\nuniverse, and this was exactly the last idea that could enter the mind\nof the myth-makers. There is no such thing as orderliness in their\nmythical conceptions, and no such thing as an universe. The natural\nquestion, \"Who made the world, or how did the things in the world come\nto be?\" is the question which is answered by cosmogonic myths. But it is\nanswered piecemeal. To a Christian child the reply is given, \"God made\nall things\". We have known this reply discussed by some little girls of\nsix (a Scotch minister's daughters, and naturally metaphysical), one of\nwhom solved all difficulties by the impromptu myth, \"God first made a\nlittle place to stand on, and then he made the rest\". But savages and\nthe myth-makers, whose stories survive into the civilised religions,\ncould adhere firmly to no such account as this. Here occurs in the first\nedition of this book the following passage: \"They (savages) have not,\nand had not, the conception of God as we understand what we mean by\nthe word. They have, and had at most, only the small-change of the idea\nGod,\"--here the belief in a moral being who watches conduct; here\nagain the hypothesis of a pre-human race of magnified, non-natural\nmedicine-men, or of extra-natural beings with human and magical\nattributes, but often wearing the fur, and fins, and feathers of the\nlower animals. Mingled with these faiths (whether earlier, later, or\ncoeval in origin with these) are the dread and love of ancestral ghosts,\noften transmuting themselves into worship of an imaginary and ideal\nfirst parent of the tribe, who once more is often a beast or a bird.\nHere is nothing like the notion of an omnipotent, invisible, spiritual\nbeing, the creator of our religion; here is only la monnaie of the\nconception.\"\n\nIt ought to have occurred to the author that he was here traversing the\nmain theory of his own book, which is that RELIGION is one thing, myth\nquite another thing. That many low races of savages entertain, in hours\nof RELIGIOUS thought, an elevated conception of a moral and undying\nMaker of Things, and Master of Life, a Father in Heaven, has already\nbeen stated, and knowledge of the facts has been considerably increased\nsince this work first appeared (1887). But the MYTHICAL conceptions\ndescribed in the last paragraph coexist with the religious conception in\nthe faiths of very low savages, such as the Australians and Andamanese,\njust as the same contradictory coexistence is notorious in ancient\nGreece, India, Egypt and Anahuac. In a sense, certain low savages HAVE\nthe \"conception of God, as we understand what we mean by the word\". But\nthat sense, when savages come to spinning fables about origins, is apt\nto be overlaid and perplexed by the frivolity of their mythical fancy.\n\nWith such shifting, grotesque and inadequate fables, the cosmogonic\nmyths of the world are necessarily bewildered and perplexed. We have\nalready seen in the chapter on \"Nature Myths\" that many things, sun,\nmoon, the stars, \"that have another birth,\" and various animals and\nplants, are accounted for on the hypothesis that they are later than the\nappearance of man--that they originally WERE men. To the European mind\nit seems natural to rank myths of the gods before myths of the making or\nthe evolution of the world, because our religion, like that of the more\nphilosophic Greeks, makes the deity the fount of all existences, causa\ncausans, \"what unmoved moves,\" the beginning and the end. But the\nmyth-makers, deserting any such ideas they may possess, find it\nnecessary, like the child of whom we spoke, to postulate a PLACE for the\ndivine energy to work from, and that place is the earth or the heavens.\nThen, again, heaven and earth are themselves often regarded in the\nusual mythical way, as animated, as persons with parts and passions, and\nfinally, among advancing races, as gods. Into this medley of incongruous\nand inconsistent conceptions we must introduce what order we may, always\nremembering that the order is not native to the subject, but is brought\nin for the purpose of study.\n\nThe origin of the world and of man is naturally a problem which has\nexcited the curiosity of the least developed minds. Every savage race\nhas its own myths on this subject, most of them bearing the marks of the\nchildish and crude imagination, whose character we have investigated,\nand all varying in amount of what may be called philosophical thought.\n\nAll the cosmogonic myths, as distinct from religious belief in a\nCreator, waver between the theory of construction, or rather of\nreconstruction, and the theory of evolution, very rudely conceived.\nThe earth, as a rule, is mythically averred to have grown out of some\noriginal matter, perhaps an animal, perhaps an egg which floated on\nthe waters, perhaps a handful of mud from below the waters. But this\nconception does not exclude the idea that many of the things in the\nworld, minerals, plants and what not, are fragments of the frame of a\nsemi-supernatural and gigantic being, human or bestial, belonging to\na race which preceded the advent of man.(1) Such were the Titans,\ndemi-gods, Nurrumbunguttias in Australia. Various members of this race\nare found active in myths of the creation, or rather the construction,\nof man and of the world. Among the lowest races it is to be noted that\nmythical animals of supernatural power often take the place of\nbeings like the Finnish Wainamoinen, the Greek Prometheus, the Zulu\nUnkulunkulu, the Red Indian Manabozho, himself usually a great hare.\n\n\n(1) Macrobius, Saturnal., i. xx.\n\n\nThe ages before the development or creation of man are filled up, in the\nmyths, with the loves and wars of supernatural people. The appearance of\nman is explained in three or four contradictory ways, each of which\nis represented in the various myths of most mythologies. Often man is\nfashioned out of clay, or stone, or other materials, by a Maker of all\nthings, sometimes half-human or bestial, but also half-divine. Sometimes\nthe first man rises out of the earth, and is himself confused with the\nCreator, a theory perhaps illustrated by the Zulu myth of Unkulunkulu,\n\"The Old, Old One\". Sometimes man arrives ready made, with most of the\nanimals, from his former home in a hole in the ground, and he furnishes\nthe world for himself with stars, sun, moon and everything else he\nneeds. Again, there are many myths which declare that man was evolved\nout of one or other of the lower animals. This myth is usually employed\nby tribesmen to explain the origin of their own peculiar stock of\nkindred. Once more, man is taken to be the fruit of some tree or plant,\nor not to have emerged ready-made, but to have grown out of the ground\nlike a plant or a tree. In some countries, as among the Bechuanas, the\nBoeotians, and the Peruvians, the spot where men first came out on\nearth is known to be some neighbouring marsh or cave. Lastly, man is\noccasionally represented as having been framed out of a piece of the\nbody of the Creator, or made by some demiurgic potter out of clay. All\nthese legends are told by savages, with no sense of their inconsistency.\nThere is no single orthodoxy on the matter, and we shall see that all\nthese theories coexist pell-mell among the mythological traditions of\ncivilised races. In almost every mythology, too, the whole theory of\nthe origin of man is crossed by the tradition of a Deluge, or some other\ngreat destruction, followed by revival or reconstruction of the species,\na tale by no means necessarily of Biblical origin.\n\nIn examining savage myths of the origin of man and of the world,\nwe shall begin by considering those current among the most backward\npeoples, where no hereditary or endowed priesthood has elaborated and\nimproved the popular beliefs. The natives of Australia furnish us\nwith myths of a purely popular type, the property, not of professional\npriests and poets, but of all the old men and full-grown warriors of\nthe country. Here, as everywhere else, the student must be on his\nguard against accepting myths which are disguised forms of missionary\nteaching.(1)\n\n\n(1) Taplin, The Narrinyeri. \"He must also beware of supposing that the\nAustralians believe in a creator in our sense, because the Narrinyeri,\nfor example, say that Nurundere 'made everything'. Nurundere is but an\nidealised wizard and hunter, with a rival of his species.\" This occurs\nin the first edition, but \"making all things\" is one idea, wizardry is\nanother.\n\n\nIn Southern Australia we learn that the Boonoorong, an Australian\ncoast tribe, ascribe the creation of things to a being named Bun-jel or\nPund-jel. He figures as the chief of an earlier supernatural class of\nexistence, with human relationships; thus he \"has a wife, WHOSE FACE HE\nHAS NEVER SEEN,\" brothers, a son, and so on. Now this name Bun-jel means\n\"eagle-hawk,\" and the eagle-hawk is a totem among certain stocks. Thus,\nwhen we hear that Eagle-hawk is the maker of men and things we are\nreminded of the Bushman creator, Cagn, who now receives prayers of\nconsiderable beauty and pathos, but who is (in some theories) identified\nwith kaggen, the mantis insect, a creative grasshopper, and the chief\nfigure in Bushman mythology.(1) Bun-jel or Pund-jel also figures in\nAustralian belief, neither as the creator nor as the eagle-hawk, but\n\"as an old man who lives at the sources of the Yarra river, where he\npossesses great multitudes of cattle\".(2) The term Bun-jel is also\nused, much like our \"Mr.,\" to denote the older men of the Kurnai and\nBriakolung, some of whom have magical powers. One of them, Krawra, or\n\"West Wind,\" can cause the wind to blow so violently as to prevent the\nnatives from climbing trees; this man has semi-divine attributes. From\nthese facts it appears that this Australian creator, in myth, partakes\nof the character of the totem or worshipful beast, and of that of the\nwizard or medicine-man. He carried a large knife, and, when he made\nthe earth, he went up and down slicing it into creeks and valleys. The\naborigines of the northern parts of Victoria seem to believe in Pund-jel\nin what may perhaps be his most primitive mythical shape, that of an\neagle.(3) This eagle and a crow created everything, and separated the\nMurray blacks into their two main divisions, which derive their names\nfrom the crow and the eagle. The Melbourne blacks seem to make Pund-jel\nmore anthropomorphic. Men are his (Greek text omitted) figures kneaded\nof clay, as Aristophanes says in the Birds. Pund-jel made two clay\nimages of men, and danced round them. \"He made their hair--one had\nstraight, one curly hair--of bark. He danced round them. He lay on them,\nand breathed his breath into their mouths, noses and navels, and danced\nround them. Then they arose full-grown young men.\" Some blacks seeing a\nbrickmaker at work on a bridge over the Yarra exclaimed, \"Like 'em that\nPund-jel make 'em Koolin\". But other blacks prefer to believe that, as\nPindar puts the Phrygian legend, the sun saw men growing like trees.\n\n\n(1) Bleek, Brief Account of Bushman Mythology, p. 6; Cape Monthly\nMagazine, July, 1874, pp. 1-13; Kamilaroi and Kurnai, pp. 210, 324.\n\n(2) Kamilaroi and Kurnai, p. 210.\n\n(3) Brough Smyth, Natives of Victoria, vol. i. p. 423.\n\n\nThe first man was formed out of the gum of a wattle-tree, and came out\nof the knot of a wattle-tree. He then entered into a young woman (though\nhe was the first man) and was born.(1) The Encounter Bay people have\nanother myth, which might have been attributed by Dean Swift to the\nYahoos, so foul an origin does it allot to mankind.\n\n\n(1) Meyer, Aborigines of Encounter Bay. See, later, \"Gods of the Lowest\nRaces\".\n\n\nAustralian myths of creation are by no means exclusive of a hypothesis\nof evolution. Thus the Dieyrie, whose notions Mr. Gason has recorded,\nhold a very mixed view. They aver that \"the good spirit\" Moora-Moora\nmade a number of small black lizards, liked them, and promised them\ndominion. He divided their feet into toes and fingers, gave them noses\nand lips, and set them upright. Down they fell, and Moora-Moora cut off\ntheir tails. Then they walked erect and were men.(1) The conclusion of\nthe adventures of one Australian creator is melancholy. He has ceased to\ndwell among mortals whom he watches and inspires. The Jay possessed many\nbags full of wind; he opened them, and Pund-jel was carried up by the\nblast into the heavens. But this event did not occur before Pund-jel had\ntaught men and women the essential arts of life. He had shown the former\nhow to spear kangaroos, he still exists and inspires poets. From the\ncosmogonic myths of Australia (the character of some of which is in\ncontradiction with the higher religious belief of the people to be\nlater described) we may turn, without reaching a race of much higher\ncivilisation, to the dwellers in the Andaman Islands and their opinions\nabout the origin of things.\n\n\n(1) Gason's Dieyries, ap. Native Tribes of South Australia, p. 20.\n\n\nThe Andaman Islands, in the Bay of Bengal, are remote from any shores,\nand are protected from foreign influences by dangerous coral reefs,\nand by the reputed ferocity and cannibalism of the natives. These are\nNegritos, and are commonly spoken of as most abject savages. They are\nnot, however, without distinctions of rank; they are clean, modest,\nmoral after marriage, and most strict in the observance of prohibited\ndegrees. Unlike the Australians, they use bows and arrows, but are\nsaid to be incapable of striking a light, and, at all events, find the\nprocess so difficult that, like the Australians and the farmer in the\nOdyssey,(1) they are compelled \"to hoard the seeds of fire\". Their\nmythology contains explanations of the origin of men and animals, and of\ntheir own customs and language.\n\n\n(1) Odyssey, v. 490.\n\n\nThe Andamanese, long spoken of as \"godless,\" owe much to Mr. Man, an\nEnglish official, who has made a most careful study of their beliefs.(1)\nSo extraordinary is the contradiction between the relative purity\nand morality of the RELIGION and the savagery of the myths of the\nAndamanese, that, in the first edition of this work, I insisted that\nthe \"spiritual god\" of the faith must have been \"borrowed from the same\nquarter as the stone house\" in which he is mythically said to live. But\nlater and wider study, and fresh information from various quarters, have\nconvinced me that the relative purity of Andamanese religion, with its\nethical sanction of conduct, may well be, and probably is, a natural\nunborrowed development. It is easy for MYTH to borrow the notion of a\nstone house from our recent settlement at Port Blair. But it would not\nbe easy for RELIGION to borrow many new ideas from an alien creed, in\na very few years, while the noted ferocity of the islanders towards\nstrangers, and the inaccessibility of their abode, makes earlier\nborrowing, on a large scale at least, highly improbable. The Andamanese\ngod, Puluga, is \"like fire\" but invisible, unborn and immortal, knowing\nand punishing or rewarding, men's deeds, even \"the thoughts of their\nhearts\". But when once mythical fancy plays round him, and stories are\ntold about him, he is credited with a wife who is an eel or a shrimp,\njust as Zeus made love as an ant or a cuckoo. Puluga was the maker of\nmen; no particular myth as to how he made them is given. They tried to\nkill him, after the deluge (of which a grotesque myth is told), but\nhe replied that he was \"as hard as wood\". His legend is in the usual\nmythical contradiction with the higher elements in his religion.\n\n\n(1) Journ. Anthrop. Soc., vol. xii. p. 157 et seq.\n\n\nLeaving the Andaman islanders, but still studying races in the lowest\ndegree of civilisation, we come to the Bushmen of South Africa. This\nvery curious and interesting people, far inferior in material equipment\nto the Hottentots, is sometimes regarded as a branch of that race.(1)\nThe Hottentots call themselves \"Khoi-khoi,\" the Bushmen they style \"Sa\".\nThe poor Sa lead the life of pariahs, and are hated and chased by all\nother natives of South Africa. They are hunters and diggers for roots,\nwhile the Hottentots, perhaps their kinsmen, are cattle-breeders.(2)\nBeing so ill-nourished, the Bushmen are very small, but sturdy. They\ndwell in, or rather wander through, countries which have been touched\nby some ancient civilisation, as is proved by the mysterious mines\nand roads of Mashonaland. It is singular that the Bushmen possess a\ntradition according to which they could once \"make stone things that\nflew over rivers\". They have remarkable artistic powers, and their\ndrawings of men and animals on the walls of caves are often not inferior\nto the designs on early Greek vases.(3)\n\n\n(1) See \"Divine Myths of the Lower Races\".\n\n(2) Hahu, Tsuni Goam, p. 4. See other accounts in Waitz, Anthropologie,\nii. 328.\n\n(3) Custom and Myth, where illustrations of Bushman art are given, pp.\n290-295.\n\n\nThus we must regard the Bushmen as possibly degenerated from a higher\nstatus, though there is nothing (except perhaps the tradition about\nbridge-making) to show that it was more exalted than that of their\nmore prosperous neighbours, the Hottentots. The myths of the Bushmen,\nhowever, are almost on the lowest known level. A very good and authentic\nexample of Bushman cosmogonic myth was given to Mr. Orpen, chief\nmagistrate of St. John's territory, by Qing, King Nqusha's huntsman.\nQing \"had never seen a white man, but in fighting,\" till he became\nacquainted with Mr. Orpen.(1) The chief force in Bushmen myth is by Dr.\nBleek identified with the mantis, a sort of large grasshopper. Though he\nseems at least as \"chimerical a beast\" as the Aryan creative boar, the\n\"mighty big hare\" of the Algonkins, the large spider who made the\nworld in the opinion of the Gold Coast people, or the eagle of the\nAustralians, yet the insect (if insect he be), like the others, has\nachieved moral qualities and is addressed in prayer. In his religious\naspect he is nothing less than a grasshopper. He is called Cagn. \"Cagn\nmade all things and we pray to him,\" said Qing. \"Coti is the wife of\nCagn.\" Qing did not know where they came from; \"perhaps with the men who\nbrought the sun\". The fact is, Qing \"did not dance that dance,\" that is,\nwas not one of the Bushmen initiated into the more esoteric mysteries\nof Cagn. Till we, too, are initiated, we can know very little of Cagn in\nhis religious aspect. Among the Bushmen, as among the Greeks, there is\n\"no religious mystery without dancing\". Qing was not very consistent.\nHe said Cagn gave orders and caused all things to appear and to be made,\nsun, moon, stars, wind, mountains, animals, and this, of course, is a\nlofty theory of creation. Elsewhere myth avers that Cagn did not so\nmuch create as manufacture the objects in nature. In his early day \"the\nsnakes were also men\". Cagn struck snakes with his staff and turned them\ninto men, as Zeus, in the Aeginetan myth, did with ants. He also turned\noffending men into baboons. In Bushman myth, little as we really know\nof it, we see the usual opposition of fable and faith, a kind creator in\nreligion is apparently a magician in myth.\n\n\n(1) Cape Monthly Magazine, July, 1874.\n\n\nNeighbours of the Bushmen, but more fortunate in their wealth of sheep\nand cattle, are the Ovaherero. The myths of the Ovaherero, a tribe\ndwelling in a part of Hereraland \"which had not yet been under the\ninfluence of civilisation and Christianity,\" have been studied by the\nRev. H. Reiderbecke, missionary at Otyozondyupa. The Ovaherero, he says,\nhave a kind of tree Ygdrasil, a tree out of which men are born, and\nthis plays a great part in their myth of creation. The tree, which still\nexists, though at a great age, is called the Omumborombonga tree. Out of\nit came, in the beginning, the first man and woman. Oxen stepped\nforth from it too, but baboons, as Caliban says of the stars, \"came\notherwise,\" and sheep and goats sprang from a flat rock. Black people\nare so coloured, according to the Ovaherero, because when the first\nparents emerged from the tree and slew an ox, the ancestress of the\nblacks appropriated the black liver of the victim. The Ovakuru Meyuru or\n\"OLD ONES in heaven,\" once let the skies down with a run, but drew them\nup again (as the gods of the Satapatha Brahmana drew the sun) when most\nof mankind had been drowned.(1) The remnant pacified the OLD ONES (as\nOdysseus did the spirits of the dead) by the sacrifice of a BLACK ewe, a\npractice still used to appease ghosts by the Ovaherero. The neighbouring\nOmnambo ascribe the creation of man to Kalunga, who came out of the\nearth, and made the first three sheep.(2)\n\n\n(1) An example of a Deluge myth in Africa, where M. Lenormant found\nnone.\n\n(2) South African Folk-Lore Journal, ii. pt. v. p. 95.\n\n\nAmong the Namaquas, an African people on the same level of nomadic\nculture as the Ovaherero, a divine or heroic early being called Heitsi\nEibib had a good deal to do with the origin of things. If he did not\nexactly make the animals, he impressed on them their characters, and\ntheir habits (like those of the serpent in Genesis) are said to have\nbeen conferred by a curse, the curse of Heitsi Eibib. A precisely\nsimilar notion was found by Avila among the Indians of Huarochiri, whose\ndivine culture-hero imposed, by a curse or a blessing, their character\nand habits on the beasts.(1) The lion used to live in a nest up a tree\ntill Heitsi Eibib cursed him and bade him walk on the ground. He also\ncursed the hare, \"and the hare ran away, and is still running\".(2) The\nname of the first man is given as Eichaknanabiseb (with a multitude of\n\"clicks\"), and he is said to have met all the animals on a flat rock,\nand played a game with them for copper beads. The rainbow was made by\nGaunab, who is generally a malevolent being, of whom more hereafter.\n\n\n(1) Fables of Yncas (Hakluyt Society), p. 127.\n\n(2) Tsuni Goam, pp. 66, 67.\n\n\nLeaving these African races, which, whatever their relative degrees of\nculture, are physically somewhat contemptible, we reach their northern\nneighbours, the Zulus. They are among the finest, and certainly among\nthe least religious, of the undeveloped peoples. Their faith is mainly\nin magic and ghosts, but there are traces of a fading and loftier\nbelief.\n\nThe social and political condition of the Zulu is well understood. They\nare a pastoral, but not a nomadic people, possessing large kraals or\ntowns. They practise agriculture, and they had, till quite recently, a\ncentralised government and a large army, somewhat on the German system.\nThey appear to have no regular class of priests, and supernatural power\nis owned by the chiefs and the king, and by diviners and sorcerers, who\nconduct the sacrifices. Their myths are the more interesting because,\nwhether from their natural scepticism, which confuted Bishop Colenso in\nhis orthodox days, or from acquaintance with European ideas, they have\nbegun to doubt the truth of their own traditions.(1) The Zulu theory\nof the origin of man and of the world commences with the feats of\nUnkulunkulu, \"the old, old one,\" who, in some legends, was the first\nman, \"and broke off in the beginning\". Like Manabozho among the Indians\nof North America, and like Wainamoinen among the Finns, Unkulunkulu\nimparted to men a knowledge of the arts, of marriage, and so forth. His\nexploits in this direction, however, must be considered in another part\nof this work. Men in general \"came out of a bed of reeds\".(2) But there\nis much confusion about this bed of reeds, named \"Uthlanga\". The younger\npeople ask where the bed of reeds was; the old men do not know, and\nneither did their fathers know. But they stick to it that \"that bed of\nreeds still exists\". Educated Zulus appear somewhat inclined to take the\nexpression in an allegorical sense, and to understand the reeds either\nas a kind of protoplasm or as a creator who was mortal. \"He exists no\nlonger. As my grandfather no longer exists, he too no longer exists;\nhe died.\" Chiefs who wish to claim high descent trace their pedigree to\nUthlanga, as the Homeric kings traced theirs to Zeus. The myths given by\nDr. Callaway are very contradictory.\n\n\n(1) These legends have been carefully collected and published by Bishop\nCallaway (Trubner & Co., 1868).\n\n(2) Callaway, p. 9.\n\n\nIn addition to the legend that men came out of a bed of reeds, other and\nperhaps even more puerile stories are current. \"Some men say that they\nwere belched up by a cow;\" others \"that Unkulunkulu split them out of\na stone,\"(1) which recalls the legend of Pyrrha and Deucalion. The myth\nabout the cow is still applied to great chiefs. \"He was not born; he was\nbelched up by a cow.\" The myth of the stone origin corresponds to the\nHomeric saying about men \"born from the stone or the oak of the old\ntale\".(2)\n\n\n(1) Without anticipating a later chapter, the resemblances of these\nto Greek myths, as arrayed by M. Bouche Leclercq (De Origine Generis\nHumani), is very striking.\n\n(2) Odyssey, xix. 103.\n\n\nIn addition to the theory of the natal bed of reeds, the Zulus, like\nthe Navajoes of New Mexico, and the Bushmen, believe in the subterranean\norigin of man. There was a succession of emigrations from below of\ndifferent tribes of men, each having its own Unkulunkulu. All accounts\nagree that Unkulunkulu is not worshipped, and he does not seem to\nbe identified with \"the lord who plays in heaven\"--a kind of fading\nZeus--when there is thunder. Unkulunkulu is not worshipped, though\nancestral spirits are worshipped, because he lived so long ago that no\none can now trace his pedigree to the being who is at once the first man\nand the creator. His \"honour-giving name is lost in the lapse of years,\nand the family rites have become obsolete.\"(1)\n\n\n(1) See Zulu religion in The Making of Religion, pp. 225-229, where it\nis argued that ghost worship has superseded a higher faith, of which\ntraces are discernible.\n\n\nThe native races of the North American continent (concerning whose\ncivilisation more will be said in the account of their divine myths)\noccupy every stage of culture, from the truly bestial condition in\nwhich some of the Digger Indians at present exist, living on insects and\nunacquainted even with the use of the bow, to the civilisation which the\nSpaniards destroyed among the Aztecs.\n\nThe original facts about religion in America are much disputed, and\nwill be more appropriately treated later. It is now very usual for\nanthropologists to say, like Mr. Dorman, \"no approach to monotheismn had\nbeen made before the discovery of America by Europeans, and the\nGreat Spirit mentioned in these (their) books is an introduction by\nChristianity\".(1) \"This view will not bear examination,\" says Mr. Tylor,\nand we shall later demonstrate the accuracy of his remark.(2) But at\npresent we are concerned, not with what Indian religion had to say about\nher Gods, but with what Indian myth had to tell about the beginnings of\nthings.\n\n\n(1) Origin of Primitive Superstitions, p. 15.\n\n(2) Primitive Culture, 1873, ii. p. 340.\n\n\nThe Hurons, for example (to choose a people in a state of middle\nbarbarism), start in myth from the usual conception of a powerful\nnon-natural race of men dwelling in the heavens, whence they descended,\nand colonised, not to say constructed, the earth. In the Relation de la\nNouvelle France, written by Pere Paul le Jeune, of the Company of Jesus,\nin 1636, there is a very full account of Huron opinion, which, with some\nchanges of names, exists among the other branches of the Algonkin family\nof Indians.\n\nThey recognise as the founder of their kindred a woman named Ataentsic,\nwho, like Hephaestus in the Iliad, was banished from the sky. In the\nupper world there are woods and plains, as on earth. Ataentsic fell down\na hole when she was hunting a bear, or she cut down a heaven-tree, and\nfell with the fall of this Huron Ygdrasil, or she was seduced by an\nadventurer from the under world, and was tossed out of heaven for her\nfault. However it chanced, she dropped on the back of the turtle in the\nmidst of the waters. He consulted the other aquatic animals, and one of\nthem, generally said to have been the musk-rat, fished(1) up some soil\nand fashioned the earth.(2) Here Ataentsic gave birth to twins, Ioskeha\nand Tawiscara. These represent the usual dualism of myth; they answer\nto Osiris and Set, to Ormuzd and Ahriman, and were bitter enemies.\nAccording to one form of the myth, the woman of the sky had twins, and\nwhat occurred may be quoted from Dr. Brinton. \"Even before birth one of\nthem betrayed his restless and evil nature by refusing to be born in\nthe usual manner, but insisting on breaking through his parent's side\nor arm-pit. He did so, but it cost his mother her life. Her body was\nburied, and from it sprang the various vegetable productions,\" pumpkins,\nmaize, beans, and so forth.(3)\n\n\n(1) Relations, 1633. In this myth one Messon, the Great Hare, is the\nbeginner of our race. He married a daughter of the Musk-rat.\n\n(2) Here we first meet in this investigation a very widely distributed\nmyth. The myths already examined have taken the origin of earth for\ngranted. The Hurons account for its origin; a speck of earth was fished\nout of the waters and grew. In M. H. de Charencey's tract Une Legende\nCosmogonique (Havre, 1884) this legend is traced. M. de Charencey\ndistinguishes (1) a continental version; (2) an insular version; (3) a\nmixed and Hindoo version. Among continental variants he gives a Vogul\nversion (Revue de Philologie et d'Ethnographie, Paris, 1874, i. 10).\nNumi Tarom (a god who cooks fish in heaven) hangs a male and female\nabove the abyss of waters in a silver cradle. He gives them, later, just\nearth enough to build a house on. Their son, in the guise of a\nsquirrel, climbs to Numi Tarom, and receives from him a duck-skin and\na goose-skin. Clad in these, like Yehl in his raven-skin or Odin in\nhis hawk-skin, he enjoys the powers of the animals, dives and brings up\nthree handfuls of mud, which grow into our earth. Elempi makes men\nout of clay and snow. The American version M. de Charencey gives from\nNicholas Perrot (Mem. sur les Moers, etc., Paris, 1864, i. 3). Perrot\nwas a traveller of the seventeenth century. The Great Hare takes a hand\nin the making of earth out of fished-up soil. After giving other North\nAmerican variants, and comparing the animals that, after three attempts,\nfish up earth to the dove and raven of Noah, M. de Charencey reaches the\nBulgarians. God made Satan, in the skin of a diver, fish up earth out\nof Lake Tiberias. Three doves fish up earth, in the beginning, in the\nGalician popular legend (Chodzko, Contes des Paysans Slaves, p. 374). In\nthe INSULAR version, as in New Zealand, the island is usually fished up\nwith a hook by a heroic angler (Japan, Tonga, Tahiti, New Zealand). The\nHindoo version, in which the boar plays the part of musk-rat, or duck,\nor diver, will be given in \"Indian Cosmogonic Myths\".\n\n(3) Brinton, American Hero-Myths, p. 54. Nicholas Perrot and various\nJesuit Relations are the original authorities. See \"Divine Myths of\nAmerica\". Mr. Leland, in his Algonkin Tales, prints the same story, with\nthe names altered to Glooskap and Malsumis, from oral tradition. Compare\nSchoolcraft, v. 155, and i. 317, and the versions of PP. Charlevoix\nand Lafitau. In Charlevoix the good and bad brothers are Manabozho and\nChokanipok or Chakekanapok, and out of the bones and entrails of the\nlatter many plants and animals were fashioned, just as, according to a\nGreek myth preserved by Clemens Alexandrinus, parsley and pomegranates\narose from the blood and scattered members of Dionysus Zagreus. The tale\nof Tawiscara's violent birth is told of Set in Egypt, and of Indra in\nthe Veda, as will be shown later. This is a very common fable, and, as\nMr. Whitley Stokes tells me, it recurs in old Irish legends of the birth\nof our Lord, Myth, as usual, invading religion, even Christian religion.\n\n\nAccording to another version of the origin of things, the maker of them\nwas one Michabous, or Michabo, the Great Hare. His birthplace was shown\nat an island called Michilimakinak, like the birthplace of Apollo at\nDelos. The Great Hare made the earth, and, as will afterwards appear,\nwas the inventor of the arts of life. On the whole, the Iroquois and\nAlgonkin myths agree in finding the origin of life in an upper world\nbeyond the sky. The earth was either fished up (as by Brahma when he\ndived in the shape of a boar) by some beast which descended to the\nbottom of the waters, or grew out of the tortoise on whose back\nAtaentsic fell. The first dwellers in the world were either beasts like\nManabozho or Michabo, the Great Hare, or the primeval wolves of the\nUinkarets,(1) or the creative musk-rat, or were more anthropomorphic\nheroes, such as Ioskeha and Tawiscara. As for the things in the world,\nsome were made, some evolved, some are transformed parts of an early\nnon-natural man or animal. There is a tendency to identify Ataentsic,\nthe sky-woman, with the moon, and in the Two Great Brethren, hostile as\nthey are, to recognise moon and sun.(2)\n\n\n(1) Powell, Bureau of Ethnology, i. 44.\n\n(2) Dr. Brinton has endeavoured to demonstrate by arguments drawn from\netymology that Michabos, Messou, Missibizi or Manabozho, the Great Hare,\nis originally a personification of Dawn (Myths of the New World, p.\n178). I have examined his arguments in the Nineteenth Century, January,\n1886, which may be consulted, and in Melusine, January, 1887. The hare\nappears to be one out of the countless primeval beast-culture heroes. A\ncurious piece of magic in a tradition of the Dene Hareskins may seem to\naid Dr. Brinton's theory: \"Pendant la nuit il entra, jeta au feu une\ntete de lievre blanc et aussitot le jour se fit\".--Petitot, Traditions\nIndiennes, p. 173. But I take it that the sacrifice of a white hare's\nhead makes light magically, as sacrifice of black beasts and columns of\nblack smoke make rainclouds.\n\n\nSome of the degraded Digger Indians of California have the following\nmyth of the origin of species. In this legend, it will be noticed, a\nspecies of evolution takes the place of a theory of creation. The story\nwas told to Mr. Adam Johnston, who \"drew\" the narrator by communicating\nto a chief the Biblical narrative of the creation.(1) The chief said it\nwas a strange story, and one that he had never heard when he lived at\nthe Mission of St. John under the care of a Padre. According to this\nchief (he ruled over the Po-to-yan-te tribe or Coyotes), the first\nIndians were coyotes. When one of their number died, his body became\nfull of little animals or spirits. They took various shapes, as of deer,\nantelopes, and so forth; but as some exhibited a tendency to fly off to\nthe moon, the Po-to-yan-tes now usually bury the bodies of their dead,\nto prevent the extinction of species. Then the Indians began to assume\nthe shape of man, but it was a slow transformation. At first they\nwalked on all fours, then they would begin to develop an isolated human\nfeature, one finger, one toe, one eye, like the ascidian, our first\nparent in the view of modern science. Then they doubled their organs,\ngot into the habit of sitting up, and wore away their tails, which they\nunaffectedly regret, \"as they consider the tail quite an ornament\".\nIdeas of the immortality of the soul are said to be confined to the old\nwomen of the tribe, and, in short, according to this version, the Digger\nIndians occupy the modern scientific position.\n\n\n(1) Schoolcraft, vol. v.\n\n\nThe Winnebagoes, who communicated their myths to Mr. Fletcher,(1) are\nsuspected of having been influenced by the Biblical narrative. They say\nthat the Great Spirit woke up as from a dream, and found himself sitting\nin a chair. As he was all alone, he took a piece of his body and a piece\nof earth, and made a man. He next made a woman, steadied the earth\nby placing beasts beneath it at the corners, and created plants and\nanimals. Other men he made out of bears. \"He created the white man\nto make tools for the poor Indians\"--a very pleasing example of\na teleological hypothesis and of the doctrine of final causes as\nunderstood by the Winnebagoes. The Chaldean myth of the making of man is\nrecalled by the legend that the Great Spirit cut out a piece of\nhimself for the purpose; the Chaldean wisdom coincides, too, with the\nphilosophical acumen of the Po-to-yan-te or Coyote tribe of Digger\nIndians. Though the Chaldean theory is only connected with that of the\nRed Men by its savagery, we may briefly state it in this place.\n\n\n(1) Ibid., iv. 228.\n\n\nAccording to Berosus, as reported by Alexander Polyhistor, the universe\nwas originally (as before Manabozho's time) water and mud. Herein all\nmanner of mixed monsters, with human heads, goat's horns, four legs,\nand tails, bred confusedly. In place of the Iroquois Ataentsic, a woman\ncalled Omoroca presided over the mud and the menagerie. She, too, like\nAtaentsic, is sometimes recognised as the moon. Affairs being in this\nstate, Bel-Maruduk arrived and cut Omoroca in two (Chokanipok destroyed\nAtaentsic), and out of Omoroca Bel made the world and the things in it.