{"collection":"myth-cosmogony","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_47127/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_47127","id":"gutenberg_47127","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/47127","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Other","Category: Law & Criminology","Category: Mythology, Legends & Folklore","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","International law","Macdonell, George, 1780-1870","Mythology","Natural law","Tradition (Theology)"],"text":"Transcriber's Note\n\nThis version of the text cannot represent certain typographical effects.\nItalics are delimited with the '_' character as _italic_. The 'oe'\nligature is printed as separate characters.\n\nNon-English language quotations are given as printed. Passages in Greek\nare transliterated, and denoted as [Greek: Athiopas toi ...].\n\nFootnotes have been consolidated and moved to directly follow the\nparagraph where they are referenced. In the printed version, footnotes\nwere numbered consecutively, beginning anew with each chapter. Here,\nthey have been re-sequenced for uniqueness. References to those notes\nin the text and the transcriber's errata are to the new numbers. There\nare several footnotes that appear in other footnotes. These have been\nlettered as [A], [B], [C], and follow the note containing the\nreference.\n\nIn a number of places, passages are compared by placing them in\nparallel columns, usually across several pages. The left hand\ncolumn is given contiguously with a wide right margin, and then the\nright hand column, with a large left margin. On p. 262, four columns\nare used for comparison. Each is given in turn, with no attempt to\nsimulate the format.\n\nPlease see the notes at the end of this text for a more detailed list\nof specific issues encountered and the resolutions of each.\n\n\n\n\n TRADITION\n PRINCIPALLY WITH REFERENCE TO\n MYTHOLOGY AND THE LAW OF NATIONS.\n\n PRINTED BY BALLANTYNE AND COMPANY\n EDINBURGH AND LONDON\n\n\n\n\n TRADITION\n\n PRINCIPALLY WITH REFERENCE TO\n\n MYTHOLOGY AND THE LAW OF\n NATIONS.\n\n\n BY\n\n LORD ARUNDELL OF WARDOUR.\n\n\n LONDON:\n BURNS, OATES, & COMPANY,\n 17 & 18 PORTMAN STREET, AND 63 PATERNOSTER ROW.\n 1872.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n CHAP. PAGE\n\n PREFACE, ix\n\n MEMOIR OF COLONEL GEORGE MACDONELL, C.B., xix\n\n I. THE LAW OF NATIONS, 1\n\n II. THE LAW OF NATURE, 20\n\n III. PRIMITIVE LIFE, 26\n\n IV. CHRONOLOGY FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF TRADITION, 55\n\n V. CHRONOLOGY FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF SCIENCE, 72\n\n VI. PALMER ON EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY, 92\n\n VII. THE TRADITION OF THE HUMAN RACE, 105\n\n VIII. MYTHOLOGY, 157\n\n IX. ASSYRIAN MYTHOLOGY, 182\n\n X. THE TRADITION OF NOAH AND THE DELUGE, 210\n\n XI. DILUVIAN TRADITIONS IN AFRICA AND AMERICA, 242\n\n XII. SIR JOHN LUBBOCK ON TRADITION, 283\n\n XIII. NOAH AND THE GOLDEN AGE, 323\n\n XIV. SIR H. MAINE ON THE LAW OF NATIONS, 338\n\n XV. THE DECLARATION OF WAR, 386\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nI shall have no hope of conveying to the reader, within the narrow\nlimits of a preface, any fuller idea of the purport of this work\nthan its title expresses; and as the chapters are necessarily\ninterdependent, I can indicate no short-cut in the perusal by which\nthis information can be obtained.\n\nI venture to think that those who are interested in the special matters\nreferred to will find something in these pages which may attract on\naccount of its novelty--and some other things, new at least in their\napplication--_e.g._ the comparison of Boulanger's theory with the\nnarratives of Captain R. Burton and Catlin.\n\nThe frequent introduction and the length of the notes, must, I am\naware, give to these pages a repellent aspect, but the necessity\nof bringing various points under comparison has compelled this\narrangement; and I regret to say that the argument runs through the\nwhole, and that almost as much matter requiring consideration will be\nfound in the notes and appendices as in the text.\n\nI trust that these imperfections may not be so great as to estrange\nthe few, among whom only I can hope to find much sympathy, who wish\nto see the true foundations of peace and order re-established in the\nworld, and who may therefore to some extent be indulgent towards\nefforts which have for their aim and motive the attempt to erect\nbarriers which would render the recurrence of the evils which have\nlately deluged mankind difficult, if not impossible.\n\nThere are others whom the recent scenes of horror have inspired with a\nlove of peace and order, or of whom it would be more true to say, that\nthe horrors of the late war and revolution have deepened in them the\nsentiment of peace and order which they have always entertained, but\nwho still do not desire these things on the conditions upon which alone\nthey can be secured. From them I can only ask such passing examination\nas may be demanded for the conscientious rejection of the evidence I\nhave collected, or for its adjustment with more accepted theories.\n\nThere will remain for me much ground in common with all who retain\ntheir faith in the inspiration of Holy Writ, and who wish to see its\nauthority sustained against the aggressive infidelity of the day; and\neven among those who reject the authority of divine revelation, there\nmay be still some who are wearied in the arid wastes, and who would\ngladly retrace their steps to the green pastures and the abundant\nstreams. Among such I may perhaps expect to find friendly criticism.\n\nAt the same time, I do not disguise from myself that, in its present\nmood, the world is much more anxious to be cut adrift from tradition\nthan to be held to its moorings; and that it will impatiently learn\nthat fresh facts have to be considered before its emancipation can be\ndeclared, or before it can be let loose without the evident certainty\nof shipwreck. Although the exigencies of the argument have compelled\nresearch over a somewhat extended field of inquiry, the exploration\nhas no pretensions to being exhaustive, but at most suggestive; not\nattempting to work the mine, or, except incidentally, to produce the\nore, but only indicating the positions in which it is likely to be\nfound.\n\nIn the main position of the mythological chapters, that the heroes of\nmythological legend embody the reminiscences of the characters and\nincidents of the biblical narrative, I do nothing more than carry on a\ntradition, as the reader will see in my references to Calmet, Bryant,\nPalmer, and others.[1] I should add, that I limit the full application\nof De Maistre's theory to the times preceding the coming of our Lord.\n\n [1] It has curiously happened that I have never seen the work\n which, after Bryant, would probably have afforded the largest\n repertory of facts--G. Stanley Faber's \"Dissertation on the\n Mysteries of the Cabiri;\" and it is only recently, since\n these pages were in print, that I have become acquainted with\n Davies' \"Celtic Researches\" and \"The Mythology and Rites of\n the British Druids.\" The Celtic traditions respecting their\n god Hu, are so important from more than one point of view,\n that I cannot forbear making the following extracts from the\n latter author, which I trust the reader will refer back to and\n compare in chap. ix. with the Babylonian Hoa, at p. 66 with\n the Chinese Yu, and at p. 262 with the African Hu.\n\n Davies' \"Celtic Researches,\" p. 184, says, \"Though Hu Gadarn\n primarily denoted the Supreme Being [compare chap. ix.], I\n think his actions have a secondary reference to the history\n of Noah. The following particulars are told of him in the\n above-cited selection:--(1.) His branching or elevated oxen\n [compare p. 205 and chap. xi.] ... at the Deluge, drew the\n destroyer out of the water, so that the lake burst forth no\n more [compare chap. iv.] (2.) He instructed the primitive\n race in the cultivation of the earth [compare p. 239]. (3.)\n He first collected and disposed them into various tribes\n [compare p. 239]. (4.) He first gave laws, traditions, &c.,\n and adapted verse to memorials [compare p. 239]. (5.) He\n first brought the Cymry into Britain and Gaul [compare p.\n 66], because he would not have them possess lands by war and\n contention, but of right and peace\" [compare chaps. xiii. and\n xv.] It is true that these traditions come to us in ballads\n attributed to Welsh bards of the 13th and 14th centuries A.D.;\n but, as the Rev. Mr Davies said, \"that such a superstition\n should have been fabricated by the bards in the middle ages of\n Christianity, is a supposition utterly irreconcileable with\n probability.\" And I think the improbability will be widely\n extended if the readers will take the trouble, after perusal,\n to make the references as above.\n\nMy attention was first drawn to the coincidences of mythology with\nscriptural history by the late Colonel G. Macdonell.[2] Colonel\nMacdonell's coincidences were founded upon a peculiar theory of his\nown, and must necessarily have been exclusively upon the lines of\nHebrew derivation. There is nothing, however, in these pages drawn from\nthat source. I may add, for the satisfaction of Colonel Macdonell's\nfriends, that as Colonel Macdonell's MSS. exist, and are in the\npossession of Colonel I. J. Macdonell, I have (except at p. 243, when\nquoting from Boulanger,) expressly excluded the consideration of the\ninfluence of the Hebrew upon general tradition, which, however, will\nbe necessary for the full discussion of the question.\n\n [2] I have appended a short biographical notice of Colonel G.\n Macdonell, which I venture to think may contain matter of\n public interest.\n\nWhatever, therefore, Colonel Macdonell may have written will remain\nover and above in illustration of the tradition. But whether on the\nlines of Hebrew or primeval tradition, these views will inevitably\nrun counter to the mythological theories now in the ascendant. These\nviews, indeed, have been so long relegated to darkness, and perhaps\nappropriately, on account of their opposition to the prevalent solar\ntheories, \"flouted like owls and bats\" whenever they have ventured into\nthe daylight, that it will be with something amounting to absolute\nastonishment that the learned will hear that there are people who still\nentertain them: \"itaque ea nolui scribere, qu\u00e6 nec indocti intelligere\npossent, nec docti legere curarent\" (Cic. Acad. Qu\u00e6s., 1. i. \u00a7 2).\n\nI can sincerely say, however, that although my theories place me in a\nposition of antagonism to modern science, yet that I have written in no\nspirit of hostility to science or the cause of science.\n\nI have throughout excluded the geological argument, for the first and\nsufficient reason that I am not a geologist; and secondly, by the\nsame right and title, that geologists, _e.g._ Sir C. Lyell, in his\n\"Antiquity of Man,\" ignores the arguments and facts to which I have\ndirected special attention.\n\nNevertheless, I find that competent witnesses have come to conclusions\nnot materially different from those which have been arrived at, on the\nground of history, within their own department of geology. I have more\nespecially in my mind the following passage from a series of papers,\n\"On Some Evidences of the Antiquity of Man,\" by the Rev. A. Weld, in\nthe _Month_ (1871), written with full knowledge and in a spirit of\ncareful and fair appreciation of the evidence. He says:--\n\n \"These evidences, such as they are, are fully treated in the work\n of Sir C. Lyell, entitled 'Antiquity of Man,' which exhausted the\n whole question as it stood, when the last edition was published in\n the year 1863. It is worthy of note that though the conclusion at\n which the geologist arrives is hesitating and suggestive, rather\n than decisive, and though nothing of importance, as far as we are\n aware, has been added to the geological aspect of the question\n since that time--except that the reality of the discovery of human\n remains has been verified, and many additional discoveries of a\n similar character have been made--_still the opinion_, which was\n _then new and startling, has gradually gained ground_, until we\n find writers assuming as a thing that needs no further proof, that\n the period of man's habitation on the earth is to be reckoned in\n tens of thousands of years.\"--_The Month_ (May and June 1871), p.\n 437.\n\nAmong various works, bearing on matters contained in these pages, which\nhave come to hand during the course of publication, I may mention--\n\n\"The Mythology of the Aryan Nations,\" by the Rev. G. W. Cox, referred\nto in notes at pp. 158, 165, 396.\n\nThe third edition of Sir John Lubbock's \"Pre-historic Times.