\nWe have already seen that in savage myth many things are fashioned out\nof a dead member of the extra-natural race. Lastly, Bel cut his own head\noff, and with the blood the gods mixed clay and made men. The Chaldeans\ninherited very savage fancies.(1)\n\n\n(1) Cf. Syncellus, p. 29; Euseb., Chronic. Armen., ed. Mai, p. 10;\nLenormant, Origines de l'Histoire, i. 506.\n\n\nOne ought, perhaps, to apologise to the Chaldeans for inserting their\nmyths among the fables of the least cultivated peoples; but it will\nscarcely be maintained that the Oriental myths differ in character from\nthe Digger Indian and Iroquois explanations of the origin of things. The\nAhts of Vancouver Island, whom Mr. Sproat knew intimately, and of whose\nideas he gives a cautious account (for he was well aware of the limits\nof his knowledge), tell a story of the usual character.(1) They believe\nin a member of the extra-natural race, named Quawteaht, of whom we shall\nhear more in his heroic character. As a demiurge \"he is undoubtedly\nrepresented as the general framer, I do not say creator, of all things,\nthough some special things are excepted. He made the earth and water,\nthe trees and rocks, and all the animals. Some say that Quawteaht made\nthe sun and moon, but the majority of the Indians believe that he had\nnothing to do with their formation, and that they are deities superior\nto himself, though now distant and less active. He gave names to\neverything; among the rest, to all the Indian houses which then existed,\nalthough inhabited only by birds and animals. Quawteaht went away before\nthe apparent change of the birds and beasts into Indians, which took\nplace in the following manner:--\n\n\"The birds and beasts of old had the spirits of the Indians dwelling\nin them, and occupied the various coast villages, as the Ahts do at\npresent. One day a canoe manned by two Indians from an unknown country\napproached the shore. As they coasted along, at each house at which they\nlanded, the deer, bear, elk, and other brute inhabitants fled to the\nmountains, and the geese and other birds flew to the woods and rivers.\nBut in this flight, the Indians, who had hitherto been contained in the\nbodies of the various creatures, were left behind, and from that time\nthey took possession of the deserted dwellings and assumed the condition\nin which we now see them.\"\n\n\n(1) Sproat, Scenes and Studies of Savage Life, pp. 210, 211.\n\n\nCrossing the northern continent of America to the west, we are in the\ndomains of various animal culture-heroes, ancestors and teachers of the\nhuman race and the makers, to some extent, of the things in the world.\nAs the eastern tribes have their Great Hare, so the western tribes have\ntheir wolf hero and progenitor, or their coyote, or their raven, or\ntheir dog. It is possible, and even certain in some cases, that the\nanimal which was the dominant totem of a race became heir to any\ncosmogonic legends that were floating about.\n\nThe country of the Papagos, on the eastern side of the Gulf of\nCalifornia, is the southern boundary of the province of the coyote or\nprairie wolf. The realm of his influence as a kind of Prometheus, or\neven as a demiurge, extends very far northwards. In the myth related by\nCon Quien, the chief of the central Papagos,(1) the coyote acts the\npart of the fish in the Sanskrit legend of the flood, while Montezuma\nundertakes the role of Manu. This Montezuma was formed, like the Adams\nof so many races, out of potter's clay in the hands of the Great Spirit.\nIn all this legend it seems plain enough that the name of Montezuma is\nimported from Mexico, and has been arbitrarily given to the hero of the\nPapagos. According to Mr. Powers, whose manuscript notes Mr. Bancroft\nquotes (iii. 87), all the natives of California believe that their\nfirst ancestors were created directly from the earth of their present\ndwelling-places, and in very many cases these ancestors were coyotes.\n\n\n(1) Davidson, Indian Affairs Report, 1865, p. 131; Bancroft, iii. 75.\n\n\nThe Pimas, a race who live near the Papagos on the eastern coast of\nthe Gulf of California, say that the earth was made by a being named\nEarth-prophet. At first it appeared like a spider's web, reminding one\nof the West African legend that a great spider created the world.\nMan was made by the Earth-prophet out of clay kneaded with sweat. A\nmysterious eagle and a deluge play a great part in the later mythical\nadventures of war and the world, as known to the Pimas.(1)\n\n\n(1) Communicated to Mr. Bancroft by Mr. Stout of the Pima Agency.\n\n\nIn Oregon the coyote appears as a somewhat tentative demiurge, and the\nmen of his creation, like the beings first formed by Prajapati in\nthe Sanskrit myth, needed to be reviewed, corrected and considerably\naugmented. The Chinooks of Oregon believe in the usual race of magnified\nnon-natural men, who preceded humanity.\n\nThese semi-divine people were called Ulhaipa by the Chinooks, and\nSehuiab by the Lummies. But the coyote was the maker of men. As the\nfirst of Nature's journeymen, he made men rather badly, with closed eyes\nand motionless feet. A kind being, named Ikanam, touched up the coyote's\ncrude essays with a sharp stone, opening the eyes of men, and giving\ntheir hands and feet the powers of movement. He also acted as a\n\"culture-hero,\" introducing the first arts. (1)\n\n\n(1) (Frauchere's Narrative, 258; Gibb's Chinook Vocabulary; Parker's\nexploring Tour, i. 139;) Bancroft, iii. 96.\n\n\nMoving up the West Pacific coast we reach British Columbia, where the\ncoyote is not supposed to have been so active as our old friend the\nmusk-rat in the great work of the creation. According to the Tacullies,\nnothing existed in the beginning but water and a musk-rat. As the animal\nsought his food at the bottom of the water, his mouth was frequently\nfilled with mud. This he spat out, and so gradually formed by alluvial\ndeposit an island. This island was small at first, like earth in the\nSanskrit myth in the Satapatha Brahmana, but gradually increased in\nbulk. The Tacullies have no new light to throw on the origin of man.(1)\n\n\n(1) Bancroft, iii. 98; Harmon's Journey, pp. 302, 303.\n\n\nThe Thlinkeets, who are neighbours of the Tacullies on the north,\nincline to give crow or raven the chief role in the task of creation,\njust as some Australians allot the same part to the eagle-hawk, and the\nYakuts to a hawk, a crow and a teal-duck. We shall hear much of\nYehl later, as one of the mythical heroes of the introduction of\ncivilisation. North of the Thlinkeets, a bird and a dog take the\ncreative duties, the Aleuts and Koniagas being descended from a dog.\nAmong the more northern Tinnehs, the dog who was the progenitor of the\nrace had the power of assuming the shape of a handsome young man. He\nsupplied the protoplasm of the Tinnehs, as Purusha did that of the Aryan\nworld, out of his own body. A giant tore him to pieces, as the gods tore\nPurusha, and out of the fragments thrown into the rivers came fish, the\nfragments tossed into the air took life as birds, and so forth.(1) This\nrecalls the Australian myth of the origin of fish and the Ananzi stories\nof the origin of whips.(2)\n\n\n(1) Hearne, pp. 342, 343; Bancroft, iii. 106.\n\n(2) See \"Divine Myths of Lower Races\". M. Cosquin, in Contes de\nLorraine, vol. i. p. 58, gives the Ananzi story.\n\n\nBetween the cosmogonic myths of the barbarous or savage American tribes\nand those of the great cultivated American peoples, Aztecs, Peruvians\nand Quiches, place should be found for the legends of certain races\nin the South Pacific. Of these, the most important are the Maoris or\nnatives of New Zealand, the Mangaians and the Samoans. Beyond the usual\nand world-wide correspondences of myth, the divine tales of the various\nSouth Sea isles display resemblances so many and essential that they\nmust be supposed to spring from a common and probably not very distant\ncentre. As it is practically impossible to separate Maori myths of the\nmaking of things from Maori myths of the gods and their origin, we must\npass over here the metaphysical hymns and stories of the original\ndivine beings, Rangi and Papa, Heaven and Earth, and of their cruel but\nnecessary divorce by their children, who then became the usual Titanic\nrace which constructs and \"airs\" the world for the reception of man.(1)\nAmong these beings, more fully described in our chapter on the gods\nof the lower races, is Tiki, with his wife Marikoriko, twilight. Tane\n(male) is another of the primordial race, children of earth and heaven,\nand between him and Tiki lies the credit of having made or begotten\nhumanity. Tane adorned the body of his father, heaven (Rangi), by\nsticking stars all over it, as disks of pearl-shells are stuck all\nover images. He was the parent of trees and birds, but some trees are\noriginal and divine beings. The first woman was not born, but formed out\nof the sun and the echo, a pretty myth. Man was made by Tiki, who took\nred clay, and kneaded it with his own blood, or with the red water of\nswamps. The habits of animals, some of which are gods, while others are\ndescended from gods, follow from their conduct at the moment when heaven\nand earth were violently divorced. New Zealand itself, or at least one\nof the isles, was a huge fish caught by Maui (of whom more hereafter).\nJust as Pund-jel, in Australia, cut out the gullies and vales with his\nknife, so the mountains and dells of New Zealand were produced by the\nknives of Maui's brothers when they crimped his big fish.(2) Quite apart\nfrom those childish ideas are the astonishing metaphysical hymns about\nthe first stirrings of light in darkness, of \"becoming\" and \"being,\"\nwhich remind us of Hegel and Heraclitus, or of the most purely\nspeculative ideas in the Rig-Veda.(3) Scarcely less metaphysical are the\nmyths of Mangaia, of which Mr. Gill(4) gives an elaborate account.\n\n\n(1) See \"Divine Myths of Lower Races\".\n\n(2) Taylor, New Zealand, pp. 115-121; Bastian, Heilige Sage der\nPolynesier, pp. 36-50; Shortland, Traditions of New Zealanders.\n\n(3) See chapter on \"Divine Myths of the Lower Races,\" and on \"Indian\nCosmogonic Myths\"\n\n(4) Myths and Songs from the South Pacific, pp. 1-22.\n\n\nThe Mangaian ideas of the world are complex, and of an early scientific\nsort. The universe is like the hollow of a vast cocoa-nut shell, divided\ninto many imaginary circles like those of mediaeval speculation. There\nis a demon at the stem, as it were, of the cocoa-nut, and, where the\nedges of the imaginary shell nearly meet, dwells a woman demon, whose\nname means \"the very beginning\". In this system we observe efforts at\nmetaphysics and physical speculation. But it is very characteristic\nof rude thought that such extremely abstract conceptions as \"the very\nbeginning\" are represented as possessing life and human form. The\nwoman at the bottom of the shell was anxious for progeny, and therefore\nplucked a bit out of her own right side, as Eve was made out of the rib\nof Adam. This piece of flesh became Vatea, the father of gods and men.\nVatea (like Oannes in the Chaldean legend) was half man, half fish. \"The\nVery Beginning\" begat other children in the same manner, and some\nof these became departmental gods of ocean, noon-day, and so forth.\nCuriously enough, the Mangaians seem to be sticklers for primogeniture.\nVatea, as the first-born son, originally had his domain next above\nthat of his mother. But she was pained by the thought that his younger\nbrothers each took a higher place than his; so she pushed his land\nup, and it is now next below the solid crust on which mortals live in\nMangaia. Vatea married a woman from one of the under worlds named Papa,\nand their children had the regular human form. One child was born either\nfrom Papa's head, like Athene from the head of Zeus, or from her armpit,\nlike Dionysus from the thigh of Zeus. Another child may be said, in the\nlanguage of dog-breeders, to have \"thrown back,\" for he wears the form\nof a white or black lizard. In the Mangaian system the sky is a solid\nvault of blue stone. In the beginning of things the sky (like Ouranos in\nGreece and Rangi in New Zealand) pressed hard on earth, and the god Ru\nwas obliged to thrust the two asunder, or rather he was engaged in this\ntask when Maui tossed both Ru and the sky so high up that they never\ncame down again. Ru is now the Atlas of Mangaia, \"the sky-supporting\nRu\".(1) His lower limbs fell to earth, and became pumice-stone. In these\nMangaian myths we discern resemblances to New Zealand fictions, as\nis natural, and the tearing of the body of \"the Very Beginning\" has\nnumerous counterparts in European, American and Indian fable. But on the\nwhole, the Mangaian myths are more remarkable for their semi-scientific\nphilosophy than for their coincidences with the fancies of other early\npeoples.\n\n\n(1) Gill, p. 59.\n\n\nThe Samoans, like the Maoris and Greeks, hold that heaven at first fell\ndown and lay upon earth.(1) The arrowroot and another plant pushed up\nheaven, and \"the heaven-pushing place\" is still known and pointed out.\nOthers say the god Ti-iti-i pushed up heaven, and his feet made holes\nsix feet deep in the rocks during this exertion. The other Samoan myths\nchiefly explain the origin of fire, and the causes of the characteristic\nforms and habits of animals and plants. The Samoans, too, possess\na semi-mythical, metaphysical cosmogony, starting from NOTHING, but\nrapidly becoming the history of rocks, clouds, hills, dew and various\nanimals, who intermarried, and to whom the royal family of Samoa trace\ntheir origin through twenty-three generations. So personal are Samoan\nabstract conceptions, that \"SPACE had a long-legged stool,\" on to which\na head fell, and grew into a companion for Space. Yet another myth says\nthat the god Tangaloa existed in space, and made heaven and earth, and\nsent down his daughter, a snipe. Man he made out of the mussel-fish. So\nconfused are the doctrines of the Samoans.(2)\n\n\n(1) Turner's Samoa, p. 198.\n\n(2) Turner's Samoa, pp. 1-9.\n\n\nPerhaps the cosmogonic myths of the less cultivated races have now been\nstated in sufficient number. As an example of the ideas which prevailed\nin an American race of higher culture, we may take the Quiche legend as\ngiven in the Popol Vuh, a post-Christian collection of the sacred myths\nof the nation, written down after the Spanish conquest, and published in\nFrench by the Abbe Brasseur de Bourbourg.(1)\n\n\n(1) See Popol Vuh in Mr. Max Muller's Chips from a German Workshop, with\na discussion of its authenticity. In his Annals of the Cakchiquels, a\nnation bordering on the Quiches, Dr. Brinton expresses his belief in the\ngenuine character of the text. Compare Bancroft, iii. p. 45. The\nancient and original Popol Vuh, the native book in native characters,\ndisappeared during the Spanish conquest.\n\n\nThe Quiches, like their neighbours the Cakchiquels, were a highly\ncivilised race, possessing well-built towns, roads and the arts of life,\nand were great agriculturists. Maize, the staple of food among these\nadvanced Americans, was almost as great a god as Soma among the\nIndo-Aryans. The Quiches were acquainted with a kind of picture-writing,\nand possessed records in which myth glided into history. The Popol Vuh,\nor book of the people, gives itself out as a post-Columbian copy of\nthese traditions, and may doubtless contain European ideas. As we see\nin the Commentarias Reales of the half-blood Inca Garcilasso de la Vega,\nthe conquered people were anxious to prove that their beliefs were by\nno means so irrational and so \"devilish\" as to Spanish critics they\nappeared. According to the Popol Vuh, there was in the beginning nothing\nbut water and the feathered serpent, one of their chief divine beings;\nbut there also existed somehow, \"they that gave life\". Their names mean\n\"shooter of blow-pipe at coyote,\" \"at opossum,\" and so forth. They\nsaid \"Earth,\" and there WAS earth, and plants growing thereon. Animals\nfollowed, and the Givers of life said \"Speak our names,\" but the animals\ncould only cluck and croak. Then said the Givers, \"Inasmuch as ye cannot\npraise us, ye shall be killed and eaten\". They then made men out of\nclay; these men were weak and watery, and by water they were destroyed.\nNext they made men of wood and women of the pith of trees. These puppets\nmarried and gave in marriage, and peopled earth with wooden mannikins.\nThis unsatisfactory race was destroyed by a rain of resin and by the\nwild beasts. The survivors developed into apes. Next came a period\noccupied by the wildest feats of the magnified non-natural race and\nof animals. The record is like the description of a supernatural\npantomime--the nightmare of a god. The Titans upset hills, are turned\ninto stone, and behave like Heitsi Eibib in the Namaqua myths.\n\nLast of all, men were made of yellow and white maize, and these gave\nmore satisfaction, but their sight was contracted. These, however,\nsurvived, and became the parents of the present stock of humanity.\n\nHere we have the conceptions of creation and of evolution combined. Men\nare MADE, but only the fittest survive; the rest are either destroyed or\npermitted to develop into lower species. A similar mixture of the same\nideas will be found in one of the Brahmanas among the Aryans of India.\nIt is to be observed that the Quiche myths, as recorded in Popol Vuh,\ncontain not only traces of belief in a creative word and power, but many\nhymns of a lofty and beautifully devotional character.\n\n\"Hail! O Creator, O Former! Thou that hearest and understandest us,\nabandon us not, forsake us not! O God, thou that art in heaven and on\nthe earth, O Heart of Heaven, O Heart of Earth, give us descendants and\nposterity as long as the light endures.\"\n\nThis is an example of the prayers of the men made out of maize, made\nespecially that they might \"call on the name\" of the god or gods.\nWhether we are to attribute this and similar passages to Christian\ninfluence (for Popol Vuh, as we have it, is but an attempt to collect\nthe fragments of the lost book that remained in men's minds after the\nconquest), or whether the purer portions of the myth be due to untaught\nnative reflection and piety, it is not possible to determine. It is\nimprobable that the ideas of a hostile race would be introduced into\nreligious hymns by their victims. Here, as elsewhere in the sacred\nlegends of civilised peoples, various strata of mythical and religious\nthought coexist.\n\nNo American people reached such a pitch of civilisation as the Aztecs\nof Anahuac, whose capital was the city of Mexico. It is needless here\nto repeat the story of their grandeur and their fall. Obscure as their\nhistory, previous to the Spanish invasion, may be, it is certain that\nthey possessed a highly organised society, fortified towns, established\ncolleges or priesthoods, magnificent temples, an elaborate calendar,\ngreat wealth in the precious metals, the art of picture-writing in\nconsiderable perfection, and a despotic central government. The higher\nclasses in a society like this could not but develop speculative\nsystems, and it is alleged that shortly before the reign of Montezuma\nattempts had been made to introduce a pure monotheistic religion. But\nthe ritual of the Aztecs remained an example of the utmost barbarity.\nNever was a more cruel faith, not even in Carthage. Nowhere did temples\nreek with such pools of human blood; nowhere else, not in Dahomey and\nAshanti, were human sacrifice, cannibalism and torture so essential\nto the cult that secured the favour of the gods. In these dark\nfanes--reeking with gore, peopled by monstrous shapes of idols\nbird-headed or beast-headed, and adorned with the hideous carvings in\nwhich we still see the priest, under the mask of some less ravenous\nforest beast, tormenting the victim--in these abominable temples the\nCastilian conquerors might well believe that they saw the dwellings of\ndevils.\n\nYet Mexican religion had its moral and beautiful aspect, and the gods,\nor certain of the gods, required from their worshippers not only bloody\nhands, but clean hearts.\n\nTo the gods we return later. The myths of the origin of things may\nbe studied without a knowledge of the whole Aztec Pantheon. Our\nauthorities, though numerous, lack complete originality and are\noccasionally confused. We have first the Aztec monuments and\nhieroglyphic scrolls, for the most part undeciphered. These merely\nattest the hideous and cruel character of the deities. Next we have the\nreports of early missionaries, like Sahagun and Mendieta, of conquerors,\nlike Bernal Diaz, and of noble half-breeds, such as Ixtlilxochitl.(1)\n\n\n(1) Bancroft's Native Races of Pacific Coast of North America, vol.\niii., contains an account of the sources, and, with Sahagun and Acosta,\nis mainly followed here. See also J. G. Muller, Ur. Amerik. Rel., p.\n507. See chapter on the \"Divine Myths of Mexico\".\n\n\nThere are two elements in Mexican, as in Quiche, and Indo-Aryan, and\nMaori, and even Andaman cosmogonic myth. We find the purer religion\nand the really philosophic speculation concurrent with such crude and\nchildish stories as usually satisfy the intellectual demands of Ahts,\nCahrocs and Bushmen; but of the purer and more speculative opinions we\nknow little. Many of the noble, learned and priestly classes of Aztecs\nperished at the conquest. The survivors were more or less converted to\nCatholicism, and in their writings probably put the best face possible\non the native religion. Like the Spanish clergy, their instructors,\nthey were inclined to explain away their national gods by a system of\neuhemerism, by taking it for granted that the gods and culture-heroes\nhad originally been ordinary men, worshipped after their decease. This\nis almost invariably the view adopted by Sahagun. Side by side with the\nconfessions, as it were, of the clergy and cultivated classes coexisted\nthe popular beliefs, the myths of the people, partaking of the nature of\nfolk-lore, but not rejected by the priesthood.\n\nBoth strata of belief are represented in the surviving cosmogonic\nmyths of the Aztecs. Probably we may reckon in the first or learned and\nspeculative class of tales the account of a series of constructions and\nreconstructions of the world. This idea is not peculiar to the higher\nmythologies, the notion of a deluge and recreation or renewal of things\nis almost universal, and even among the untutored Australians there are\nmemories of a flood and of an age of ruinous winds. But the theory of\ndefinite epochs, calculated in accordance with the Mexican calendar,\nof epochs in which things were made and re-made, answers closely to\nthe Indo-Aryan conception of successive kalpas, and can only have been\ndeveloped after the method of reckoning time had been carried to some\nperfection. \"When heaven and earth were fashioned, they had already been\nfour times created and destroyed,\" say the fragments of what is called\nthe Chimalpopoca manuscript. Probably this theory of a series of kalpas\nis only one of the devices by which the human mind has tried to cheat\nitself into the belief that it can conceive a beginning of things. The\nearth stands on an elephant, the elephant on a tortoise, and it is going\ntoo far to ask what the tortoise stands on. In the same way the world's\nbeginning seems to become more intelligible or less puzzling when it is\nthrown back into a series of beginnings and endings. This method also\nwas in harmony with those vague ideas of evolution and of the survival\nof the fittest which we have detected in myth. The various tentative\nhuman races of the Popol Vuh degenerated or were destroyed because they\ndid not fulfil the purposes for which they were made. In Brahmanic myth\nwe shall see that type after type was condemned and perished because it\nwas inadequate, or inadequately equipped--because it did not harmonise\nwith its environment.(1) For these series of experimental creations and\ninefficient evolutions vast spaces of time were required, according to\nthe Aztec and Indo-Aryan philosophies. It is not impossible that actual\nfloods and great convulsions of nature may have been remembered\nin tradition, and may have lent colour and form to these somewhat\nphilosophic myths of origins. From such sources probably comes the\nMexican hypothesis of a water-age (ending in a deluge), an earth-age\n(ending in an earthquake), a wind-age (ending in hurricanes), and the\npresent dispensation, to be destroyed by fire.\n\n\n(1) As an example of a dim evolutionary idea, note the myths of the\nvarious ages as reported by Mendieta, according to which there were five\nearlier ages \"or suns\" of bad quality, so that the contemporary human\nbeings were unable to live on the fruits of the earth.\n\n\nThe less philosophic and more popular Aztec legend of the commencement\nof the world is mainly remarkable for the importance given in it to\nobjects of stone. For some reason, stones play a much greater part in\nAmerican than in other mythologies. An emerald was worshipped in the\ntemple of Pachacamac, who was, according to Garcilasso, the supreme and\nspiritual deity of the Incas. The creation legend of the Cakchiquels of\nGuatemala(1) makes much of a mysterious, primeval and animated obsidian\nstone. In the Iroquois myths(2) stones are the leading characters. Nor\ndid Aztec myth escape this influence.\n\n\n(1) Brinton, Annals of the Cakchiquels.\n\n(2) Erminie Smith, Bureau of Ethnol. Report, ii.\n\n\nThere was a god in heaven named Citlalatonac, and a goddess, Citlalicue.\nWhen we speak of \"heaven\" we must probably think of some such world of\nordinary terrestrial nature above the sky as that from which Ataentsic\nfell in the Huron story. The goddess gave birth to a flint-knife, and\nflung the flint down to earth. This abnormal birth partly answers to\nthat of the youngest of the Adityas, the rejected abortion in the Veda,\nand to the similar birth and rejection of Maui in New Zealand. From\nthe fallen flint-knife sprang our old friends the magnified non-natural\nbeings with human characteristics, \"the gods,\" to the number of 1600.\nThe gods sent up the hawk (who in India and Australia generally comes\nto the front on these occasions), and asked their mother, or rather\ngrandmother, to help them to make men, to be their servants. Citlalicue\nrather jeered at her unconsidered offspring. She advised them to go to\nthe lord of the homes of the departed, Mictlanteuctli, and borrow a\nbone or some ashes of the dead who are with him. We must never ask for\nconsistency from myths. This statement implies that men had already\nbeen in existence, though they were not yet created. Perhaps they had\nperished in one of the four great destructions. With difficulty and\ndanger the gods stole a bone from Hades, placed it in a bowl, and\nsmeared it with their own blood, as in Chaldea and elsewhere. Finally, a\nboy and a girl were born out of the bowl. From this pair sprang men, and\ncertain of the gods, jumping into a furnace, became sun and moon. To the\nsun they then, in Aztec fashion, sacrificed themselves, and there,\none might think, was an end of them. But they afterwards appeared in\nwondrous fashions to their worshippers, and ordained the ritual of\nreligion. According to another legend, man and woman (as in African\nmyths) struggled out of a hole in the ground.(1)\n\n\n(1) Authorities: Ixtlil.; Kingsborough, ix. pp. 205, 206; Sahagun, Hist.\nGen., i. 3, vii. 2; J. G. Muller, p. 510, where Muller compares the\nDelphic conception of ages of the world; Bancroft, iii. pp. 60, 65.\n\n\nThe myths of the peoples under the empire of the Incas in Peru are\nextremely interesting, because almost all mythical formations are found\nexisting together, while we have historical evidence as to the order and\nmanner of their development. The Peru of the Incas covered the modern\nstate of the same name, and included Ecuador, with parts of Chili and\nBolivia. M. Reville calculates that the empire was about 2500 miles in\nlength, four times as long as France, and that its breadth was from 250\nto 500 miles. The country, contained three different climatic regions,\nand was peopled by races of many different degrees of culture, all more\nor less subject to the dominion of the Children of the Sun. The three\nregions were the dry strip along the coast, the fertile and cultivated\nland about the spurs of the Cordilleras, and the inland mountain\nregions, inhabited by the wildest races. Near Cuzco, the Inca capital,\nwas the Lake of Titicaca, the Mediterranean, as it were, of Peru, for\non the shores of this inland sea was developed the chief civilisation of\nthe new world.\n\nAs to the institutions, myths and religion of the empire, we have\ncopious if contradictory information. There are the narratives of the\nSpanish conquerors, especially of Pizarro's chaplain, Valverde, an\nignorant bigoted fanatic. Then we have somewhat later travellers and\nmissionaries, of whom Cieza de Leon (his book was published thirty years\nafter the conquest, in 1553) is one of the most trustworthy. The \"Royal\nCommentaries\" of Garcilasso de la Vega, son of an Inca lady and a\nSpanish conqueror, have often already been quoted. The critical spirit\nand sound sense of Garcilasso are in remarkable contrast to the stupid\northodoxy of the Spaniards, but some allowance must be made for his\nfervent Peruvian patriotism. He had heard the Inca traditions repeated\nin boyhood, and very early in life collected all the information\nwhich his mother and maternal uncle had to give him, or which could be\nextracted from the quipus (the records of knotted cord), and from\nthe commemorative pictures of his ancestors. Garcilasso had access,\nmoreover, to the \"torn papers\" of Blas Valera, an early Spanish\nmissionary of unusual sense and acuteness. Christoval de Moluna is also\nan excellent authority, and much may be learned from the volume of Rites\nand Laws of the Yncas.(1)\n\n\n(1) A more complete list of authorities, including the garrulous Acosta,\nis published by M. Reville in his Hibbert Lectures, pp. 136, 137.\nGarcilasso, Cieza de Leon, Christoval de Moluna, Acosta and the Rites\nand Laws have all been translated by Mr. Clements Markham, and are\npublished, with the editor's learned and ingenious notes, in the\ncollection of the Hakluyt Society. Care must be taken to discriminate\nbetween what is reported about the Indians of the various provinces,\nwho were in very different grades of culture, and what is told about the\nIncas themselves.\n\n\nThe political and religious condition of the Peruvian empire is very\nclearly conceived and stated by Garcilasso. Without making due allowance\nfor that mysterious earlier civilisation, older than the Incas, whose\ncyclopean buildings are the wonder of travellers, Garcilasso attributes\nthe introduction of civilisation to his own ancestors. Allowing for what\nis confessedly mythical in his narrative, it must be admitted that\nhe has a firm grasp of what the actual history must have been. He\nrecognises a period of savagery before the Incas, a condition of the\nrudest barbarism, which still existed on the fringes and mountain\nrecesses of the empire. The religion of that period was mere magic and\ntotemism. From all manner of natural objects, but chiefly from beasts\nand birds, the various savage stocks of Peru claimed descent, and they\nrevered and offered sacrifice to their totemic ancestors.(1) Garcilasso\nadds, what is almost incredible, that the Indians tamely permitted\nthemselves to be eaten by their totems, when these were carnivorous\nanimals. They did this with the less reluctance as they were cannibals,\nand accustomed to breed children for the purposes of the cuisine from\ncaptive women taken in war.(2) Among the huacas or idols, totems,\nfetishes and other adorable objects of the Indians, worshipped before\nand retained after the introduction of the Inca sun-totem and solar\ncult, Garcilasso names trees, hills, rocks, caves, fountains, emeralds,\npieces of jasper, tigers, lions, bears, foxes, monkeys, condors, owls,\nlizards, toads, frogs, sheep, maize, the sea, \"for want of larger gods,\ncrabs\" and bats. The bat was also the totem of the Zotzil, the chief\nfamily of the Cakchiquels of Guatemala, and the most high god of the\nCakchiquels was worshipped in the shape of a bat. We are reminded of\nreligion as it exists in Samoa. The explanation of Blas Valera was that\nin each totem (pacarissa) the Indians adored the devil.\n\n\n(1) Com. Real., vol. i., chap. ix., x. xi. pp. 47-53.\n\n(2) Cieza de Leon, xii., xv., xix., xxi., xxiii., xxvi., xxviii., xxxii.\nCieza is speaking of people in the valley of Cauca, in New Granada.\n\n\nAthwart this early religion of totems and fetishes came, in Garcilasso's\nnarrative, the purer religion of the Incas, with what he regards as a\nphilosophic development of a belief in a Supreme Being. According to\nhim, the Inca sun-worship was really a totemism of a loftier\ncharacter. The Incas \"knew how to choose gods better than the Indians\".\nGarcilasso's theory is that the earlier totems were selected chiefly as\ndistinguishing marks by the various stocks, though, of course, this\ndoes not explain why the animals or other objects of each family were\nworshipped or were regarded as ancestors, and the blood-connections of\nthe men who adored them. The Incas, disdaining crabs, lizards, bats\nand even serpents and lions, \"chose\" the sun. Then, just like the other\ntotemic tribes, they feigned to be of the blood and lineage of the sun.\n\nThis fable is, in brief, the Inca myth of the origin of civilisation and\nof man, or at least of their breed of men. As M. Reville well remarks,\nit is obvious that the Inca claim is an adaptation of the local myth\nof Lake Titicaca, the inland sea of Peru. According to that myth, the\nChildren of the Sun, the ancestors of the Incas, came out of the earth\n(as in Greek and African legends) at Lake Titicaca, or reached its\nshores after wandering from the hole or cave whence they first emerged.\nThe myth, as adapted by the Incas, takes for granted the previous\nexistence of mankind, and, in some of its forms, the Inca period is\npreceded by the deluge.\n\nOf the Peruvian myth concerning the origin of things, the following\naccount is given by a Spanish priest, Christoval de Moluna, in a report\nto the Bishop of Cuzco in 1570.(1) The story was collected from the\nlips of ancient Peruvians and old native priests, who again drew their\ninformation in part from the painted records reserved in the temple of\nthe sun near Cuzco. The legend begins with a deluge myth; a cataclysm\nended a period of human existence. All mankind perished except a man and\nwoman, who floated in a box to a distance of several hundred miles\nfrom Cuzco. There the creator commanded them to settle, and there, like\nPund-jel in Australia, he made clay images of men of all races, attired\nin their national dress, and then animated them. They were all fashioned\nand painted as correct models, and were provided with their national\nsongs and with seed-corn. They then were put into the earth, and emerged\nall over the world at the proper places, some (as in Africa and Greece)\ncoming out of fountains, some out of trees, some out of caves. For this\nreason they made huacas (worshipful objects or fetishes) of the trees,\ncaves and fountains. Some of the earliest men were changed into stones,\nothers into falcons, condors and other creatures which we know were\ntotems in Peru. Probably this myth of metamorphosis was invented to\naccount for the reverence paid to totems or pacarissas as the Peruvians\ncalled them. In Tiahuanaco, where the creation, or rather manufacture of\nmen took place, the creator turned many sinners into stones. The sun was\nmade in the shape of a man, and, as he soared into heaven, he called out\nin a friendly fashion to Manco Ccapac, the Ideal first Inca, \"Look upon\nme as thy father, and worship me as thy father\". In these fables the\ncreator is called Pachyachachi, \"Teacher of the world\". According to\nChristoval, the creator and his sons were \"eternal and unchangeable\".\nAmong the Canaris men descend from the survivor of the deluge, and a\nbeautiful bird with the face of a woman, a siren in fact, but known\nbetter to ornithologists as a macaw. \"The chief cause,\" says the good\nChristoval, \"of these fables was ignorance of God.\"\n\n\n(1) Rites and Laws of the Yncas, p. 4, Hakluyt Society, 1873.\n\n\nThe story, as told by Cieza de Leon, runs thus:(1) A white man of great\nstature (in fact, \"a magnified non-natural man\") came into the world,\nand gave life to beasts and human beings. His name was Ticiviracocha,\nand he was called the Father of the Sun.(2) There are likenesses of\nhim in the temple, and he was regarded as a moral teacher. It was owing\napparently to this benevolent being that four mysterious brothers and\nsisters emerged from a cave--Children of the Sun, fathers of the Incas,\nteachers of savage men. Their own conduct, however, was not exemplary,\nand they shut up in a hole in the earth the brother of whom they were\njealous. This incident is even more common in the marchen or household\ntales than in the regular tribal or national myths of the world.(3) The\nburied brother emerged again with wings, and \"without doubt he must\nhave been some devil,\" says honest Cieza de Leon. This brother was Manco\nCcapac, the heroic ancestor of the Incas, and he turned his jealous\nbrethren into stones. The whole tale is in the spirit illustrated by the\nwilder romances of the Popol Vuh.\n\n\n(1) Second Part of the Chronicles of Peru, p 5.\n\n(2) See Making of Religion, pp. 265-270. Name and God are much disputed.\n\n(3) The story of Joseph and the marchen of Jean de l'Ours are well-known\nexamples.\n\n\nGarcilasso gives three forms of this myth. According to \"the old Inca,\"\nhis maternal uncle, it was the sun which sent down two of his children,\ngiving them a golden staff, which would sink into the ground at the\nplace where they were to rest from wandering. It sank at Lake Titicaca.\nAbout the current myths Garcilasso says generally that they were \"more\nlike dreams\" than straightforward stories; but, as he adds, the Greeks\nand Romans also \"invented fables worthy to be laughed at, and in greater\nnumber than the Indians. The stories of one age of heathenism may be\ncompared with those of the other, and in many points they will be found\nto agree.\" This critical position of Garcilasso's will be proved correct\nwhen we reach the myths of Greeks and Indo-Aryans. The myth as narrated\nnorth-east of Cuzco speaks of the four brothers and four sisters who\ncame out of caves, and the caves in Inca times were panelled with gold\nand silver.\n\nAthwart all these lower myths, survivals from the savage stage, comes\nwhat Garcilasso regards as the philosophical Inca belief in Pachacamac.\nThis deity, to Garcilasso's mind, was purely spiritual: he had no image\nand dwelt in no temple; in fact, he is that very God whom the Spanish\nmissionaries proclaimed. This view, though the fact has been doubted,\nwas very probably held by the Amautas, or philosophical class in\nPeru.(1) Cieza de Leon says \"the name of this devil, Pachacamac, means\ncreator of the world\". Garcilasso urges that Pachacamac was the animus\nmundi; that he did not \"make the world,\" as Pund-jel and other savage\ndemiurges made it, but that he was to the universe what the soul is to\nthe body.\n\n\n(1) Com. Real., vol. i. p. 106.\n\n\nHere we find ourselves, if among myths at all, among the myths of\nmetaphysics--rational myths; that is, myths corresponding to our present\nstage of thought, and therefore intelligible to us. Pachacamac \"made the\nsun, and lightning, and thunder, and of these the sun was worshipped\nby the Incas\". Garcilasso denies that the moon was worshipped. The\nreflections of the sceptical or monotheistic Inca, who declared that the\nsun, far from being a free agent, \"seems like a thing held to its task,\"\nare reported by Garcilasso, and appear to prove that solar worship was\ngiving way, in the minds of educated Peruvians, a hundred years before\nthe arrival of Pizarro and Valverde with his missal.(1)\n\n\n(1) Garcilasso, viii. 8, quoting Blas Valera.\n\n\nFrom this summary it appears that the higher Peruvian religion had\nwrested to its service, and to the dynastic purposes of the Incas, a\nnative myth of the familiar class, in which men come ready made out of\nholes in the ground. But in Peru we do not find nearly such abundance of\nother savage origin myths as will be proved to exist in the legends of\nGreeks and Indo-Aryans. The reason probably is that Peru left no\nnative literature; the missionaries disdained stories of \"devils,\" and\nGarcilasso's common sense and patriotism were alike revolted by the\nincidents of stories \"more like dreams\" than truthful records. He\ntherefore was silent about them. In Greece and India, on the other hand,\nthe native religious literature preserved myths of the making of man out\nof clay, of his birth from trees and stones, of the fashioning of things\nout of the fragments of mutilated gods and Titans, of the cosmic egg, of\nthe rending and wounding of a personal heaven and a personal earth, of\nthe fishing up from the waters of a tiny earth which grew greater, of\nthe development of men out of beasts, with a dozen other such notions as\nare familiar to contemporary Bushmen, Australians, Digger Indians, and\nCahrocs. But in Greece and India these ideas coexist with myths and\nreligious beliefs as purely spiritual and metaphysical as the belief in\nthe Pachacamac of Garcilasso and the Amautas of Peru.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII. INDO-ARYAN MYTHS--SOURCES OF EVIDENCE.\n\n\nAuthorities--Vedas--Brahmanas--Social condition of Vedic\nIndia--Arts--Ranks--War--Vedic fetishism--Ancestor worship--Date\nof Rig-Veda Hymns doubtful--Obscurity of the Hymns--Difficulty\nof interpreting the real character of Veda--Not primitive but\nsacerdotal--The moral purity not innocence but refinement.\n\n\nBefore examining the myths of the Aryans of India, it is necessary to\nhave a clear notion of the nature of the evidence from which we derive\nour knowledge of the subject. That evidence is found in a large and\nincongruous mass of literary documents, the heritage of the Indian\npeople. In this mass are extremely ancient texts (the Rig-Veda, and\nthe Atharva-Veda), expository comments of a date so much later that\nthe original meaning of the older documents was sometimes lost (the\nBrahmanas), and poems and legendary collections of a period later still,\na period when the whole character of religious thought had sensibly\naltered. In this literature there is indeed a certain continuity; the\nnames of several gods of the earliest time are preserved in the legends\nof the latest. But the influences of many centuries of change, of\ncontending philosophies, of periods of national growth and advance, and\nof national decadence and decay, have been at work on the mythology of\nIndia. Here we have myths that were perhaps originally popular tales,\nand are probably old; here again, we have later legends that certainly\nwere conceived in the narrow minds of a pedantic and ceremonious\npriesthood. It is not possible, of course, to analyse in this place all\nthe myths of all the periods; we must be content to point out some which\nseem to be typical examples of the working of the human intellect in\nits earlier or its later childhood, in its distant hours of barbaric\nbeginnings, or in the senility of its sacerdotage.\n\nThe documents which contain Indian mythology may be divided, broadly\nspeaking, into four classes. First, and most ancient in date of\ncomposition, are the collections of hymns known as the Vedas. Next, and\n(as far as date of collection goes) far less ancient, are the expository\ntexts called the Brahmanas. Later still, come other manuals of devotion\nand of sacred learning, called Sutras and Upanishads; and last are the\nepic poems (Itihasas), and the books of legends called Puranas. We are\nchiefly concerned here with the Vedas and Brahmanas. A gulf of time, a\nperiod of social and literary change, separates the Brahmanas from the\nVedas. But the epics and Puranas differ perhaps even still more from the\nBrahmanas, on account of vast religious changes which brought new gods\ninto the Indian Olympus, or elevated to the highest place old gods\nformerly of low degree. From the composition of the first Vedic hymn to\nthe compilation of the latest Purana, religious and mythopoeic fancy was\nnever at rest.\n\nVarious motives induced various poets to assign, on various occasions\nthe highest powers to this or the other god. The most antique legends\nwere probably omitted or softened by some early Vedic bard (Rishi) of\nnoble genius, or again impure myths were brought from the obscurity of\noral circulation and foisted into literature by some poet less divinely\ninspired. Old deities were half-forgotten, and forgotten deities were\nresuscitated. Sages shook off superstitious bonds, priests forged new\nfetters on ancient patterns for themselves and their flocks. Philosophy\nexplained away the more degrading myths; myths as degrading were\nsuggested to dark and servile hearts by unscientific etymologies. Over\nthe whole mass of ancient mythology the new mythology of a debased\nBrahmanic ritualism grew like some luxurious and baneful parasite. It is\nenough for our purpose if we can show that even in the purest and most\nantique mythology of India the element of traditional savagery survived\nand played its part, and that the irrational legends of the Vedas and\nBrahmanas can often be explained as relics of savage philosophy or\nfaith, or as novelties planned on the ancient savage model, whether\nborrowed or native to the race.\n\nThe oldest documents of Indian mythology are the Vedas, usually reckoned\nas four in number. The oldest, again, of the four, is the Sanhita\n(\"collection\") of the Rig-Veda. It is a purely lyrical assortment of the\nsongs \"which the Hindus brought with them from their ancient homes on\nthe banks of the Indus\". In the manuscripts, the hymns are classified\naccording to the families of poets to whom they are ascribed. Though\ncomposed on the banks of the Indus by sacred bards, the hymns were\ncompiled and arranged in India proper. At what date the oldest hymns of\nwhich this collection is made up were first chanted it is impossible to\nsay with even approximate certainty. Opinions differ, or have differed,\nbetween 2400 B.C. and 1400 B.C. as the period when the earliest sacred\nlyrics of the Veda may first have been listened by gods and men. In\naddition to the Rig-Veda we have the Sanhita of the Sama-Veda, \"an\nanthology taken from the Rik-Samhita, comprising those of its verses\nwhich were intended to be chanted at the ceremonies of the soma\nsacrifice\".(1) It is conjectured that the hymns of the Sama-Veda\nwere borrowed from the Rig-Veda before the latter had been edited and\nstereotyped into its present form. Next comes the Yajur-Veda, \"which\ncontains the formulas for the entire sacrificial ceremonial, and indeed\nforms its proper foundations,\" the other Vedas being devoted to the soma\nsacrifice.(2) The Yajur-Veda has two divisions, known as the Black and\nthe White Yajur, which have common matter, but differ in arrangement.\nThe Black Yajur-Veda is also called the Taittirya, and it is described\nas \"a motley undigested jumble of different pieces\".(3) Last comes\nAtharva-Veda, not always regarded as a Veda properly speaking. It\nderives its name from an old semi-mythical priestly family, the\nAtharvans, and is full of magical formulae, imprecations, folk-lore and\nspells. There are good reasons for thinking this late as a collection,\nhowever early may be the magical ideas expressed in its contents.(4)\n\n\n(1) Weber, History of Indian Literature, Eng. transl., p. 63.\n\n(2) Ibid., p. 86.\n\n(3) Ibid, p. 87. The name Taittirya is derived from a partridge, or from\na Rishi named Partridge in Sanskrit. There is a story that the pupils of\na sage were turned into partridges, to pick up sacred texts.\n\n(4) Barth (Les Religions de l'Inde, p. 6) thinks that the existence of\nsuch a collection as the Atharva-Veda is implied, perhaps, in a text of\nthe Rig-Veda, x. 90, 9.\n\n\nBetween the Vedas, or, at all events, between the oldest of the Vedas,\nand the compilation of the Brahmanas, these \"canonised explanations of\na canonised text,\"(1) it is probable that some centuries and many social\nchanges intervened.(2)\n\n\n(1) Whitney, Oriental and Linguistic studies, First Series, p. 4.\n\n(2) Max Muller, Biographical Essays, p. 20. \"The prose portions\npresuppose the hymns, and, to judge from the utter inability of the\nauthors of the Brahmanas to understand the antiquated language of the\nhymns, these Brahmanas must be ascribed to a much later period than that\nwhich gave birth to the hymns.\"\n\n\nIf we would criticise the documents for Indian mythology in a scientific\nmanner, it is now necessary that we should try to discover, as far as\npossible, the social and religious condition of the people among whom\nthe Vedas took shape. Were they in any sense \"primitive,\" or were\nthey civilised? Was their religion in its obscure beginnings or was it\nalready a special and peculiar development, the fruit of many ages of\nthought? Now it is an unfortunate thing that scholars have constantly,\nand as it were involuntarily, drifted into the error of regarding\nthe Vedas as if they were \"primitive,\" as if they exhibited to us the\n\"germs\" and \"genesis\" of religion and mythology, as if they contained\nthe simple though strange utterances of PRIMITIVE thought.(1) Thus Mr.\nWhitney declares, in his Oriental and Linguistic Studies, \"that the\nVedas exhibit to us the very earliest germs of the Hindu culture\". Mr.\nMax Muller avers that \"no country can be compared to India as\noffering opportunities for a real study of the genesis and growth of\nreligion\".(2) Yet the same scholar observes that \"even the earliest\nspecimens of Vedic poetry belong to the modern history of the race, and\nthat the early period of the historical growth of religion had passed\naway before the Rishis (bards) could have worshipped their Devas\nor bright beings with sacred hymns and invocations\". Though this is\nmanifestly true, the sacred hymns and invocations of the Rishis are\nconstantly used as testimony bearing on the beginning of the historical\ngrowth of religion. Nay, more; these remains of \"the modern history of\nthe race\" are supposed to exhibit mythology in the process of making, as\nif the race had possessed no mythology before it reached a comparatively\nmodern period, the Vedic age. In the same spirit, Dr. Muir, the learned\neditor of Sanskrit Texts, speaks in one place as if the Vedic hymns\n\"illustrated the natural workings of the human mind in the period of\nits infancy\".(3) A brief examination of the social and political and\nreligious condition of man, as described by the poets of the Vedas,\nwill prove that his infancy had long been left behind him when the first\nVedic hymns were chanted.\n\n\n(1) Ibid., Rig-Veda Sanhita, p. vii.\n\n(2) Hibbert Lectures, p. 131.\n\n(3) Nothing can prove more absolutely and more briefly the late\ncharacter of Vedic faith than the fact that the faith had already to\nbe defended against the attacks of sceptics. The impious denied the\nexistence of Indra because he was invisible. Rig-Veda, ii. 12, 5; viii.\n89, 3; v. 30, 1-2; vi. 27, 3. Bergaigne, ii. 167. \"Es gibt keinen Indra,\nso hat der eine und der ander gesagt\" (Ludwig's version).\n\n\nAs Barth observes, the very ideas which permeate the Veda, the idea of\nthe mystic efficacy of sacrifice, of brahma, prove that the poems are\nprofoundly sacerdotal; and this should have given pause to the writers\nwho have persisted in representing the hymns as the work of primitive\nshepherds praising their gods as they feed their flocks.(1) In the Vedic\nage the ranks of society are already at least as clearly defined as in\nHomeric Greece. \"We men,\" says a poet of the Rig-Veda,(2) \"have all our\ndifferent imaginations and designs. The carpenter seeks something that\nis broken, the doctor a patient, the priest some one who will offer\nlibations.... The artisan continually seeks after a man with plenty of\ngold.... I am a poet, my father is a doctor, and my mother is a grinder\nof corn.\" Chariots and the art of the chariot-builder are as frequently\nspoken of as in the Iliad. Spears, swords, axes and coats of mail were\nin common use. The art of boat-building or of ship-building was well\nknown. Kine and horses, sheep and dogs, had long been domesticated. The\nbow was a favourite weapon, and warriors fought in chariots, like the\nHomeric Greeks and the Egyptians. Weaving was commonly practised. The\npeople probably lived, as a rule, in village settlements, but cities or\nfortified places were by no means unknown.(3) As for political society,\n\"kings are frequently mentioned in the hymns,\" and \"it was regarded as\neminently beneficial for a king to entertain a family priest,\" on whom\nhe was expected to confer thousands of kine, lovely slaves and lumps of\ngold. In the family polygamy existed, probably as the exception. There\nis reason to suppose that the brother-in-law was permitted, if\nnot expected, to \"raise up seed\" to his dead brother, as among the\nHebrews.(4) As to literature, the very structure of the hymns proves\nthat it was elaborate and consciously artistic. M. Barth writes: \"It\nwould be a great mistake to speak of the primitive naivete of the Vedic\npoetry and religion\".(5) Both the poetry and the religion, on the other\nhand, display in the highest degree the mark of the sacerdotal spirit.\nThe myths, though originally derived from nature-worship, in an infinite\nmajority of cases only reflect natural phenomena through a veil of\nritualistic corruptions.(6) The rigid division of castes is seldom\nrecognised in the Rig-Veda. We seem to see caste in the making.(7)\nThe Rishis and priests of the princely families were on their way to\nbecoming the all-powerful Brahmans. The kings and princes were on their\nway to becoming the caste of Kshatriyas or warriors. The mass of the\npeople was soon to sink into the caste of Vaisyas and broken men.\nNon-Aryan aborigines and others were possibly developing into the caste\nof Sudras. Thus the spirit of division and of ceremonialism had still\nsome of its conquests to achieve. But the extraordinary attention given\nand the immense importance assigned to the details of sacrifice, and\nthe supernatural efficacy constantly attributed to a sort of magical\nasceticism (tapas, austere fervour), prove that the worst and most\nfoolish elements of later Indian society and thought were in the Vedic\nage already in powerful existence.\n\n\n(1) Les Religions de l'Inde, p. 27.\n\n(2) ix. 112.\n\n(3) Ludwig, Rig-Veda, iii. 203. The burgs were fortified with wooden\npalisades, capable of being destroyed by fire. \"Cities\" may be too\nmagnificent a word for what perhaps were more like pahs. But compare\nKaegi, The Rig-Veda, note 42, Engl. transl. Kaegi's book (translated by\nDr. Arrowsmith, Boston, U.S., 1886) is probably the best short manual of\nthe subject.\n\n(4) Deut. xxv. 5; Matt. xxii. 24.\n\n(5) Revue de l'Histoire des Religions, i. 245.\n\n(6) Ludwig, iii. 262.\n\n(7) On this subject see Muir, i. 192, with the remarks of Haug. \"From\nall we know, the real origin of caste seems to go back to a time\nanterior to the composition of the Vedic hymns, though its development\ninto a regular system with insurmountable barriers can be referred only\nto the later period of the Vedic times.\" Roth approaches the subject\nfrom the word brahm, that is, prayer with a mystical efficacy, as his\nstarting-point. From brahm, prayer, came brahma, he who pronounces the\nprayers and performs the rite. This celebrant developed into a priest,\nwhom to entertain brought blessings on kings. This domestic chaplaincy\n(conferring peculiar and even supernatural benefits) became hereditary\nin families, and these, united by common interests, exalted themselves\ninto the Brahman caste. But in the Vedic age gifts of prayer and poetry\nalone marked out the purohitas, or men put forward to mediate between\ngods and mortals. Compare Ludwig, iii. 221.\n\n\nThus it is self-evident that the society in which the Vedic poets lived\nwas so far from being PRIMITIVE that it was even superior to the higher\nbarbarisms (such as that of the Scythians of Herodotus and Germans of\nTacitus), and might be regarded as safely arrived at the threshold of\ncivilisation. Society possessed kings, though they may have been kings\nof small communities, like those who warred with Joshua or fought under\nthe walls of Thebes or Troy. Poets were better paid than they seem to\nhave been at the courts of Homer or are at the present time. For the\ntribal festivals special priests were appointed, \"who distinguished\nthemselves by their comprehensive knowledge of the requisite rites\nand by their learning, and amongst whom a sort of rivalry is gradually\ndeveloped, according as one tribe or another is supposed to have more or\nless prospered by its sacrifices\".(1) In the family marriage is sacred,\nand traces of polyandry and of the levirate, surviving as late as the\nepic poems, were regarded as things that need to be explained away.\nPerhaps the most barbaric feature in Vedic society, the most singular\nrelic of a distant past, is the survival, even in a modified and\nsymbolic form, of human sacrifice.(2)\n\n\n(1) Weber, p. 37.\n\n(2) Wilson, Rig-Veda, i. p. 59-63; Muir, i. ii.; Wilson, Rig-Veda i. p.\nxxiv., ii. 8 (ii. 90); Aitareya Brahmana, Haug's version, vol. ii. pp.\n462, 469.\n\n\nAs to the religious condition of the Vedic Aryans, we must steadily\nremember that in the Vedas we have the views of the Rishis only, that\nis, of sacred poets on their way to becoming a sacred caste. Necessarily\nthey no more represent the POPULAR creeds than the psalmists and\nprophets, with their lofty monotheistic morality, represent the popular\ncreeds of Israel. The faith of the Rishis, as will be shown later, like\nthat of the psalmists, has a noble moral aspect. Yet certain elements of\nthis higher creed are already found in the faiths of the lowest savages.\nThe Rishis probably did not actually INVENT them. Consciousness of sin,\nof imperfection in the sight of divine beings, has been developed (as\nit has even in Australia) and is often confessed. But on the whole\nthe religion of the Rishis is practical--it might almost be said, is\nmagical. They desire temporal blessings, rain, sunshine, long life,\npower, wealth in flocks and herds. The whole purpose of the sacrifices\nwhich occupy so much of their time and thought is to obtain these good\nthings. The sacrifice and the sacrificer come between gods and men. On\nthe man's side is faith, munificence, a compelling force of prayer and\nof intentness of will. The sacrifice invigorates the gods to do the will\nof the sacrificer; it is supposed to be mystically celebrated in heaven\nas well as on earth--the gods are always sacrificing. Often (as when\nrain is wanted) the sacrifice imitates the end which it is desirable to\ngain.(1) In all these matters a minute ritual is already observed. The\nmystic word brahma, in the sense of hymn or prayer of a compelling and\nmagical efficacy, has already come into use. The brahma answers\nalmost to the Maori karakia or incantation and charm. \"This brahma of\nVisvamitra protects the tribe of Bharata.\" \"Atri with the fourth prayer\ndiscovered the sun concealed by unholy darkness.\"(2) The complicated\nritual, in which prayer and sacrifice were supposed to exert a\nconstraining influence on the supernatural powers, already existed, Haug\nthinks, in the time of the chief Rishis or hymnists of the Rig-Veda.(3)\n\n\n(1) Compare \"The Prayers of Savages\" in J. A. Farrer's Primitive\nManners, and Ludwig, iii. 262-296, and see Bergaigne, La Religion\nVedique, vol. i. p. 121.\n\n(2) See texts in Muir, i. 242.\n\n(3) Preface to translation of Aitareya Brahmana, p. 36.\n\n\nIn many respects the nature of the idea of the divine, as entertained\nby the Rishis of the Rig-Veda, is still matter for discussion. In the\nchapter on Vedic gods such particulars as can be ascertained will be\ngiven. Roughly speaking, the religion is mainly, though not wholly,\na cult of departmental gods, originally, in certain cases, forces of\nNature, but endowed with moral earnestness. As to fetishism in the Vedas\nthe opinions of the learned are divided. M. Bergaigne(1) looks on\nthe whole ritual as, practically, an organised fetishism, employed\nto influence gods of a far higher and purer character. Mr. Max Muller\nremarks, \"that stones, bones, shells, herbs and all the other so-called\nfetishes, are simply absent in the old hymns, though they appear in more\nmodern hymns, particularly those of the Atharva-Veda. When artificial\nobjects are mentioned and celebrated in the Rig-Veda, they are only\nsuch as might be praised even by Wordsworth or Tennyson--chariots, bows,\nquivers, axes, drums, sacrificial vessels and similar objects. They\nnever assume any individual character; they are simply mentioned as\nuseful or precious, it may be as sacred.\"(2)\n\n\n(1) La Religion Vedique, vol. i. p. 123. \"Le culte est assimilable dans\nune certaine mesure aux incantations, aux pratiques magiques.\"\n\n(2) Hibbert Lectures, p. 198.\n\n\nWhen the existence of fetish \"herbs\" is denied by Mr. Max Muller, he\ndoes not, of course, forget Soma, that divine juice. It is also to be\nnoted that in modern India, as Mr. Max Muller himself observes, Sir\nAlfred Lyall finds that \"the husbandman prays to his plough and the\nfisher to his net,\" these objects being, at present, fetishes. In\nopposition to Mr. Max Muller, Barth avers that the same kind of\nfetishism which flourishes to-day flourishes in the Rig-Veda.\n\"Mountains, rivers, springs, trees, herbs are invoked as so many powers.\nThe beasts which live with man--the horse, the cow, the dog, the bird\nand the animals which imperil his existence--receive a cult of praise\nand prayer. Among the instruments of ritual, some objects are more\nthan things consecrated--they are divinities; and the war-chariot, the\nweapons of defence and offence, the plough, are the objects not only\nof benedictions but of prayers.\"(1) These absolute contradictions on\nmatters of fact add, of course, to the difficulty of understanding the\nearly Indo-Aryan religion. One authority says that the Vedic people were\nfetish-worshippers; another authority denies it.\n\n\n(1) Barth, Les Religions de l'Inde, p. 7, with the Vedic texts.\n\n\nWere the Rishis ancestor-worshippers? Barth has no doubt whatever that\nthey were. In the pitris or fathers he recognises ancestral spirits, now\n\"companions of the gods, and gods themselves. At their head appear the\nearliest celebrants of the sacrifice, Atharvan, the Angiras, the Kavis\n(the pitris, par excellence) equals of the greatest gods, spirits who,\nBY DINT OF SACRIFICE, drew forth the world from chaos, gave birth to the\nsun and lighted the stars,\"--cosmical feats which, as we have seen,\nare sometimes attributed by the lower races to their idealised mythic\nancestors, the \"old, old ones\" of Australians and Ovahereroes.\n\nA few examples of invocations of the ancestral spirits may not be out\nof place.(1) \"May the Fathers protect me in my invocation of the gods.\"\nHere is a curious case, especially when we remember how the wolf, in\nthe North American myth, scattered the stars like spangles over the sky:\n\"The fathers have adorned the sky with stars\".(2)\n\n\n(1) Rig-Veda, vi. 52,4.\n\n(2) Ibid., x. 68, xi.\n\nMr. Whitney (Oriental and Linguistic Studies, First Series, p. 59) gives\nexamples of the ceremony of feeding the Aryan ghosts. \"The fathers are\nsupposed to assemble, upon due invocation, about the altar of him who\nwould pay them homage, to seat themselves upon the straw or matting\nspread for each of the guests invited, and to partake of the offerings\nset before them.\" The food seems chiefly to consist of rice, sesame and\nhoney.\n\n\nImportant as is the element of ancestor-worship in the evolution of\nreligion, Mr. Max Muller, in his Hibbert Lectures, merely remarks that\nthoughts and feelings about the dead \"supplied some of the earliest and\nmost important elements of religion\"; but how these earliest elements\naffect his system does not appear. On a general view, then, the\nreligion of the Vedic poets contained a vast number of elements in\nsolution--elements such as meet us in every quarter of the globe. The\nbelief in ancestral ghosts, the adoration of fetishes, the devotion to\na moral ideal, contemplated in the persons of various deities, some of\nwhom at least have been, and partly remain, personal natural forces, are\nall mingled, and all are drifting towards a kind of pantheism, in which,\nwhile everything is divine, and gods are reckoned by millions, the\nworshipper has glimpses of one single divine essence. The ritual, as we\nhave seen, is more or less magical in character. The general elements\nof the beliefs are found, in various proportions, everywhere; the\npantheistic mysticism is almost peculiar to India. It is, perhaps,\nneedless to repeat that a faith so very composite, and already so\nstrongly differentiated, cannot possibly be \"primitive,\" and that the\nbeliefs and practices of a race so highly organised in society and\nso well equipped in material civilisation as the Vedic Aryans cannot\npossibly be \"near the beginning\". Far from expecting to find in the\nVeda the primitive myths of the Aryans, we must remember that myth had\nalready, when these hymns were sung, become obnoxious to the religious\nsentiment. \"Thus,\" writes Barth, \"the authors of the hymns have\nexpurgated, or at least left in the shade, a vast number of legends\nolder than their time; such, for example, as the identity of soma with\nthe moon, as the account of the divine families, of the parricide of\nIndra, and a long list might be made of the reticences of the Veda....\nIt would be difficult to extract from the hymns a chapter on the loves\nof the gods. The goddesses are veiled, the adventures of the gods are\nscarcely touched on in passing.... We must allow for the moral delicacy\nof the singers, and for their dislike of speaking too precisely about\nthe gods. Sometimes it seems as if their chief object was to avoid plain\nspeaking.... But often there is nothing save jargon and indolence of\nmind in this voluntary obscurity, for already in the Veda the Indian\nintellect is deeply smitten with its inveterate malady of affecting\nmystery the more, the more it has nothing to conceal; the mania for\nscattering symbols which symbolise no reality, and for sporting with\nriddles which it is not worth while to divine.\"(1) Barth, however, also\nrecognises amidst these confusions, \"the inquietude of a heart deeply\nstirred, which seeks truth and redemption in prayer\". Such is the\nnatural judgment of the clear French intellect on the wilfully obscure,\ntormented and evasive intellect of India.\n\n\n(1) Les Religions de l'Inde, p. 21.\n\n\nIt would be interesting were it possible to illuminate the criticism of\nVedic religion by ascertaining which hymns in the Rig-Veda are the most\nancient, and which are later. Could we do this, we might draw inferences\nas to the comparative antiquity of the religious ideas in the poems.\nBut no such discrimination of relative antiquity seems to be within\nthe reach of critics. M. Bergaigne thinks it impossible at present to\ndetermine the relative age of the hymns by any philological test. The\nideas expressed are not more easily arrayed in order of date. We might\nthink that the poems which contain most ceremonial allusions were the\nlatest. But Mr. Max Muller says that \"even the earliest hymns have\nsentiments worthy of the most advanced ceremonialists\".(1)\n\n\n(1) History of Sanskrit Literature, p. 556.\n\n\nThe first and oldest source of our knowledge of Indo-Aryan myths is the\nRig-Veda, whose nature and character have been described. The second\nsource is the Atharva-Veda with the Brahmanas. The peculiarity of the\nAtharva is its collection of magical incantations spells and fragments\nof folklore. These are often, doubtless, of the highest antiquity.\nSorcery and the arts of medicine-men are earlier in the course of\nevolution than priesthood. We meet them everywhere among races who have\nnot developed the institution of an order of priests serving national\ngods. As a collection, the Atharva-Veda is later than the Rig-Veda,\nbut we need not therefore conclude that the IDEAS of the Atharva are \"a\nlater development of the more primitive ideas of the Rig-Veda\". Magic is\nquod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus; the ideas of the Atharva-Veda\nare everywhere; the peculiar notions of the Rig-Veda are the special\nproperty of an advanced and highly differentiated people. Even in the\npresent collected shape, M. Barth thinks that many hymns of the Atharva\nare not much later than those of the Rig-Veda. Mr. Whitney, admitting\nthe lateness of the Atharva as a collection, says, \"This would not\nnecessarily imply that the main body of the Atharva hymns were\nnot already in existence when the compilation of the Rig-Veda took\nplace\".(1) The Atharva refers to some poets of the Rig (as certain\nhymnists in the Rig also do) as earlier men. If in the Rig (as Weber\nsays) \"there breathes a lively natural feeling, a warm love of nature,\nwhile in the Atharva, on the contrary, there predominates an anxious\napprehension of evil spirits and their magical powers,\" it by no means\nfollows that this apprehension is of later origin than the lively\nfeeling for Nature. Rather the reverse. There appears to be no doubt(2)\nthat the style and language of the Atharva are later than those of\nthe Rig. Roth, who recognises the change, in language and style, yet\nconsiders the Atharva \"part of the old literature\".(3) He concludes that\nthe Atharva contains many pieces which, \"both by their style and ideas,\nare shown to be contemporary with the older hymns of the Rig-Veda\".\nIn religion, according to Muir,(4) the Atharva shows progress in the\ndirection of monotheism in its celebration of Brahman, but it also\nintroduces serpent-worship.\n\n\n(1) Journal of the American Oriental Society. iv. 253.\n\n(2) Muir, ii. 446.\n\n(3) Ibid., ii. 448.\n\n(4) Ibid., ii. 451.\n\n\nAs to the Atharva, then, we are free to suppose, if we like, that the\ndark magic, the evil spirits, the incantations, are old parts of Indian,\nas of all other popular beliefs, though they come later into literature\nthan the poetry about Ushas and the morality of Varuna. The same remarks\napply to our third source of information, the Brahmanas. These are\nindubitably comments on the sacred texts very much more modern in form\nthan the texts themselves. But it does not follow, and this is most\nimportant for our purpose, that the myths in the Brahmanas are all later\nthan the Vedic myths or corruptions of the Veda. Muir remarks,(1) \"The\nRig-Veda, though the oldest collection, does not necessarily contain\neverything that is of the greatest age in Indian thought or tradition.\nWe know, for example, that certain legends, bearing the impress of\nthe highest antiquity, such as that of the deluge, appear first in the\nBrahmanas.\" We are especially interested in this criticism, because most\nof the myths which we profess to explain as survivals of savagery are\nnarrated in the Brahmanas. If these are necessarily late corruptions of\nVedic ideas, because the collection of the Brahmanas is far more modern\nthan that of the Veda, our argument is instantly disproved. But if ideas\nof an earlier stratum of thought than the Vedic stratum may appear in\na later collection, as ideas of an earlier stratum of thought than\nthe Homeric appear in poetry and prose far later than Homer, then our\ncontention is legitimate. It will be shown in effect that a number of\nmyths of the Brahmanas correspond in character and incident with the\nmyths of savages, such as Cahrocs and Ahts. Our explanation is, that\nthese tales partly survived, in the minds perhaps of conservative local\npriesthoods, from the savage stage of thought, or were borrowed from\naborigines in that stage, or were moulded in more recent times on\nsurviving examples of that wild early fancy.\n\n\n(1) Muir, iv. 450.\n\n\nIn the age of the Brahmanas the people have spread southwards from the\nbasin of the Indus to that of the Ganges. The old sacred texts have\nbegun to be scarcely comprehensible. The priesthood has become much more\nstrictly defined and more rigorously constituted. Absurd as it may seem,\nthe Vedic metres, like the Gayatri, have been personified, and appear as\nactive heroines of stories presumably older than this personification.\nThe Asuras have descended from the rank of gods to that of the heavenly\nopposition to Indra's government; they are now a kind of fiends, and the\nBrahmanas are occupied with long stories about the war in heaven,\nitself a very ancient conception. Varuna becomes cruel on occasion, and\nhostile. Prajapati becomes the great mythical hero, and inherits the\nwildest myths of the savage heroic beasts and birds.\n\nThe priests are now Brahmans, a hereditary divine caste, who possess all\nthe vast and puerile knowledge of ritual and sacrificial minutiae. As\nlife in the opera is a series of songs, so life in the Brahmanas is a\nsequence of sacrifices. Sacrifice makes the sun rise and set, and the\nrivers run this way or that.\n\nThe study of Indian myth is obstructed, as has been shown, by the\ndifficulty of determining the relative dates of the various legends, but\nthere are a myriad of other obstacles to the study of Indian mythology.\nA poet of the Vedas says, \"The chanters of hymns go about enveloped in\nmist, and unsatisfied with idle talk\".(1) The ancient hymns are still\n\"enveloped in mist,\" owing to the difficulty of their language and the\nvariety of modern renderings and interpretations. The heretics of\nVedic religion, the opponents of the orthodox commentators in ages\ncomparatively recent, used to complain that the Vedas were simply\nnonsense, and their authors \"knaves and buffoons\". There are moments\nwhen the modern student of Vedic myths is inclined to echo this petulant\ncomplaint. For example, it is difficult enough to find in the Rig-Veda\nanything like a categoric account of the gods, and a description of\ntheir personal appearance. But in Rig-Veda, viii. 29, 1, we read of one\ngod, \"a youth, brown, now hostile, now friendly; a golden lustre\ninvests him\". Who is this youth? \"Soma as the moon,\" according to the\ncommentators. M. Langlois thinks the sun is meant. Dr. Aufrecht thinks\nthe troop of Maruts (spirits of the storm), to whom, he remarks, the\nepithet \"dark-brown, tawny\" is as applicable as it is to their master,\nRudra. This is rather confusing, and a mythological inquirer would like\nto know for certain whether he is reading about the sun or soma, the\nmoon, or the winds.