\"\n\nMr E. B. Tylor's \"Primitive Culture,\" referred to in notes at pp. 41,\n136, 300.\n\nMr St George Mivart's \"Genesis of Species.\"\n\nMr F. Seebohm on \"International Reform.\"\n\nSir H. S. Maine's \"Village Communities.\"\n\nThe Archbishop of Westminster's paper, read before the Royal\nInstitution, \"On the D\u00e6mon of Socrates.\"\n\n\"Orsini's Life of the Blessed Virgin,\" translated by the Very Rev. Dr\nHusenbeth.\n\n\"Hints and Facts on the Origin of Man,\" by the Very Rev. Dr P. Melia,\n1872, who says (p. 59), \"Considering the great length of life of\nthe first patriarchs, Moses must have had every information through\nnon-interrupted tradition. If we reflect that Shem for many years saw\nMethuselah, a contemporary of Adam, and that Shem himself lived to the\ntime of Abraham, ... that Abraham died after the birth of Jacob, and\nthat Jacob saw many who were alive when Moses was born, we see that a\nfew generations connect Moses not only with Noah, but also with Adam.\"\nI quote this passage as it is important to place in the foreground of\nthis inquiry the unassailable truth that (apart from revelation) the\nhistorical account of the origin of the human race, to which all others\nconverge, is consistent with itself, and bears intrinsic evidence of\ncredibility.\n\nAn analogous argument with reference to Christian tradition was\nsketched in a lecture by Mr Edward Lucas, and published in 1862, \"On\nthe First Two Centuries of Christianity.\"\n\nWith reference to other parts of these pages, much supplemental matter\nwill be found in--\n\n\"Historical Illustrations of the Old Testament,\" by the Rev. G.\nRawlinson, M.A., Camden Prof., where, at pp. 19, 20, will be found\ndirect testimony to what I had conjectured from indirect evidence at\npp. 270, 271--viz., that the Polynesian islanders \"have a clear and\ndistinct tradition of a Deluge, from which one family only, _eight in\nnumber_, was saved in a canoe.\"\n\nAlso, but from a different point of view, in \"Legends of Old Testament\nCharacters,\" by Rev. S. Baring Gould, M.A.\n\nThe articles in the _Tablet_ \"On Arbitration instead of War,\" to which\nI have referred in chap. xiv. at p. 380, have recently been collected\nand reprinted by Lord Robert Montagu, M.P.\n\nIf I have exceeded in quotation, I must direct my readers, for the\ndefence of this mode of composition, from the point of view of\ntradition, to a work which I trust some in this busy age still find\nleisure to read, Mr Kenelm Digby's \"Mores Catholici,\" i. 40.\n\nI must, moreover, add a passage from the general preface to the recent\nrepublication of Mr Disraeli's works, which I came upon too late to\nintroduce into the body of this book, but which I feel sure the reader,\neven if he has met with it before, will not be reluctant to reperuse:--\n\n \"The sceptical effects of the discoveries of science, and the\n uneasy feeling that they cannot co-exist with our old religious\n convictions have their origin in the circumstance that the general\n body who have suddenly become conscious of these physical truths\n are not so well acquainted as is desirable with the past history\n of man. Astonished by their unprepared emergence from ignorance to\n a certain degree of information, their amazed intelligence takes\n refuge in the theory of what is conveniently called progress, and\n every step in scientific discovery seems further to remove them\n from the path of prim\u00e6val inspiration. But there is no fallacy\n so flagrant as to suppose that the modern ages have the peculiar\n privilege of scientific discovery, or that they are distinguished\n as the epochs of the most illustrious inventions. On the contrary,\n scientific invention has always gone on simultaneously with the\n revelation of spiritual truths; and more, the greatest discoveries\n are not those of modern ages. No one for a moment can pretend\n that printing is so great a discovery as writing, or algebra as\n language. What are the most brilliant of our chemical discoveries\n compared with the invention of fire and the metals? It is a vulgar\n belief that our astronomical knowledge dates only from the recent\n century, when it was rescued from the monks who imprisoned Galileo;\n but Hipparchus, who lived before our Divine Master, and who, among\n other sublime achievements, discovered the precession of the\n equinoxes, ranks with the Newtons and the Keplers; and Copernicus,\n the modern father of our celestial science, avows himself, in his\n famous work, as only the champion of Pythagoras, whose system he\n enforces and illustrates. Even the most modish schemes of the day\n on the origin of things, which captivate as much by their novelty\n as their truth, may find their precursors in ancient sages; and\n after a careful analysis of the blended elements of imagination and\n induction which characterise the new theories, they will be found\n mainly to rest on the atom of Epicurus and the monad of Thales.\n Scientific, like spiritual truth, has ever from the beginning\n been descending from Heaven to man. He is a being who organically\n demands direct relations with his Creator, and he would not have\n been so organised if his requirements could not be satisfied. We\n may analyse the sun and penetrate the stars; but man is conscious\n that he is made in God's own image, and in his perplexity he will\n ever appeal to our Father which art in Heaven.\"\n\n\n\n\n MEMOIR\n\n OF\n\n COLONEL GEORGE MACDONELL, C.B.\n\n\nThe following notice appeared in the _Times_, May 23, 1870--\"In our\nobituary column of Saturday we announced the death of Colonel George\nMacdonell, C.B., at the advanced age of ninety. This officer, who\nwas a cadet of the ancient and loyal Scottish house of Macdonell of\nGlengarry, was the son of an officer who served under the flag, and\nwho, as we have been told, was on the staff, of Prince Charles Edward\nStuart at the battle of Culloden, where he was severely wounded.\nHis son, the Colonel now deceased, was born in 1779, or early in\nthe following year; obtained his first commission in 1796, and was\nnominated a Companion of the Bath in 1817. He saw active service in the\nwar in North America with the 79th Foot, and received the gold medal\nfor the action at Ch\u00e2teaugay; and had he not accepted the retirement a\nfew years since, he would have been, at his death, almost the senior\nofficer in the army holding Her Majesty's commission. The late Colonel\nMacdonell, who adhered to the Roman Catholic religion professed by his\nancestors, and for which they fought so gallantly under the Stuart\nbanners, married, in 1820, the Hon. Laura Arundell, sister of the Lord\nArundell of Wardour, but was left a widower in May 1854.\" His son,\nColonel I. J. Macdonell, now commands the 71st Highlanders.\n\nI take this opportunity of adding a few facts, not without interest,\nto the above brief summary of a not uneventful life, as they\nmight otherwise pass unrecorded. In the sentiment of the Gaelic\nsaying--\"Curri mi clach er do cuirn\" (Wilson, \"Arch\u00e6ol. Scot.,\" p.\n59)--\"I will add a stone to your cairn.\"\n\nColonel Macdonell's father, as stated in the above account, was wounded\nat Culloden in the thigh, but was able to crawl on all-fours, after\nthe battle, eighteen miles, to a barn belonging to a member of the\nGrant family. He there remained in concealment for six months, leaving\nnature to heal the wound; but the search in the neighbourhood in time\nbecoming too hot, he had to decamp, and walked with a stick all the way\nto Newcastle, where he was not greatly re-assured by meeting a soldier\nwho had just been drummed out of his regiment as a Catholic, with the\nword \"Papist\" placarded on his back. He, however, escaped all dangers,\nand reached Hull, and subsequently Versailles or St Germains, where he\nremained three years, or at least till the events following the Peace\nof Aix-la-Chapelle dispersed the Prince's adherents. He then returned\nto England under the Act of Indemnity, entered the royal army, and\nwas present with General Wolfe at the taking of Quebec. If I remember\nrightly, he had the good fortune to take an aide-de-camp of Montcalm's\nprisoner, with important dispatches.\n\nColonel Macdonell's maternal uncle, Major Macdonald (Keppoch), was\ntaken prisoner at the battle of Falkirk. He was said to have been\nthe first man who drew blood in the war. By a curious revenue of\nfortune, he was carried back into the enemy's ranks by the horse of\na trooper whom he had captured. He was executed at Carlisle, and the\ncircumstances of his execution supplied Sir Walter Scott, I believe,\nwith the incidents which he worked up into the narrative of MacIvor's\nexecution in \"Waverley.\" His sword is in the possession of Mr P. Howard\nof Corby Castle, near Carlisle.\n\nFortune, however, had in store another revenge; for the Duke of\nCumberland being present, many years afterwards, at a ball at Bath, by\na most unhappy selection indicated as the person with whom he wished to\ndance a beautiful girl who turned out to be no other than the daughter\nof Major Macdonald (afterwards married to Mr Chichester of Calverley)\nthe circumstances of whose execution have just been referred to. She\nrose in deference to royalty, but replied, in a tone which utterly\ndiscomfited, and put his Royal Highness to flight--\"No, I will never\ndance with the murderer of my father!\"\n\nWith these antecedents, it is needless to add that Colonel G. Macdonell\nwas a warm admirer of the Stuarts, and not unnaturally extended his\nsympathy and adhesion to the kindred cause of legitimacy in France;\nand the one event to which he always looked forward, and confidently\npredicted--the restoration of the monarchy in the person of Henri\nV.--is now, if not imminent, at least \"the more probable of possible\nevents.\" There was, however, a belief which somewhat conflicted in his\nmind with the above anticipation--namely, his unshaken conviction that\nthe Dauphin did not die in the Temple. He was frequently at Holyrood\nwhen the palace was occupied by Charles X., and he accompanied the\nDuchess de Berri to the place of embarkation for her unfortunate\nexpedition to France. Colonel Macdonell also acted as the medium of\ncommunication between the French Royalists and the English Government;\nand on one important occasion conveyed intelligence to Lord Bathurst or\nLord Sidmouth respecting the movements of the secret societies in Spain\nin 1823 some hours before it reached them by the ordinary channel.\nPart of the communication was made on information supplied by the Abb\u00e9\nBarruel; and in reply, Lord Sidmouth said--\"Well, I remember Edmund\nBurke telling me that he believed every word that Barruel had written,\nand I fully accept the authority.\"\n\nColonel Macdonell was under the impression that he was unwittingly\nand remotely the cause of the break up of the Ministry of \"all the\ntalents.\" As this is an obscure point in history, it may be worth while\nto give the following facts. The impression produced by Marengo and\nAusterlitz had led to the Army Reform Bill of 1806, in which the points\ndiscussed were almost identical with those which lately excited the\npublic mind. The disasters which accompanied our descent on Egypt in\n1807, and the consequent evacuation of Alexandria, created considerable\ndiscontent and re-opened the question, and as further reforms on minor\npoints were contemplated, suggestions from officers in the army were\ninvited.\n\nColonel Macdonell (then only lieutenant), wrote to Mr Windham, the\nSecretary at War, to point out that any broken attorney might create\nconsiderable embarrassment at any critical moment, seeing that, as\nthe law then stood (an Act of George I. had extended the obligation\nof taking the sacrament to privates), any soldier could obtain, if\nnot his own, his comrade's discharge by pointing him out as a Papist.\nThe danger was recognised, and Mr Windham brought in a bill directed\nto meet the case, but its introduction revived the larger question\nof the repeal of the Tests' Acts and of the Catholic claims; and the\ndiscussion eventuated in Lord Howick's bill, which was met by the\nKing's refusal, and the consequent resignation of the Ministry. This\nmay explain the statement (mentioned in the obituary notice in the\nTimes of the Marquis of Lansdowne), that he (Lord Lansdowne) could\nnever understand how the Ministry came to be dissolved. \"He had heard\ninstances of men running their heads against a wall, but never of men\nbuilding up a wall against which to run their heads.\"[3]\n\n [3] Sir H. Lytton Bulwer, in his \"Life of Lord Palmerston,\" says,\n i. p. 62, \"There has seldom happened in this country so sudden\n and unexpected a change of Ministers as that which took place\n in March 1807.