\n\n\n(1) Rig-Veda, x. 82, 7, but compare Bergaigne, op. cit., iii. 72,\n\"enveloppes de nuees et de murmures\".\n\n\nTo take another example; we open Mr. Max Muller's translation of the\nRig-Veda at random, say at page 49. In the second verse of the hymn\nto the Maruts, Mr. Muller translates, \"They who were born together,\nself-luminous, with the spotted deer (the clouds), the spears, the\ndaggers, the glittering ornaments. I hear their whips almost close by,\nas they crack them in their hands; they gain splendour on their way.\"\nNow Wilson translates this passage, \"Who, borne by spotted deer, were\nborn self-luminous, with weapons, war-cries and decorations. I hear the\ncracking of their whips in their hands, wonderfully inspiring courage in\nthe fight.\" Benfey has, \"Who with stags and spears, and with thunder and\nlightning, self-luminous, were born. Hard by rings the crack of their\nwhip as it sounds in their hands; bright fare they down in storm.\"\nLanglois translates, \"Just born are they, self-luminous. Mark ye their\narms, their decorations, their car drawn by deer? Hear ye their clamour?\nListen! 'tis the noise of the whip they hold in their hands, the sound\nthat stirs up courage in the battle.\" This is an ordinary example of the\ndiversities of Vedic translation. It is sufficiently puzzling, nor is\nthe matter made more transparent by the variety of opinion as to the\nmeaning of the \"deer\" along with which the Maruts are said (by some of\nthe translators) to have been born. This is just the sort of passage\non which a controversy affecting the whole nature of Vedic mythological\nideas might be raised. According to a text in the Yajur Veda, gods, and\nmen, and beasts, and other matters were created from various portions of\nthe frame of a divine being named Prajapati.(1) The god Agni, Brahmans\nand the goat were born from the mouth of Prajapati. From his breast and\narms came the god Indra (sometimes spoken of as a ram), the sheep, and\nof men the Rajanya. Cows and gods called Visvadevas were born together\nfrom his middle. Are we to understand the words \"they who were born\ntogether with the spotted deer\" to refer to a myth of this kind--a myth\nrepresenting the Maruts and deer as having been born at the same birth,\nas Agni came with the goat, and Indra with the sheep? This is just the\npoint on which the Indian commentators were divided.(2) Sayana, the old\ncommentator, says, \"The legendary school takes them for deer with white\nspots; the etymological school, for the many-coloured lines of\nclouds\". The modern legendary (or anthropological) and etymological (or\nphilological) students of mythology are often as much at variance in\ntheir attempts to interpret the traditions of India.\n\n\n(1) Muir, Sanskrit Texts, 2nd edit., i. 16.\n\n(2) Max Muller, Rig-Veda Sanhita, trans., vol. i. p. 59.\n\n\nAnother famous, and almost comic, example of the difficulty of Vedic\ninterpretation is well known. In Rig-Veda, x. 16, 4, there is a funeral\nhymn. Agni, the fire-god, is supplicated either to roast a goat or to\nwarm the soul of the dead and convey it to paradise. Whether the soul\nis to be thus comforted or the goat is to be grilled, is a question that\nhas mightily puzzled Vedic doctors.(1) Professor Muller and M. Langlois\nare all for \"the immortal soul\", the goat has advocates, or had\nadvocates, in Aufrecht, Ludwig and Roth. More important difficulties\nof interpretation are illustrated by the attitude of M. Bergaigne in\nLa Religion Vedique, and his controversy with the great German\nlexicographers. The study of mythology at one time made the Vedas its\nstarting-point. But perhaps it would be wise to begin from something\nmore intelligible, something less perplexed by difficulties of language\nand diversities of interpretation.\n\n\n(1) Muir, v. 217.\n\n\nIn attempting to criticise the various Aryan myths, we shall be guided,\non the whole, by the character of the myths themselves. Pure and\nelevated conceptions we shall be inclined to assign to a pure and\nelevated condition of thought (though such conceptions do, recognisably,\noccur in the lowest known religious strata), and we shall make no\ndifficulty about believing that Rishis and singers capable of noble\nconceptions existed in an age very remote in time, in a society which\nhad many of the features of a lofty and simple civilisation. But we\nshall not, therefore, assume that the hymns of these Rishis are in any\nsense \"primitive,\" or throw much light on the infancy of the human mind,\nor on the \"origin\" of religious and heroic myths. Impure, childish\nand barbaric conceptions, on the other hand, we shall be inclined to\nattribute to an impure, childish, and barbaric condition of thought; and\nwe shall again make no difficulty about believing that ideas originally\nconceived when that stage of thought was general have been retained and\nhanded down to a far later period. This view of the possible, or rather\nprobable, antiquity of many of the myths preserved in the Brahmanas\nis strengthened, if it needed strengthening, by the opinion of Dr.\nWeber.(1) \"We must indeed assume generally with regard to many of those\nlegends (in the Brahmanas of the Rig-Veda) that they had already gained\na rounded independent shape in tradition before they were incorporated\ninto the Brahmanas; and of this we have frequent evidence in the\nDISTINCTLY ARCHAIC CHARACTER OF THEIR LANGUAGE, compared with that of\nthe rest of the text.\"\n\n\n(1) History of Indian Literature, English trans., p. 47.\n\n\nWe have now briefly stated the nature and probable relative antiquity of\nthe evidence which is at the disposal of Vedic mythologists. The chief\nlesson we would enforce is the necessity of suspending the judgment when\nthe Vedas are represented as examples of primitive and comparatively\npure and simple natural religion. They are not primitive; they are\nhighly differentiated, highly complex, extremely enigmatic expressions\nof fairly advanced and very peculiar religious thought. They are not\nmorally so very pure as has been maintained, and their purity, such as\nit is, seems the result of conscious reticence and wary selection rather\nthan of primeval innocence. Yet the bards or editors have by no means\nwholly excluded very ancient myths of a thoroughly savage character.\nThese will be chiefly exposed in the chapter on \"Indo-Aryan Myths of the\nBeginnings of Things,\" which follows.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII. INDIAN MYTHS OF THE ORIGIN OF THE WORLD AND OF MAN.\n\nComparison of Vedic and savage myths--The metaphysical Vedic account of\nthe beginning of things--Opposite and savage fable of world made out\nof fragments of a man--Discussion of this hymn--Absurdities of\nBrahmanas--Prajapati, a Vedic Unkulunkulu or Qat--Evolutionary\nmyths--Marriage of heaven and earth--Myths of Puranas, their savage\nparallels--Most savage myths are repeated in Brahmanas.\n\n\nIn discussing the savage myths of the origin of the world and of man, we\nobserved that they were as inconsistent as they were fanciful. Among the\nfancies embodied in the myths was noted the theory that the world,\nor various parts of it, had been formed out of the body of some\nhuge non-natural being, a god, or giant, or a member of some ancient\nmysterious race. We also noted the myths of the original union of heaven\nand earth, and their violent separation as displayed in the tales\nof Greeks and Maoris, to which may be added the Acagchemem nation\nin California.(1) Another feature of savage cosmogonies, illustrated\nespecially in some early Slavonic myths, in Australian legends, and in\nthe faith of the American races, was the creation of the world, or the\nrecovery of a drowned world by animals, as the raven, the dove and\nthe coyote. The hatching of all things out of an egg was another rude\nconception, chiefly noted among the Finns. The Indian form occurs in the\nSatapatha Brahmana.(2) The preservation of the human race in the Deluge,\nor the creation of the race after the Deluge, was yet another detail\nof savage mythology; and for many of these fancies we seemed to find a\nsatisfactory origin in the exceedingly credulous and confused state of\nsavage philosophy and savage imagination.\n\n\n(1) Bancroft, v. 162.\n\n(2) Sacred Books of the East, i. 216.\n\n\nThe question now to be asked is, do the traditions of the Aryans of\nIndia supply us with myths so closely resembling the myths of Nootkas,\nMaoris and Australians that we may provisionally explain them as\nstories originally due to the invention of savages? This question may\nbe answered in the affirmative. The Vedas, the Epics and the Puranas\ncontain a large store of various cosmogonic traditions as inconsistent\nas the parallel myths of savages. We have an Aryan Ilmarinen, Tvashtri,\nwho, like the Finnish smith, forged \"the iron vault of hollow heaven\"\nand the ball of earth.(1) Again, the earth is said to have sprung, as\nin some Mangaian fables, \"from a being called Uttanapad\".(2) Again,\nBrahmanaspati, \"blew the gods forth like a blacksmith,\" and the gods had\na hand in the making of things. In contrast with these childish pieces\nof anthropomorphism, we have the famous and sublime speculations of an\noften-quoted hymn.(3) It is thus that the poet dreams of the days before\nbeing and non-being began:--\n\n\n(1) Muir, v. 354.\n\n(2) Rig-Veda, x. 72, 4.\n\n(3) Ibid., x. 126.\n\n\n\"There was then neither non-entity nor entity; there was no atmosphere\nnor sky above. What enveloped (all)?... Was it water, the profound\nabyss? Death was not then, nor immortality: there was no distinction of\nday or night. That One breathed calmly, self-supported; then was nothing\ndifferent from it, or above it. In the beginning darkness existed,\nenveloped in darkness. All this was undistinguishable water. That One\nwhich lay void and wrapped in nothingness was developed by the power\nof fervour. Desire first arose in It, which was the primal germ of mind\n(and which) sages, searching with their intellect, have discovered to be\nthe bond which connects entity with non-entity. The ray (or cord) which\nstretched across these (worlds), was it below or was it above? There\nwere there impregnating powers and mighty forces, a self-supporting\nprinciple beneath and energy aloft. Who knows? who here can declare\nwhence has sprung, whence this creation? The gods are subsequent to the\ndevelopment of this (universe); who then knows whence it arose? From\nwhat this creation arose, and whether (any one) made it or not, he who\nin the highest heaven is its ruler, he verily knows, or (even) he does\nnot know.\"(1)\n\n\n(1) Muir, Sanskrit Texts, 2nd edit., v. 357.\n\n\nHere there is a Vedic hymn of the origin of things, from a book, it is\ntrue, supposed to be late, which is almost, if not absolutely, free from\nmythological ideas. The \"self-supporting principle beneath and energy\naloft\" may refer, as Dr. Muir suggests, to the father, heaven above, and\nthe mother, earth beneath. The \"bond between entity and non-entity\" is\nsought in a favourite idea of the Indian philosophers, that of tapas or\n\"fervour\". The other speculations remind us, though they are much more\nrestrained and temperate in character, of the metaphysical chants of the\nNew Zealand priests, of the Zunis, of Popol Vuh, and so on. These belong\nto very early culture.\n\nWhat is the relative age of this hymn? If it could be proved to be the\noldest in the Veda, it would demonstrate no more than this, that in time\nexceedingly remote the Aryans of India possessed a philosopher, perhaps\na school of philosophers, who applied the minds to abstract speculations\non the origin of things. It could not prove that mythological\nspeculations had not preceded the attempts of a purer philosophy. But\nthe date cannot be ascertained. Mr. Max Muller cannot go farther than\nthe suggestion that the hymn is an expression of the perennis quaedam\nphilosophia of Leibnitz. We are also warned that a hymn is not\nnecessarily modern because it is philosophical.(1) Certainly that\nis true; the Zunis, Maoris, and Mangaians exhibit amazing powers of\nabstract thought. We are not concerned to show that this hymn is late;\nbut it seems almost superfluous to remark that ideas like those which it\ncontains can scarcely be accepted as expressing man's earliest theory\nof the origin of all things. We turn from such ideas to those which the\nAryans of India have in common with black men and red men, with far-off\nFinns and Scandinavians, Chaldaeans, Haidahs, Cherokees, Murri and\nMaori, Mangaians and Egyptians.\n\n\n(1) History of Sanskrit Literature, p. 568.\n\n\nThe next Vedic account of creation which we propose to consider is as\nremote as possible in character from the sublime philosophic poem. In\nthe Purusha Sukta, the ninetieth hymn of the tenth book of the Rig-Veda\nSanhita, we have a description of the creation of all things out of the\nsevered limbs of a magnified non-natural man, Purusha. This conception\nis of course that which occurs in the Norse myths of the rent body\nof Ymir. Borr's sons took the body of the Giant Ymir and of his flesh\nformed the earth, of his blood seas and waters, of his bones mountains,\nof his teeth rocks and stones, of his hair all manner of plants, of his\nskull the firmament, of his brains the clouds, and so forth. In Chaldean\nstory, Bel cuts in twain the magnified non-natural woman Omorca,\nand converts the halves of her body into heaven and earth. Among the\nIroquois in North America, Chokanipok was the giant whose limbs, bones\nand blood furnished the raw material of many natural objects; while\nin Mangaia portions of Ru, in Egypt of Set and Osiris, in Greece of\nDionysus Zagreus were used in creating various things, such as stones,\nplants and metals. The same ideas precisely are found in the ninetieth\nhymn of the tenth book of the Rig-Veda. Yet it is a singular thing that,\nin all the discussions as to the antiquity and significance of this\nhymn which have come under our notice, there has not been one single\nreference made to parallel legends among Aryan or non-Aryan peoples. In\naccordance with the general principles which guide us in this work, we\nare inclined to regard any ideas which are at once rude in character\nand widely distributed, both among civilised and uncivilised races, as\nextremely old, whatever may be the age of the literary form in which\nthey are presented. But the current of learned opinions as to the date\nof the Purusha Sukta, the Vedic hymn about the sacrifice of Purusha\nand the creation of the world out of fragments of his body, runs in the\nopposite direction. The hymn is not regarded as very ancient by most\nSanskrit scholars. We shall now quote the hymn, which contains the data\non which any theory as to its age must be founded:--(1)\n\n\n(1) Rig-Veda, x. 90; Muir, Sanskrit Texts, 2nd edit., i. 9.\n\n\n\"Purusha has a thousand heads, a thousand eyes, a thousand feet. On\nevery side enveloping the earth, he overpassed (it) by a space of ten\nfingers. Purusha himself is this whole (universe), whatever is and\nwhatever shall be.... When the gods performed a sacrifice with Purusha\nas the oblation, the spring was its butter, the summer its fuel, and the\nautumn its (accompanying) offering. This victim, Purusha, born in the\nbeginning, they immolated on the sacrificial grass. With him the gods,\nthe Sadhyas, and the Rishis sacrificed. From that universal sacrifice\nwere provided curds and butter. It formed those aerial (creatures) and\nanimals both wild and tame. From that universal sacrifice sprang the Ric\nand Saman verses, the metres and Yajush. From it sprang horses, and all\nanimals with two rows of teeth; kine sprang from it; from it goats and\nsheep. When (the gods) divided Purusha, into how many parts did they cut\nhim up? What was his mouth? What arms (had he)? What (two objects) are\nsaid (to have been) his thighs and feet? The Brahman was his mouth; the\nRajanya was made his arms; the being (called) the Vaisya, he was his\nthighs; the Sudra sprang from his feet. The moon sprang from his soul\n(Mahas), the sun from his eye, Indra and Agni from his mouth, and Yaiyu\nfrom his breath. From his navel arose the air, from his head the sky,\nfrom his feet the earth, from his ear the (four) quarters; in this\nmanner (the gods) formed the world. When the gods, performing sacrifice,\nbound Purusha as a victim, there were seven sticks (stuck up) for it\n(around the fire), and thrice seven pieces of fuel were made. With\nsacrifice the gods performed the sacrifice. These were the earliest\nrites. These great powers have sought the sky, where are the former\nSadhyas, gods.\"\n\nThe myth here stated is plain enough in its essential facts. The gods\nperformed a sacrifice with a gigantic anthropomorphic being (Purusha =\nMan) as the victim. Sacrifice is not found, as a rule, in the religious\nof the most backward races of all; it is, relatively, an innovation, as\nshall be shown later. His head, like the head of Ymir, formed the sky,\nhis eye the sun, animals sprang from his body. The four castes are\nconnected with, and it appears to be implied that they sprang from, his\nmouth, arms, thighs and feet. It is obvious that this last part of the\nmyth is subsequent to the formation of castes. This is one of the chief\narguments for the late date of the hymn, as castes are not distinctly\nrecognised elsewhere in the Rig-Veda. Mr. Max Muller(1) believes the\nhymn to be \"modern both in its character and in its diction,\" and this\nopinion he supports by philological arguments. Dr. Muir(2) says that the\nhymn \"has every character of modernness both in its diction and ideas\".\nDr Haug, on the other hand,(3) in a paper read in 1871, admits that the\npresent form of the hymn is not older than the greater part of the hymns\nof the tenth book, and than those of the Atharva Veda; but he adds, \"The\nideas which the hymn contains are certainly of a primeval antiquity....\nIn fact, the hymn is found in the Yajur-Veda among the formulas\nconnected with human sacrifices, which were formerly practised in\nIndia.\" We have expressly declined to speak about \"primeval antiquity,\"\nas we have scarcely any evidence as to the myths and mental condition\nfor example, even of palaeolithic man; but we may so far agree with\nDr. Haug as to affirm that the fundamental idea of the Purusha Sukta,\nnamely, the creation of the world or portions of the world out of the\nfragments of a fabulous anthropomorphic being is common to Chaldeans,\nIroquois, Egyptians, Greeks, Tinnehs, Mangaians and Aryan Indians. This\nis presumptive proof of the antiquity of the ideas which Dr. Muir and\nMr. Max Muller think relatively modern. The savage and brutal character\nof the invention needs no demonstration. Among very low savages, for\nexample, the Tinnehs of British North America, not a man, not a god, but\na DOG, is torn up, and the fragments are made into animals.(4) On the\nPaloure River a beaver suffers in the manner of Purusha. We may,\nfor these reasons, regard the chief idea of the myth as extremely\nancient--infinitely more ancient than the diction of the hymn.\n\n\n(1) Ancient Sanskrit Literature, 570.\n\n(2) Sanskrit Texts, 2nd edit., i. 12.\n\n(3) Sanskrit Text, 2nd edit., ii. 463.\n\n(4) Hearne's Journey, pp. 342-343.\n\n\nAs to the mention of the castes, supposed to be a comparatively modern\ninstitution, that is not an essential part of the legend. When the\nidea of creation out of a living being was once received it was easy\nto extend the conception to any institution, of which the origin was\nforgotten. The Teutonic race had a myth which explained the origin of\nthe classes eorl, ceorl and thrall (earl, churl and slave). A South\nAmerican people, to explain the different ranks in society, hit on the\nvery myth of Plato, the legend of golden, silver and copper races,\nfrom which the ranks of society have descended. The Vedic poet, in our\nopinion, merely extended to the institution of caste a myth which had\nalready explained the origin of the sun, the firmament, animals, and so\nforth, on the usual lines of savage thought. The Purusha Sukta is the\ntype of many other Indian myths of creation, of which the following(1)\none is extremely noteworthy. \"Prajapati desired to propagate. He formed\nthe Trivrit (stoma) from his mouth. After it were produced the deity\nAgni, the metre Gayatri,... of men the Brahman, of beasts the goat;...\nfrom his breast, and from his arms he formed the Panchadasa (stoma).\nAfter it were created the God Indra, the Trishtubh metre,... of men the\nRajanya, of beasts the sheep. Hence they are vigorous, because they were\ncreated from vigour. From his middle he formed the Saptadasa (stoma).\nAfter it were created the gods called the Yisvadevas, the Jagati\nmetre,... of men the Vaisya, of beasts kine. Hence they are to be eaten,\nbecause they were created from the receptacle of food.\" The form in\nwhich we receive this myth is obviously later than the institution of\ncaste and the technical names for metres. Yet surely any statement that\nkine \"are to be eaten\" must be older than the universal prohibition to\neat that sacred animal the cow. Possibly we might argue that when this\ntheory of creation was first promulgated, goats and sheep were forbidden\nfood.(2)\n\n\n(1) Taittirya Sanhita, or Yajur-Veda, vii. i. 1-4; Muir, 2nd edit., i.\n15.\n\n(2) Mr. M'Lennan has drawn some singular inferences from this passage,\nconnecting, as it does, certain gods and certain classes of men with\ncertain animals, in a manner somewhat suggestive of totemism (Fornightly\nReview), February, 1870.\n\n\nTurning from the Vedas to the Brahmanas, we find a curiously savage myth\nof the origin of species.(1) According to this passage of the Brahmana,\n\"this universe was formerly soul only, in the form of Purusha\". He\ncaused himself to fall asunder into two parts. Thence arose a husband\nand a wife. \"He cohabited with her; from them men were born. She\nreflected, 'How does he, after having produced me from himself, cohabit\nwith me? Ah, let me disappear.' She became a cow, and the other a bull,\nand he cohabited with her. From them kine were produced.\" After a series\nof similar metamorphoses of the female into all animal shapes, and a\nsimilar series of pursuits by the male in appropriate form, \"in this\nmanner pairs of all sorts of creatures down to ants were created\". This\nmyth is a parallel to the various Greek legends about the amours in\nbestial form of Zeus, Nemesis, Cronus, Demeter and other gods and\ngoddesses. In the Brahmanas this myth is an explanation of the origin\nof species, and such an explanation as could scarcely have occurred to\na civilised mind. In other myths in the Brahmanas, Prajapati creates men\nfrom his body, or rather the fluid of his body becomes a tortoise,\nthe tortoise becomes a man (purusha), with similar examples of\nspeculation.(2)\n\n\n(1) Satapatha Brahmana, xiv. 4, 2; Muir, 2nd edit., i. 25.\n\n(2) Similar tales are found among the Khonds.\n\n\nAmong all these Brahmana myths of the part taken by Prajapati in the\ncreation or evoking of things, the question arises who WAS Prajapati?\nHis role is that of the great Hare in American myth; he is a kind of\ndemiurge, and his name means \"The Master of Things Created,\" like\nthe Australian Biamban, \"Master,\" and the American title of the chief\nManitou, \"Master of Life\",(1) Dr. Muir remarks that, as the Vedic\nmind advances from mere divine beings who \"reside and operate in fire\"\n(Agni), \"dwell and shine in the sun\" (Surya), or \"in the atmosphere\"\n(Indra), towards a conception of deity, \"the farther step would be\ntaken of speaking of the deity under such new names as Visvakarman and\nPrajapati\". These are \"appellatives which do not designate any limited\nfunctions connected with any single department of Nature, but the more\ngeneral and abstract notions of divine power operating in the production\nand government of the universe\". Now the interesting point is that round\nthis new and abstract NAME gravitate the most savage and crudest myths,\nexactly the myths we meet among Hottentots and Nootkas. For example,\namong the Hottentots it is Heitsi Eibib, among the Huarochiri Indians\nit is Uiracocha, who confers, by curse or blessing, on the animals their\nproper attributes and characteristics.(2) In the Satapatha Brahmana it\nis Prajapati who takes this part, that falls to rude culture-heroes of\nHottentots and Huarochiris.(3) How Prajapati made experiments in a kind\nof state-aided evolution, so to speak, or evolution superintended and\nassisted from above, will presently be set forth.\n\n\n(1) Bergaigne, iii. 40.\n\n(2) Avila, Fables of the Yncas, p. 127.\n\n(3) English translation, ii. 361.\n\n\nIn the Puranas creation is a process renewed after each kalpa, or vast\nmundane period. Brahma awakes from his slumber, and finds the world a\nwaste of water. Then, just as in the American myths of the coyote, and\nthe Slavonic myths of the devil and the doves, a boar or a fish or\na tortoise fishes up the world out of the waters. That boar, fish,\ntortoise, or what not, is Brahma or Vishnu. This savage conception of\nthe beginnings of creation in the act of a tortoise, fish, or boar is\nnot first found in the Puranas, as Mr. Muir points out, but is indicated\nin the Black Yajur Veda and in the Satapatha Brahmana.(1) In the\nSatapatha Brahmana, xiv. 1, 2, 11, we discover the idea, so common in\nsavage myths--for example, in that of the Navajoes--that the earth was\nat first very small, a mere patch, and grew bigger after the animal\nfished it up. \"Formerly this earth was only so large, of the size of\na span. A boar called Emusha raised her up.\" Here the boar makes no\npretence of being the incarnation of a god, but is a mere boar sans\nphrase, like the creative coyote of the Papogas and Chinooks, or the\nmusk-rat of the Tacullies. This is a good example of the development\nof myths. Savages begin, as we saw, by mythically regarding various\nanimals, spiders, grasshoppers, ravens, eagles, cockatoos, as the\ncreators or recoverers of the world. As civilisation advances, those\nanimals still perform their beneficent functions, but are looked on\nas gods in disguise. In time the animals are often dropped altogether,\nthough they hold their place with great tenacity in the cosmogonic\ntraditions of the Aryans in India. When we find the Satapatha Brahmana\nalleging(2) \"that all creatures are descended from a tortoise,\" we seem\nto be among the rude Indians of the Pacific Coast. But when the tortoise\nis identified with Aditya, and when Adityas prove to be solar deities,\nsons of Aditi, and when Aditi is recognised by Mr. Muller as the Dawn,\nwe see that the Aryan mind has not been idle, but has added a good deal\nto the savage idea of the descent of men and beasts from a tortoise.(3)\n\n\n(1) Muir, 2nd edit., vol. i. p. 52.\n\n(2) Muir, 2nd edit., vol. i. p. 54.\n\n(3) See Ternaux Compans' Nouvelles Annales des Voyages, lxxxvi. p. 5.\nFor Mexican traditions, \"Mexican and Australian Hurricane World's End,\"\nBancroft, v. 64.\n\n\nAnother feature of savage myths of creation we found to be the\nintroduction of a crude theory of evolution. We saw that among the\nPotoyante tribe of the Digger Indians, and among certain Australian\ntribes, men and beasts were supposed to have been slowly evolved and\nimproved out of the forms first of reptiles and then of quadrupeds. In\nthe mythologies of the more civilised South American races, the idea\nof the survival of the fittest was otherwise expressed. The gods made\nseveral attempts at creation, and each set of created beings proving in\none way or other unsuited to its environment, was permitted to die out\nor degenerated into apes, and was succeeded by a set better adapted for\nsurvival.(1) In much the same way the Satapatha Brahmana(2) represents\nmammals as the last result of a series of creative experiments.\n\"Prajapati created living beings, which perished for want of food. Birds\nand serpents perished thus. Prajapati reflected, 'How is it that my\ncreatures perish after having been formed?' He perceived this: 'They\nperish from want of food'. In his own presence he caused milk to be\nsupplied to breasts. He created living beings, which, resorting to the\nbreasts, were thus preserved. These are the creatures which did not\nperish.\"\n\n\n(1) This myth is found in Popol Vuh. A Chinook myth of the same sort,\nBancroft, v. 95.\n\n(2) ii. 5, 11; Muir, 2nd edit., i. 70.\n\n\nThe common myth which derives the world from a great egg--the myth\nperhaps most familiar in its Finnish shape--is found in the Satapatha\nBrahmana.(1) \"In the beginning this universe was waters, nothing but\nwaters. The waters desired: 'How can we be reproduced?' So saying, they\ntoiled, they performed austerity. While they were performing austerity,\na golden egg came into existence. It then became a year.... From it in\na year a man came into existence, who was Prajapati.... He conceived\nprogeny in himself; with his mouth he created the gods.\" According to\nanother text,(2) \"Prajapati took the form of a tortoise\". The tortoise\nis the same as Aditya.(3)\n\n\n(1) xi. 1, 6, 1; Muir, Journal of Royal Asiatic Society, 1863.\n\n(2) Satapatha Brahmana, vii. 4, 3, 5.\n\n(3) Aitareya Brahmana, iii. 34 (11, 219), a very discreditable origin of\nspecies.\n\n\nIt is now time to examine the Aryan shape of the widely spread myth\nabout the marriage of heaven and earth, and the fortunes of their\nchildren. We have already seen that in New Zealand heaven and earth\nwere regarded as real persons, of bodily parts and passions, united in\na secular embrace. We shall apply the same explanation to the Greek\nmyth of Gaea and of the mutilation of Cronus. In India, Dyaus (heaven)\nanswers to the Greek Uranus and the Maori Rangi, while Prithivi (earth)\nis the Greek Gaea, the Maori Papa. In the Veda, heaven and earth are\nconstantly styled \"parents\";(1) but this we might regard as a mere\nmetaphorical expression, still common in poetry. A passage of the\nAitareya Brahmana, however, retains the old conception, in which there\nwas nothing metaphorical at all.(2) These two worlds, heaven and earth,\nwere once joined. Subsequently they were separated (according to\none account, by Indra, who thus plays the part of Cronus and of Tane\nMahuta). \"Heaven and earth,\" says Dr. Muir, \"are regarded as the parents\nnot only of men, but of the gods also, as appears from the various texts\nwhere they are designated by the epithet Devapatre, 'having gods for\ntheir children'.\" By men in an early stage of thought this myth was\naccepted along with others in which heaven and earth were regarded\nas objects created by one of their own children, as by Indra,(3) who\n\"stretched them out like a hide,\" who, like Atlas, \"sustains and upholds\nthem\"(4) or, again, Tvashtri, the divine smith, wrought them by his\ncraft; or, once more, heaven and earth sprung from the head and feet\nof Purusha. In short, if any one wished to give an example of that\nrecklessness of orthodoxy or consistency which is the mark of early\nmyth, he could find no better example than the Indian legends of the\norigin of things. Perhaps there is not one of the myths current among\nthe lower races which has not its counterpart in the Indian Brahmanas.\nIt has been enough for us to give a selection of examples.\n\n\n(1) Muir, v. 22.\n\n(2) iv. 27; Haug, ii. 308.\n\n(3) Rig-Veda, viii. 6, 5.\n\n(4) Ibid., iii. 32, 8.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX. GREEK MYTHS OF THE ORIGIN OF THE WORLD AND MAN.\n\nThe Greeks practically civilised when we first meet them in Homer--Their\nmythology, however, is full of repulsive features--The hypothesis that\nmany of these are savage survivals--Are there other examples of such\nsurvival in Greek life and institutions?--Greek opinion was constant\nthat the race had been savage--Illustrations of savage survival from\nGreek law of homicide, from magic, religion, human sacrifice, religious\nart, traces of totemism, and from the mysteries--Conclusion: that savage\nsurvival may also be expected in Greek myths.\n\n\nThe Greeks, when we first make their acquaintance in the Homeric poems,\nwere a cultivated people, dwelling, under the government of royal\nfamilies, in small city states. This social condition they must have\nattained by 1000 B.C., and probably much earlier. They had already a\nlong settled past behind them, and had no recollection of any national\nmigration from the \"cradle of the Aryan race\". On the other hand, many\ntribes thought themselves earth-born from the soil of the place where\nthey were settled. The Maori traditions prove that memories of a\nnational migration may persist for several hundred years among men\nignorant of writing. Greek legend, among a far more civilised race, only\nspoke of occasional foreign settlers from Sidon, Lydia, or Egypt. The\nHomeric Greeks were well acquainted with almost all the arts of life,\nthough it is not absolutely certain that they could write, and certainly\nthey were not addicted to reading. In war they fought from chariots,\nlike the Egyptians and Assyrians; they were bold seafarers, being\naccustomed to harry the shores even of Egypt, and they had large\ncommercial dealings with the people of Tyre and Sidon. In the matter of\nreligion they were comparatively free and unrestrained. Their deities,\nthough, in myth, capricious in character, might be regarded in many\nways as \"making for righteousness\". They protected the stranger and the\nsuppliant; they sanctioned the oath, they frowned on the use of poisoned\narrows; marriage and domestic life were guarded by their good-will;\nthey dispensed good and evil fortune, to be accepted with humility and\nresignation among mortals.\n\nThe patriarchal head of each family performed the sacrifices for his\nhousehold, the king for the state, the ruler of Mycenae, Agamemnon, for\nthe whole Achaean host encamped before the walls of Troy. At the same\ntime, prophets, like Calchas, possessed considerable influence,\ndue partly to an hereditary gift of second-sight, as in the case of\nTheoclymenus,(1) partly to acquired professional skill in observing\nomens, partly to the direct inspiration of the gods. The oracle at\nDelphi, or, as it is called by Homer, Pytho, was already famous, and\nreligion recognised, in various degrees, all the gods familiar to the\nlater cult of Hellas. In a people so advanced, so much in contact with\nforeign races and foreign ideas, and so wonderfully gifted by nature\nwith keen intellect and perfect taste, it is natural to expect, if\nanywhere, a mythology almost free from repulsive elements, and almost\npurged of all that we regard as survivals from the condition of\nsavagery. But while Greek mythology is richer far than any other in\nbeautiful legend, and is thronged with lovely and majestic forms of\ngods and goddesses, nymphs and oreads ideally fair, none the less a very\nlarge proportion of its legends is practically on a level with the myths\nof Maoris, Thlinkeets, Cahrocs and Bushmen.\n\n\n(1) Odyssey, xx. 354.\n\n\nThis is the part of Greek mythology which has at all times excited\nmost curiosity, and has been made the subject of many systems of\ninterpretation. The Greeks themselves, from almost the earliest\nhistorical ages, were deeply concerned either to veil or explain\naway the blasphemous horrors of their own \"sacred chapters,\" poetic\ntraditions and temple legends. We endeavour to account for these\nas relics of an age of barbarism lying very far behind the time of\nHomer--an age when the ancestors of the Greeks either borrowed, or more\nprobably developed for themselves, the kind of myths by which savage\npeoples endeavour to explain the nature and origin of the world and all\nphenomena.\n\nThe correctness of this explanation, resting as it does on the belief\nthat the Greeks were at one time in the savage status, might be\ndemonstrated from the fact that not only myths, but Greek life in\ngeneral, and especially Greek ritual, teemed with surviving examples of\ninstitutions and of manners which are found everywhere among the most\nbackward and barbarous races. It is not as if only the myths of Greece\nretained this rudeness, or as if the Greeks supposed themselves to have\nbeen always civilised. The whole of Greek life yields relics of savagery\nwhen the surface is excavated ever so slightly. Moreover, that the\nGreeks, as soon as they came to reflect on these matters at all,\nbelieved themselves to have emerged from a condition of savagery is\nundeniable. The poets are entirely at one on this subject with Moschion,\na writer of the school of Euripides. \"The time hath been, yea, it HATH\nbeen,\" he says, \"when men lived like the beasts, dwelling in mountain\ncaves, and clefts unvisited of the sun.... Then they broke not the soil\nwith ploughs nor by aid of iron, but the weaker man was slain to make\nthe supper of the stronger,\" and so on.(1) This view of the savage\norigin of mankind was also held by Aristotle:(2) \"It is probable that\nthe first men, whether they were produced by the earth (earth-born)\nor survived from some deluge, were on a level of ignorance and\ndarkness\".(3) This opinion, consciously held and stated by philosophers\nand poets, reveals itself also in the universal popular Greek traditions\nthat men were originally ignorant of fire, agriculture, metallurgy and\nall the other arts and conveniences of life, till they were instructed\nby ideal culture-heroes, like Prometheus, members of a race divine\nor half divine. A still more curious Athenian tradition (preserved by\nVarro) maintained, not only that marriage was originally unknown,\nbut that, as among Australians and some Red Indians, the family name,\ndescended through the mother, and kinship was reckoned on the female\nside before the time of Cecrops.(4)\n\n\n(1) Moschion; cf. Preller, Ausgewahlte Aufsatze, p. 206.\n\n(2) Politics, ii. 8-21; Plato, Laws, 667-680.\n\n(3) Compare Horace, Satires, i. 3, 99; Lucretius, v. 923.\n\n(4) Suidas, s.v. \"Prometheus\"; Augustine, De Civitate Dei, xviii. 9.\n\n\nWhile Greek opinion, both popular and philosophical, admitted, or\nrather asserted, that savagery lay in the background of the historical\nprospect, Greek institutions retained a thousand birth-marks of\nsavagery. It is manifest and undeniable that the Greek criminal law,\nas far as it effected murder, sprang directly from the old savage\nblood-feud.(1) The Athenian law was a civilised modification of the\nsavage rule that the kindred of a slain man take up his blood-feud.\nWhere homicide was committed WITHIN the circle of blood relationship,\nas by Orestes, Greek religion provided the Erinnyes to punish an offence\nwhich had, as it were, no human avenger. The precautions taken by\nmurderers to lay the ghost of the slain man were much like those in\nfavour among the Australians. The Greek cut off the extremities of his\nvictim, the tips of the hands and feet, and disposed them neatly beneath\nthe arm-pits of the slain man.(2) In the same spirit, and for the same\npurpose, the Australian black cuts off the thumbs of his dead enemy,\nthat the ghost too may be mutilated and prevented from throwing at him\nwith a ghostly spear. We learn also from Apollonius Rhodius and his\nscholiast that Greek murderers used thrice to suck in and spit out the\ngore of their victims, perhaps with some idea of thereby partaking of\ntheir blood, and so, by becoming members of their kin, putting it beyond\nthe power of the ghosts to avenge themselves. Similar ideas inspire the\nworldwide savage custom of making an artificial \"blood brotherhood\" by\nmingling the blood of the contracting parties. As to the ceremonies of\ncleansing from blood-guiltiness among the Greeks, we may conjecture\nthat these too had their primitive side; for Orestes, in the Eumenides,\nmaintains that he has been purified of his mother's slaughter by\nsufficient blood of swine. But this point will be illustrated presently,\nwhen we touch on the mysteries.\n\n\n(1) Duncker, History of Greece, Engl. transl., vol. ii. p. 129.\n\n(2) See \"Arm-pitting in Ancient Greece,\" in the American Journal of\nPhilology, October, 1885, where a discussion of the familiar texts in\nAeschylus and Apollonius Rhodius will be found.\n\n\nRitual and myth, as might be expected, retained vast masses of savage\nrites and superstitious habits and customs. To be \"in all things too\nsuperstitious,\" too full of deisidaimonia, was even in St. Paul's time\nthe characteristic of the Athenians. Now superstition, or deisidaimonia,\nis defined by Theophrastus,(1) as \"cowardice in regard to the\nsupernatural\" ((Greek text omitted)). This \"cowardice\" has in all ages\nand countries secured the permanence of ritual and religious traditions.\nMen have always argued, like one of the persons in M. Renan's play, Le\nPretre de Nemi, that \"l'ordre du monde depend de l'ordre des rites qu'on\nobserve\". The familiar endurable sequence of the seasons of spring, and\nseed-sowing, and harvest depend upon the due performance of immemorial\nreligious acts. \"In the mystic deposits,\" says Dinarchus, \"lies the\nsafety of the city.\"(2) What the \"mystic deposits\" were nobody knows\nfor certain, but they must have been of very archaic sanctity, and occur\namong the Arunta and the Pawnees.\n\n\n(1) Characters.\n\n(2) Ap. Hermann, Lehrbuch, p. 41; Aglaophamus, 965.\n\n\nRitual is preserved because it preserves LUCK. Not only among the Romans\nand the Brahmans, with their endless minute ritual actions, but among\nsuch lower races as the Kanekas of New Caledonia, the efficacy of\nreligious functions is destroyed by the slightest accidental infraction\nof established rules.(1) The same timid conservatism presides over\nmyth, and in each locality the mystery-plays, with their accompanying\nnarratives, preserved inviolate the early forms of legend. Myth and\nritual do not admit of being argued about. \"C'etait le rite etabli. Ce\nn'etait pas plus absurde qu'autre chose,\" says the conservative in M.\nRenan's piece, defending the mode of appointment of\n\n\n     The priest who slew the slayer,\n     And shall himself be slain.\n\n\n(1) Thus the watchers of the dead in New Caledonia are fed by the\nsorcerer with a mess at the end of a very long spoon, and should the\nfood miss the mouth, all the ceremonies have to be repeated. This detail\nis from Mr. J. J. Atkinson.\n\n\nNow, if the rites and myths preserved by the timorousness of this same\n\"cowardice towards the supernatural\" were originally evolved in the\nstage of savagery, savage they would remain, as it is impious and\ndangerous to reform them till the religion which they serve perishes\nwith them. These relics in Greek ritual and faith are very commonly\nexplained as due to Oriental influences, as things borrowed from the\ndark and bloody superstitions of Asia. But this attempt to save the\nnative Greek character for \"blitheness\" and humanity must not be pushed\ntoo far.(1) It must be remembered that the cruder and wilder sacrifices\nand legends of Greece were strictly LOCAL; that they were attached to\nthese ancient temples, old altars, barbarous xoana, or wooden idols, and\nrough fetish stones, in which Pausanias found the most ancient relics of\nHellenic theology. This is a proof of their antiquity and a presumption\nin favour of their freedom from foreign influence. Most of these things\nwere survivals from that dimly remembered prehistoric age in which the\nGreeks, not yet gathered into city states, lived in villages or kraals,\nor pueblos, as we should translate (Greek text omitted), if we were\nspeaking of African or American tribes. In that stage the early\nGreeks must have lacked both the civic and the national or Panhellenic\nsentiment; their political unit was the clan, which, again, answered\nin part to the totem kindred of America, or Africa, or Australia.(2) In\nthis stagnant condition they could not have made acquaintance with the\nmany creeds of Semitic and other alien peoples on the shores of the\nLevant.(3) It was later, when Greece had developed the city life of the\nheroic age, that her adventurous sons came into close contact with Egypt\nand Phoenicia.\n\n\n(1) Claus, De Antiq. Form. Dianae, 6,7,16.\n\n(2) As C. O. Muller judiciously remarks: \"The scenes of nine-tenths of\nthe Greek myths are laid in PARTICULAR DISTRICTS OF GREECE, and they\nspeak of the primeval inhabitants, of the lineage and adventures of\nnative heroes. They manifest an accurate acquaintance with individual\nlocalities, which, at a time when Greece was neither explored by\nantiquaries, nor did geographical handbooks exist, could be possessed\nonly by the inhabitants of these localities.\" Muller gives, as examples,\nmyths of bears more or less divine. Scientific Mythology, pp. 14, 15.\n\n(3) Compare Claus, De Dianae Antiquissima Natura, p. 3.\n\n\nIn the colonising time, still later--perhaps from 900 B.C.\ndownwards--the Greeks, settled on sites whence they had expelled\nSidonians or Sicanians, very naturally continued, with modifications,\nthe worship of such gods as they found already in possession. Like the\nRomans, the Greeks easily recognised their own deities in the analogous\nmembers of foreign polytheistic systems. Thus we can allow for alien\nelements in such gods and goddesses as Zeus Asterios, as Aphrodite of\nCyprus or Eryx, or the many-breasted Ephesian Artemis, whose monstrous\nform had its exact analogue among the Aztecs in that many-breasted\ngoddess of the maguey plant whence beer was made. To discern and\ndisengage the borrowed factors in the Hellenic Olympus by analysis\nof divine names is a task to which comparative philology may lawfully\ndevote herself; but we cannot so readily explain by presumed borrowing\nfrom without the rude xoana of the ancient local temples, the wild myths\nof the local legends, the sacra which were the exclusive property of\nold-world families, Butadae or Eumolpidae. These are clearly survivals\nfrom a stage of Greek culture earlier than the city state, earlier than\nthe heroic age of the roving Greek Vikings, and far earlier than the\nGreek colonies. They belong to that conservative and immobile period\nwhen the tribe or clan, settled in its scattered kraals, lived a life of\nagriculture, hunting and cattle-breeding, engaged in no larger or more\nadventurous wars than border feuds about women or cattle. Such wars were\non a humbler scale than even Nestor's old fights with the Epeians; such\nadventures did not bring the tribe into contact with alien religions. If\nSidonian merchantmen chanced to establish a factory near a tribe in this\ncondition, their religion was not likely to make many proselytes.\n\nThese reasons for believing that most of the wilder element in Greek\nritual and myth was native may be briefly recapitulated, as they are\noften overlooked. The more strange and savage features meet us in LOCAL\ntales and practices, often in remote upland temples and chapels.\nThere they had survived from the society of the VILLAGE status, before\nvillages were gathered into CITIES, before Greeks had taken to a roving\nlife, or made much acquaintance with distant and maritime peoples.\n\nFor these historical reasons, it may be assumed that the LOCAL religious\nantiquities of Greece, especially in upland districts like Arcadia\nand Elis, are as old, and as purely national, as free from foreign\ninfluences as any Greek institutions can be. In these rites and myths\nof true folk-lore and Volksleben, developed before Hellas won its way\nto the pure Hellenic stage, before Egypt and Phoenicia were familiar,\nshould be found that common rude element which Greeks share with the\nother races of the world, and which was, to some extent, purged away by\nthe genius of Homer and Pindar, pii vates et Phaebo digna locuti.\n\nIn proof of this local conservatism, some passages collected by K. F.\nHermann in his Lehrbuch der Griechischen Antiquitaten(1) may be cited.\nThus Isocrates writes,(2) \"This was all their care, neither to destroy\nany of the ancestral rites, nor to add aught beyond what was ordained\".\nClemens Alexandrinus reports that certain Thessalians worshipped storks,\n\"IN ACCORDANCE WITH USE AND WONT\".(3) Plato lays down the very \"law\nof least change\" which has been described. \"Whether the legislator is\nestablishing a new state or restoring an old and decayed one, in respect\nof gods and temples,... if he be a man of sense, he will MAKE NO\nCHANGE IN ANYTHING which the oracle of Delphi, or Dodona, or Ammon has\nsanctioned, in whatever manner.\" In this very passage Plato(4) speaks\nof rites \"derived from Tyrrhenia or Cyprus\" as falling within the later\nperiod of the Greek Wanderjahre. On the high religious value of things\nantique, Porphyry wrote in a late age, and when the new religion of\nChrist was victorious, \"Comparing the new sacred images with the old, we\nsee that the old are more simply fashioned, yet are held divine, but\nthe new, admired for their elaborate execution, have less persuasion\nof divinity,\"--a remark anticipated by Pausanias, \"The statues Daedalus\nwrought are quainter to the outward view, yet there shows forth in them\nsomewhat supernatural\".(5) So Athenaeus(6) reports of a visitor to the\nshrine of Leto in Delos, that he expected the ancient statue of the\nmother of Apollo to be something remarkable, but, unlike the pious\nPorphyry, burst out laughing when he found it a shapeless wooden idol.\nThese idols were dressed out, fed and adorned as if they had life.(7)\nIt is natural that myths dating from an age when Greek gods resembled\nPolynesian idols should be as rude as Polynesian myths. The tenacity of\nLOCAL myth is demonstrated by Pausanias, who declares that even in the\nhighly civilised Attica the Demes retained legends different from those\nof the central city--the legends, probably, which were current before\nthe villages were \"Synoecised\" into Athens.(8)\n\n\n(1) Zweiter Theil, 1858.\n\n(2) Areop., 30.\n\n(3) Clem. Alex., Oxford, 1715, i. 34.\n\n(4) Laws, v. 738.\n\n(5) De. Abst., ii. 18; Paus., ii. 4, 5.\n\n(6) xiv. 2.\n\n(7) Hermann, op. cit., p. 94, note 10.\n\n(8) Pausanias, i. 14, 6.\n\n\nIt appears, then, that Greek ritual necessarily preserves matter of the\nhighest antiquity, and that the oldest rites and myths will probably be\nfound, not in the Panhellenic temples, like that in Olympia, not in\nthe NATIONAL poets, like Homer and Sophocles, but in the LOCAL fanes of\nearly tribal gods, and in the LOCAL mysteries, and the myths which came\nlate, if they came at all, into literary circulation. This opinion\nis strengthened and illustrated by that invaluable guide-book of the\nartistic and religious pilgrim written in the second century after\nour era by Pausanias. If we follow him, we shall find that many of the\nceremonies, stories and idols which he regarded as oldest are analogous\nto the idols and myths of the contemporary backward races. Let us then,\nfor the sake of illustrating the local and savage survivals in Greek\nreligion, accompany Pausanias in his tour through Hellas.\n\nIn Christian countries, especially in modern times, the contents of one\nchurch are very like the furniture of another church; the functions in\none resemble those in all, though on the Continent some shrines still\nretain relics and customs of the period when local saints had their\npeculiar rites. But it was a very different thing in Greece. The pilgrim\nwho arrived at a temple never could guess what oddity or horror in\nthe way of statues, sacrifices, or stories might be prepared for his\nedification. In the first place, there were HUMAN SACRIFICES. These are\nnot familiar to low savages, if known to them at all. Probably they were\nfirst offered to barbaric royal ghosts, and thence transferred to gods.\nIn the town of Salamis, in Cyprus, about the date of Hadrian, the\ndevout might have found the priest slaying a human victim to Zeus,--an\ninteresting custom, instituted, according to Lactantius, by Teucer, and\ncontinued till the age of the Roman Empire.(1)\n\n\n(1) Euseb., Praep. Ev., iv. 17, mentions, among peoples practising human\nsacrifices, Rhodes, Salamis, Heliopolis, Chios, Tenedos, Lacedaemon,\nArcadia and Athens; and, among gods thus honoured, Hera, Athene, Cronus,\nAres, Dionysus, Zeus and Apollo. For Dionysus the Cannibal, Plutarch,\nThemist., 13; Porphyr., Abst., ii. 55. For the sacrifice to Zeus\nLaphystius, see Grote, i. c. vi., and his array of authorities,\nespecially Herodotus, vii. 197. Clemens Alexandrinus (i. 36) mentions\nthe Messenians, to Zeus; the Taurians, to Artemis, the folk of Pella,\nto Peleus and Chiron; the Cretans, to Zeus; the Lesbians, to Dionysus.\nGeusius de Victimis Humanis (1699) may be consulted.\n\n\nAt Alos in Achaia Phthiotis, the stranger MIGHT have seen an\nextraordinary spectacle, though we admit that the odds would have been\nhighly against his chance of witnessing the following events. As the\nstranger approaches the town-hall, he observes an elderly and most\nrespectable citizen strolling in the same direction. The citizen is so\nlost in thought that apparently he does not notice where he is going.\nBehind him comes a crowd of excited but silent people, who watch him\nwith intense interest. The citizen reaches the steps of the town-hall,\nwhile the excitement of his friends behind increases visibly. Without\nthinking, the elderly person enters the building. With a wild and\nun-Aryan howl, the other people of Alos are down on him, pinion him,\nwreathe him with flowery garlands, and, lead him to the temple of Zeus\nLaphystius, or \"The Glutton,\" where he is solemnly sacrificed on\nthe altar. This was the custom of the good Greeks of Alos whenever a\ndescendant of the house of Athamas entered the Prytaneion. Of course the\nfamily were very careful, as a rule, to keep at a safe distance from\nthe forbidden place. \"What a sacrifice for Greeks!\" as the author of the\nMinos(1) says in that dialogue which is incorrectly attributed to Plato.\n\"He cannot get out except to be sacrificed,\" says Herodotus, speaking of\nthe unlucky descendant of Athamas. The custom appears to have existed as\nlate as the time of the scholiast on Apollonius Rhodius.(2)\n\n\n(1) 315, c.; Plato, Laws, vi. 782, c.\n\n(2) Argonautica, vii. 197.\n\n\nEven in the second century, when Pausanias visited Arcadia, he found\nwhat seem to have been human sacrifices to Zeus. The passage is so very\nstrange and romantic that we quote a part of it.(1) \"The Lycaean hill\nhath other marvels to show, and chiefly this: thereon there is a\ngrove of Zeus Lycaeus, wherein may men in nowise enter; but if any\ntransgresses the law and goes within, he must die within the space of\none year. This tale, moreover, they tell, namely, that whatsoever man\nor beast cometh within the grove casts no shadow, and the hunter pursues\nnot the deer into that wood, but, waiting till the beast comes forth\nagain, sees that it has left its shadow behind. And on the highest crest\nof the whole mountain there is a mound of heaped-up earth, the altar of\nZeus Lycaeus, and the more part of Peloponnesus can be seen from that\nplace. And before the altar stand two pillars facing the rising sun, and\nthereon golden eagles of yet more ancient workmanship. And on this altar\nthey sacrifice to Zeus in a manner that may not be spoken, and little\nliking had I to make much search into this matter. BUT LET IT BE AS IT\nIS, AND AS IT HATH BEEN FROM THE BEGINNING.\" The words \"as it hath been\nfrom the beginning\" are ominous and significant, for the traditional\nmyths of Arcadia tell of the human sacrifices of Lycaon, and of men who,\ntasting the meat of a mixed sacrifice, put human flesh between their\nlips unawares.(2) This aspect of Greek religion, then, is almost on a\nlevel with the mysterious cannibal horrors of \"Voodoo,\" as practised by\nthe secret societies of negroes in Hayti. But concerning these things,\nas Pausanias might say, it is little pleasure to inquire.\n\n\n(1) Pausanias, viii. 2.\n\n(2) Plato, Rep., viii. 565, d. This rite occurs in some African\ncoronation ceremonies.\n\n\nEven where men were not sacrificed to the gods, the tourist among the\ntemples would learn that these bloody rites had once been customary, and\nceremonies existed by way of commutation. This is precisely what we find\nin Vedic religion, in which the empty form of sacrificing a man was gone\nthrough, and the origin of the world was traced to the fragments of a\ngod sacrificed by gods.(1) In Sparta was an altar of Artemis Orthia,\nand a wooden image of great rudeness and antiquity--so rude indeed, that\nPausanias, though accustomed to Greek fetish-stones, thought it must\nbe of barbaric origin. The story was that certain people of different\ntowns, when sacrificing at the altar, were seized with frenzy and slew\neach other. The oracle commanded that the altar should be sprinkled\nwith human blood. Men were therefore chosen by lot to be sacrificed till\nLycurgus commuted the offering, and sprinkled the altar with the blood\nof boys who were flogged before the goddess. The priestess holds the\nstatue of the goddess during the flogging, and if any of the boys are\nbut lightly scourged, the image becomes too heavy for her to bear.\n\n\n(1) The Purusha Sukhta, in Rig-Veda, x. 90.\n\n\nThe Ionians near Anthea had a temple of Artemis Triclaria, and to her\nit had been customary to sacrifice yearly a youth and maiden of\ntranscendent beauty. In Pausanias's time the human sacrifice was\ncommuted. He himself beheld the strange spectacle of living beasts\nand birds being driven into the fire to Artemis Laphria, a Calydonian\ngoddess, and he had seen bears rush back among the ministrants; but\nthere was no record that any one had ever been hurt by these wild\nbeasts.(1) The bear was a beast closely connected with Artemis, and\nthere is some reason to suppose that the goddess had herself been\na she-bear or succeeded to the cult of a she-bear in the morning of\ntime.(2)\n\n\n(1) Paus., vii. 18, 19.\n\n(2) See \"Artemis\", postea.\n\n\nIt may be believed that where symbolic human sacrifices are offered,\nthat is, where some other victim is slain or a dummy of a man is\ndestroyed, and where legend maintains that the sacrifice was once human,\nthere men and women were originally the victims. Greek ritual and Greek\nmyth were full of such tales and such commutations.(1) In Rome, as is\nwell known, effigies of men called Argives were sacrificed.(2) As an\nexample of a beast-victim given in commutation, Pausanias mentions(3)\nthe case of the folk of Potniae, who were compelled once a year to offer\nto Dionysus a boy, in the bloom of youth. But the sacrifice was commuted\nfor a goat.\n\n\n(1) See Hermann, Alterthumer., ii. 159-161, for abundant examples.\n\n(2) Plutarch, Quest. Rom. 32.\n\n(3) ix. 8, 1.\n\n\nThese commutations are familiar all over the world. Even in Mexico,\nwhere human sacrifices and ritual cannibalism were daily events,\nQuetzalcoatl was credited with commuting human sacrifices for blood\ndrawn from the bodies of the religious. In this one matter even the most\nconservative creeds and the faiths most opposed to change sometimes say\nwith Tartuffe:--\n\n\n     Le ciel defend, de vrai, certains contentements,\n     Mais on trouve avec lui des accommodements.\n\n\nThough the fact has been denied (doubtless without reflection), the fact\nremains that the Greeks offered human sacrifices. Now what does this\nimply? Must it be taken as a survival from barbarism, as one of the\nproofs that the Greeks had passed through the barbaric status?\n\nThe answer is less obvious than might be supposed. Sacrifice has two\norigins. First, there are HONORIFIC sacrifices, in which the ghost or\ngod (or divine beast, if a divine beast be worshipped) is offered the\nfood he is believed to prefer. This does not occur among the lowest\nsavages. To carnivorous totems, Garcilasso says, the Indians of Peru\noffered themselves. The feeding of sacred mice in the temples of Apollo\nSmintheus is well known. Secondly, there are expiatory or PIACULAR\nsacrifices, in which the worshipper, as it were, fines himself in a\nchild, an ox, or something else that he treasures. The latter kind of\nsacrifice (most common in cases of crime done or suspected within the\ncircle of kindred) is not necessarily barbaric, except in its cruelty.\nAn example is the Attic Thargelia, in which two human scape-goats\nannually bore \"the sins of the congregation,\" and were flogged, driven\nto the sea with figs tied round their necks, and burned.(1)\n\n\n(1) Compare the Marseilles human sacrifice, Petron., 141; and for the\nThargelia, Tsetzes, Chiliads, v. 736; Hellad. in Photius, p. 1590 f. and\nHarpoc. s. v.\n\n\nThe institution of human sacrifice, then, whether the offering be\nregarded as food, or as a gift to the god of what is dearest to man (as\nin the case of Jephtha's daughter), or whether the victim be supposed to\ncarry on his head the sins of the people, does not necessarily date from\nthe period of savagery. Indeed, sacrifice flourishes most, not among\nsavages, but among advancing barbarians. It would probably be impossible\nto find any examples of human sacrifices of an expiatory or piacular\ncharacter, any sacrifices at all, among Australians, or Andamanese,\nor Fuegians. The notion of presenting food to the supernatural powers,\nwhether ghosts or gods, is relatively rare among savages.(1) The\nterrible Aztec banquets of which the gods were partakers are the most\nnoted examples of human sacrifices with a purely cannibal origin. Now\nthere is good reason to guess that human sacrifices with no other\norigin than cannibalism survived even in ancient Greece. \"It may be\nconjectured,\" writes Professor Robertson Smith,(2) \"that the human\nsacrifices offered to the Wolf Zeus (Lycaeus) in Arcadia were originally\ncannibal feasts of a Wolf tribe. The first participants in the rite\nwere, according to later legend, changed into wolves; and in later\ntimes(3) at least one fragment of the human flesh was placed among the\nsacrificial portions derived from other victims, and the man who ate it\nwas believed to become a were-wolf.\"(4) It is the almost universal rule\nwith cannibals not to eat members of their own stock, just as they do\nnot eat their own totem. Thus, as Professor Robertson Smith says, when\nthe human victim is a captive or other foreigner, the human sacrifice\nmay be regarded as a survival of cannibalism. Where, on the other\nhand, the victim is a fellow tribesman, the sacrifice is expiatory or\npiacular.\n\n\n(1) Jevons, Introduction to the Science of Religion, pp. 161, 199.\n\n(2) Encyc. Brit., s. v. \"Sacrifice\".\n\n(3) Plato, Rep., viii. 565, D.\n\n(4) Paus., viii. 2.\n\n\nAmong Greek cannibal gods we cannot fail to reckon the so-called\n\"Cannibal Dionysus,\" and probably the Zeus of Orchomenos, Zeus\nLaphystius, who is explained by Suidas as \"the Glutton Zeus\". The\ncognate verb ((Greek text omitted)) means \"to eat with mangling and\nrending,\" \"to devour gluttonously\". By Zeus Laphystius, then, men's\nflesh was gorged in this distressing fashion.\n\nThe evidence of human sacrifice (especially when it seems not piacular,\nbut a relic of cannibalism) raises a presumption that Greeks had once\nbeen barbarians. The presumption is confirmed by the evidence of early\nGreek religious art.\n\nWhen his curiosity about human sacrifices was satisfied, the pilgrim in\nGreece might turn his attention to the statues and other representations\nof the gods. He would find that the modern statues by famous artists\nwere beautiful anthropomorphic works in marble or in gold and ivory.\nIt is true that the faces of the ancient gilded Dionysi at Corinth\nwere smudged all over with cinnabar, like fetish-stones in India or\nAfrica.(1) As a rule, however, the statues of historic times were\nbeautiful representations of kindly and gracious beings. The older works\nwere stiff and rigid images, with the lips screwed into an unmeaning\nsmile. Older yet were the bronze gods, made before the art of soldering\nwas invented, and formed of beaten plates joined by small nails. Still\nmore ancient were the wooden images, which probably bore but a slight\nresemblance to the human frame, and which were often mere \"stocks\".(2)\nPerhaps once a year were shown the very early gods, the Demeter with the\nhorse's head, the Artemis with the fish's tails, the cuckoo Hera, whose\nimage was of pear-wood, the Zeus with three eyes, the Hermes, made\nafter the fashion of the pictures on the walls of sacred caves among\nthe Bushmen. But the oldest gods of all, says Pausanias repeatedly, were\nrude stones in the temple or the temple precinct. In Achaean Pharae he\nfound some thirty squared stones, named each after a god. \"Among all\nthe Greeks in the oldest times rude stones were worshipped in place of\nstatues.\" The superstitious man in Theophrastus's Characters used to\nanoint the sacred stones with oil. The stone which Cronus swallowed\nin mistake for Zeus was honoured at Delphi, and kept warm with wool\nwrappings. There was another sacred stone among the Troezenians, and\nthe Megarians worshipped as Apollo a stone cut roughly into a pyramidal\nform. The Argives had a big stone called Zeus Kappotas. The Thespians\nworshipped a stone which they called Eros; \"their oldest idol is a rude\nstone\".(3) It is well known that the original fetish-stone has been\nfound in situ below the feet of the statue of Apollo in Delos. On this\nshowing, then, the religion of very early Greeks in Greece was not\nunlike that of modern Negroes. The artistic evolution of the gods, a\nremarkably rapid one after a certain point, could be traced in every\ntemple. It began with the rude stone, and rose to the wooden idol, in\nwhich, as we have seen, Pausanias and Porphyry found such sanctity.\nNext it reached the hammered bronze image, passed through the archaic\nmarbles, and culminated in the finer marbles and the chryselephantine\nstatues of Zeus and Athena. But none of the ancient sacred objects lost\ntheir sacredness. The oldest were always the holiest idols; the oldest\nof all were stumps and stones, like savage fetish-stones.\n\n\n(1) Pausanias, ii. 2.\n\n(2) Clemens Alex., Protrept. (Oxford, 1715). p. 41.\n\n(3) Gill, Myths of South Pacific, p. 60. Compare a god, which proved to\nbe merely pumice-stone, and was regarded as the god of winds and waves,\nhaving been drifted to Puka-Puka. Offerings of food were made to it\nduring hurricanes.\n\n\nAnother argument in favour of the general thesis that savagery left\ndeep marks on Greek life in general, and on myth in particular, may be\nderived from survivals of totemism in ritual and legend. The following\ninstances need not necessarily be accepted, but it may be admitted that\nthey are precisely the traces which totemism would leave had it once\nexisted, and then waned away on the advance of civilisation.(1)\n\n\n(1) The argument to be derived from the character of the Greek (Greek\ntext omitted) as a modified form of the totem-kindred is too long and\ncomplex to be put forward here. It is stated in Custom and Myth, \"The\nhistory of the Family,\" in M'Lennan's Studies in Early history, and is\nassumed, if not proved, in Ancient Society by the late Mr. Lewis Morgan.\n\n\nThat Greeks in certain districts regarded with religious reverence\ncertain plants and animals is beyond dispute. That some stocks even\ntraced their lineage to beasts will be shown in the chapter on Greek\nDivine Myths, and the presumption is that these creatures, though\nexplained as incarnations and disguises of various gods, were once\ntotems sans phrase, as will be inferred from various examples. Clemens\nAlexandrinus, again, after describing the animal-worship of the\nEgyptians, mentions cases of zoolatry in Greece.(1) The Thessalians\nrevered storks, the Thebans weasels, and the myth ran that the weasel\nhad in some way aided Alcmena when in labour with Heracles. In another\nform of the myth the weasel was the foster-mother of the hero.(2) Other\nThessalians, the Myrmidons, claimed descent from the ant and revered\nants. The religious respect paid to mice in the temple of Apollo\nSmintheus, in the Troad, Rhodes, Gela, Lesbos and Crete is well known,\nand a local tribe were alluded to as Mice by an oracle. The god himself,\nlike the Japanese harvest-god, was represented in art with a mouse at\nhis foot, and mice, as has been said, were fed at his shrine.(3) The\nSyrians, says Clemens Alexandrinus, worship doves and fishes, as the\nElians worship Zeus.(4) The people of Delphi adored the wolf,(5) and the\nSamians the sheep. The Athenians had a hero whom they worshipped in the\nshape of a wolf.(6) A remarkable testimony is that of the scholiast on\nApollonius Rhodius, ii. 124. \"The wolf,\" he says, \"was a beast held in\nhonour by the Athenians, and whosoever slays a wolf collects what\nis needful for its burial.\" The burial of sacred animals in Egypt\nis familiar. An Arab tribe mourns over and solemnly buries all dead\ngazelles.(7) Nay, flies were adored with the sacrifice of an ox near\nthe temple of Apollo in Leucas.(8) Pausanias (iii. 22) mentions certain\ncolonists who were guided by a hare to a site where the animal hid in a\nmyrtle-bush. They therefore adore the myrtle, (Greek text omitted). In\nthe same way a Carian stock, the Ioxidae, revered the asparagus.(9) A\nremarkable example of descent mythically claimed from one of the lower\nanimals is noted by Otfried Muller.(10) Speaking of the swan of Apollo,\nhe says, \"That deity was worshipped, according to the testimony of the\nIliad, in the Trojan island of Tenedos. There, too, was Tennes honoured\nas the (Greek text omitted) of the island. Now his father was called\nCycnus (the swan) in an oft-told and romantic legend.(11)... The swan,\ntherefore, as father to the chief hero on the Apolline island, stands\nin distinct relation to the god, who is made to come forward still more\nprominently from the fact that Apollo himself is also called father of\nTennes. I think we can scarcely fail to recognise a mythus which was\nlocal at Tenedos.... The fact, too, of calling the swan, instead of\nApollo, the father of a hero, demands altogether a simplicity and\nboldness of fancy which are far more ancient than the poems of Homer.\"\n\n\n(1) Op. cit., i. 34.\n\n(2) Scholiast on Iliad, xix. 119.\n\n(3) Aelian, H. A., xii. 5; Strabo, xiii. 604. Compare \"Apollo and the\nMouse, Custom and Myth, pp. 103-120.\n\n(4) Lucian, De Dea Syria.\n\n(5) Aelian, H. A., xii. 40.\n\n(6) Harpocration, (Greek text omitted). Compare an address to\nthe wolf-hero, \"who delights in the flight and tears of men,\" in\nAristophanes, Vespae, 389.\n\n(7) Robertson Smith, Kinship in Early Arabia, pp. 195-204.\n\n(8) Aelian, xi. 8.\n\n(9) Plutarch, Theseus, 14.\n\n(10) Proleg., Engl. trans., p. 204.\n\n(11) (Canne on Conon, 28.)\n\n\nHad Muller known that this \"simplicity and boldness of fancy\" exist\nto-day, for example, among the Swan tribe of Australia, he would\nprobably have recognised in Cycnus a survival from totemism. The fancy\nsurvives again in Virgil's Cupavo, \"with swan's plumes rising from his\ncrest, the mark of his father's form\".(1) Descent was claimed, not only\nfrom a swan Apollo, but from a dog Apollo.\n\n\n(1) Aeneid, x. 187.\n\n\nIn connection with the same set of ideas, it is pointed out that several\n(Greek text omitted), or stocks, had eponymous heroes, in whose names\nthe names of the ancestral beast apparently survived. In Attica\nthe Crioeis have their hero (Crio, \"Ram\"), the Butadae have Butas\n(\"Bullman\"), the Aegidae have Aegeus (\"Goat\"), and the Cynadae, Cynus\n(\"Dog\"). Lycus, according to Harpocration (s. v.) has his statue in the\nshape of a wolf in the Lyceum. \"The general facts that certain animals\nmight not be sacrificed to certain gods\" (at Athens the Aegidae\nintroduced Athena, to whom no goat might be offered on the Acropolis,\nwhile she herself wore the goat skin, aegis), \"while, on the other\nhand, each deity demanded particular victims, explained by the ancients\nthemselves in certain cases to be hostile animals, find their natural\nexplanation\" in totemism.(1) Mr. Evelyn Abbott points out, however, that\nthe names Aegeus, Aegae, Aegina, and others, may be connected with the\ngoat only by an old volks-etymologie, as on coins of Aegina in Achaea.\nThe real meaning of the words may be different. Compare (Greek text\nomitted), the sea-shore. Mr. J. G. Frazer does not, at present, regard\ntotemism as proved in the case of Greece.(2)\n\n\n(1) Some apparent survivals of totemism in ritual will be found in the\nchapter on Greek gods, especially Zeus, Dionysus, and Apollo.\n\n(2) See his Golden Bough, an alternative explanation of these animals in\nconnection with \"The Corn Spirit\".\n\n\nAs final examples of survivals from the age of barbarism in the religion\nof Greece, certain features in the Mysteries may be noted. Plutarch\nspeaks of \"the eating of raw flesh, and tearing to pieces of victims,\nas also fastings and beatings of the breast, and again in many places\nabusive language at the sacrifices, and other mad doings\". The mysteries\nof Demeter, as will appear when her legend is criticised, contained one\nelement all unlike these \"mad doings\"; and the evidence of Sophocles,\nPindar, Plutarch and others demonstrate that religious consolations\nwere somehow conveyed in the Eleusinia. But Greece had many other local\nmysteries, and in several of these it is undeniable the Greeks acted\nmuch as contemporary Australians, Zunis and Negroes act in their secret\ninitiations which, however, also inculcate moral ideas of considerable\nexcellence. Important as these analogies are, they appear to have\nescaped the notice of most mythologists. M. Alfred Maury, however, in\nLes Religions de la Grece, published in 1857, offers several instances\nof hidden rites, common to Hellas and to barbarism.\n\nThere seem in the mysteries of savage races to be two chief purposes.\nThere is the intention of giving to the initiated a certain sacred\ncharacter, which puts them in close relation with gods or demons, and\nthere is the introduction of the young to complete or advancing manhood,\nand to full participation in the savage Church with its ethical ideas.