\"\n\nIt has been mentioned that Colonel Macdonell entered the army when\nquite a boy; and there were few men, I fancy, living, when he died last\nyear, who could boast, as he could, of having served in the Duke of\nYork's campaign in the last century, but I am not able to state in what\nregiment. He was for some time previously in Lord Darlington's regiment\nof Fencibles. He was at one period in the 8th, and at another in the\n50th regiment, in which latter, I think, he went out to the West Indies\nand Canada.\n\nIt was in Canada, however, that his principal services were rendered,\nwhich indeed were considerable, and have never been adequately\nacknowledged.\n\nWhen the Americans invaded Canada upon the declaration of war in\n1812, it is hardly necessary to remind the reader that almost all our\navailable troops were engaged in the Peninsula, and that Canada was\npretty well left to its own resources.\n\nUnder these circumstances it will be recognised as of some importance\nthat Colonel Macdonell was able to raise a regiment among the\nMacdonells of his clan who had settled there. But the conditions made\nwith him were not fulfilled, and the command of the regiment, almost\nimmediately after it was raised, was transferred to the command of\na Protestant and an Orangeman, which caused a mutiny which was with\ndifficulty suppressed. Now, it must be borne in mind that the regiment\nwas only raised through his personal influence with the clan, and\nthrough that of its pastor, Bishop Macdonell, and that the adhesion\nof the Catholic Macdonells went far to determine the attitude of the\nFrench Canadians also. There were not more than 1200 regular troops in\nUpper Canada during the war.[4]\n\n [4] W. James, \"Military Occurrences of Late War,\" i. 56, says,\n 1450 regular troops; Murray, \"History of British America,\" i.\n 189, says, 2100 troops.\n\nBefore referring to the actions in which Colonel Macdonell was engaged,\nI will add the following particulars as to the Highland settlement\nwhich Colonel Macdonell gave me. In 1798, the submission of the\nHighland chiefs to the House of Hanover having been of some standing,\nand their adhesion being, moreover, cemented in a common sentiment of\nabhorrence of the French Revolution, they were willingly induced to\nraise regiments among their clans. This was done by Glengarry, Macleod,\nand others. At the peace these regiments were disbanded, but finding\nthat complications of various sorts had necessarily arisen during their\nabsence respecting their lands and holdings at home, and, in point of\nfact, that they had no homes to return to, the greater part remained\ntemporarily domiciled at Glasgow, the place of their disbandment. I\ninfer that they remained under the charge and direction of Bishop\nMacdonell, who had accompanied them in their campaigns as chaplain, and\nwas the first Catholic priest officially recognised in the capacity of\nregimental chaplain. At Glasgow (previously only served as a flying\nmission), he hired a storehouse, which he opened as a chapel, but\nstealthily only, as two of the congregation were always posted as a\nguard at the entrance on Sunday. He found only eighteen Catholics at\nGlasgow at that time, i.e., I suppose, previously to the disbandment\nof the Highlanders. Through Bishop Macdonell's influence with Lord\nSidmouth--who, although a strong opponent of the Catholic claims,\nalways acted in his relations with him, he said, in the most honourable\nand straightforward way--the emigration of the Highlanders to Canada\nwas shortly afterwards arranged.\n\nColonel Macdonell was subsequently partially reinstated in his command\nof the Glengarry regiment. The important services rendered by Colonel\nMacdonell in Canada, to which I have alluded, were--1. The taking\nof Ogdensburg at a critical moment, on his own responsibility, and\ncontrary to orders, which had the effect of diverting the American\nattack from Upper Canada at a moment when it was entirely undefended;\nand, 2. Bringing the regiment of French Canadian militia, then\ntemporarily under his command, from Kingston, by a forced run down\nthe rapids of the St Lawrence without pilots (passing the point where\nLord Amherst lost eighty men), in time enough (he arrived the day\nbefore, unknown to the Americans) to support De Saluberry at the\ndecisive action at Chateaugay. De Saluberry indeed had only 300 French\nCanadians under his command, which, with the 600 brought up by Colonel\nMacdonell, only made up a force of 900 (with about 100 Indians), with\nwhich to check General Hampton's advance with some 7000 (the Americans\nstated the force at 5520 infantry and 180 cavalry, James, i. 305) in\nhis advance on Montreal. In point of fact, Colonel Macdonell must be\nconsidered, on any impartial review of the facts, to have won the day\n(_vide infra_), yet he was not even mentioned in Sir G. Prevost's\ndispatch.\n\nColonel Macdonell received the Companionship of the Bath for the taking\nof Ogdensburg, and the gold medal for his conduct in the action at\nChateaugay.\n\nI append the following accounts of the affairs at Ogdensburg\nand Chateaugay, adding a few particulars in correction and\nexplanation--Alison, \"History of Europe,\" xix. 121 (7th ed.),\nsays--\"Shortly after Colonel M'Donnell (Macdonell), with two companies\nof the Glengarry Fencibles, and two of the 8th, converted a _feigned_\nattack which he was ordered to make on Fort Ogdensburg into a real one.\nThe assault was made under circumstances of the utmost difficulty;\ndeep snow impeded the assailants at every step, and the American\nmarksmen, from behind their defences, kept up a very heavy fire; but\nthe gallantry of the British overcame every obstacle, and the fort was\ncarried, with _eleven guns, all its stores_, and _two armed schooners_\nin the harbour.\" The difficulties, as I have understood from Colonel\nMacdonell, were not so much from the impediments of the snow, as from\nthe dangerous state of the St Lawrence at the time, the ice literally\nwaving under the tramp of his men as he passed them over (ten paces\napart). The stroke of the axe, by which they judged, told it indeed to\nbe only barely safe, and it had never been crossed by troops before at\nthat point, as it was deemed insecure, being within three miles of the\nGallops Rapids. (Among the guns were some taken from General Burgoyne.)\n\nA fuller account of the taking of Ogdensburg may be read in Mr W.\nJames' \"Full and Correct Account of the Military Occurrences of the\nlate War between Great Britain and the United States of America,\" vol.\ni. p. 135-141: London, 1818; he adds, \"Previously to dismissing the\naffair at Ogdensburg it may be right to mention that Sir G. Prevost's\nsecretary, or some person who had the transcribing of Major (Colonel)\nMacdonnell's (Macdonell's) official letter, must have inserted by\nmistake the words 'In consequence of the commands of his Excellency.'\nOf this there needs no stronger proof than that Major (Colonel)\nMacdonnell (Macdonell) while he was in the heat of the battle,\nreceived a private note from Sir G. dated from 'Flint's Inn at 9\no'clock,' repeating his orders not to make the attack; and even in the\nfirst private letter which Sir G. wrote to Major Macdonnell (Colonel\nMacdonell) after being informed of his success, he could not help\nqualifying his admiration of the exploit with a remark that the latter\nhad _rather_ exceeded his instructions--(_Note._--Both of these letters\nthe author has seen\"), vol. i. 140. Colonel Macdonell's explanation to\nme of his taking this responsibility on himself was simply that he saw\nthat the fate of the whole of Upper Canada depended upon it. Colonel\nMacdonell had received information that 5000 American troops were\nmoving up in the direction of Ogdensburg, and they, in fact, came up\na week after it was taken, under General Pike; but seeing the altered\naspect of affairs, they moved off, and fell back upon Sackett's\nHarbour, anticipating a similar attack at that point.\n\nColonel Macdonell always spoke with much emotion of the gallant conduct\nof a Captain Jenkins, a young officer under his command, who, although\nhe had both arms shattered by two successive shots, struggled on at the\nhead of his men until he swooned. He survived some years, but died of\nthe overcharge of blood to the head consequent on the loss of his limbs.\n\nAs Ogdensburg was a frontier town on the American side of the St\nLawrence, Sir G. Prevost authorised payment for any plunder by\nthe troops, but Colonel Macdonell received a certificate from the\ninhabitants that they had not lost a single shilling--which must be\nrecorded to the credit of the Glengarry Highlanders under his command.\n\nAs I have already said, although Colonel Macdonell commanded the larger\nforce, and by an independent command, at the action of Chateaugay, his\nname is not mentioned in Sir G. Prevost's dispatch, nor in Alison,\nwho apparently follows the official account (xix. 131, 7th ed.) In\nAlison, De Saluberry is called, by a clerical error, De Salavary--such,\nafter all, is fame! saith Hyperion. Although his troops, raw levies,\nbroke, and Colonel De Saluberry was virtually a prisoner when Colonel\nMacdonell came up to the support, it was through no fault of his\ndisposition of his men--(Colonel Macdonell always spoke of him as an\nexcellent officer, who behaved on the occasion in the most noble and\nintrepid manner).\n\nThe American troops at Chateaugay are variously stated at 7000 to\n5700 (Alison says, \"4000 effective infantry and 2000 militia, and 10\nguns,\" xix. 131). The British, 300 French Canadian militia, under De\nSaluberry; 600 under Colonel Macdonell, and some Indians, without\nartillery.\n\nA full, but, Colonel Macdonell said, inaccurate account (from\nimperfect information) will be found in Mr W. James' \"Military\nOccurrences,\" above referred to.\n\nI extract the following passages, i. 307:--\"The British advanced corps,\nstationed near the frontiers, was commanded by Lieutenant-Colonel De\nSaluberry of the Canadian Fencibles, and consisted of the two flank\ncompanies of that corps and four companies of voltigeurs, and six\nflank companies of embodied militia and Chateaugay chasseurs, placed\nunder the immediate orders of Lieutenant-Colonel Macdonell, late of\nthe Glengarrys, who so distinguished himself at Ogdensburg. The whole\nof this force did not exceed 800 rank and file. There were also at the\npost 172 Indians under Captain Lamotte.\" Colonel Macdonell's account\ndiffered substantially. It has been already mentioned that he had\nbrought up his troops by a forced march the night before, and held\nthem under a separate command. I conclude with the following passage\nas bearing out Colonel Macdonell's version:--\"The Americans, although\nthey did not occupy one foot of the 'abatis,' nor Lieutenant-Colonel\nDe Saluberry retire one inch from the ground on which he had been\nstanding, celebrated this partial retiring as a retreat.... By way of\nanimating his little band when thus momentarily _pressed_\" [Colonel\nMacdonell's version was, that although the troops were driven back,\nColonel De Saluberry literally \"refused to retire one inch himself,\"\nand virtually remained a prisoner until--] Colonel De Saluberry\nordered the bugleman to sound \"the advance. This was heard by\nLieutenant-Colonel Macdonell, who thinking the Colonel was in want of\nsupport, caused his own bugles to answer, and immediately advanced with\ntwo ['six'] of his companies. He at the same time sent ten or twelve\nbuglemen into the adjoining woods with orders to separate ['widely'],\nand blow with all their might. This little 'ruse de guerre' led the\nAmericans to believe that they had more thousands than hundreds to\ncontend with, and deterred them from even attempting to penetrate the\n'abatis.'\"\n\nFor the rest of the account I must refer my readers to Mr W. James'\n\"History,\" as above; though, if a complete and accurate account of\nan engagement which probably saved British Canada were ever thought\ndesirable, Colonel Macdonell's commentaries (MS.) on the above and the\nofficial accounts, would afford valuable supplementary information.[5]\n\n [5] The following corrections have been supplied to me by the\n Hon. L. D.:--\"Lieut.-Colonel George Macdonell was born on\n the 12th August 1780, at St Johns, Newfoundland, where his\n father, Captain Macdonell, was stationed. He was the second\n son of Captain Macdonell (who had been one of the body-guard\n of Prince Charles), by his wife, Miss Leslie of Fetternear,\n Aberdeenshire. George was rated on the navy by the Admiral of\n the station, who was a personal friend of Captain Macdonell,\n and his name accordingly remained on the list for years, but\n he never joined. I believe he entered in 1795 the regiment\n raised by Lord Darlington, and afterwards served with the Duke\n of York in the war in Holland. He was, I know, at one time in\n the 8th infantry, for I remember Sir Greathed Harris saying\n that he was always a well-remembered and honoured officer\n in that regiment. He ultimately had the post of Inspecting\n Field-Officer in Canada.