\nThe latter ceremonies correspond, in short, to confirmation, and they\nare usually of a severe character, being meant to test by fasting (as\nPlutarch says) and by torture (as in the familiar Spartan rite) the\ncourage and constancy of the young braves. The Greek mysteries best\nknown to us are the Thesmophoria and the Eleusinia. In the former the\nrites (as will appear later) partook of the nature of savage \"medicine\"\nor magic, and were mainly intended to secure fertility in husbandry and\nin the family. In the Eleusinia the purpose was the purification of the\ninitiated, secured by ablutions and by standing on the \"ram's-skin of\nZeus,\" and after purifications the mystae engaged in sacred dances,\nand were permitted to view a miracle play representing the sorrows and\nconsolations of Demeter. There was a higher element, necessarily obscure\nin nature. The chief features in the whole were purifications, dancing,\nsacrifice and the representation of the miracle play. It would be\ntedious to offer an exhaustive account of savage rites analogous to\nthese mysteries of Hellas. Let it suffice to display the points where\nGreek found itself in harmony with Australian, and American, and African\npractice. These points are: (1) mystic dances; (2) the use of a little\ninstrument, called turndun in Australia, whereby a roaring noise is\nmade, and the profane are warned off; (3) the habit of daubing persons\nabout to be initiated with clay or anything else that is sordid, and of\nwashing this off; apparently by way of showing that old guilt is removed\nand a new life entered upon; (4) the performances with serpents may be\nnoticed, while the \"mad doings\" and \"howlings\" mentioned by Plutarch\nare familiar to every reader of travels in uncivilised countries; (5)\nethical instruction is communicated.\n\nFirst, as to the mystic dances, Lucian observes:(1) \"You cannot find a\nsingle ancient mystery in which there is not dancing.... This much all\nmen know, that most people say of the revealers of the mysteries that\nthey 'dance them out'\" ((Greek text omitted)). Clemens of Alexandria\nuses the same term when speaking of his own \"appalling revelations\".(2)\nSo closely connected are mysteries with dancing among savages, that when\nMr. Orpen asked Qing, the Bushman hunter, about some doctrines in which\nQing was not initiated, he said: \"Only the initiated men of that dance\nknow these things\". To \"dance\" this or that means to be acquainted with\nthis or that myth, which is represented in a dance or ballet d'action(3)\n((Greek text omitted)). So widely distributed is the practice, that\nAcosta, in an interesting passage, mentions it as familiar to the people\nof Peru before and after the Spanish conquest. The text is a valuable\ninstance of survival in religion. When they were converted to\nChristianity the Peruvians detected the analogy between our sacrament\nand their mysteries, and they kept up as much as possible of the\nold rite in the new ritual. Just as the mystae of Eleusis practised\nchastity, abstaining from certain food, and above all from beans, before\nthe great Pagan sacrament, so did the Indians. \"To prepare themselves\nall the people fasted two days, during which they did neyther company\nwith their wives, nor eate any meate with salt or garlicke, nor drink\nany chic.... And although the Indians now forbeare to sacrifice beasts\nor other things publikely, which cannot be hidden from the Spaniardes,\nyet doe they still use many ceremonies that have their beginnings\nfrom these feasts and auntient superstitions, for at this day do they\ncovertly make their feast of Ytu at the daunces of the feast of the\nSacrament. Another feast falleth almost at the same time, whereas the\nChristians observe the solempnitie of the holy Sacrament, which\nDOTH RESEMBLE IT IN SOME SORT, AS IN DAUNCING, SINGING AND\nREPRESENTATIONS.\"(4) The holy \"daunces\" at Seville are under Papal\ndisapproval, but are to be kept up, it is said, till the peculiar\ndresses used in them are worn out. Acosta's Indians also had \"garments\nwhich served only for this feast\". It is superfluous to multiply\nexamples of the dancing, which is an invariable feature of savage as of\nGreek mysteries.\n\n\n(1) (Greek text omitted), chap. xv. 277.\n\n(2) Ap. Euseb., Praep. Ev., ii, 3, 6.\n\n(3) Cape Monthly Magazine, July, 1874.\n\n(4) Acosta, Historie of the Indies, book v. chap. xxviii. London, 1604.\n\n\n2. The Greek and savage use of the turndun, or bribbun of Australia in\nthe mysteries is familiar to students. This fish-shaped flat board of\nwood is tied to a string, and whirled round, so as to cause a\npeculiar muffled roar. Lobeck quotes from the old scholia on Clemens\nAlexandrinus, published by Bastius in annotations on St. Gregory, the\nfollowing Greek description of the turndun, the \"bull-roarer\" of English\ncountry lads, the Gaelic srannam:(1) (Greek text omitted)\". \"The conus\nwas a little slab of wood, tied to a string, and whirled round in the\nmysteries to make a whirring noise. As the mystic uses of the turndun\nin Australia, New Zealand, New Mexico and Zululand have elsewhere been\ndescribed at some length (Custom and Myth, pp. 28-44), it may be enough\nto refer the reader to the passage. Mr. Taylor has since found the\ninstrument used in religious mysteries in West Africa, so it has now\nbeen tracked almost round the world. That an instrument so rude should\nbe employed by Greek and Australians on mystic occasions is in itself a\nremarkable coincidence. Unfortunately, Lobeck, who published the Greek\ndescription of the turndun (Aglaophamus, 700), was unacquainted with the\nmodern ethnological evidence.\n\n\n(1) Pronounced strantham. For this information I am indebted to my\nfriend Mr. M'Allister, schoolmaster at St. Mary's Loch.\n\n\n3. The custom of plastering the initiated over with clay or filth was\ncommon in Greek as in barbaric mysteries. Greek examples may be given\nfirst. Demosthenes accuses Aeschines of helping his mother in certain\nmystic rites, aiding her, especially, by bedaubing the initiate with\nclay and bran.(1) Harpocration explains the term used ((Greek text\nomitted)) thus: \"Daubing the clay and bran on the initiate, to explain\nwhich they say that the Titans when they attacked Dionysus daubed\nthemselves over with chalk, but afterwards, for ritual purposes, clay\nwas used\". It may be urged with some force that the mother of Aeschines\nintroduced foreign, novel and possibly savage rites. But Sophocles, in\na fragment of his lost play, the Captives, uses the term in the same\nritual sense--\n\n\n    (Greek text omitted).\n\n\n(1) De Corona, 313.\n\n\nThe idea clearly was that by cleansing away the filth plastered over\nthe body was symbolised the pure and free condition of the initiate. He\nmight now cry in the mystic chant--\n\n\n     (Greek text omitted).\n     Worse have I fled, better have I found.\n\n\nThat this was the significance of the daubing with clay in Greek\nmysteries and the subsequent cleansing seems quite certain. We are led\nstraight to this conclusion by similar rites, in which the purpose of\nmystically cleansing was openly put forward. Thus Plutarch, in his\nessay on superstition, represents the guilty man who would be purified\nactually rolling in clay, confessing his misdeeds, and then sitting at\nhome purified by the cleansing process ((Greek text omitted)).(1) In\nanother rite, the cleansing of blood-guiltiness, a similar process\nwas practised. Orestes, after killing his mother, complains that the\nEumenides do not cease to persecute him, though he has been \"purified\nby blood of swine\".(2) Apollonius says that the red hand of the murderer\nwas dipped in the blood of swine and then washed.(3) Athenaeus describes\na similar unpleasant ceremony.(4) The blood of whelps was apparently\nused also, men being first daubed with it and then washed clean.(5) The\nword (Greek text omitted) is again the appropriate ritual term. Such\nrites Plutarch calls (Greek text omitted), \"filthy purifications\".(6) If\ndaubing with dirt is known to have been a feature of Greek mysteries,\nit meets us everywhere among savages. In O-Kee-Pa, that curiously minute\naccount of the Mandan mysteries, Catlin writes that a portion of the\nframe of the initiate was \"covered with clay, which the operator took\nfrom a wooden bowl, and with his hand plastered unsparingly over\". The\nfifty young men waiting for initiation \"were naked and entirely covered\nwith clay of various colours\".(7) The custom is mentioned by Captain\nJohn Smith in Virginia. Mr. Winwood Reade found it in Africa, where, as\namong the Mandans and Spartans, cruel torture and flogging accompanied\nthe initiation of young men.(8) In Australia the evidence for daubing\nthe initiate is very abundant.(9) In New Mexico, the Zunis stole Mr.\nCushing's black paint, as considering it even better than clay for\nreligious daubing.(10)\n\n\n(1) So Hermann, op. cit., 133.\n\n(2) Eumenides, 273.\n\n(3) Argonautica, iv. 693.\n\n(4) ix. 78. Hermann, from whom the latter passages are borrowed, also\nquotes the evidence of a vase published by Feuerbach, Lehrbuch, p. 131,\nwith other authorities.\n\n(5) Plutarch, Quaest. Rom., 68.\n\n(6) De Superstitione, chap. xii.\n\n(7) O-Kee-Pa, London, 1867, p. 21.\n\n(8) Savage Africa, case of Mongilomba; Pausanias, iii. 15.\n\n(9) Brough Smyth, i. 60.\n\n(10) Custma and Myth, p. 40.\n\n\n4. Another savage rite, the use of serpents in Greek mysteries, is\nattested by Clemens Alexandrinus and by Demosthenes (loc. cit.). Clemens\nsays the snakes were caressed in representations of the loves of Zeus in\nserpentine form. The great savage example is that of \"the snake-dance\nof the Moquis,\" who handle rattle-snakes in the mysteries without\nbeing harmed.(1) The dance is partly totemistic, partly meant, like\nthe Thesmophoria, to secure the fertility of the lands of the Moquis\nof Arizonas. The turndum or (Greek text omitted) is employed. Masks are\nworn, as in the rites of Demeter Cidiria in Arcadia.(2)\n\n\n(1) The Snake-Dance of the Moquis. By Captain John G. Bourke, London,\n1884.\n\n(2) Pausanias, viii. 16.\n\n\n5. This last point of contact between certain Greek and certain savage\nmysteries is highly important. The argument of Lobeck, in his celebrated\nwork Aglaophamus, is that the Mysteries were of no great moment in\nreligion. Had he known the evidence as to savage initiations, he would\nhave been confirmed in his opinion, for many of the singular Greek\nrites are clearly survivals from savagery. But was there no more truly\nreligious survival? Pindar is a very ancient witness that things of\ndivine import were revealed. \"Happy is he who having seen these things\ngoes under the hollow earth. He knows the end of life, and the god-given\nbeginning.\"(1) Sophocles \"chimes in,\" as Lobeck says, declaring that\nthe initiate alone LIVE in Hades, while other souls endure all evils.\nCrinagoras avers that even in life the initiate live secure, and in\ndeath are the happier. Isagoras declares that about the end of life and\nall eternity they have sweet hopes.\n\n\n(1) Fragm., cxvi., 128 H. p. 265.\n\n\nSplendida testimonia, cries Lobeck. He tries to minimise the evidence,\nremarking that Isocrates promises the very same rewards to all who live\njustly and righteously. But why not, if to live justly and righteously\nwas part of the teaching of the mysteries of Eleusis? Cicero's evidence,\nalmost a translation of the Greek passages already cited, Lobeck\ndismisses as purely rhetorical.(1) Lobeck's method is rather cavalier.\nPindar and Sophocles meant something of great significance.\n\n\n(1) De Legibus ii. 14; Aglaophamus, pp. 69-74.\n\n\nNow we have acknowledged savage survivals of ugly rites in the Greek\nmysteries. But it is only fair to remember that, in certain of the few\nsavage mysteries of which we know the secret, righteousness of life and\na knowledge of good are inculcated. This is the case in Australia, and\nin Central Africa, where to be \"uninitiated\" is equivalent to being\nselfish.(1) Thus it seems not improbable that consolatory doctrines were\nexpounded in the Eleusinia, and that this kind of sermon or exhortation\nwas no less a survival from savagery than the daubing with clay, and the\n(Greek text omitted), and other wild rites.\n\n\n(1) Making of Religion, pp. 193-197, 235.\n\n\nWe have now attempted to establish that in Greek law and ritual many\nsavage customs and usages did undeniably survive. We have seen that both\nphilosophical and popular opinion in Greece believed in a past age of\nsavagery. In law, in religion, in religious art, in custom, in human\nsacrifice, in relics of totemism, and in the mysteries, we have seen\nthat the Greeks retained plenty of the usages now found among the\nremotest and most backward races. We have urged against the suggestion\nof borrowing from Egypt or Asia that these survivals are constantly\nfound in local and tribal religion and rituals, and that consequently\nthey probably date from that remote prehistoric past when the Greeks\nlived in village settlements. It may still doubtless be urged that all\nthese things are Pelasgic, and were the customs of a race settled in\nHellas before the arrival of the Homeric Achaeans, and Dorians, and\nArgives, who, on this hypothesis, adopted and kept up the old savage\nPelasgian ways and superstitions. It is impossible to prove or disprove\nthis belief, nor does it affect our argument. We allege that all Greek\nlife below the surface was rich in institutions now found among the most\nbarbaric peoples. These institutions, whether borrowed or inherited,\nwould still be part of the legacy left by savages to cultivated peoples.\nAs this legacy is so large in custom and ritual, it is not unfair to\nargue that portions of it will also be found in myths. It is now time to\ndiscuss Greek myths of the origin of things, and decide whether they are\nor are not analogous in ideas to the myths which spring from the wild\nand ignorant fancy of Australians, Cahrocs, Nootkas and Bushmen.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X. GREEK COSMOGONIC MYTHS.\n\nNature of the evidence--Traditions of origin of the world and\nman--Homeric, Hesiodic and Orphic myths--Later evidence of historians,\ndramatists, commentators--The Homeric story comparatively pure--The\nstory in Hesiod, and its savage analogues--The explanations of the\nmyth of Cronus, modern and ancient--The Orphic cosmogony--Phanes and\nPrajapati--Greek myths of the origin of man--Their savage analogues.\n\n\nThe authorities for Greek cosmogonic myth are extremely various in date,\ncharacter and value. The most ancient texts are the Iliad and the poems\nattributed to Hesiod. The Iliad, whatever its date, whatever the place\nof its composition, was intended to please a noble class of warriors.\nThe Hesiodic poems, at least the Theogony, have clearly a didactic aim,\nand the intention of presenting a systematic and orderly account of the\ndivine genealogies. To neither would we willingly attribute a date much\nlater than the ninth century of our era, but the question of the dates\nof all the epic and Hesiodic poems, and even of their various parts, is\ngreatly disputed among scholars. Yet it is nowhere denied that, however\nlate the present form of some of the poems may be, they contain ideas of\nextreme antiquity. Although the Homeric poems are usually considered, on\nthe whole, more ancient than those attributed to Hesiod,(1) it is a fact\nworth remembering that the notions of the origin of things in Hesiod are\nmuch more savage and (as we hold) much more archaic than the opinions of\nHomer.\n\n\n(1) Grote assigns his Theogony to circ. 750 A.D. The Thegony was taught\nto boys in Greece, much as the Church Catechism and Bible are taught in\nEngland; Aeschines in Ctesiph., 135, p. 73. Libanius, 400 years after\nChrist (i. 502-509, iv. 874).\n\n\nWhile Hesiod offers a complete theogony or genealogy of deities and\nheroes, Homer gives no more than hints and allusions to the stormy past\nof the gods. It is clear, however, that his conception of that past\ndiffered considerably from the traditions of Hesiod. However we explain\nit, the Homeric mythology (though itself repugnant to the philosophers\nfrom Xenophanes downwards) is much more mild, pure and humane than the\nmythology either of Hesiod or of our other Greek authorities. Some may\nimagine that Homer retains a clearer and less corrupted memory than\nHesiod possessed of an original and authentic \"divine tradition\". Others\nmay find in Homer's comparative purity a proof of the later date of his\nepics in their present form, or may even proclaim that Homer was a kind\nof Cervantes, who wished to laugh the gods away. There is no conceivable\nor inconceivable theory about Homer that has not its advocates. For\nourselves, we hold that the divine genius of Homer, though working in\nan age distant rather than \"early,\" selected instinctively the purer\nmythical materials, and burned away the coarser dross of antique legend,\nleaving little but the gold which is comparatively refined.\n\nWe must remember that it does not follow that any mythical ideas are\nlater than the age of Homer because we first meet them in poems of a\nlater date. We have already seen that though the Brahmanas are much\nlater in date of compilation than the Veda, yet a tradition which we\nfirst find in the Brahmanas may be older than the time at which the Veda\nwas compiled. In the same way, as Mr. Max Muller observes, \"we know that\ncertain ideas which we find in later writers do not occur in Homer. But\nit does not follow at all that such ideas are all of later growth or\npossess a secondary character. One myth may have belonged to one tribe;\none god may have had his chief worship in one locality; and our becoming\nacquainted with these through a later poet does not in the least prove\ntheir later origin.\"(1)\n\n\n(1) Hibbert Lectures, pp. 130, 131.\n\n\nAfter Homer and Hesiod, our most ancient authorities for Greek\ncosmogonic myths are probably the so-called Orphic fragments. Concerning\nthe dates and the manner of growth of these poems volumes of erudition\nhave been compiled. As Homer is silent about Orpheus (in spite of the\nposition which the mythical Thracian bard acquired as the inventor of\nletters and magic and the father of the mysteries), it has been usual to\nregard the Orphic ideas as of late introduction. We may agree with Grote\nand Lobeck that these ideas and the ascetic \"Orphic mode of life\" first\nacquired importance in Greece about the time of Epimenides, or, roughly\nspeaking, between 620 and 500 B.C.(1) That age certainly witnessed a\ncurious growth of superstitious fears and of mystic ceremonies intended\nto mitigate spiritual terrors. Greece was becoming more intimately\nacquainted with Egypt and with Asia, and was comparing her own religion\nwith the beliefs and rites of other peoples. The times and the minds of\nmen were being prepared for the clear philosophies that soon \"on Argive\nheights divinely sang\". Just as, when the old world was about to accept\nChristianity, a deluge of Oriental and barbaric superstitions swept\nacross men's minds, so immediately before the dawn of Greek philosophy\nthere came an irruption of mysticism and of spiritual fears. We may\nsuppose that the Orphic poems were collected, edited and probably\ninterpolated, in this dark hour of Greece. \"To me,\" says Lobeck, \"it\nappears that the verses may be referred to the age of Onomacritus,\nan age curious in the writings of ancient poets, and attracted by the\nallurements of mystic religions.\" The style of the surviving fragments\nis sufficiently pure and epic; the strange unheard of myths are unlike\nthose which the Alexandrian poets drew from fountains long lost.(2) But\nhow much in the Orphic myths is imported from Asia or Egypt, how much is\nthe invention of literary forgers like Onomacritus, how much should be\nregarded as the first guesses of the physical poet-philosophers, and\nhow much is truly ancient popular legend recast in literary form, it is\nimpossible with certainty to determine.\n\n\n(1) Lobeck, Aglaophamus, i. 317; Grote, iii. 86.\n\n(2) Aglaophamus, i. 611.\n\n\nWe must not regard a myth as necessarily late or necessarily foreign\nbecause we first meet it in an \"Orphic composition\". If the myth be one\nof the sort which encounter us in every quarter, nay, in every obscure\nnook of the globe, we may plausibly regard it as ancient. If it bear\nthe distinct marks of being a Neo-platonic pastiche, we may reject it\nwithout hesitation. On the whole, however, our Orphic authorities can\nnever be quoted with much satisfaction. The later sources of evidence\nfor Greek myths are not of great use to the student of cosmogonic\nlegend, though invaluable when we come to treat of the established\ndynasty of gods, the heroes and the \"culture-heroes\". For these the\nauthorities are the whole range of Greek literature, poets, dramatists,\nphilosophers, critics, historians and travellers. We have also the\nnotes and comments of the scholiasts or commentators on the poets and\ndramatists. Sometimes these annotators only darken counsel by their\nguesses. Sometimes perhaps, especially in the scholia on the Iliad and\nOdyssey, they furnish us with a precious myth or popular marchen not\notherwise recorded. The regular professional mythographi, again, of whom\nApollodorus (150 B.C.) is the type, compiled manuals explanatory of the\nmyths which were alluded to by the poets. The scholiasts and mythographi\noften retain myths from lost poems and lost plays. Finally, from the\ntravellers and historians we occasionally glean examples of the tales\n(\"holy chapters,\" as Mr. Grote calls them) which were narrated by\npriests and temple officials to the pilgrims who visited the sacred\nshrines.\n\nThese \"chapters\" are almost invariably puerile, savage and obscene.\nThey bear the stamp of extreme antiquity, because they never, as a rule,\npassed through the purifying medium of literature. There were many myths\ntoo crude and archaic for the purposes of poetry and of the drama.\nThese were handed down from local priest to local priest, with the\ninviolability of sacred and immutable tradition. We have already given a\nreason for assigning a high antiquity to the local temple myths. Just as\nGreeks lived in villages before they gathered into towns, so their gods\nwere gods of villages or tribes before they were national deities. The\nlocal myths are those of the archaic village state of \"culture,\" more\nancient, more savage, than literary narrative. Very frequently the local\nlegends were subjected to the process of allegorical interpretation, as\nmen became alive to the monstrosity of their unsophisticated meaning.\nOften they proved too savage for our authorities, who merely remark,\n\"Concerning this a certain holy chapter is told,\" but decline to record\nthe legend. In the same way missionaries, with mistaken delicacy, often\nrefuse to repeat some savage legend with which they are acquainted.\n\nThe latest sort of testimony as to Greek myths must be sought in\nthe writings of the heathen apologists or learned Pagan defenders of\nPaganism in the first centuries during Christianity, and in the works of\ntheir opponents, the fathers of the Church. Though the fathers certainly\ndo not understate the abominations of Paganism, and though the\nheathen apologists make free use of allegorical (and impossible)\ninterpretations, the evidence of both is often useful and important. The\ntestimony of ancient art, vases, statues, pictures and the descriptions\nof these where they no longer survive, are also of service and interest.\n\nAfter this brief examination of the sources of our knowledge of Greek\nmyth, we may approach the Homeric legends of the origin of things and\nthe world's beginning. In Homer these matters are only referred to\nincidentally. He more than once calls Oceanus (that is, the fabled\nstream which flows all round the world, here regarded as a PERSON)\n\"the origin of the gods,\" \"the origin of all things\".(1) That Ocean is\nconsidered a person, and that he is not an allegory for water or the\naqueous element, appears from the speech of Hera to Aphrodite: \"I am\ngoing to visit the limits of the bountiful earth, and Oceanus, father of\nthe gods, and mother Tethys, who reared me duly and nurtured me in their\nhalls, when far-seeing Zeus imprisoned Cronus beneath the earth and the\nunvintaged sea\".(2) Homer does not appear to know Uranus as the father\nof Cronus, and thus the myth of the mutilation of Uranus necessarily\ndoes not occur in Homer. Cronus, the head of the dynasty which preceded\nthat of Zeus, is described(3) as the son of Rhea, but nothing is said\nof his father. The passage contains the account which Poseidon himself\nchose to give of the war in heaven: \"Three brethren are we, and sons\nof Cronus whom Rhea bare--Zeus and myself, and Hades is the third, the\nruler of the folk in the underworld. And in three lots were all things\ndivided, and each drew a domain of his own.\" Here Zeus is the ELDEST\nson of Cronus. Though lots are drawn at hazard for the property of\nthe father (which we know to have been customary in Homer's time), yet\nthroughout the Iliad Zeus constantly claims the respect and obedience\ndue to him by right of primogeniture.(4) We shall see that Hesiod adopts\nexactly the opposite view. Zeus is the YOUNGEST child of Cronus. His\nsupremacy is an example of jungsten recht, the wide-spread custom which\nmakes the youngest child the heir in chief.(5) But how did the sons of\nCronus come to have his property in their hands to divide? By right of\nsuccessful rebellion, when \"Zeus imprisoned Cronus beneath the earth\nand the unvintaged sea\". With Cronus in his imprisonment are the Titans.\nThat is all that Homer cares to tell about the absolute beginning of\nthings and the first dynasty of rulers of Olympus. His interest is all\nin the actual reigning family, that of the Cronidae, nor is he fond of\nreporting their youthful excesses.\n\n\n(1) Iliad, xiv. 201, 302, 246.\n\n(2) In reading what Homer and Hesiod report about these matters, we must\nremember that all the forces and phenomena are conceived of by them as\nPERSONS. In this regard the archaic and savage view of all things as\npersonal and human is preserved. \"I maintain,\" says Grote, \"moreover,\nfully the character of these great divine agents as persons, which is\nthe light in which they presented themselves to the Homeric or Hesiodic\naudience. Uranus, Nyx, Hypnos and Oneiros (heaven, night, sleep and\ndream) are persons just as much as Zeus or Apollo. To resolve them into\nmere allegories is unsafe and unprofitable. We then depart from the\npoint of view of the original hearers without acquiring any consistent\nor philosophical point of view of our own.\" This holds good though\nportions of the Hesiodic genealogies are distinctly poetic allegories\ncast in the mould or the ancient personal theory of things.\n\n(3) Iliad, xv. 187.\n\n(4) The custom by which sons drew lots for equal shares of their dead\nfather's property is described in Odyssey, xiv. 199-212. Here Odysseus,\ngiving a false account of himself, says that he was a Cretan, a bastard,\nand that his half-brothers, born in wedlock, drew lots for their\nfather's inheritance, and did not admit him to the drawing, but gave him\na small portion apart.\n\n(5) See Elton, Origins of English History, pp. 185-207.\n\n\nWe now turn from Homer's incidental allusions to the ample and\nsystematic narrative of Hesiod. As Mr. Grote says, \"Men habitually\ntook their information respecting their theogonic antiquities from the\nHesiodic poems.\" Hesiod was accepted as an authority both by the pious\nPausanias in the second century of our era--who protested against any\nattempt to alter stories about the gods--and by moral reformers like\nPlato and Xenophanes, who were revolted by the ancient legends,(1)\nand, indeed, denied their truth. Yet, though Hesiod represents Greek\northodoxy, we have observed that Homer (whose epics are probably still\nmore ancient) steadily ignores the more barbarous portions of Hesiod's\nnarrative. Thus the question arises: Are the stories of\nHesiod's invention, and later than Homer, or does Homer's genius\nhalf-unconsciously purify materials like those which Hesiod presents\nin the crudest form? Mr. Grote says: \"How far these stories are the\ninvention of Hesiod himself it is impossible to determine. They bring us\ndown to a cast of fancy more coarse and indelicate than the Homeric, and\nmore nearly resemble some of the holy chapters ((Greek text omitted))\nof the more recent mysteries, such, for example, as the tale of Dionysus\nZagreus. There is evidence in the Theogony itself that the author was\nacquainted with local legends current both at Krete and at Delphi, for\nhe mentions both the mountain-cave in Krete wherein the newly-born Zeus\nwas hidden, and the stone near the Delphian temple--the identical stone\nwhich Kronos had swallowed--placed by Zeus himself as a sign and marvel\nto mortal men. Both these monuments, which the poet expressly refers to,\nand had probably seen, imply a whole train of accessory and explanatory\nlocal legends, current probably among the priests of Krete and Delphi.\"\n\n\n(1) Timaeeus, 41; Republic, 377.\n\n\nAll these circumstances appear to be good evidence of the great\nantiquity of the legends recorded by Hesiod. In the first place, arguing\nmerely a priori, it is extremely improbable that in the brief interval\nbetween the date of the comparatively pure and noble mythology of the\nIliad and the much ruder Theogony of Hesiod men INVENTED stories like\nthe mutilation of Uranus, and the swallowing of his offspring by Cronus.\nThe former legend is almost exactly parallel, as has already been\nshown, to the myth of Papa and Rangi in New Zealand. The later has\nits parallels among the savage Bushmen and Australians. It is highly\nimprobable that men in an age so civilised as that of Homer invented\nmyths as hideous as those of the lowest savages. But if we take these\nmyths to be, not new inventions, but the sacred stories of local\npriesthoods, their antiquity is probably incalculable. The sacred\nstories, as we know from Pausanias, Herodotus and from all the writers\nwho touch on the subject of the mysteries, were myths communicated\nby the priests to the initiated. Plato speaks of such myths in the\nRepublic, 378: \"If there is an absolute necessity for their mention, a\nvery few might hear them in a mystery, and then let them sacrifice, not\na common pig, but some huge and unprocurable victim; this would have the\neffect of very greatly diminishing the number of the hearers\". This is\nan amusing example of a plan for veiling the horrors of myth. The pig\nwas the animal usually offered to Demeter, the goddess of the Eleusinian\nmysteries. Plato proposes to substitute some \"unprocurable\" beast,\nperhaps a giraffe or an elephant.\n\nTo Hesiod, then, we must turn for what is the earliest complete\nliterary form of the Greek cosmogonic myth. Hesiod begins, like the\nNew Zealanders, with \"the august race of gods, by earth and wide heaven\nbegotten\".(1) So the New Zealanders, as we have seen, say, \"The\nheaven which is above us, and the earth which is beneath us, are the\nprogenitors of men and the origin of all things\". Hesiod(2) somewhat\ndiffers from this view by making Chaos absolutely first of all things,\nfollowed by \"wide-bosomed Earth,\" Tartarus and Eros (love). Chaos\nunaided produced Erebus and Night; the children of Night and Erebus are\nAether and Day. Earth produced Heaven, who then became her own lover,\nand to Heaven she bore Oceanus, and the Titans, Coeeus and Crius,\nHyperion and Iapetus, Thea and Rhea, Themis, Mnemosyne, Phoebe, Tethys,\n\"and youngest after these was born Cronus of crooked counsel, the most\ndreadful of her children, who ever detested his puissant sire,\" Heaven.\nThere were other sons of Earth and Heaven peculiarly hateful to their\nfather,(3) and these Uranus used to hide from the light in a hollow of\nGaea. Both they and Gaea resented this treatment, and the Titans, like\n\"the children of Heaven and Earth,\" in the New Zealand poem, \"sought to\ndiscern the difference between light and darkness\". Gaea (unlike Earth\nin the New Zealand myth, for there she is purely passive), conspired\nwith her children, produced iron, and asked her sons to avenge their\nwrongs.(4) Fear fell upon all of them save Cronus, who (like Tane Mahuta\nin the Maori poem) determined to end the embraces of Earth and Heaven.\nBut while the New Zealand, like the Indo-Aryan myth,(5) conceives of\nEarth and Heaven as two beings who have never previously been sundered\nat all, Hesiod makes Heaven amorously approach his spouse from a\ndistance. This was the moment for Cronus,(6) who stretched out his\nhand armed with the sickle of iron, and mutilated Uranus. As in so many\nsavage myths, the blood of the wounded god fallen on the ground produced\nstrange creatures, nymphs of the ash-tree, giants and furies. As in\nthe Maori myth, one of the children of Heaven stood apart and did not\nconsent to the deed. This was Oceanus in Greece,(7) and in New Zealand\nit was Tawhiri Matea, the wind, \"who arose and followed his father,\nHeaven, and remained with him in the open spaces of the sky\". Uranus now\npredicted(8) that there would come a day of vengeance for the evil deed\nof Cronus, and so ends the dynasty of Uranus.\n\n\n(1) Theog., 45.\n\n(2) Ibid., 116.\n\n(3) Ibid., 155.\n\n(4) Ibid., 166.\n\n(5) Muir, v. 23, quoting Aitareya Brahmana, iv. 27: \"These two worlds\nwere once joined; subsequently they separated\".\n\n(6) Theog., 175-185.\n\n(7) Apollod., i, 15.\n\n(8) Theog., 209.\n\n\nThis story was one of the great stumbling-blocks of orthodox Greece. It\nwas the tale that Plato said should be told, if at all, only to a few\nin a mystery, after the sacrifice of some rare and scarcely obtainable\nanimal. Even among the Maoris, the conduct of the children who severed\ntheir father and mother is regarded as a singular instance of iniquity,\nand is told to children as a moral warning, an example to be condemned.\nIn Greece, on the other hand, unless we are to take the Euthyphro\nas wholly ironical, some of the pious justified their conduct by the\nexample of Zeus. Euthyphro quotes this example when he is about to\nprosecute his own father, for which act, he says, \"Men are angry with\nME; so inconsistently do they talk when I am concerned and when the gods\nare concerned\".(1) But in Greek THE TALE HAS NO MEANING. It has been\nallegorised in various ways, and Lafitau fancied that it was a distorted\nform of the Biblical account of the origin of sin. In Maori the legend\nis perfectly intelligible. Heaven and earth were conceived of (like\neverything else), as beings with human parts and passions, linked in\nan endless embrace which crushed and darkened their children. It became\nnecessary to separate them, and this feat was achieved not without\npain. \"Then wailed the Heaven, and exclaimed the Earth, 'Wherefore\nthis murder? Why this great sin? Why separate us?' But what cared Tane?\nUpwards he sent one and downwards the other. He cruelly severed\nthe sinews which united Heaven and Earth.\"(2) The Greek myth too,\ncontemplated earth and heaven as beings corporeally united, and heaven\nas a malignant power that concealed his children in darkness.\n\n\n(1) Euthyphro, 6.\n\n(2) Taylor, New Zealand, 119.\n\n\nBut while the conception of heaven and earth as parents of living things\nremains perfectly intelligible in one sense, the vivid personification\nwhich regarded them as creatures with human parts and passions had\nceased to be intelligible in Greece before the times of the earliest\nphilosophers. The old physical conception of the pair became a metaphor,\nand the account of their rending asunder by their children lost all\nsignificance, and seemed to be an abominable and unintelligible myth.\nWhen examined in the light of the New Zealand story, and of the fact\nthat early peoples do regard all phenomena as human beings, with\nphysical attributes like those of men, the legend of Cronus, and Uranus,\nand Gaea ceases to be a mystery. It is, at bottom, a savage explanation\n(as in the Samoan story) of the separation of earth and heaven, an\nexplanation which could only have occurred to people in a state of mind\nwhich civilisation has forgotten.\n\nThe next generation of Hesiodic gods (if gods we are to call the members\nof this race of non-natural men) was not more fortunate than the first\nin its family relations.\n\nCronus wedded his sister, Rhea, and begat Demeter, Hera, Hades,\nPoseidon, and the youngest, Zeus. \"And mighty Cronus swallowed down each\nof them, each that came to their mother's knees from her holy womb, with\nthis intent that none other of the proud sons of heaven should hold his\nkingly sway among the immortals. Heaven and Earth had warned him that he\ntoo should fall through his children. Wherefore he kept no vain\nwatch, but spied and swallowed down each of his offspring, while grief\nimmitigable took possession of Rhea.\"(1) Rhea, being about to become the\nmother of Zeus, took counsel with Uranus and Gaea. By their advice she\nwent to Crete, where Zeus was born, and, in place of the child, she\npresented to Cronus a huge stone swathed in swaddling bands. This he\nswallowed, and was easy in his mind. Zeus grew up, and by some means,\nsuggested by Gaea, compelled Zeus to disgorge all his offspring. \"And\nhe vomited out the stone first, as he had swallowed it last.