\"\n\n\n\n\n TRADITION\n\n PRINCIPALLY WITH REFERENCE TO\n\n MYTHOLOGY AND THE LAW OF NATIONS.\n\n\n\n\n TRADITION\n\n PRINCIPALLY WITH REFERENCE TO\n\n MYTHOLOGY AND THE LAW OF NATIONS.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER I.\n\n _THE LAW OF NATIONS._\n\n\nThe increasing number of essays, pamphlets, works, and reviews of\nworks on speculative subjects, with which the literature of England at\npresent teems, compels the conclusion that the public mind has been\ngreatly unsettled or strangely transformed since the days when John\nBull was the plain matter-of-fact old gentleman that Washington Irving\npleasantly described him.\n\nRemembering the many sterling and noble qualities whimsically\nassociated with this practical turn of mind, it will be felt by many to\nbe a change for the worse. But if old English convictions, maxims, and\nways of thought have lost their meaning; if in fine it is true that the\nmind of England has become unsettled, it says much for the practical\ngood sense of Englishmen that they should have overcome their natural\nrepugnances, and should so earnestly turn to the discussion of these\nquestions, not indeed with the true zest for speculation, but in the\npractical conviction that it is in this arena that the battle of the\nConstitution must be fought.\n\n There is, as it has been truly observed,[6] \"an instinctive feeling\n that any speculation which affects this\" (the speculation in\n question being the effect of the Darwinian theory on conscience),\n \"must also affect, sooner or later, the practical principles and\n conduct of men in their daily lives. This naturally comes much\n closer to us than any question as to the comparative nearness of\n our kinship to the gorilla or the orang can be expected to do. _No\n great modification of opinion takes place with respect to the moral\n faculties, which does not ultimately and in some degree modify the\n ethical practice and political working of the society in which it\n comes to prevail._\"\n\n [6] _Pall Mall Gazette_, April 12, 1871; article, \"Mr Darwin on\n Conscience.\"\n\nThere is perhaps no question which lies more at the root of political\nconstitutions, and which must more directly determine the conduct of\nstates in their relations to each other, than the question whether or\nnot, or in what sense, there was such a thing as natural law, _i.e._ a\nlaw antecedent to the formation of individual political societies, and\nwhich is common to and binding on them all.\n\nIt may be worth while, therefore, to examine whether a stricter\ndiscrimination may not be made between things which are sometimes\nconfounded, viz.:--The Law of Nations and International Law, natural\nlaw and the state of nature; and even if the attempt at discrimination\nshould fail in exactitude, it may yet, by opening out fresh views,\ncontribute light to minds of greater precision, who may thus be enabled\nto hit upon the exact truth.\n\nThis view was partially exposed in an article which was inserted in\nthe _Tablet_, September 28, 1861,[7] entitled \"International Law and\nthe Law of Nations,\" and, all things considered, I do not think that I\ncan better consult the interests of my readers, than by reproducing an\nextract from it here, as a convenient basis of operation from which to\nadvance into a somewhat unexplored country:--\n\n \"It has been the fashion since Bentham's[8] time, to substitute\n the phrase 'International Law' for the 'Law of Nations,' as if\n they were convertible terms. The substitution, however, covers a\n distinction sufficiently important.\n\n \"The 'Law of Nations' is an obligation which binds the consciences\n of nations to respect the eternal principle of justice in their\n relations with each other. 'International law' is the system of\n rules, precedents, and maxims accumulated in recognition of the\n eternal law. But as men may build a theatre or a gambling-house\n upon the foundations constructed for a religious edifice, and\n upon a stone consecrated for an altar, so has it been possible\n for diplomacy to substitute a system of chicanery for the simple\n laws which were intended to facilitate the intercourse of nations,\n and with such effect as in a great number of cases to place\n international law in contradiction with the law of nations--as,\n for instance, when in a certain case the law of nations says that\n it is wrong to invade a neighbour's territory, international law\n is made to say that it is lawful to invade in such a case, because\n such-and-such monarchs in past history have done so.\n\n \"Practically the effect of the substitution is, that the sentiment\n of justice disappears, that wars which formerly were called unjust,\n are now called inevitable, so that good men, disheartened at the\n conflicting evidence of precedents, yield their sense of right\n and wrong, and defer to the adjudication of diplomatists. This is\n particularly satisfactory to the modern spirit which will admit\n nothing to be law which is superior to, and distinct from, that\n which the human intellect has determined to be law.\n\n \"But the sense of right and wrong in good men is that which gives\n its whole efficacy to the law of nations. There is nothing else in\n the last resort, to restrain the ambition and passion of princes,\n but the reprobation of mankind--nothing but the fear of invading\n that \"moral territory\"[9] which even bad men find it necessary\n to conquer, '_dans l'ame des peuples ses voisins_.' On the other\n hand, the whole mass of precedents to which diplomatists appeal,\n which are rarely carefully collated with those which legists have\n accumulated and digested, is nothing but a veil which thinly covers\n the supremacy of might and the right of force.\n\n \"In fact, the conventional deference which is paid to them, is at\n best only the hypocritical homage which force is constrained to pay\n to justice before it strikes its blow.\n\n \"International law, therefore, as _accumulated in the precedents\n of diplomatists_, is a parasitical growth upon that tree which has\n its roots in the hearts of nations, and which may be compared to\n one of those old oaks under which kings used to sit and administer\n justice. It was a dream of Dodwell's that the 'law of nations was a\n divine revelation made to the family preserved in the ark.' In the\n grotesqueness and wildness of this theory we detect a true idea.\n The law of nations is an unwritten law, tradited in the memories\n of the people, or, so far as it is written, to be found in the\n works of writers on public law, like Grotius, whose authorities, as\n Sir J. Mackintosh remarks, are in great part, and very properly,\n made up of the sayings of the poets and orators of the world, 'for\n they address themselves to the general feelings and sympathies\n of mankind.' It is in this that the Scriptural saying about the\n people is so true--'But they will maintain the state of the world.'\n And it is a just observation, that 'the people are often wrong in\n their opinions, but in their sentiments rarely.' You may produce\n state papers and manifestoes, written with all the dexterity of\n Talleyrand, and the lying tact of Fouch\u00e9, but you will not convince\n the people. You have your opportunity. The Liberal press of Europe,\n at this moment, may be said to be in possession of the whole field\n of political literature; nevertheless, nothing will prevent its\n being recorded in history,[10] that Victor Emmanuel in seizing\n upon the patrimony of St Peter was a robber, and his conquest an\n usurpation.\"\n\n [7] This article, and perhaps four or five others on miscellaneous\n subjects, written within a few weeks of the above date, were\n my only contributions to the _Tablet_, at that time owned and\n edited by my friend Mr J. E. Wallis, who, during some ten\n or twelve eventful years, continued to uphold the standard\n of Tradition, with singular ability and at great personal\n sacrifice.\n\n [8] \"All that Bentham wrote on this subject (\"International Law\")\n is comprised within a comparatively small compass (Works,\n vol. ii. 535-560, iii. 200-611, ix. 58-382). But it would be\n unpardonable to omit all mention of a science which he was\n the means of _revolutionising_, and which, previously to his\n taking it in hand, had _not even received a proper distinctive\n name_.\"--John Hill Burton, \"Benthamiana,\" p. 396. From\n Bentham's point of view, \"International Law\" is the proper\n distinctive name.\n\n [9] Montalembert, _Correspondant_, Aout, 1861.\n\n [10] C'est une des plus admirables choses de ce monde que jamais\n nul empire, et nul succ\u00e8s n'ont pu s'assujetir l'histoire\n et en imposer par elle \u00e0 la posterit\u00e9. Des generations de\n rois issus du m\u00eame sang se sont succ\u00e9d\u00e9 pendant dix si\u00e8cles\n au gouvernement du m\u00eame peuple, et malgr\u00e9 cette perpetuit\u00e9\n d'int\u00e9r\u00eat et de commandement, ils n'ont pu couvrir aux yeux du\n monde les fautes de leurs p\u00e8res et maintenir sur leur tombe le\n faux \u00e9clat de leur vie.--_Lacordaire_: vid. _Correspondant_,\n Nov. 1856.\n\nI have observed that International Law is the more appropriate term\nfrom Bentham's point of view, and as Bentham is the most redoubtable\nopponent of natural right and the law of nations, I will quote him at\nsome length:--\n\n \"Another man says that there is an eternal and immutable rule of\n right, and that that rule of right dictates so-and-so. And then\n he begins giving you his sentiments upon anything that comes\n uppermost; and these sentiments (you are to take it for granted)\n are so many branches of the eternal rule of right.... A great\n multitude of people are continually talking of the law of nature;\n and they go on giving you their sentiments about what is right and\n what is wrong, and these sentiments, you are to understand, are so\n many chapters and sections of the law of nature. Instead of the\n phrase, law of nature, you have sometimes law of reason, right\n reason, natural justice, natural equity, good order. Any of them\n will do equally well. This latter is most used in politics. The\n three last are much more tolerable than the others, because they\n do not very explicitly claim to be anything more than phrases.\n They insist, but feebly, upon the being looked upon as so many\n positive standards of themselves, and seem content to be taken,\n upon occasion, for phrases expressive of the conformity of the\n thing in question to the proper standard, whatever that may be. On\n most occasions, however, it will be better to say utility--utility\n is clearer, as referring more especially to pain and pleasure.\"\n\nIn truth, although Mr Bentham indulges a pleasant ridicule, yet the\nridicule and the thing ridiculed being eliminated, the fact that there\nis a belief in a law of nature remains untouched. It is probable,\ntherefore, that appeals will be frequent to what is believed to be\n\"the eternal and immutable rule of right,\" \"to the law of nature,\"\n&c., _i.e._ each and every individual, all mankind distributively, so\nappeal, because there is a deep conviction among mankind, severally\nand collectively, that there is this eternal and immutable rule of\nright, blurred and obscured though it may be, or concealed behind a\ncloud of human passion and error: and most men, moreover, will have an\ninstinct which will tell them when an individual is substituting his\nown ideas for the eternal and immutable law,--as, for instance, when at\nthe conclusion of the sentence quoted, Mr Bentham seeks to substitute\nhis own peculiar crochet, as embodied in the word \"utility\" (which may\nbe used indifferently in the sense of the absolute or relative, the\nsupernatural or the natural, the immediate or the remote utility), as\nsynonymous with \"natural justice,\" \"natural equity,\" and \"good order.\"\n\nSo, again, when Mr Bentham comes to the discussion of \"International\nLaw,\" after pointing out, very properly, that whereas internal laws\nhave always a super-ordinate authority to enforce them, \"that when\nnations fall into disputes there is no such super-ordinate impartial\nauthority to bind them to conformity with any fixed rules,\" Mr Bentham\ngoes on to say, \"though there is no distinct official authority capable\nof enforcing right principles of international law, there is a power\nbearing with more or less influence on the conduct of all nations, as\nof all individuals, however transcendently potent they may be, this\nis the power of public opinion.\" Public opinion! not then of public\nopinion threatening coercion, for in that case we should have \"a\nsuper-ordinate impartial authority binding to conformity with fixed\nrules,\" but public opinion as a moral expression. If, however, you take\nfrom it the expression of right and wrong, of natural justice, and of\nthe eternal and immutable law; if its expression is not reprobation,\nand, so to speak, a fore-judgment of the retribution of the Most High,\nbut only dissatisfaction or the mere pronouncement of the inutility\nof the action, whatever it may be, what even with Benthamites can be\nits efficacy and worth? The vanquished say to their conqueror, the\nmultitudes to their oppressor, this oppression is not according to\nutility. Utility! he replies, useful to whom? To you! Fancy the look\nof Prince Bismarck as he would reply to such an address. What are\nmen if you take away the notion of right and wrong but \"the flies of\na summer?\" How different was the expression of Napoleon after his\nill-usage of Pius VII., \"J'ai frisson\u00e8 les nations.\" Napoleon had a\nconscience,[11] and in his moments of calm reflection felt in its full\nforce the reprobation of mankind.\n\n [11] _Vide_ \"Sentiment de Napoleon I. sur Le Christianisme,\"\n d'apres des temoignages recueillis par feu le Chevalier de\n Beauterne. Nouvelle edition, par M. ----; Bray, Paris, 1860.\n\nWhen Bentham, still speaking of public opinion, adds:--\n\n \"The power in question has, it is true, various degrees of\n influence. The strong are better able to put it at defiance than\n the weak. Countries which, being the most populous, are likely also\n to be the strongest, carry a certain support of public opinion\n with all their acts _whatever they may be_. But still it is the\n only power which can be moved to good purposes in this case; and,\n however high some may appear to be above it, there are in reality\n none who are not more or less subject to its influence.\"\n\nHere Bentham is again in imagination gathering men together like the\nflies of a summer,--the force of their opinion depending on their\nnumbers. But what, again, is the force of all this buzzing if it is\nthe mere expression of \"pleasure,\" or \"pain,\" of satisfaction or\ndissatisfaction in the masses? Conquerors may not always be relentless,\nthey may at times exhibit some sympathy with their fellow men; but as\na rule they are so dominated by some one idea or passion, or at best\nare so absorbed in the interests of their own people, as to be deaf to\nsuch appeals. Prince Bismarck's sentiments towards France during the\nlate war are pretty well known; but it is said that after the conflict\nwas over, and when France was in the throes of its terrible internecine\nconflict, he was asked, \"What is your Excellency's opinion of the\npresent state of France?\" he replied, \"Das ist mit ganz wurst,\" which\nis equivalent to \"I don't care two straws about it.\"[12] How are men\nof this stamp to be affected by any exclamations of pleasure or pain?\nIf on the contrary it is the voice of reprobation which they hear, and\nif in their case the saying \"vox populi vox Dei\" is felt to have its\nfull application, there is then a public opinion expressed which is\ncalculated to strike the conscience and inspire terror, and that is\nquite another matter.\n\n [12] _Neue Freie Presse_ of Vienna. _Pall Mall Gazette_, May 4,\n 1871.\n\nDe Tocqueville, from his own point of view, puts the argument in favour\nof natural justice very forcibly, and in a certain construction would\nexpress the identical truth for which I contend.\n\n \"I hold it to be an impious and an execrable maxim that,\n politically speaking, a people has a right to do whatever it\n pleases; and yet I have asserted that all authority originates in\n the will of the majority. Am I, then, in contradiction with myself?\n A general law which bears the name of Justice has been made and\n sanctioned, not only by a majority of this or that people, but by\n a majority of mankind. The rights of every people are consequently\n confined within the limits of what is just. A nation may be\n considered in the light of a jury which is empowered to represent\n society at large, and to apply the great general law of justice.\n Ought such a jury, which represents society, to have more power\n than the society in which the laws it applies originate.\"--_M. de\n Tocqueville's \"Democracy in America_,\" ii. 151.\n\nAlthough M. de Tocqueville's view does not go to the full length of\nthe argument, still, regarded in this light, the voice of the majority\nof mankind, or of any large masses of mankind, has a very different\nsignificance from what it bears in the writings of Bentham.\n\nLet us now consider the doctrines of Bentham in their more recent\nexposition.\n\nThe _Pall Mall Gazette_, Oct. 6, 1870, says:--\n\n \"Laws have been described as definitions of pre-existing rights,\n relations between man and man, reflections of divine ordinances,\n anything but what they really are,--forms of organised constraint.\n It says little for the assumed clear-headedness of Englishmen, that\n they have very generally preferred the ornate jargon of Hooker, to\n the accurate and intelligible account of law and government which\n forms the basis of Bentham's juridical system.\"\n\nIt says much, however, for their strong political sense and sagacity.\nIf this is the true and only description of law, it is tantamount to\nsaying that law is force and force is law; in other words, that the\ncommands of a legitimate government need not be regarded when it is\nweak, but that the enactments of power must always be obeyed, however\nit is acquired, and whether its decrees are in accordance with right\nor contrary to justice. It is a ready justification for tyranny,\nequally sanctioning the \"lettres de cachet\" of the ancient regime, and\nthe proscriptions of the Convention, equally at hand for the National\nAssembly at Versailles, or for the Commune at Paris. But however much\nit may be disguised, it is the only alternative definition of law, when\nonce you say that law is not of divine ordinance and tradition. If no\nregard is to be had to the definition of right, but the term law is to\nbe applied to any adequate act of repression, there is in truth nothing\nbut force. Yet why should force adequate to its purpose seek to cloak\nitself in the forms of law? I suppose the question must have been put\nand answered before; but the answer can only be because law is felt to\nimport a totally different set of ideas from force.\n\nIt is necessary, more especially now that the utilitarian theory is\ndominant, to enter a protest according to the turn the argument may\ntake, but in the end nothing more can be said than was said by Cicero\nin the century before our Lord:--\n\n \"Est enim unum jus, quo devincta est hominum societas, et quod lex\n constituit una; qu\u00e6 lex est recta ratio imperandi atque prohibendi:\n quam qui ignorat is est injustus, sive est illa scripta uspiam,\n sive nusquam. Quod si justitia est obtemperatio scriptis legibus\n institutisque populorum, et si, ut iidem dicunt utilitate omnia\n metienda sunt, negliget leges, easque perrumpit, si poterit, is,\n qui sibi eam rem fructuosam putabit fore. Ita fit, ut nulla sit\n omnino justitia; si neque natur\u00e2 est, eaque propter utilitatem\n constituitur, utilitate alia convellitur.\"--_De Legibus_, i. 15.\n\nIt is only upon this construction that the Law of Nations can be said\nto exist, as \"there is no superordinate authority to enforce it.\" It\nis accordingly asserted that the law of nations is not really law.\nBut is not this only when it is regarded from the point of view of\n\"organised constraint?\"[13] If it is regarded as a divine ordinance,\nor even as under the divine sanction, then it is law in a much higher\ndegree than simple internal or municipal law, for it more immediately\nand directly depends upon this sanction; and hence nations may more\nconfidently appeal to heaven for the redress of wrong _here below_\nthan individuals--seeing that, as Bossuet somewhere says, God rewards\nand chastises nations in this world, since it is not according to His\ndivine dispensation to reward them corporately in the next.\n\n [13] \"Utiles esse autem opiniones has quis neget, quum intelligat\n quam multa firmentur jure jurando, quant\u00e6 salutis sint\n f[oe]derum religiones? quam multos divini supplicii metus\n a scelere revocaverit? quamque sancta sit societas civium\n inter ipsos diis immortalibus interpositis tum judicibus tum\n testibus?\"--Cicero, _De Legibus_, ii. 7.\n\nMore recently, however, the extraordinary successes and subversions\nwhich we have witnessed during this last year, have brought the _Pall\nMall Gazette_ face to face with problems pressing for immediate and\nanxious settlement; and in a series of articles it has discussed the\nquestion of the law of nations with much depth and earnestness.\n\nI there observe phrases which I can hardly distinguish from those I\nhave just employed. Combating Mr Mill's view, the writer says:--\n\n \"Nobody knows better than he that International Law is not really\n law, and why it is not law; but he seems to have jumped to the\n conclusion that it is therefore the same thing as morality....\n There cannot, in truth, be any closer analogy than that which\n we drew the other day between the law of nations and the law of\n honour, and between public war and private duelling.\" [This is\n upon an assumption that there is nothing \"essentially immoral\n in the code of honour,\" as \"to a great extent it coincided with\n morality.\"] \"But it differed from simple morality in that its\n precepts were enforced, not by general disapprobation, but by\n a challenge to the offender by anybody who supposed himself to\n be aggrieved by the offence. The possible result always was,\n that the champion of the law might himself be shot, and this was\n the weakness of the system. But this is exactly the weakness of\n international law, and the _original idea_ at the _basis_ both of\n _public war_ and of private duelling was precisely the same,--_that\n God Almighty somehow interposed_ in favour of the combatant _who\n had the juster cause_. There is clear historical evidence that\n the feuds which became duels were supposed to be fought out under\n divine supervision, _just as battles_ were believed to be decided\n by the God of battles.\"\n\nI believe that if history could be re-written from this point of view\nthat many startling revelations would be brought to light. It is\nwith reluctance that I turn from the points upon which I approach to\nagreement with the writer, to those upon which we fundamentally differ.\n\nAnd here I must remark, that \"the accurate and intelligible account\nof law and government which forms the basis of Bentham's juridical\nsystem\"[14] (_supra_, p. 9), is not distinguishable from, and in any\ncase ultimately depends upon, his theory of utility as a foundation,\nor, as his later disciples say, a \"standard\" of morals. Such a standard\nis the negation of all morality; and if it ever came to stand alone\nevery notion of morals would be obliterated, because, being open to\nevery interpretation, and incapable of supplying any definite rule\nitself, it would abrogate every other, and under a plausible form\nabandon mankind to its lusts and passions.\n\n [14] \"From _utility_, then, we may denominate a principle that\n may serve to preside over and govern, as it were, such\n arrangements as shall be made of the several institutions, or\n combinations of institutions, that compose the matter of this\n science.\" Bentham's \"Fragment on Government,\" xliii., and at\n p. 45, the principle of utility is declared \"all-sufficient,\"\n ... that \"principle which furnishes us with that reason, which\n alone depends not upon any higher reason, but which is itself\n the _sole and all-sufficient reason_ for _every point_ of\n practice whatsoever.\"\n\nIn the _Pall Mall Gazette_, April 12, 1871, an article entitled\n\"Mr Darwin on Conscience,\" discusses Benthamism with reference to\nDarwinism. There is a fitness in this which does not immediately appear.\n\nThe writer says:--\n\n \"What is called the question of the moral sense is really two:\n how the moral faculty is acquired, and how it is regulated. Why\n do we obey conscience or feel pain in disobeying it? And why does\n conscience prescribe _one kind_ of actions and condemn another\n kind? To put it more technically, there is the question of the\n subjective existence of conscience, and there is the question of\n its objective prescriptions.\"\n\nI will avail myself of this distinction, and, setting aside the\nquestions referring to the \"subjective existence of conscience,\" I\nwill ask attention only to \"its objective prescriptions.