\"(2) The\nswallowed children emerged alive, and Zeus fixed the stone at Pytho\n(Delphi), where Pausanias(3) had the privilege of seeing it, and where,\nas it did not tempt the cupidity of barbarous invaders, it probably\nstill exists. It was not a large stone, Pausanias says, and the\nDelphians used to pour oil over it, as Jacob did(4) to the stone at\nBethel, and on feast-days they covered it with wraps of wool. The custom\nof smearing fetish-stones (which Theophrastus mentions as one of the\npractices of the superstitious man) is clearly a survival from\nthe savage stage of religion. As a rule, however, among savages,\nfetish-stones are daubed with red paint (like the face of the wooden\nancient Dionysi in Greece, and of Tsui Goab among the Hottentots), not\nsmeared with oil.(5)\n\n\n(1) Theog., 460, 465.\n\n(2) Theog., 498.\n\n(3) x. 245.\n\n(4) Gen. xxviii. 18.\n\n(5) Pausanias, ii. 2, 5. \"Churinga\" in Australia are greased with\nthe natural moisture of the palm of the hand, and rubbed with red\nochre.--Spencer and Gillen. They are \"sacred things,\" but not exactly\nfetishes.\n\n\nThe myth of the swallowing and disgorging of his own children by Cronus\nwas another of the stumbling-blocks of Greek orthodoxy. The common\nexplanation, that Time ((Greek text omitted)) does swallow his children,\nthe days, is not quite satisfactory. Time brings never the past back\nagain, as Cronus did. Besides, the myth of the swallowing is not\nconfined to Cronus. Modern philology has given, as usual, different\nanalyses of the meaning of the name of the god. Hermann, with Preller,\nderives it from (Greek text omitted), to fulfil. The harvest-month, says\nPreller, was named Cronion in Greece, and Cronia was the title of the\nharvest-festival. The sickle of Cronus is thus brought into connection\nwith the sickle of the harvester.(1)\n\n\n(1) Preller, Gr. Myth., i. 44; Hartung, ii. 48; Porphyry, Abst., ii. 54.\nWelcker will not hear of this etymology, Gr. gott., i. 145, note 9.\n\n\nThe second myth, in which Cronus swallows his children, has numerous\nparallels in savage legend. Bushmen tell of Kwai Hemm, the devourer, who\nswallows that great god, the mantis insect, and disgorges him alive with\nall the other persons and animals whom he has engulphed in the course of\na long and voracious career.(1) The moon in Australia, while he lived\non earth, was very greedy, and swallowed the eagle-god, whom he had to\ndisgorge. Mr. Im Thurn found similar tales among the Indians of Guiana.\nThe swallowing and disgorging of Heracles by the monster that was to\nslay Hesione is well known. Scotch peasants tell of the same feats, but\nlocalise the myth on the banks of the Ken in Galloway. Basutos, Eskimos,\nZulus and European fairy tales all possess this incident, the swallowing\nof many persons by a being from whose maw they return alive and in good\ncase.\n\n\n(1) Bleek, Bushman Folk-lore, pp. 6, 8.\n\n\nA mythical conception which prevails from Greenland to South Africa,\nfrom Delphi to the Solomon Islands, from Brittany to the shores of Lake\nSuperior, must have some foundation in the common elements of human\nnature.(1) Now it seems highly probable that this curious idea may have\nbeen originally invented in an attempt to explain natural phenomena by\na nature-myth. It has already been shown (chapter v.) that eclipses are\ninterpreted, even by the peasantry of advanced races, as the swallowing\nof the moon by a beast or a monster. The Piutes account for the\ndisappearance of the stars in the daytime by the hypothesis that the\n\"sun swallows his children\". In the Melanesian myth, dawn is cut out of\nthe body of night by Qat, armed with a knife of red obsidian. Here are\nexamples(2) of transparent nature-myths in which this idea occurs for\nobvious explanatory purposes, and in accordance with the laws of the\nsavage imagination. Thus the conception of the swallowing and disgorging\nbeing may very well have arisen out of a nature-myth. But why is the\nnotion attached to the legend of Cronus?\n\n\n(1) The myth of Cronus and the swallowed children and the stone is\ntransferred to Gargantua. See Sebillot, Gargantua dans les Traditions\nPopulaires. But it is impossible to be certain that this is not an\nexample of direct borrowing by Madame De Cerny in her Saint Suliac, p.\n69.\n\n(2) Compare Tylor, Prim. Cult., i. 338.\n\n\nThat is precisely the question about which mythologists differ, as has\nbeen shown, and perhaps it is better to offer no explanation. However\nstories arise--and this story probably arose from a nature-myth--it is\ncertain that they wander about the world, that they change masters, and\nthus a legend which is told of a princess with an impossible name in\nZululand is told of the mother of Charlemagne in France. The tale of\nthe swallowing may have been attributed to Cronus, as a great truculent\ndeity, though it has no particular elemental signification in connection\nwith his legend.\n\nThis peculiarly savage trick of swallowing each other became an\ninherited habit in the family of Cronus. When Zeus reached years of\ndiscretion, he married Metis, and this lady, according to the scholiast\non Hesiod, had the power of transforming herself into any shape she\npleased. When she was about to be a mother, Zeus induced her to assume\nthe shape of a fly and instantly swallowed her.(1) In behaving thus,\nZeus acted on the advice of Uranus and Gaea. It was feared that Metis\nwould produce a child more powerful than his father. Zeus avoided this\nperil by swallowing his wife, and himself gave birth to Athene. The\nnotion of swallowing a hostile person, who has been changed by magic\ninto a conveniently small bulk, is very common. It occurs in the story\nof Taliesin.(2) Caridwen, in the shape of a hen, swallows Gwion Bach,\nin the form of a grain of wheat. In the same manner the princess in the\nArabian Nights swallowed the Geni. Here then we have in the Hesiodic\nmyth an old marchen pressed into the service of the higher mythology.\nThe apprehension which Zeus (like Herod and King Arthur) always felt\nlest an unborn child should overthrow him, was also familiar to Indra;\nbut, instead of swallowing the mother and concealing her in his own\nbody, like Zeus, Indra entered the mother's body, and himself was born\ninstead of the dreaded child.(3) A cow on this occasion was born along\nwith Indra. This adventure of the (Greek text omitted) or swallowing\nof Metis was explained by the late Platonists as a Platonic allegory.\nProbably the people who originated the tale were not Platonists, any\nmore than Pandarus was all Aristotelian.\n\n\n(1) Hesiod, Theogonia, 886. See Scholiast and note in Aglaophamus, i.\n613. Compare Puss in Boots and the Ogre.\n\n(2) Mabinogion, p. 473.\n\n(3) Black Yajur Veda, quoted by Sayana.\n\n\nAfter Homer and Hesiod, the oldest literary authorities for Greek\ncosmogonic myths are the poems attributed to Orpheus. About their\nprobable date, as has been said, little is known. They have reached us\nonly in fragments, but seem to contain the first guesses of a philosophy\nnot yet disengaged from mythical conditions. The poet preserves, indeed,\nsome extremely rude touches of early imagination, while at the same time\none of the noblest and boldest expressions of pantheistic thought is\nattributed to him. From the same source are drawn ideas as pure as those\nof the philosophical Vedic hymn,(1) and as wild as those of the Vedic\nPurusha Sukta, or legend of the fashioning of the world out of the\nmangled limbs of Purusha. The authors of the Orphic cosmogony appear to\nhave begun with some remarks on Time ((Greek text omitted)). \"Time\nwas when as yet this world was not.\"(2) Time, regarded in the mythical\nfashion as a person, generated Chaos and Aether. The Orphic poet styles\nChaos (Greek text omitted), \"the monstrous gulph,\" or \"gap\". This term\ncuriously reminds one of Ginnunga-gap in the Scandinavian cosmogonic\nlegends. \"Ginnunga-gap was light as windless air,\" and therein the blast\nof heat met the cold rime, whence Ymir was generated, the Purusha\nof Northern fable.(3) These ideas correspond well with the Orphic\nconception of primitive space.(4)\n\n\n(1) Rig-Veda, x. 90.\n\n(2) Lobeck, Aglaophamus, i. 470. See also the quotations from Proclus.\n\n(3) Gylfi's Mocking.\n\n(4) Aglaophamus, p. 473.\n\n\nIn process of time Chaos produced an egg, shining and silver white. It\nis absurd to inquire, according to Lobeck, whether the poet borrowed\nthis widely spread notion of a cosmic egg from Phoenicia, Babylon, Egypt\n(where the goose-god Seb laid the egg), or whether the Orphic singer\noriginated so obvious an idea. Quaerere ludicrum est. The conception may\nhave been borrowed, but manifestly it is one of the earliest hypotheses\nthat occur to the rude imagination. We have now three primitive\ngenerations, time, chaos, the egg, and in the fourth generation the egg\ngave birth to Phanes, the great hero of the Orphic cosmogony.(1) The\nearliest and rudest thinkers were puzzled, as many savage cosmogonic\nmyths have demonstrated, to account for the origin of life. The myths\nfrequently hit on the theory of a hermaphroditic being, both male and\nfemale, who produces another being out of himself. Prajapati in the\nIndian stories, and Hrimthursar in Scandinavian legend--\"one of his feet\ngot a son on the other\"--with Lox in the Algonquin tale are examples of\nthese double-sexed personages. In the Orphic poem, Phanes is both male\nand female. This Phanes held within him \"the seed of all the gods,\"(2)\nand his name is confused with the names of Metis and Ericapaeus in\na kind of trinity. All this part of the Orphic doctrine is greatly\nobscured by the allegorical and theosophistic interpretations of the\nlate Platonists long after our era, who, as usual, insisted on finding\ntheir own trinitarian ideas, commenta frigidissima, concealed under the\nmythical narrative.(3)\n\n\n(1) Clemens Alexan., p. 672.\n\n(2) Damascius, ap. Lobeck, i. 481.\n\n(3) Aglaoph., i. 483.\n\n\nAnother description by Hieronymus of the first being, the Orphic Phanes,\n\"as a serpent with bull's and lion's heads, with a human face in the\nmiddle and wings on the shoulders,\" is sufficiently rude and senseless.\nBut these physical attributes could easily be explained away as types of\nanything the Platonist pleased.(1) The Orphic Phanes, too, was almost as\nmany-headed as a giant in a fairy tale, or as Purusha in the Rig-Veda.\nHe had a ram's head, a bull's head, a snake's head and a lion's head,\nand glanced around with four eyes, presumably human.(2) This remarkable\nbeing was also provided with golden wings. The nature of the physical\narrangements by which Phanes became capable of originating life in the\nworld is described in a style so savage and crude that the reader must\nbe referred to Suidas for the original text.(3) The tale is worthy of\nthe Swift-like fancy of the Australian Narrinyeri.\n\n\n(1) Damascius, 381, ap. Lobeck, i. 484.\n\n(2) Hermias in Phaedr. ap. Lobeck, i. 493.\n\n(3) Suidas s. v. Phanes.\n\n\nNothing can be easier or more delusive than to explain all this wild\npart of the Orphic cosmogony as an allegorical veil of any modern ideas\nwe choose to select. But why the \"allegory\" should closely imitate the\nrough guesses of uncivilised peoples, Ahts, Diggers, Zunis, Cahrocs,\nit is less easy to explain. We can readily imagine African or American\ntribes who were accustomed to revere bulls, rams, snakes, and so forth,\nascribing the heads of all their various animal patrons to the deity of\ntheir confederation. We can easily see how such races as practise the\nsavage rites of puberty should attribute to the first being the special\norgans of Phanes. But on the Neo-Platonic hypothesis that Orpheus was a\nseer of Neo-Platonic opinions, we do not see why he should have\nveiled his ideas under so savage an allegory. This part of the Orphic\nspeculation is left in judicious silence by some modern commentators,\nsuch as M. Darmesteter in Les Cosmogonies Aryennes.(1) Indeed, if we\nchoose to regard Apollonius Rhodius, an Alexandrine poet writing in a\nhighly civilised age, as the representative of Orphicism, it is easy\nto mask and pass by the more stern and characteristic fortresses of\nthe Orphic divine. The theriomorphic Phanes is a much less \"Aryan\" and\nagreeable object than the glorious golden-winged Eros, the love-god of\nApollonius Rhodius and Aristophanes.(2)\n\n\n(1) Essais Orientaux, p. 166.\n\n(2) Argonautica, 1-12; Aves, 693.\n\n\nOn the whole, the Orphic fragments appear to contain survivals of savage\nmyths of the origin of things blended with purer speculations. The\nsavage ideas are finally explained by late philosophers as allegorical\nveils and vestments of philosophy; but the interpretation is arbitrary,\nand varies with the taste and fancy of each interpreter. Meanwhile the\ncoincidence of the wilder elements with the speculations native to races\nin the lowest grades of civilisation is undeniable. This opinion is\nconfirmed by the Greek myths of the origin of Man. These, too, coincide\nwith the various absurd conjectures of savages.\n\nIn studying the various Greek local legends of the origin of Man, we\nencounter the difficulty of separating them from the myths of heroes,\nwhich it will be more convenient to treat separately. This difficulty we\nhave already met in our treatment of savage traditions of the beginnings\nof the race. Thus we saw that among the Melanesians, Qat, and among\nthe Ahts, Quawteaht, were heroic persons, who made men and most other\nthings. But it was desirable to keep their performances of this sort\nseparate from their other feats, their introduction of fire, for\nexample, and of various arts. In the same way it will be well, in\nreviewing Greek legends, to keep Prometheus' share in the making of men\napart from the other stories of his exploits as a benefactor of the men\nwhom he made. In Hesiod, Prometheus is the son of the Titan Iapetus, and\nperhaps his chief exploit is to play upon Zeus a trick of which we find\nthe parallel in various savage myths. It seems, however, from Ovid(1)\nand other texts, that Hesiod somewhere spoke of Prometheus as having\nmade men out of clay, like Pund-jel in the Australian, Qat in the\nMelanesian and Tiki in the Maori myths. The same story is preserved in\nServius's commentary on Virgil.(2) A different legend is preserved in\nthe Etymologicum Magnum (voc. Ikonion). According to this story, after\nthe deluge of Deucalion, \"Zeus bade Prometheus and Athene make images\nof men out of clay, and the winds blew into them the breath of life\".\nIn confirmation of this legend, Pausanias was shown in Phocis certain\nstones of the colour of clay, and \"smelling very like human flesh\"; and\nthese, according to the Phocians, were \"the remains of the clay from\nwhich the whole human race was fashioned by Prometheus\".(3)\n\n\n(1) Ovid. Metam. i. 82.\n\n(2) Eclogue, vi. 42.\n\n(3) Pausanias, x. 4, 3.\n\n\nAristophanes, too, in the Birds (686) talks of men as (Greek text\nomitted), figures kneaded of clay. Thus there are sufficient traces in\nGreek tradition of the savage myth that man was made of clay by some\nsuperior being, like Pund-jel in the quaint Australian story.\n\nWe saw that among various rude races other theories of the origin of man\nwere current. Men were thought to have come out of a hole in the\nground or a bed of reeds, and sometimes the very scene of their first\nappearance was still known and pointed out to the curious. This myth\nwas current among races who regarded themselves as the only people whose\norigin needed explanation. Other stories represented man as the fruit of\na tree, or the child of a rock or stone, or as the descendant of one of\nthe lower animals. Examples of these opinions in Greek legend are now to\nbe given. In the first place, we have a fragment of Pindar, in which the\npoet enumerates several of the centres from which different Greek\ntribes believed men to have sprung. \"Hard it is to find out whether\nAlalkomeneus, first of men, arose on the marsh of Cephissus, or whether\nthe Curetes of Ida first, a stock divine, arose, or if it was the\nPhrygian Corybantes that the sun earliest saw--men like trees\nwalking;\" and Pindar mentions Egyptian and Libyan legends of the same\ndescription.(1) The Thebans and the Arcadians held themselves to be\n\"earth-born\". \"The black earth bore Pelasgus on the high wooded hills,\"\nsays an ancient line of Asius. The Dryopians were an example of a race\nof men born from ash-trees. The myth of gens virum truncis et duro\nrobore nata, \"born of tree-trunk and the heart of oak,\" had passed into\na proverb even in Homer's time.(2) Lucian mentions(3) the Athenian myth\n\"that men grew like cabbages out of the earth\". As to Greek myths of\nthe descent of families from animals, these will be examined in the\ndiscussion of the legend of Zeus.\n\n\n(1) Preller, Aus. Auf., p. 158.\n\n(2) Virgil Aen., viii. 315; Odyssey, xix. 163; Iliad, ii. xxii. 120;\nJuvenal, vi. 11. Cf. also Bouche Leclerq, De Origine Generis Humani.\n\n(3) Philops. iii.\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI. SAVAGE DIVINE MYTHS.\n\nThe origin of a belief in GOD beyond the ken of history and of\nspeculation--Sketch of conjectural theories--Two elements in all\nbeliefs, whether of backward or civilised races--The Mythical and\nthe Religious--These may be coeval, or either may be older than the\nother--Difficulty of study--The current anthropological theory--Stated\nobjections to the theory--Gods and spirits--Suggestion that savage\nreligion is borrowed from Europeans--Reply to Mr. Tylor's arguments on\nthis head--The morality of savages.\n\n\n\"The question of the origin of a belief in Deity does not come within\nthe scope of a strictly historical inquiry. No man can watch the idea\nof GOD in the making or in the beginning. We are acquainted with no race\nwhose beginning does not lie far back in the unpenetrated past. Even\non the hypothesis that the natives of Australia, for example, were\ndiscovered in a state of culture more backward than that of other known\nraces, yet the institutions and ideas of the Australians must have\nrequired for their development an incalculable series of centuries.\nThe notions of man about the Deity, man's religious sentiments and his\nmythical narratives, must be taken as we find them. There have been, and\nare, many theories as to the origin of the conception of a supernatural\nbeing or beings, concerned with the fortunes of mankind, and once active\nin the making of the earth and its inhabitants. There is the hypothesis\nof an original divine tradition, darkened by the smoke of foolish mortal\nfancies. There is the hypothesis of an innate and intuitive sensus\nnuminis. There is the opinion that the notion of Deity was introduced\nto man by the very nature of his knowledge and perceptions, which compel\nhim in all things to recognise a finite and an infinite. There is the\nhypothesis that gods were originally ghosts, the magnified shapes of\nancestral spectres. There is the doctrine that man, seeking in his early\nspeculations for the causes of things, and conscious of his own powers\nas an active cause, projected his own shadow on the mists of the\nunknown, and peopled the void with figures of magnified non-natural men,\nhis own parents and protectors, and the makers of many of the things in\nthe world.\n\n\"Since the actual truth cannot be determined by observation and\nexperiment, the question as to the first germs of the divine conception\nmust here be left unanswered. But it is possible to disengage and\nexamine apart the two chief elements in the earliest as in the latest\nideas of Godhead. Among the lowest and most backward, as among the most\nadvanced races, there coexist the MYTHICAL and the RELIGIOUS elements\nin belief. The rational factor (or what approves itself to us as the\nrational factor) is visible in religion; the irrational is prominent\nin myth. The Australian, the Bushman, the Solomon Islander, in hours\nof danger and necessity 'yearns after the gods,' and has present in his\nheart the idea of a father and friend. This is the religious element.\nThe same man, when he comes to indulge his fancy for fiction, will\ndegrade this spiritual friend and father to the level of the beasts,\nand will make him the hero of comic or repulsive adventures. This is the\nmythical or irrational element. Religion, in its moral aspect, always\ntraces back to the belief in a power that is benign and works for\nrighteousness. Myth, even in Homer or the Rig-Veda, perpetually falls\nback on the old stock of absurd and immoral divine adventures.(1)\n\n\n(1) M. Knappert here, in a note to the Dutch translation, denies the\nlowest mythical element to the Hebrews, as their documents have reached\nus.\n\n\n\"It would be rash, in the present state of knowledge, to pronounce that\nthe germ of the serious Homeric sense of the justice and power of the\nDivinity is earlier or later than the germ of the Homeric stories of\ngods disguised as animals, or imprisoned by mortals, or kicked out of\nOlympus. The rational and irrational aspects of mythology and religion\nmay be of coeval antiquity for all that is certainly known, or either of\nthem, in the dark backward of mortal experience, may have preceded the\nother. There is probably no religion nor mythology which does not\noffer both aspects to the student. But it is the part of advancing\ncivilisation to adorn and purify the rational element, and to\nsubordinate and supersede the irrational element, as far as religious\nconservatism, ritual and priestly dogma will permit.\"\n\nSuch were the general remarks with which this chapter opened in the\noriginal edition of the present work. But reading, reflection and\ncertain additions to the author's knowledge of facts, have made it seem\nadvisable to state, more fully and forcibly than before, that, in his\nopinion, not only the puzzling element of myth, but the purer element of\na religious belief sanctioning morality is derived by civilised people\nfrom a remote past of savagery. It is also necessary to draw attention\nto a singular religious phenomena, a break, or \"fault,\" as geologists\ncall it, in the religious strata. While the most backward savages, in\ncertain cases, present the conception of a Being who sanctions ethics,\nand while that conception recurs at a given stage of civilisation, it\nappears to fade, or even to disappear in some conditions of barbarism.\nAmong some barbaric peoples, such as the Zulus, and the Red Indians of\nFrench Canada when first observed, as among some Polynesians and some\ntribes of Western and Central Africa little trace of a supreme being\nis found, except a name, and that name is even occasionally a matter\nof ridicule. The highest religious conception has been reached, and\nis generally known, yet the Being conceived of as creative is utterly\nneglected, while ghosts, or minor gods, are served and adored. To this\nreligious phenomenon (if correctly observed) we must attempt to assign\na cause. For this purpose it is necessary to state again what may be\ncalled the current or popular anthropological theory of the evolution of\nGods.\n\nThat theory takes varying shapes. In the philosophy of Mr. Herbert\nSpencer we find a pure Euhemerism. Gods are but ghosts of dead men,\nraised to a higher and finally to the highest power. In the somewhat\nanalogous but not identical system of Mr. Tylor, man first attains to\nthe idea of spirit by reflection on various physical, psychological\nand psychical experiences, such as sleep, dreams, trances, shadows,\nhallucinations, breath and death, and he gradually extends the\nconception of soul or ghost till all nature is peopled with spirits. Of\nthese spirits one is finally promoted to supremacy, where the conception\nof a supreme being occurs. In the lowest faiths there is said, on this\ntheory, to be no connection, or very little connection, between religion\nand morality. To supply a religious sanction of morals is the work of\nadvancing thought.(1)\n\n\n(1) Prim. Cult., ii. 381. Huxley's Science and Hebrew Tradition, pp.\n346,372.\n\n\nThis current hypothesis is, confessedly, \"animistic,\" in Mr. Tylor's\nphrase, or, in Mr. Spencer's terminology, it is \"the ghost theory\". The\nhuman soul, says Mr. Tylor, has been the model on which all man's ideas\nof spiritual beings, from \"the tiniest elf\" to \"the heavenly Creator and\nruler of the world, the Great Spirit,\" have been framed.(1) Thus it has\nbeen necessary for Mr. Tylor and for Mr. Spencer to discover first\nan origin of man's idea of his own soul, and that supposed origin in\npsychological, physical and psychical experiences is no doubt adequate.\nBy reflection on these facts, probably, the idea of spirit was reached,\nthough the psychical experiences enumerated by Mr. Tylor may contain\npoints as yet unexplained by Materialism. From these sources are derived\nall really \"animistic\" gods, all that from the first partake of the\nnature of hungry ghosts, placated by sacrifices of food, though in\ncertain cases that hunger may have been transferred, we surmise, by\nworshippers to gods not ORIGINALLY animistic.\n\n\n(1) Prim. Cult., ii. 109\n\n\nIn answer to this theory of an animistic or ghostly origin of all gods,\nit must first be observed that all gods are not necessarily, it would\nseem, of animistic origin. Among certain of the lowest savages, although\nthey believe in ghosts, the animistic conception, the spiritual idea,\nis not attached to the relatively supreme being of their faith. He is\nmerely a powerful BEING, unborn, and not subject to death. The purely\nmetaphysical question \"was he a ghost?\" does not seem always to have\nbeen asked. Consequently there is no logical reason why man's idea of\na Maker should not be prior to man's idea that there are such things\nas souls, ghosts and spirits. Therefore the animistic theory is not\nnecessary as material for the \"god-idea\". We cannot, of course, prove\nthat the \"god-idea\" was historically prior to the \"ghost-idea,\" for we\nknow no savages who have a god and yet are ignorant of ghosts. But we\ncan show that the idea of God may exist, in germ, without explicitly\ninvolving the idea of spirit. Thus gods MAY be prior in evolution to\nghosts, and therefore the animistic theory of the origin of gods in\nghosts need not necessarily be accepted.\n\nIn the first place, the original evolution of a god out of a ghost\nneed not be conceded, because in perhaps all known savage theological\nphilosophy the God, the Maker and Master, is regarded as a being\nwho existed before death entered the world. Everywhere, practically\nspeaking, death is looked on as a comparatively late intruder. He came\nnot only after God was active, but after men and beasts had populated\nthe world. Scores of myths accounting for this invasion of death have\nbeen collected all over the world.(1) Thus the relatively supreme being,\nor beings, of religion are looked on as prior to Death, therefore, not\nas ghosts. They are sometimes expressly distinguished as \"original\ngods\" from other gods who are secondary, being souls of chiefs. Thus all\nTongan gods are Atua, but all Atua are not \"original gods\".(2) The word\nAtua, according to Mr. White, is \"A-tu-a\". \"A\" was the name given to the\nauthor of the universe, and signifies: \"Am the unlimited in power,\" \"The\nConception,\" \"the Leader,\" \"the Beyond All\". \"Tua\" means \"Beyond that\nwhich is most distant,\" \"Behind all matter,\" and \"Behind every action\".\nClearly these conceptions are not more mythical (indeed A does not seem\nto occur in the myths), nor are they more involved in ghosts, than the\nunknown absolute of Mr. Herbert Spencer. Yet the word Atua denotes gods\nwho are recognised as ghosts of chiefs, no less than it denotes the\nsupreme existence.(3) These ideas are the metaphysical theology of a\nrace considerably above the lowest level. They lend no assistance to a\ntheory that A was, or was evolved out of, a human ghost, and he is not\nfound in Maori MYTHOLOGY as far as our knowledge goes. But, among the\nlowest known savages, the Australians, we read that \"the Creator was\na gigantic black, once on earth, now among the stars\". This is in\nGippsland; the deities of the Fuegians and the Blackfoot Indians are\nalso Beings, anthropomorphic, unborn and undying, like Mangarrah, the\ncreative being of the Larrakeah tribe in Australia. \"A very good man\ncalled Mangarrah lives in the sky.... He made everything\" (blacks\nexcepted). He never dies.(4) The Melanesian Vui \"never were men,\" were\n\"something different,\" and \"were NOT ghosts\". It is as a Being, not as a\nSpirit, that the Kurnai deity Munganngaur (Our Father) is described.(5)\nIn short, though Europeans often speak of these divine beings of low\nsavages as \"spirits,\" it does not appear that the natives themselves\nadvance here the metaphysical idea of spirit. These gods are just\nBEINGS, anthropomorphic, or (in myth and fable), very often bestial,\n\"theriomorphic\".(6) It is manifest that a divine being envisaged thus\nneed not have been evolved out of the theory of spirits or ghosts, and\nmay even have been prior to the rise of the belief in ghosts.\n\n\n(1) See Modern Mythology, \"Myths of Origin of Death\".\n\n(2) Mariner, ii. 127.\n\n(3) White, Ancient History of the Maoris, vol. i. p. 4; other views in\nGill's Myths of the Pacific. I am not committed to Mr. White's opinion.\n\n(4) Journal Anthrop. Inst., Nov., 1894, p. 191.\n\n(5) Ibid., 1886, p. 313.\n\n(6) See Making of Religion, pp. 201-210, for a more copious statement.\n\n\nAgain, these powerful, or omnipotent divine beings are looked on as\nguardians of morality, punishers of sin, rewarders of righteousness,\nboth in this world and in a future life, in places where ghosts, though\nbelieved in, ARE NOT WORSHIPPED, NOR IN RECEIPT OF SACRIFICE, and where,\ngreat grandfathers being forgotten, ancestral ghosts can scarcely swell\ninto gods. This occurs among Andamanese, Fuegians and Australians,\ntherefore, among non-ghost-worshipping races, ghosts cannot have\ndeveloped into deities who are not even necessarily spirits. These gods,\nagain, do not receive sacrifice, and thus lack the note of descent from\nhungry food-craving ghosts. In Australia, indeed, while ghosts are not\nknown to receive any offerings, \"the recent custom of providing food\nfor it\"--the dead body of a friend--\"is derided by the intelligent old\naborigines as 'white fellow's gammon'\".(1)\n\n\n(1) Dawson, Australian Aborigines, p. 51, 1881.\n\n\nThe Australians possess no chiefs like \"Vich Ian Vohr or Chingachgook\"\nwhose ghosts might be said to swell into supreme moral deities.\n\"Headmen\" they have, leaders of various degrees of authority, but no\nVich Ian Vohr, no semi-sacred representative of the tribe.(1) Nor are\nthe ghosts of the Headmen known to receive any particular posthumous\nattention or worship. Thus it really seems impossible to show proof that\nAustralian gods grew out of Australian ghosts, a subject to which we\nshall return.\n\n\n(1) Howitt, Organisation of Australian Tribes, pp. 101-113.\n\"Transactions of Royal Society of Victoria,\" 1889.\n\n\nSome supporters of the current theory therefore fall back on the\nhypothesis that the Australians are sadly degenerate.(1) Chiefs, it is\nargued, or kings, they once had, and the gods are surviving ghosts of\nthese wholly forgotten potentates. To this we reply that we know not the\nvery faintest trace of Australian degeneration. Sir John Lubbock and\nMr. Tylor have correctly argued that the soil of Australia has not yet\nyielded so much as a fragment of native pottery, nor any trace of native\nmetal work, not a vestige of stone buildings occurs, nor of any work\nbeyond the present native level of culture, unless we reckon weirs for\nfish-catching. \"The Australian boomerang,\" writes Mr. Tylor, \"has been\nclaimed as derived from some hypothetical high culture, whereas the\ntransition-stages through which it is connected with the club are to\nbe observed in its own country, while no civilised race possesses the\nweapon.\"(2)\n\n\n(1) See Prof. Menzie's History of Religion, pp. 16, 17, where a singular\ninconsistency has escaped the author.\n\n(2) Prim. Cult., i. 57, 67.\n\n\nTherefore the Australian, with his boomerang, represents no degeneration\nbut advance on his ancestors, who had not yet developed the boomerang\nout of the club. If the excessively complex nature of Australian rules\nof prohibited degrees be appealed to as proof of degeneration from the\nstage in which they were evolved, we reply that civilisation everywhere\ntends not to complicate but to simplify such rules, as it also\nnotoriously simplifies the forms of language.\n\nThe Australian people, when discovered, were only emerging from\npalaeolithic culture, while the neighbouring Tasmanians were frankly\npalaeolithic.(1) Far from degenerating, the Australians show advance\nwhen they supersede their beast or other totem by an eponymous human\nhero.(2) The eponymous hero, however, changed with each generation, so\nthat no one name was fixed as that of tribal father, later perhaps to\nbecome a tribal god. We find several tribes in which the children now\nfollow the FATHER'S class, and thus paternal kin takes the place of the\nusual early savage method of reckoning kinship by the mother's side,\nelsewhere prevalent in Australia. In one of these tribes, dwelling\nbetween the Glenelg and Mount Napier, headmanship is hereditary, but\nnothing is said of any worship of the ghosts of chiefs. All this social\nimprovement denotes advance on the usual Australian standard.(3) Of\ndegeneration (except when produced recently by European vices and\ndiseases) I know no trace in Australia. Their highest religious\nconceptions, therefore, are not to be disposed of as survivals of a\nreligion of the ghosts of such chiefs as the Australians are not shown\never to have recognised. The \"God idea\" in Australia, or among the\nAndamanese, must have some other source than the Ghost-Theory. This is\nall the more obvious because not only are ghosts not worshipped by the\nAustralians, but also the divine beings who are alleged to form\nlinks between the ghost and the moral god are absent. There are no\ndepartmental gods, as of war, peace, the chase, love, and so forth. Sun,\nsky and earth are equally unworshipped. There is nothing in religion\nbetween a Being, on one hand (with a son or sons), and vague mischievous\nspirits, boilyas or mrarts, and ghosts (who are not worshipped), on the\nother hand. The friends of the idea that the God is an ancient evolution\nfrom the ghost of such a chief as is not proved to have existed, must\napparently believe that the intermediate stages in religious evolution,\ndepartmental gods, nature gods and gods of polytheism in general once\nexisted in Australia, and have all been swept away in a deluge of\ndegeneration. That deluge left in religion a moral, potently active\nFather and Judge. Now that conception is considerably above the\nobsolescent belief in an otiose god which is usually found among\nbarbaric races of the type from which the Australians are said to have\ndegenerated. There is no proof of degeneracy, and, if degeneration has\noccurred, why has it left just the kind of deity who, in the higher\nbarbaric culture, is not commonly found? Clearly this attempt to\nexplain the highest aspect of Australian religion by an undemonstrated\ndegeneration is an effort of despair.\n\n\n(1) Tylor, preface to Ling Roth's Aborigines of Tasmania, pp. v.-viii.\n\n(2) Kamilaroi and Kurnai, p. 231.\n\n(3) Kamilaroi and Kurnai, pp. 277, 278.\n\n\nWhile the current theory thus appears to break down over the deities\nof certain Australian tribes and of other low savages to be more\nparticularly described later, it is not more successful in dealing with\nwhat we have called the \"fault\" or break in the religious strata of\nhigher races. The nature of that \"fault\" may thus be described: While\nthe deities of several low savage peoples are religiously regarded as\nguardians and judges of conduct both in this life and in the next, among\nhigher barbarians they are often little, or not at all, interested in\nconduct. Again, while among Australians, and Andamanese, and Fuegians,\nthere is hardly a verifiable trace, if any trace there be, of sacrifice\nto any divine being, among barbarians the gods beneath the very highest\nare in receipt even of human sacrifice. Even among barbarians the\nhighest deity is very rarely worshipped with sacrifice. Through various\ndegrees he is found to lose all claim on worship, and even to become a\nmere name, and finally a jest and a mockery. Meanwhile ancestral ghosts,\nand gods framed on the same lines as ghosts, receive sacrifice of food\nand of human victims. Once more, the high gods of low savages are not\nlocalised, not confined to any temple or region. But the gods of higher\nbarbarians (the gods beneath the highest), are localised in this way, as\noccasionally even the highest god also is.