\" Assuming,\nthen, the operations of conscience in the individual man, there will\nnecessarily also have been in the course of history some outward\nexpression of this inward feeling in maxims, precepts, and laws, if not\nalso reminiscences of primeval revelations and divine commands.\n\nIt will be true, therefore, to say, without touching the deeper\nquestion of the foundation of morals, that there has been a tradition\nof morals which cannot but have had its influence in all ages upon\nthe \"social feelings\" in which, according to the _Pall Mall Gazette_,\n\"it will always be necessary to lay the basis of conscience.\" Now\nis this tradition of morals identical with utilitarian precept? If\nthe tradition of morals is identical with \"the greatest happiness\nprinciple,\" then that principle was no discovery of Bentham's,[15]\nneither can Benthamism be regarded as \"the new application of an old\nprinciple.\" Bentham in that case simply informed mankind that they had\nbeen talking prose all their lives without knowing it! Benthamism,\nhowever, in point of fact, is felt as a new principle precisely in so\nfar as it discards the old morality. The question which I ask is, how\ndoes it account for these old notions of morality obtaining among\nmankind? How is it that mankind has so long and so persistently,\nboth in their notion of what was good and their sense of what was\nevil, departed from the line of their true interests, as disclosed\nin the utilitarian philosophy? If the history of man is what the\nScriptures tell us it was, the manner in which this has come about is\nsufficiently explained; and there is no mystery as to the notion of\nsin, the necessity of expiation, the restraints and limitations of\nnatural desires, the excellence of contemplation, and the obligation\nof sacrifices and prayers. Now, if the history of mankind is not to be\ninvoked in explanation, it is difficult to see how these notions should\nnot conflict with any theory and plan of life based on a principle of\nutility.[16] It is not unnatural, therefore, that the utilitarians\nshould turn to Darwinism and other such kindred systems for the\nsolution of their difficulties.\n\n [15] Bentham speaks of his enunciation of \"the greatest happiness\n principle\" in the following terms:--\"Throughout the whole\n horizon of morals and of politics, the consequences were\n glorious and vast. It might be said without danger of\n exaggeration, that they who sat in darkness had seen a great\n light.\" With reference to this Lord Macaulay says, \"We blamed\n the utilitarians for claiming the credit of a discovery,\n when they had merely stolen that morality (the morality of\n the gospel) and spoiled it in the stealing. They have taken\n the precept of Christ _and left the motive_, and they demand\n the praise of a most wonderful and beneficial invention,\n when all they have done has been to make a most useful maxim\n useless _by separating it from its sanction. On religious\n principles_ it is true that every individual will best promote\n his own happiness by promoting the happiness of others. _But\n if religious considerations be left out of the question it\n is not true._ If we do not reason on the supposition of a\n future state, where is the motive? If we do reason on that\n supposition, where is the discovery?\"--_Vide Lord Macaulay's\n Essays on \"Westminster Reviewer's Defence of Mill,\" and\n \"The Utilitarian Theory of Government\" in Lord Macaulay's\n \"Miscellaneous Writings._\"\n\n [16] There was a way in which the argument was formerly stated\n by utilitarians which was much more plausible, but which\n I observe is now seldom if ever resorted to by the modern\n exponents of this theory. The _Pall Mall Gazette_, April 12,\n 1871, says: \"The now prevailing doctrine\" that there is no\n absolute standard of right and wrong, but \"that the right and\n wrong of an action or a motive depend upon the influence of\n the action, or the motive upon the general good.\" The argument\n to which I refer is thus stated by Mr W. O. Manning in his\n \"Commentaries on the Law of Nations,\" 1839:--\"Everything\n around us proves that God designed the happiness of His\n creatures. It is the will of God that man should be happy.\n To ascertain the will of God regarding any action, we have,\n therefore, to consider the tendency of that action to promote\n or diminish human happiness,\" p. 59. It is perfectly true\n that man was created by God for happiness, and that ultimate\n happiness, if he does not forfeit it, is the end to which\n he is still destined. It is moreover true that even in this\n world he may enjoy a conditional and comparative happiness.\n How it is that this happiness cannot be complete and perfect\n here below is precisely the secret which tradition reveals to\n him. It is important, from the point of view of happiness,\n both for individuals and nations, that the truth of this\n revelation should be ascertained, and that the conditions\n and limitations within which happiness is possible should\n be known, otherwise life will be consumed in chimerical\n pursuits of the unattainable, and in the case of nations will\n be certain to end, at some time or another, in catastrophes\n such as we have recently witnessed in Paris. In an enlarged\n sense it is therefore true to say that the divine will has\n regard to utility; but the view has this implied condition,\n that what we regard as utility should in the first place be\n conformable to what is directly or indirectly known to be the\n divine precept and command; and, on the other hand, if no\n advertence is made to revelation or the tradition of the human\n race, what is called utility, however large and disinterested\n the speculation may be, it can never be more than the view of\n an individual or of a section of mankind, which it is highly\n probable that other individuals and sections of mankind,\n looking at the same facts, from a different point of view,\n will see reason to contradict.\n\nThe _Pall Mall Gazette_, April 12, 1871, says:--\n\n \"Between Mr Darwin and utilitarians, as utilitarians, there is\n no such quarrel as he would appear to suppose. The narrowest\n utilitarian could say little more than Mr Darwin says (ii.\n 393):--'As all men desire their own happiness, praise or blame is\n bestowed on actions and motives according as they tend to this end;\n and as happiness is an essential part of the general good, the\n greatest happiness principle indirectly serves as a nearly safe\n standard of right and wrong.'\"\n\nNow, there is nothing in this reiteration of Benthamism which has not\nbeen thrice refuted by Lord Macaulay in the Essays above referred to. I\nappend an extract more exactly to the point.[17]\n\n [17] If \"the magnificent principle\" is thus stated, \"mankind ought\n to pursue their greatest happiness,\" it must be borne in\n mind that there are persons whose interests are opposed to\n the greatest happiness of mankind. Lord Macaulay's opponent\n replies, \"ought is not predicable of such persons; for the\n word ought has no meaning unless it be used in reference to\n some interest.\" Lord Macaulay replied, \"that interest was\n synonymous with greatest happiness; and that, therefore,\n IF the word _ought_ has no meaning unless used with\n reference to interest, then, to say that mankind ought to\n pursue their greatest happiness, is simply to say that the\n greatest happiness is the greatest happiness; that every\n individual pursues his own happiness; that either what he\n thinks his happiness must coincide with the greatest happiness\n of society or not; that if what he thinks his happiness\n coincides with the greatest happiness of society, he will\n attempt to promote the greatest happiness of society whether\n he ever heard of the \"greatest happiness principle\" or not;\n and that, by the admission of the Westminster Reviewer,\n IF _his_ happiness _is inconsistent with_ the\n greatest happiness of society, there is no reason why he\n should promote the greatest happiness of society. Now, that\n there are individuals who think _that_ for their happiness\n which is not for the greatest happiness of society, is\n evident.... The question is not whether men have _some_\n motives for promoting the greatest happiness, but whether\n the _stronger_ motives be those which impel them to promote\n the greatest happiness.\"--_Lord Macaulay's \"Miscellaneous\n Writings,\" Utilitarian Theory of Government_, pp. 177-9.\n\nI refer to it because it will be interesting to see how the argument\nlooks in its application to Darwinism.\n\nIt will be seen that if the conditions of unlimited enjoyment anywhere\nexisted, Lord Macaulay's strictures would lose something of their\nforce. If, indeed, there was superabundance and superfluity of\neverything for all in this life, then anything which conduces to the\nsatisfaction of the individual would add to, or at least would not\ndetract from, the sum of happiness of all mankind. But unless you can\nshow this--if even the reverse of this is the truth--then \"the greatest\nhappiness\" will be in proportion to the self-abnegation of those who\npossess more, or have the greatest faculties or facilities of producing\nmore.\n\nNow, if there is one view more prominent than another in Mr Darwin's\nwork, it is embodied in the phrase to which he has given a new sense\nand significance, \"the struggle for existence.\" In the midst of this\nstruggle for existence, what is there in the greatest happiness\nprinciple to bind the individual to abnegation? Why should he postpone\nhis certain and immediate gratification to the remote advantage of\nothers, or of distant and contingent advantage to himself? If, on\nthe other hand, he regards the transitoriness of the enjoyment, and\nbalances it against the fixity and eternity of the consequences, the\nargument takes altogether different proportions, and the temptation to\nenjoyment is inversely to the intensity of the struggle for existence.\n\nI will take another test of Benthamism by Darwinism, which will\nmore exactly bring out the argument for which I contend. We have\na traditional horror of infanticide which revolts all our best\nfeelings and shocks our principles. But if Mr Darwin has demonstrated\nthis struggle for existence existing from all time; if also we are\ndisembarrassed from all advertence to another world; if, further,\nMr Malthus, before Mr Darwin, has shown reason to believe that\nover-population is the cause of half the evils of this life, what is\nthere in Benthamite principles which should prevent our sacrificing\nthese unconscious innocents to the greatest happiness of the greatest\nnumber? Nothing, except the horror we should excite among mankind still\nimbued with the old superstitions! A person who did not hold to Mr\nMalthus' views might demur; but a Malthusian, who was also a disciple\nof Mr Bentham, could only hold back because his feelings were better\nthan his principles. A disciple of Mr Darwin's would probably stand\naloof, and would merely see in our notions an artificial interference\nwith the working of his theory, preventing the struggle for existence\ngoing on according to natural laws. This seems to me to be almost said\nin the same article from the _Pall Mall Gazette_, from which I have\nquoted. Mr Darwin, in his \"Origin of Species\" (p. 249), has pointed out\nthat \"we ought to admire the savage instinct which leads the queen-bee\nto destroy her young daughters as soon as born, because this is for\nthe good of the community.\" And in his new book he says, firmly and\nunmistakably (i. 73), that \"if men were reared under precisely the\nsame conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our\nunmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty\nto kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile\ndaughters, and no one would think of interfering.\" The _Pall Mall_\ncontinues--\n\n \"If, from one point of view, this is apt to shock a _timorous_\n and _unreflecting_ mind, by asserting that the most cherished of\n our affections might have been, under _certain_ circumstances, a\n vicious piece of self-indulgence, and its place in the scale of\n morality taken by what is _now_ the most atrocious kind of crime;\n nevertheless, from another point of view, such an assertion is\n as reassuring as the most absolute of moralists could desire,\n for it is tantamount to saying that the foundations of morality,\n the distinctions of right and wrong, are deeply laid in the very\n conditions of social existence; that there is, in the face of\n these conditions, a positive and definite difference between the\n moral and the immoral, the virtuous and the vicious, the right and\n the wrong, in the actions of individuals partaking of that social\n existence.\"\n\nThis is very well. It is so _now_, because of the traditional\nsentiments and principles which still retain their force--but how long\nwill it continue?\n\nI invite attention to the following passage from Mr Hepworth Dixon's\n\"New America\" (vol. i. p. 312, 6th edition), which I must say struck me\nvery forcibly when I read it. He narrates a conversation which he had\nwith Brigham Young on the subject of incest:--\"Speaking for himself,\nnot for the church, he (Brigham Young) said he saw _none at all_\n(_i.e._ no objection at all). He added, however, that he would not do\nit himself,--'my prejudices prevent me.'\" Upon which Mr Hepworth Dixon\nobserves--\n\n \"This _remnant_ of an old feeling brought from the Gentile world,\n _and this alone_, would seem to prevent the saints (Mormons) from\n rushing into the higher forms of incest. How long will these\n Gentile sentiments remain in force? 'You will find here,' said\n elder Stenhouse to me, talking on another subject, 'polygamists of\n the third generation. When these boys and girls grow up and marry,\n you will have in these valleys the _true feeling_ of patriarchal\n life. The _old world is about us yet_, and we are always thinking\n of what people may say in the Scottish hills and the Midland\n shires.'\"\n\nHere, and in the previous extract, we seem to catch glimpses of what\nthe morality of the future is likely to be, at any rate in such matters\nas infanticide and incest, if old notions are to be discarded, and\nmen are left, in each generation, to no higher rule than their own\nindividual calculation as to pleasure and pain, or to the prevailing\nsense or determination of the community as to what the conditions of\nutility may permit.\n\nThe nineteenth century is now verging on its decline, and of it, too,\nmay we say that it has been better than its principles. Yet, in spite\nof its philanthropy, and its aspirations for good, the destructive\nprinciples which it has nursed are rapidly gaining on its instincts:\nand if we may not truly at this moment paint its glories, as they have\nbeen depicted, I think by Alexandre Dumas, as \"the livery of heroism,\nturned up with assassination and incest,\" is the time very remote when\nthe description will apply?\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER II.\n\n _THE LAW OF NATURE._\n\n\nBut underlying the question of the law of nations, and determining it,\nis the question whether or not there is a law of nature--a rule of\nright and wrong, independent of, and anterior to, positive legislative\nor international enactment. To prevent misconception, however, as\nto the scope of the inquiry, it is as well that I should state that\nI am only regarding the law of nature as the law of conscience (by\nwhich the Gentiles \"were a law unto themselves,\" Rom. ii. 14), in so\nfar as it has manifested itself in laws and maxims; and the question\nI am here concerned with is, whether in any sense which history can\ntake cognizance of, there was a rule of right and wrong previous to\nlegislative enactment?\n\nAt the first glance, the question would seem sufficiently disposed\nof by saying that men never were in a state of nature; which is true\nin this sense, that mankind never formed a multitude of isolated\nindividuals, or a promiscuous herd of men and women. A totally\ndifferent solution supposes a state of nature; but which, whether it\ndepicts it as a golden age or an age of barbarism, still contemplates\nmankind in this state as a mere congeries of individuals, without law,\nor else without the necessity of law--in either case an aggregate of\nisolated individuals, eventually to be brought into the state of civil\nsociety by a social compact.\n\nNow my intention is not to combat this view--which at the present\nmoment may be considered to be exploded--but to account for it.\n\nI think that I shall do something towards clearing up this mystery by\npointing out that this latter solution, although in great vogue with\nthe publicists of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, is traced\nbeyond them to the classical times, and was derived by them through the\ntradition of the Roman law from Paganism. A theory of the lawyers, and\na theory of the philosophers, concreted with a true but distorted fact\nin tradition in order to produce this belief, viz., that society was\nfounded by a contract among men who were originally equal.[18]\n\n [18] It will be seen, later on, in what this view differs from Sir\n Henry Maine's.\n\nI shall in a subsequent chapter state to what extent I believe it to\nbe true that society was founded upon a contract, and also the way in\nwhich this impression was confirmed, from the actual circumstances\nof the formation of the early communities of Greece and Italy; and I\nshall then examine the true tradition, such as I believe it to be, of\na state of nature associated with the reminiscence of a golden age,\nas contrasted with the distinct yet parallel tradition of a state of\nnature identified with a state of barbarism (_vide_ ch. vii. and ch.\nxiii.)\n\nThis latter tradition I believe to have been a recollection of that\nperiod of temporary privation after the Flood, when mankind clung to\nthe caverns and the mountains (_vide_ p. 137), until, incited by\nthe example of Noah, they were brought into the plains, and instructed\nin the arts of husbandry by the patriarch; and the notion of the\nprimitive equality[19] of condition I believe to have originated in\nthe Bacchanalian traditions of the same patriarch.[20]\n\n [19] In all the Diluvian commemorative festivals, to which I shall\n draw attention (ch. xi.), there is one day set apart for the\n commemoration of this primitive equality, accompanied with\n Bacchanalian festivities and ceremonials.\n\n [20] Sir H. Maine (\"Ancient Law,\" p. 95) says, \"Like all other\n deductions from the hypothesis of a law natural, and like the\n belief itself in a law of nature, it was languidly assented\n to, until it passed out of the possession of the lawyers into\n that of the literary men of the eighteenth century, and the\n public which sat at their feet. With them it became the most\n distinct tenet of their creed, and was even regarded as the\n summary of all the others.\"\n\nIf we start with a belief in the primitive equality of conditions, the\nonly way out of the mesh is apparently by a theory of a compact.\n\n \"From the Roman law downwards,\" says Sir G. C. Lewis, \"there has\n been a strong tendency among jurists to deduce recognised rights\n and obligations from a supposed, but non-existing contract. When\n an express contract exists, the legal rights and duties which it\n creates are in general distinct and well-defined. Hence, in cases\n where it is wished that similar legal consequences should be drawn,\n which come within the spirit of the rules applicable to a contract,\n though they do not themselves involve any contract, the lawyer cuts\n the knot by saying that a contract is presumed, that there is a\n contract by intendment of law, that there are certain rights and\n obligations \"_quasi ex contractu_.\" Thus the Roman law held that a\n guardian was bound to his ward by a _quasi_ contract.\"--_Sir G. C.\n Lewis, \"On the Methods of Observation, &c., in Politics_,\" i. 423;\n \"_On the Social Compact_,\" pp. 424-431.\n\nIt is not difficult to see how such a fiction of the law would tend to\ngive shape and system to the vague tradition as to the fact among the\npopulace.\n\nThe way in which the philosopher came to his conclusion was somewhat\nmore complex. It will have been seen that the notion of the state of\nnature and the social compact was, among the ancients, in the main, a\nfigment of the imagination, and not a tradition. But there was also\na tradition of a law of nature which did not at all correspond to a\nstate of license, of equality, and of barbarism, such as the state of\nnature was conceived to be. It was, on the contrary, a law of decorum\nand restraint. What, then, the Roman probably meant by the law of\nnature was a reminiscence of a primitive revelation, or a tradition\nof the maxims of right and wrong by which men were guided in their\nrelations to one another, when fresh from the hand of God--\"_a diis\nrecentes_\"--when family life still subsisted, and before men had\nsettled down into states and communities. It was not a law of nature\nas nature then was, but an aspiration after a lost rule of life, as\nafter a higher standard, and an attempt to trace it back, through the\ncorruption of mankind. Dim and uncertain as these notions were, they\nwere not without their influence.\n\nBut their ideas as to the cosmogony were more shadowy still. When,\nthen, in reasoning from a law of nature to a state of nature, mankind\ndiscovered that they knew or remembered nothing of their origin, or\nof the history of the human race, except indirectly through legendary\nlore, they then had recourse to the philosophers. These latter then\ndid what philosophers incline to do in such cases of difficulty. They\nregarded the existing state of things, and finding it to be artificial,\nthey, by a process of abstraction, resolved it into its elements,\nand, having thus reduced society into an assemblage of individuals,\nsubstituted their last analysis for the commencement of all things. In\nthis analysis they found men, what historically and in fact they had\nnever been, alike free, equal, and independent.\n\nThe theory of the social compact among men individually free and\nequal was in the main a fiction, started _\u00e0 posteriori_ to account\nfor relations otherwise obscure, or, as Sir Henry Maine explains,\nto facilitate modifications which were felt to be desirable; and we\ncannot be astonished that Paganism should take this view, unless we are\nprepared to believe that the traditions truly embodying the history\nof the world were more direct, vivid, and potential than I suppose\nthem to have been. It is at least remarkable, that in proportion as\nmen lose their faith, they fall back, as if by some necessary law,\nupon some theory which directly or indirectly contemplates mankind\nas a collection of atoms; and if ever society should lose again the\nhistory of its origin, as would happen if ever infidelity were to gain\ncomplete ascendancy, it would return by the same processes to the\nsame conclusion. But however sceptical individual minds may become,\nor however general may be the disposition to reject or ignore the\nscriptural narrative, the general framework of its statements is now\ntoo firmly embedded in the belief of mankind to be easily overthrown.\n\nThe notion of a social compact, in more recent times, obtained a\ncertain credence[21] so long as the discussion was confined to Hobbes,\nLocke, and their disciples. And it must be borne in mind that this\nis a very taking theory, a ready and convenient starting point, and\nconformable to much that is true in history and politics. But it is\nlong since exploded; and even the fervid advocacy of Rousseau, in an\nage peculiarly predisposed for its reception, could not secure for it\neven temporary recognition among mankind; and why? Because, whenever\nthe discussion cools, men will inevitably ask each other the question,\nIf such a compact took place, where shall we locate it consistently\nwith the evidence recorded in Genesis? Remove the evidence in Genesis,\nand such a theory becomes at once a tenable and plausible conjecture.\n\n [21] \"The earlier advocates of the doctrine of the social compact\n maintained it on the ground of its _actual existence_.\n They asserted that this account of the origin of political\n societies was _historically true_. Thus Locke, &c.\"--_Sir G.\n C. Lewis, \"Meth. of Reasoning in Pol._\" i. p. 429.\n\nAs I shall have occasion, later on, to come into collision with Sir\nHenry Maine upon some points, I have the greater satisfaction here in\ninvoking his testimony. This acute and learned writer (\"Ancient Law,\"\np. 90) regrets that the Voltairean prejudices of the last century\nprevented reference \"to the only primitive records worth studying--the\nearly history of the Jews[22].... One of the few characteristics which\nthe school of Rousseau had in common with the school of Voltaire was an\nutter disdain of all religious antiquities, and more than all of those\nof the Hebrew race. It is well known that it was a point of honour with\nthe reasoners of that day to assume, not merely that the institutions\ncalled after Moses were not divinely dictated, ... but that they\nand the entire Pentateuch were a gratuitous forgery executed after\nthe return from the Captivity. Debarred, therefore, from one chief\nsecurity against speculative delusion, the philosophers of France, in\ntheir eagerness to escape from what they deemed a superstition of the\npriests, flung themselves headlong into a superstition of the lawyers.