\n\nAll this shows that, among advancing barbarians, the gods, if they\nstarted from the estate of gods among savages on the lowest level,\nbecome demoralised, limited, conditioned, relegated to an otiose\ncondition, and finally deposed, till progressive civilisation, as in\nGreece, reinstates or invents purer and more philosophic conceptions,\nwithout being able to abolish popular and priestly myth and ritual.\n\nHere, then, is a flaw or break in the strata of religion. What was\nthe cause of this flaw? We answer, the evolution, through ghosts,\nof \"animistic\" gods who retained the hunger and selfishness of these\nancestral spirits whom the lowest savages are not known to worship.\n\nThe moral divine beings of these lowest races, beings (when religiously\nregarded) unconditioned, in need of no gift that man can give, are not\nto be won by offerings of food and blood. Of such offerings ghosts,\nand gods modelled on ghosts, are notoriously in need. Strengthened\nand propitiated by blood and sacrifice (not offered to the gods of low\nsavages), the animistic deities will become partisans of their adorers,\nand will either pay no regard to the morals of their worshippers, or\nwill be easily bribed to forgive sins. Here then is, ethically speaking,\na flaw in the strata of religion, a flaw found in the creeds of\nghost-worshipping barbarians, but not of non-ghost-worshipping savages.\nA crowd of venal, easy-going, serviceable deities has now been evolved\nout of ghosts, and Animism is on its way to supplant or overlay a rude\nearly form of theism. Granting the facts, we fail to see how they are\nexplained by the current theory which makes the highest god the latest\nin evolution from a ghost. That theory wrecks itself again on the\ncircumstance that, whereas the tribal or national highest divine being,\nas latest in evolution, ought to be the most potent, he is, in fact,\namong barbaric races, usually the most disregarded. A new idea, of\ncourse, is not necessarily a powerful or fashionable idea. It may be\nregarded as a \"fad,\" or a heresy, or a low form of dissent. But, when\nuniversally known to and accepted by a tribe or people, then it must be\ndeemed likely to possess great influence. But that is not the case; and\namong barbaric tribes the most advanced conception of deity is the least\nregarded, the most obsolete.\n\nAn excellent instance of the difference between the theory here\nadvocated, and that generally held by anthropologists, may be found\nin Mr. Abercromby's valuable work, Pre-and Proto-Historic Finns, i.\n150-154. The gods, and other early ideas, says Mr. Abercromby, \"could in\nno sense be considered as supernatural\". We shall give examples of gods\namong the races \"nearest the beginning,\" whose attributes of power\nand knowledge can not, by us at least, be considered other than\n\"supernatural\". \"The gods\" (in this hypothesis) \"were so human that\nthey could be forced to act in accordance with the wishes of their\nworshippers, and could likewise be punished.\" These ideas, to an\nAustralian black, or an Andamanese, would seem dangerously blasphemous.\nThese older gods \"resided chiefly in trees, wells, rivers and animals\".\nBut many gods of our lowest known savages live \"beyond the sky\". Mr.\nAbercromby supposes the sky god to be of later evolution, and to be\nworshipped after man had exhausted \"the helpers that seemed nearest at\nhand... in the trees and waters at his very door\". Now the Australian\nblack has not a door, nor has he gods of any service to him in the\n\"trees and waters,\" though sprites may lurk in such places for mischief.\nBut in Mr. Abercromby's view, some men turned at last to the sky-god,\n\"who in time would gain a large circle of worshippers\". He would come\nto be thought omnipotent, omniscient, the Creator. This notion, says Mr.\nAbercromby, \"must, if this view is correct, be of late origin\". But the\nview is not correct. The far-seeing powerful Maker beyond the sky is\nfound among the very backward races who have not developed helpers\nnearer man, dwelling round what would be his door, if door he was\ncivilised enough to possess. Such near neighbouring gods, of human\nneeds, capable of being bullied, or propitiated by sacrifice, are found\nin races higher than the lowest, who, for their easily procurable aid,\nhave allowed the Maker to sink into an otiose god, or a mere name. Mr.\nAbercromby unconsciously proves our case by quoting the example of a\nSamoyede. This man knew a Sky-god, Num; that conception was familiar\nto him. He also knew a familiar spirit. On Mr. Abercromby's theory he\nshould have resorted for help to the Sky-god, not to the sprite. But he\ndid the reverse: he said, \"I cannot approach Num, he is too far away; if\nI could reach him I should not beseech thee (the familiar spirit), but\nshould go myself; but I cannot\". For this precise reason, people who\nhave developed the belief in accessible affable spirits go to them, with\na spell to constrain, or a gift to bribe, and neglect, in some cases\nalmost forget, their Maker. But He is worshipped by low savages, who do\nnot propitiate ghosts and who have no gods in wells and trees, close at\nhand. It seems an obvious inference that the greater God is the earlier\nevolved.\n\nThese are among the difficulties of the current anthropological theory.\nThere is, however, a solution by which the weakness of the divine\nconception, its neglected, disused aspect among barbaric races, might\nbe explained by anthropologists, without regarding it as an obsolescent\nform of a very early idea. This solution is therefore in common use.\nIt is applied to the deity revealed in the ancient mysteries of the\nAustralians, and it is employed in American and African instances.\n\nThe custom is to say that the highest divine being of American or\nAfrican native peoples has been borrowed from Europeans, and is,\nespecially, a savage refraction from the God of missionaries. If this\ncan be proved, the shadowy, practically powerless \"Master of Life\"\nof certain barbaric peoples, will have degenerated from the Christian\nconception, because of that conception he will be only a faint\nunsuccessful refraction. He has been introduced by Europeans, it is\nargued, but is not in harmony with his new environment, and so is\n\"half-remembered and half forgot\".\n\nThe hypothesis of borrowing admits of only one answer, but that answer\nshould be conclusive. If we can discover, say in North America, a single\ninstance in which the supreme being occurs, while yet he cannot possibly\nbe accounted for by any traceable or verifiable foreign influence, then\nthe burden of proof, in other cases, falls on the opponent. When he\nurges that other North American supreme beings were borrowed, we can\nreply that our crucial example shows that this need not be the fact. To\nprove that it is the fact, in his instances, is then his business. It is\nobvious that for information on this subject we must go to the reports\nof the earliest travellers who knew the Red Indians well. We must try to\nget at gods behind any known missionary efforts. Mr. Tylor offers us the\ntestimony of Heriot, about 1586, that the natives of Virginia believed\nin many gods, also in one chief god, \"who first made other principal\ngods, and then the sun, moon and stars as petty gods\".(1) Whence could\nthe natives of Virginia have borrowed this notion of a Creator before\n1586? If it is replied, in the usual way, that they developed him\nupwards out of sun, moon and star gods, other principal gods, and\nfinally reached the idea of the Creator, we answer that the idea of the\nMaker is found where these alleged intermediate stages are NOT found, as\nin Australia. In Virginia then, as in Victoria, a Creator may have been\nevolved in some other way than that of gradual ascent from ghosts,\nand may have been, as in Australia and elsewhere, prior to verifiable\nghost-worship. Again, in Virginia at our first settlement, the native\npriests strenuously resisted the introduction of Christianity. They\nwere content with their deity, Ahone, \"the great God who governs all\nthe world, and makes the sun to shine, creating the moon and stars his\ncompanions.... The good and peaceable God... needs not to be sacrificed\nunto, for he intendeth all good unto them.\" This good Creator, without\nsacrifice, among a settled agricultural barbaric race sacrificing to\nother gods and ghosts, manifestly cannot be borrowed from the newly\narrived religion of Christianity, which his priests, according to\nthe observer, vigorously resisted. Ahone had a subordinate deity,\nmagisterial in functions, \"looking into all men's actions\" and punishing\nthe same, when evil. To THIS god sacrifices WERE made, and if his name,\nOkeus, is derived from Oki = \"spirit,\" he was, of course, an animistic\nghost-evolved deity. Anthropological writers, by an oversight, have\ndwelt on Oki, but have not mentioned Ahone.(2) Manifestly it is not\npossible to insist that these Virginian high deities were borrowed,\nwithout saying whence and when they were borrowed by a barbaric race\nwhich was, at the same time, rejecting Christian teaching.\n\n\n(1) Prim. Cult., ii. 341.\n\n(2) History of Travaile into Virginia, by William Strachey, 1612.\n\n\nMr. Tylor writes, with his habitual perspicacity: \"It is the widespread\nbelief in the Great Spirit, whatever his precise nature and origin, that\nhas long and deservedly drawn the attention of European thinkers to the\nnative religions of the North American tribes\". Now while, in recent\ntimes, Christian ideas may undeniably have crystallised round \"the Great\nSpirit,\" it has come to be thought \"that THE WHOLE DOCTRINE of the Great\nSpirit was borrowed by the savages from missionaries and colonists. But\nthis view will not bear examination,\" says Mr. Tylor.(1)\n\n\n(1) Prim. Cult, ii. pp. 339, 340 (1873). For some reason, Mr. Tylor\nmodifies this passage in 1891.\n\n\nMr. Tylor proceeds to prove this by examples from Greenland, and the\nAlgonkins. He instances the Massachusett God, Kiehtan, who created the\nother gods, and receives the just into heaven. This was recorded in\n1622, but the belief, says Winslow, our authority, goes back into the\nunknown past. \"They never saw Kiehtan, but THEY HOLD IT A GREAT CHARGE\nAND DUTY THAT ONE AGE TEACH ANOTHER.\" How could a deity thus rooted in a\ntraditional past be borrowed from recent English settlers?\n\nIn these cases the hypothesis of borrowing breaks down, and still more\ndoes it break down over the Algonkin deity Atahocan.\n\nFather Le Jeune, S.J., went first among the Algonkins, a missionary\npioneer, in 1633, and suffered unspeakable things in his courageous\nendeavour to win souls in a most recalcitrant flock. He writes (1633):\n\"As this savage has given me occasion to speak of their god, I will\nremark that it is a great error to think that the savages have no\nknowledge of any deity. I was surprised to hear this in France. I do not\nknow their secrets, but, from the little which I am about to tell, it\nwill be seen that they have such knowledge.\n\n\"They say that one exists whom they call Atahocan, who made the whole.\nSpeaking of God in a wigwam one day, they asked me 'what is God?' I told\nthem that it was He who made all things, Heaven and Earth. They then\nbegan to cry out to each other, 'Atahocan! Atahocan! it is Atahocan!'\"\n\nThere could be no better evidence that Atahocan was NOT (as is often\nsaid) \"borrowed from the Jesuits\". The Jesuits had only just arrived.\n\nLater (1634) Le Jeune interrogated an old man and a partly Europeanised\nsorcerer. They replied that nothing was certain; that Atahocan was only\nspoken of as \"of a thing so remote,\" that assurance was impossible. \"In\nfact, their word Nitatohokan means, 'I fable, I tell an old story'.\"\n\nThus Atahocan, though at once recognised as identical with the Creator\nof the missionary, was so far from being the latest thing in religious\nevolution that he had passed into a proverb for the ancient and the\nfabulous. This, of course, is inconsistent with RECENT borrowing. He was\nneglected for Khichikouai, spirits which inspire seers, and are of\nsome practical use, receiving rewards in offerings of grease, says Le\nJeune.(1)\n\n\n(1) Relations, 1633, 1634.\n\n\nThe obsolescent Atahocan seems to have had no moral activity. But, in\nAmerica, this indolence of God is not universal. Mr. Parkman indeed\nwrites: \"In the primitive Indian's conception of a God, the idea of\nmoral good has no part\".(1) But this is definitely contradicted by\nHeriot, Strachey, Winslow, already cited, and by Pere Le Jeune. The good\nattributes of Kiehtan and Ahone were not borrowed from Christianity,\nwere matter of Indian belief before the English arrived. Mr. Parkman\nwrites: \"The moment the Indians began to contemplate the object of his\nfaith, and sought to clothe it with attributes, it became finite, and\ncommonly ridiculous\". It did so, as usual, in MYTHOLOGY, but not in\nRELIGION. There is nothing ridiculous in what is known of Ahone and\nKiehtan. If they had a mythology, and if we knew the myths, doubtless\nthey would be ridiculous enough. The savage mind, turned from belief and\nawe into the spinning of yarns, instantly yields to humorous fancy. As\nwe know, mediaeval popular Christianity, in imagery, marchen or tales,\nand art, copiously illustrates the same mental phenomenon. Saints,\nGod, our Lord, and the Virgin, all play ludicrous and immoral parts in\nChristian folk-tales. This is Mythology, and here is, beyond all cavil,\na late corruption of Religion. Here, where we know the history of a\ncreed, Religion is early, and these myths are late. Other examples of\nAmerican divine ideas might be given, such as the extraordinary hymns\nin which the Zunis address the Eternal, Ahonawilona. But as the Zuni\nreligion has only been studied in recent years, the hymns would be\ndismissed as \"borrowed,\" though there is nothing Catholic or Christian\nabout them. We have preferred to select examples where borrowing from\nChristianity is out of the question. The current anthropological theory\nis thus confronted with American examples of ideas of the divine which\ncannot have been borrowed, while, if the gods are said to have been\nevolved out of ghosts, we reply that, in some cases, they receive no\nsacrifice, sacrifice being usually a note of ghostly descent. Again,\nsimilar gods, as we show, exist where ghosts of chiefs are not\nworshipped, and as far as evidence goes never were worshipped, because\nthere is no evidence of the existence at any time of such chiefs. The\nAmerican highest gods may then be equally free from the taint of ghostly\ndescent.\n\n\n(1) Parkman, The Jesuits in North America. p. lxxviii.\n\n\nThere is another more or less moral North American deity whose evolution\nis rather questionable. Pere Brebeuf (1636), speaking of the\nHurons, says that \"they have recourse to Heaven in almost all their\nnecessities,... and I may say that it is, in fact, God whom they blindly\nadore, for they imagine that there is an Oki, that is, a demon, in\nheaven, who regulates the seasons, bridles the winds and the waves of\nthe sea, and helps them in every need. They dread his wrath, and appeal\nto him as witness to the inviolability of their faith, when they make\na promise or treaty of peace with enemies. 'Heaven hear us to-day' is\ntheir form of adjuration.\"(1)\n\n\n(1) Relations, 1636, pp. 106, 107.\n\n\nA spiritual being, whose home is heaven, who rides on the winds, whose\nwrath is dreaded, who sanctions the oath, is only called \"a demon\" by\nthe prejudice of the worthy father who, at the same time, admits that\nthe savages have a conception of God--and that God, so conceived, is\nthis demon!\n\nThe debatable question is, was the \"demon,\" or the actual expanse of\nsky, first in evolution? That cannot precisely be settled, but in the\nanalogous Chinese case of China we find heaven (Tien) and \"Shang-ti, the\npersonal ruling Deity,\" corresponding to the Huron \"demon\". Shang-ti,\nthe personal deity, occurs most in the oldest, pre-Confucian sacred\ndocuments, and, so far, appears to be the earlier conception. The\n\"demon\" in Huron faith may also be earlier than the religious regard\npaid to his home, the sky.(1) The unborrowed antiquity of a belief in\na divine being, creative and sometimes moral, in North America, is thus\ndemonstrated. So far I had written when I accidentally fell in with\nMr. Tylor's essay on \"The Limits of Savage Religion\".(2) In that essay,\nrather to my surprise, Mr. Tylor argues for the borrowing of \"The Great\nSpirit,\" \"The Great Manitou,\" from the Jesuits. Now, as to the phrase,\n\"Great Spirit,\" the Jesuits doubtless caused its promulgation, and,\nwhere their teaching penetrated, shreds of their doctrine may have\nadhered to the Indian conception of that divine being. But Mr. Tylor\nin his essay does not allude to the early evidence, his own, for Oki,\nAtahocan, Kiehtan, and Torngursak, all undeniably prior to Jesuit\ninfluence, and found where Jesuits, later, did not go. As Mr. Tylor\noffers no reason for disregarding evidence in 1892 which he had\nrepublished in a new edition of Primitive Culture in 1891, it is\nimpossible to argue against him in this place. He went on, in the essay\ncited (1892) to contend that the Australian god of the Kamilaroi\nof Victoria, Baiame, is, in name and attributes, of missionary\nintroduction. Happily this hypothesis can be refuted, as we show in the\nfollowing chapter on Australian gods.\n\n\n(1) See Tylor, Prim. Cult., ii. 362, and Making of Religion, p. 318;\nalso Menzies, History of Religion, pp. 108,109, and Dr. Legge's Chinese\nClassics, in Sacred Books of the East, vols. iii., xxvii., xxviii.\n\n(2) Journ. of Anthrop. Inst., vol. xxi., 1892.\n\n\nIt would be easy enough to meet the hypothesis of borrowing in the case\nof the many African tribes who possess something approaching to a rude\nmonotheistic conception. Among these are the Dinkas of the Upper Nile,\nwith their neighbours, whose creed Russegger compares to that of\nmodern Deists in Europe. The Dinka god, Dendid, is omnipotent, but\nso benevolent that he is not addressed in prayer, nor propitiated by\nsacrifice. Compare the supreme being of the Caribs, beneficent, otiose,\nunadored.(1) A similar deity, veiled in the instruction of the as yet\nunpenetrated Mysteries, exists among the Yao of Central Africa.(2) Of\nthe negro race, Waitz says, \"even if we do not call them monotheists,\nwe may still think of them as standing on the boundary of monotheism\ndespite their innumerable rude superstitions\".(3) The Tshi speaking\npeople of the Gold Coast have their unworshipped Nyankupon, a now\notiose unadored being, with a magisterial deputy, worshipped with many\nsacrifices. The case is almost an exact parallel to that of Ahone and\nOki in America. THESE were not borrowed, and the author has argued at\nlength against Major Ellis's theory of the borrowing from Christians of\nNyankupon.(4)\n\n\n(1) Rochefort, Les Isles Antilles, p. 415. Tylor, ii. 337.\n\n(2) Macdonald, Africana, 1, 71, 72, 130, 279-301. Scott, Dictionary of\nthe Manganja Language, Making of Religion, pp. 230-238. A contradictory\nview in Spencer, Ecclesiastical Institutions, p. 681.\n\n(3) Anthropologie, ii. 167.\n\n(4) Making of Religion, pp. 243-250.\n\n\nTo conclude this chapter, the study of savage and barbaric religions\nseems to yield the following facts:--\n\n1. Low savages. No regular chiefs. Great beings, not in receipt of\nsacrifice, sanctioning morality. Ghosts are not worshipped, though\nbelieved in. Polytheism, departmental gods and gods of heaven, earth,\nsky and so forth, have not been developed or are not found.\n\n2. Barbaric races. Aristocratic or monarchic. Ghosts are worshipped\nand receive sacrifice. Polytheistic gods are in renown and receive\nsacrifice. There is usually a supreme Maker who is, in some cases,\nmoral, in others otiose. In only one or two known cases (as in that of\nthe Polynesian Taaroa) is he in receipt of sacrifice.\n\n3. Barbaric races. (Zulus, monarchic with Unkulunkulu; some Algonquins\n(feebly aristocratic) with Atahocan). Religion is mainly ancestor\nworship or vague spirit worship; ghosts are propitiated with food.\nThere are traces of an original divine being whose name is becoming\nobsolescent and a matter of jest.\n\n4. Early civilisations. Monarchic or aristocratic. (Greece, Egypt,\nIndia, Peru, Mexico.) Polytheism. One god tends to be supreme.\nReligiously regarded, gods are moral; in myth are the reverse. Gods are\nin receipt of sacrifice. Heavenly society is modelled on that of men,\nmonarchic or aristocratic. Philosophic thought tends towards belief in\none pure god, who may be named Zeus, in Greece.\n\n5. The religion of Israel. Probably a revival and purification of the\nold conception of a moral, beneficent creator, whose creed had been\ninvolved in sacrifice and anthropomorphic myth.\n\nIn all the stages thus roughly sketched, myths of the lowest sort\nprevail, except in the records of the last stage, where the documents\nhave been edited by earnest monotheists.\n\nIf this theory be approximately correct, man's earliest religious ideas\nmay very well have consisted, in a sense, of dependence on a supreme\nmoral being who, when attempts were made by savages to describe the\nmodus of his working, became involved in the fancies of mythology. How\nthis belief in such a being arose we have no evidence to prove. We make\nno hint at a sensus numinis, or direct revelation.\n\nWhile offering no hypothesis of the origin of belief in a moral creator\nwe may present a suggestion. Mr. Darwin says about early man: \"The same\nhigh mental faculties which first led man to believe in unseen spiritual\nagencies, then in fetichism, polytheism and ultimately monotheism, would\ninfallibly lead him, so long as his reasoning powers remained poorly\ndeveloped, to various strange superstitions and customs\".(1) Now,\naccepting Mr. Darwin's theory that early man had \"high mental\nfaculties,\" the conception of a Maker of things does not seem beyond his\ngrasp. Man himself made plenty of things, and could probably conceive of\na being who made the world and the objects in it. \"Certainly there must\nbe some Being who made all these things. He must be very good too,\" said\nan Eskimo to a missionary.(2) The goodness is inferred by the Eskimo\nfrom his own contentment with \"the things which are made\".(3)\n\n\n(1) Darwin, Descent of Man, i. p. 66.\n\n(2) Cranz, i. 199.\n\n(3) Romans, i. 19.\n\n\nAnother example of barbaric man \"seeking after God\" may be adduced.\n\nWhat the Greenlander said is corroborated by what a Kaffir said.\nKaffir religion is mainly animistic, ancestral spirits receive food and\nsacrifice--there is but an evanescent tradition of a \"Lord in Heaven\".\nThus a very respectable Kaffir said to M. Arbrousset, \"your tidings\n(Christianity) are what I want; and I was seeking before I knew you....\nI asked myself sorrowful questions. 'Who has touched the stars with his\nhands?... Who makes the waters flow?... Who can have given earth the\nwisdom and power to produce corn?' Then I buried my face in my hands.\"\n\n\"This,\" says Sir John Lubbock, \"was, however, an exceptional case. As\na general rule savages do not set themselves to think out such\nquestions.\"(1)\n\n\n(1) Origin of Civilisation, p. 201.\n\n\nAs a common fact, if savages never ask the question, at all events,\nsomehow, they have the answer ready made. \"Mangarrah, or Baiame, Puluga,\nor Dendid, or Ahone, or Ahonawilona, or Atahocan, or Taaroa, or Tui\nLaga, was the maker.\" Therefore savages who know that leave the question\nalone, or add mythical accretions. But their ancestors must have asked\nthe question, like the \"very respectable Kaffir\" before they answered\nit.\n\nHaving reached the idea of a Creator, it was not difficult to add that\nhe was \"good,\" or beneficent, and was deathless.\n\nA notion of a good powerful Maker, not subject to death because\nnecessarily prior to Death (who only invaded the world late), seems\neasier of attainment than the notion of Spirit which, ex hypothesi,\ndemands much delicate psychological study and hard thought. The idea of\na Good Maker, once reached, becomes, perhaps, the germ of future theism,\nbut, as Mr. Darwin says, the human mind was \"infallibly led to various\nstrange superstitions\". As St. Paul says, in perfect agreement with Mr.\nDarwin on this point, \"they became vain in their imaginations, and their\nfoolish heart was darkened\".\n\nAmong other imaginations (right or wrong) was the belief in spirits,\nwith all that followed in the way of instituting sacrifices, even of\nhuman beings, and of dropping morality, about which the ghost of a\ndeceased medicine-man was not likely to be much interested. The supposed\nnearness to man, and the venal and partial character of worshipped gods\nand ghost-gods, would inevitably win for them more service and attention\nthan would be paid to a Maker remote, unbought and impartial. Hence the\nconception of such a Being would tend to obsolescence, as we see that it\ndoes, and would be most obscured where ghosts were most propitiated, as\namong the Zulus. Later philosophy would attach the spiritual conception\nto the revived or newly discovered idea of the supreme God.\n\nIn all this speculation there is nothing mystical; no supernatural or\nsupernormal interference is postulated. Supernormal experiences may have\nhelped to originate or support the belief in spirits, that, however, is\nanother question. But this hypothesis of the origin of belief in a good\nunceasing Maker of things is, of course, confessedly a conjecture, for\nwhich historical evidence cannot be given, in the nature of the\ncase. All our attempts to discover origins far behind history must be\nconjectural. Their value must be estimated by the extent to which\nthis or that hypothesis colligates the facts. Now our hypothesis does\ncolligate the facts. It shows how belief in a moral supreme being might\narise before ghosts were worshipped, and it accounts for the flaw in the\nreligious strata, for the mythical accretions, for the otiose Creator in\nthe background of many barbaric religions, and for the almost universal\nabsence of sacrifice to the God relatively supreme. He was, from his\nearliest conception, in no need of gifts from men.\n\nOn this matter of otiose supreme gods, Professor Menzies writes, \"It is\nvery common to find in savage beliefs a vague far-off god, who is at the\nback of all the others, takes little part in the management of things,\nand receives little worship. But it is impossible to judge what that\nbeing was at an earlier time; he may have been a nature god, or a spirit\nwho has by degrees grown faint, and come to occupy this position.\"\n\nNow the position which he occupies is usually, if not universally, that\nof the Creator. He could not arrive at this rank by \"becoming faint,\"\nnor could \"a nature-god\" be the Maker of Nature. The only way by which\nwe can discover \"what that being was at an earlier time\" is to see what\nhe IS at an earlier time, that is to say, what the conception of him is,\namong men in an earlier state of culture. Among them, as we show, he is\nvery much more near, potent and moral, than among races more advanced in\nsocial evolution and material culture. We can form no opinion as to the\nnature of such \"vague, far-off gods, at the back of all the others,\"\ntill we collect and compare examples, and endeavour to ascertain what\npoints they have in common, and in what points they differ from each\nother. It then becomes plain that they are least far away, and most\npotent, where there is least ghostly and polytheistic competition, that\nis, among the most backward races. The more animism the less theism, is\nthe general rule. Manifestly the current hypothesis--that all religion\nis animistic in origin--does not account for these facts, and is\nobliged to fly to an undemonstrated theory of degradation, or to an\nundemonstrated theory of borrowing. That our theory is inconsistent with\nthe general doctrine of evolution we cannot admit, if we are allowed to\nagree with Mr. Darwin's statement about the high mental faculties\nwhich first led man to sympathetic, and then to wild beliefs. We do\nnot pretend to be more Darwinian than Mr. Darwin, who compares \"these\nmiserable and indirect results of our higher faculties\" to \"the\noccasional mistakes of the instincts of the lower animals\".\n\nThe opinion here maintained, namely, that a germ of pure belief may be\ndetected amidst the confusion of low savage faith, and that in a still\nearlier stage it may have been less overlaid with fable, is in direct\ncontradiction to current theories. It is also in contradiction with the\nopinions entertained by myself before I made an independent examination\nof the evidence. Like others, I was inclined to regard reports of a\nmoral Creator, who observes conduct, and judges it even in the next\nlife, as rumours due either to Christian influence, or to mistake. I\nwell know, however, and could, and did, discount the sources of error.\nI was on my guard against the twin fallacies of describing all savage\nreligion as \"devil worship,\" and of expecting to find a primitive\n\"divine tradition\". I was also on my guard against the modern bias\nderived from the \"ghost-theory,\" and Mr. Spencer's works, and I kept an\neye on opportunities of \"borrowing\".(1) I had, in fact, classified all\nknown idola in the first edition of this work, such as the fallacy of\nleading questions and the chance of deliberate deception. I sought the\nearliest evidence, prior to any missionary teaching, and the evidence\nof what the first missionaries found, in the way of belief, on their\narrival. I preferred the testimony of the best educated observers, and\nof those most familiar with native languages. I sought for evidence in\nnative hymns (Maori, Zuni, Dinka, Red Indian) and in native ceremonial\nand mystery, as these sources were least likely to be contaminated.\n\n\n(1) Making of Religion, p. 187.\n\n\nOn the other side, I found a vast body of testimony that savages had no\nreligion at all. But that testimony, en masse, was refuted by Roskoff,\nand also, in places, by Tylor. When three witnesses were brought to\nswear that they saw the Irishman commit a crime, he offered to bring\na dozen witnesses who did NOT see him. Negative evidence of squatters,\nsailors and colonists, who did NOT see any religion among this or\nthat race, is not worth much against evidence of trained observers and\nlinguists who DID find what the others missed, and who found more the\nmore they knew the tribe in question. Again, like others, I thought\nsavages incapable of such relatively pure ideas as I now believe some of\nthem to possess. But I could not resist the evidence, and I abandoned\nmy a priori notions. The evidence forcibly attests gradations in the\ncentral belief. It is found in various shades, from relative potency\ndown to a vanishing trace, and it is found in significant proportion\nto the prevalence of animistic ideas, being weakest where they are most\ndeveloped, strongest where they are least developed. There must be a\nreason for these phenomena, and that reason, as it seems to me, is the\noverlaying and supersession of a rudely Theistic by an animistic creed.\nThat one cause would explain, and does colligate, all the facts.\n\nThere remains a point on which misconception proves to be possible. It\nwill be shown, contrary to the current hypothesis, that the religion\nof the lowest races, in its highest form, sanctions morality. That\nmorality, again, in certain instances, demands unselfishness. Of course\nwe are not claiming for that doctrine any supernatural origin. Religion,\nif it sanctions ethics at all, will sanction those which the conscience\naccepts, and those ethics, in one way or other, must have been evolved.\nThat the \"cosmical\" law is \"the weakest must go to the wall\" is\ngenerally conceded. Man, however, is found trying to reverse the law, by\nequal and friendly dealing (at least within what is vaguely called \"the\ntribe\"). His religion, as in Australia, will be shown to insist on this\nunselfishness. How did he evolve his ethics?\n\n\"Be it little or be it much they get,\" says Dampier about the\nAustralians in 1688, \"every one has his part, as well the young and\ntender as the old and feeble, who are not able to get abroad as the\nstrong and lusty.\" This conduct reverses the cosmical process, and\nnotoriously civilised society, Christian society, does not act on these\nprinciples. Neither do the savages, who knock the old and feeble on the\nhead, or deliberately leave them to starve, act on these principles,\nsanctioned by Australian religion, but (according to Mr. Dawson) NOT\ncarried out in Australian practice. \"When old people become infirm... it\nis lawful and customary to kill them.\"(1)\n\n\n(1) Australian Aborigines, p. 62.\n\n\nAs to the point of unselfishness, evolutionists are apt to account for\nit by common interest. A tribe in which the strongest monopolise what is\nbest will not survive so well as an unselfish tribe in the struggle for\nexistence. But precisely the opposite is true, aristocracy marks the\nmore successful barbaric races, and an aristocratic slave-holding\ntribe could have swept Australia as the Zulus swept South Africa. That\naristocracy and acquisition of separate property are steps in advance\non communistic savagery all history declares. Therefore a tribe which\nin Australia developed private property, and reduced its neighbours to\nslavery, would have been better fitted to survive than such a tribe as\nDampier describes.\n\nThis is so evident that probably, or possibly, the Dampier state of\nsociety was not developed in obedience to a recognised tribal interest,\nbut in obedience to an affectionate instinct. \"Ils s'entr' aiment les\nune les autres,\" says Brebeuf of the Hurons.(1) \"I never heard the\nwomen complain of being left out of feasts, or that the men ate the\nbest portions... every one does his business sweetly, peaceably, without\ndispute. You never see disputes, quarrels, hatred, or reproach among\nthem.\" Brebeuf then tells how a young Indian stranger, in a time of\nwant, stole the best part of a moose. \"They did not rage or curse,\nthey only bantered him, and yet to take our meat was almost to take our\nlives.\" Brebeuf wanted to lecture the lad; his Indian host bade him hold\nhis peace, and the stranger was given hospitality, with his wife and\nchildren. \"They are very generous, and make it a point not to attach\nthemselves to the goods of this world.\" \"Their greatest reproach is\n'that man wants everything, he is greedy'. They support, with never\na murmur, widows, orphans and old men, yet they kill hopeless or\ntroublesome invalids, and their whole conduct to Europeans was the\nreverse of their domestic behaviour.\"\n\n\n(1) Relations, 1634, p. 29.\n\n\nAnother example of savage unselfish ethics may be found in Mr. Mann's\naccount of the Andaman Islanders, a nomad race, very low in culture. \"It\nis a noteworthy trait, and one which deserves high commendation, that\nevery care and consideration are paid by all classes to the very young,\nthe weak, the aged, and the helpless, and these being made special\nobjects of interest and attention, invariably fare better in regard to\nthe comforts and necessaries of daily life than any of the otherwise\nmore fortunate members of the community.\"(1)\n\n\n(1) J. A. I., xii. p. 93.\n\n\nMr. Huxley, in his celebrated Romanes Lecture on \"Evolution and\nMorality,\" laid stress on man's contravention of the cosmic law, \"the\nweakest must go to the wall\". He did not explain the evolution of man's\nopposition to this law. The ordinary evolutionist hypothesis, that\nthe tribe would prosper most whose members were least self-seeking, is\ncontradicted by all history. The overbearing, \"grabbing,\" aristocratic,\nindividualistic, unscrupulous races beat the others out of the field.\nMr. Huxley, indeed, alleged that the \"influence of the cosmic process\nin the evolution of society is the greater the more rudimentary its\ncivilisation. Social progress means a checking of the cosmic process at\nevery step and the substitution for it of another, which may be called\nthe ethical process.... As civilisation has advanced, so has the extent\nof this interference increased....\"(1) But where, in Europe, is the\ninterference so marked as among the Andamanese? We have still to face\nthe problem of the generosity of low savages.\n\n\n(1) Ethics of Evolution, pp. 81-84.\n\n\nIt is conceivable that the higher ethics of low savages rather reflect\ntheir emotional instincts than arise from tribal legislation which is\nsupposed to enable a \"tribe\" to prosper in the struggle for existence.\nAs Brebeuf and Dampier, among others, prove, savages often set a good\nexample to Christians, and their ethics are, in certain cases, as among\nthe Andamanese and Fuegians, and, probably among the Yao, sanctioned by\ntheir religion. But, as Mr. Tylor says, \"the better savage social life\nseems but in unstable equilibrium, liable to be easily upset by a touch\nof distress, temptation, or violence\".(1) Still, religion does its\nbest, in certain cases, to lend equilibrium; though all the world over,\nreligion often fails in practice.\n\n\n(1) Prim. Cult., i. 51.","title":"Myth, Ritual and Religion, Vol. 1 (of 2)","tradition":"myth-cosmogony","translated_text":null,"word_count":102881}