\"\n\n [22] \"The only reliable materials which we possess, besides the\n Pentateuch, for the history of the period which it embraces,\n consist of some fragments of Berosus and Manetho, an epitome\n of the early Egyptian history of the latter, a certain number\n of Egyptian and Babylonian inscriptions, and two or three\n valuable papyri.\"--_Rawlinson, Bampton Lectures._ Oxford,\n 1859, ii. 55.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER III.\n\n _PRIMITIVE LIFE._\n\n\nThe scriptural narrative seems to establish:--(1.) That human society\ndid not commence with the fortuitous concurrence of individuals, but\nthat, though originating with a single pair, for the purposes of\npractical inquiry it commences with a group of families--the family of\nNoah and his sons, together with their families, and whose dispersion\nin other families is subsequently recorded. (2.) That men were not\nprimitively in a state of savagery, barbarism, and ignorance of civil\nlife; but that, on the contrary, it is presumable that Noah and his\nfamily brought with them out of the ark the traditions and experiences\nof two thousand years, and, not to speak of special revelations, the\narts of civil life and acquaintance with cities. (3.) That, although\neverything in the early state of mankind would have led to dispersion,\nand although there is mention of one great and complete dispersion,\nyet this dispersion of mankind was a dispersion of families and not of\nindividuals.\n\nIn all our speculations, therefore, as to society and government, it is\nthe family and not the individual whom we must regard as the elementary\nconstituent.\n\nMoreover, so long as family government sufficed, there was nothing but\nthe family. The state would have existed only in germ (_vide infra_,\np. 341), and would have remained thus inchoate even during that\nsubsequent period when families were affiliated in tribal connection,\nthough not yet coalesced into tribal union. It is my impression, that\nthe period during which family government sufficed, continued much\nlonger than is generally supposed; for, until the world became peopled\nand crowded, everything led to dispersion and the continuance of the\npastoral state of life. From the necessities of pastoral life, mankind\nin early times could not have been gregarious--herds would have become\nintermixed, keep would have become short, the broad plains were spread\nout before them;[23] _e.g._ Gen. chap. xiii.--\n\n \"But Lot also, who was with Abraham, had flocks of sheep, and herds\n and tents. 6. Neither was the land able to bear them, that they\n might dwell together. 7. Whereupon there arose a strife between the\n herdsmen of Abraham and Lot; and at that time the Canaanite and the\n Perizzite dwelt in that country. 8. Abraham therefore said, Let\n there be no quarrel. 9. Behold the whole land is before thee.\"[24]\n\n [23] I indicated this view in a pamphlet, \"Inviolability of\n Property by the State, by an English Landlord.\" 1866.\n\n [24] Again Esau and Jacob separated, after the death of the\n patriarch Isaac, because their stock in herds and flocks had\n so increased that, according to the scriptural phrase, \"it\n was more than they might dwell together,\" and further, \"the\n land would not bear them because of their cattle.\"--Gen. chap,\n xxxvi.; _Vide_ \"Pinkerton, Voy.\" i. 528.\n\n Writing with reference to the Hamitic dynasty, founded at\n Babylon by Nimrod (_vide_ Rawlinson, Anc. Mon.), and the\n conquests of Kudur-Lagamer, identified by Rawlinson as\n Chedor-Laomer, Mr Brace adds (\"Ethnology,\" p. 28):--\"This\n at a period, as Professor Rawlinson remarks, when the kings\n of Egypt had never ventured beyond their borders, and when\n no monarch in Asia held dominion over more than a few petty\n tribes and a few hundred miles of territory.\"--_Vide_ ch.\n xiii. \"A Golden Age.\"\n\nIt is scarcely to be believed, that in such a state of society there\nwould have been feuds, in the sense of inherited or hereditary\nquarrels, but at most contentions for particular localities; in which\ncase the weaker or the discomfited party would have pushed on to other\nground. There was no long contest, because there was nothing worth\ncontesting. It has been noticed that only the highly civilised man, and\nthe savage who has tasted blood, love fighting for the mere sake and\nardour of the conflict. The simple barbarian does not fight until he is\nattacked, neither do the wild animals of the desert; their ferocity is\nlimited and regulated by the necessity and the provocation. It is the\nexception, rather than the rule, for animals to fight among themselves.\nIt is not in the nature of man or beast to fight without a reason.\nAccordingly, there is no such fomenter of war as war. Carver notices\nthat the wars carried on between the Indian nations are principally on\nmotives of revenge, and, when not on motives of revenge, their reasons\nfor going to war are \"in general more rational and just than such as\nare fought by Europeans, &c.\"--_Carver's \"Travels in North America,\"_\npp. 351, 297.[25]\n\n [25] Such seems, at a comparatively recent period (1762), to have\n been the state of things at a widely different point among\n the Samoides:--\"The real spot where the habitations of the\n Samoides begin,--if any case be pointed out among a people\n which is continually changing residence,--is in the district\n of Mozine, beyond the river of that name, three or four\n hundred wersts from Archangel. The colony, which is actually\n met with there, and which _lives dispersed_ according to\n the usage of those people, _each family by itself_, without\n forming villages and communities, does not consist of more\n than three hundred families, or thereabouts, which are all\n descended _from two different tribes_, the one called Laghe\n and the other Wanonte--_distinctions carefully regarded by\n them_.\"--_Vide_ \"Pinkerton, Voy.\" i. 524. It is also said\n (p. 582) of certain moral observances amongst them (_vide\n infra_, p. 155):--\"All these customs, religiously observed\n among them, are no other than the fruits of tradition, handed\n down to them from their ancestors; and this tradition, with\n some reason, may be looked upon as law.\" It is a common idea\n amongst us that the word _home_ is a peculiarly English word,\n and, I confess, it was my own impression, but I am set musing\n by finding among these same Samoides the word \"_chome_\"\n as their word for their _tents_, to which they cling so\n closely.--_Vide_ Pinkerton, i. 63.\n\n \"I visited four other villages or _goungs_, and there may be\n as many more in Assam, each containing about three or four\n hundred people. Every community is under the patriarchal\n government of a chief, from whom the village takes its\n name.... The chiefs of villages would combine against a\n common enemy, but are as independent of each other as the\n old Highland heads of clans.... I was curiously reminded\n of the clan distinctions, by observing that the home-grown\n cotton cloths differed in pattern in the different villages.\n In all cases chequered patterns were worn, presenting as\n various combinations of colours and stripes as our own\n tartans, and each village possessed a pattern peculiar to\n itself, generally, though not universally, affected by the\n inhabitants.\"--_Travels in Northern Assam_, Field, i., 1870;\n _vide also Hunter's \"Rural Bengal,\"_ 1868, p. 217.\n\nThe same tendencies, under similar circumstances, where the tribes\nwere not crowded or in fear of warlike neighbours, was noticed among\nthe Red Indians some forty years ago. Now, I suppose, instances would\nbe rare.\n\n \"When a nation of Indians becomes too numerous conveniently to\n procure subsistence from its own hunting-grounds, it is no uncommon\n occurrence for it to send out a colony, or, in other words, to\n separate into tribes.... The tribe so separated maintains all\n its relations independent of the parent nation, though the most\n friendly intercourse is commonly maintained, and they are almost\n uniformly allies. Separations sometimes take place from party\n dissensions, growing generally out of the jealousies of the\n principal chiefs, and, not unfrequently, out of petty quarrels.\n In such instances, in order to prevent the unnecessary and wanton\n effusion of blood, and consequent enfeebling of the nation, the\n weaker party moves off usually without the observance of much\n ceremony.\"[26]\n\n [26] \"Hunter's Memoir of his Captivity (from childhood to the age\n of nineteen) among the Indians,\" p. 180, 181. He also adds (p.\n 307):--\"The Indians do not pretend to any correct knowledge of\n the tumuli or mounds that are occasionally met with in their\n country.... One tradition of the Quapaws states that a nation\n differing very much from themselves inhabited the country many\n hundred snows ago, when game was so plenty that it required\n only slight efforts to procure subsistence, and when there\n _existed no hostile neighbours to render the pursuit of war\n necessary_.\" And Stephen's \"Central America\" (i. 142) notices\n the absence of all weapons of war from the representations in\n sculpture at Copan, and says:--\"In other countries, battle\n scenes, warriors, and weapons of war, are among the most\n prominent subjects of sculpture; and from the entire absence\n of them here, there is reason to believe that the people were\n not warlike, but peaceable, and easily subdued.\"\n\nMr Grote in his \"Plato\"[27] says--\n\n \"There existed,\" even \"in his (Plato's) time, a great variety of\n distinct communities--some in the simplest, most patriarchal,\n cyclopian condition, _nothing more than families_; some highly\n advanced in civilisation, with its accompanying good and evil, some\n in each intermediate stage between these two extremes. Each little\n family or sept exists at first separately, with a patriarch whom\n all implicitly obey, and peculiar customs of its own. Several of\n these septs gradually coalesce together into a community, choosing\n one or a few lawgivers to adjust and modify their respective\n customs into harmonious order.\"[28]\n\n [27] III., ch. xxxvii. Leges, 337.\n\n [28] I find incidental corroboration of this view in \"The\n Arch\u00e6ology of Prehistoric Annals\" of Scotland, by Dr\n Wilson--\"The infancy of all written history is necessarily\n involved in fable. Long ere _scattered families_ had\n _conjoined_ their _patriarchal unions into tribes_, and\n clans acknowledging some common chief, and submitting their\n differences to the rude legislation of the arch-priest or\n civil head of the commonwealth, treacherous tradition has\n converted the story of their birth into the wildest admixture\n of myth and legendary fable.\"--_Introd._, p. 12.\n\n Even in the plain of Sennaar (Shinar) we see something of this\n fusion of tribes--\"Besides these two main constituents of the\n Chald\u00e6an race there is reason to believe that both a Semitic\n and Aryan element existed.... The subjects of the early kings\n are continually designated in the inscriptions by the title\n of 'Kiprat-arbat,' which is interpreted to mean 'the four\n nations' or 'tongues'\" (Rawlinson's \"Ancient Monarchies,\" i.\n p. 69). Professor Rawlinson is also of opinion, that \"the\n league of the four kings in Abraham's time seems correspondent\n to a four-fold ethnic division.\"\n\n Does not the above also correspond to the four-fold ethnic\n division of the Vedas?--_Vide infra_, p. 39. Compare also\n the four-fold division of the world or of Peru, according\n to various Indian traditions, between Manco Capac and his\n brothers.--_Vide_ Hakluyt Society's edition of Garcilasso de\n la Vega, i. 71-75. If these are not traditions of fusions\n of races, they can only be diluvian traditions of the four\n couples who came out of the ark, which was the conjecture of\n the Spaniards in the case of Manco Capac.\n\nIn the situations, however, where the more powerful families had\nseized the vantage-ground, or established themselves in the richest\nand most coveted valleys, the tendency to consolidation and permanent\nsettlement would have more rapidly manifested itself. As the tendency\nto family dispersion became restrained, and its scope restricted,\ndisputes as to _meum_ and _tuum_ would have become more frequent\nas between families, some more central authority than the family\nheadship would have been demanded for the protection, discrimination,\nand regulation of property. _In these_ instances the state may be\nsaid to have arisen out of the expansion of the family into the\ntribes--the families, probably, never having ceased to dwell together\nin semi-aggregation; and, when greater concentration was required, they\nsimply had to fall back upon the patriarchal chieftain. We seem to see\na tradition of this in the Anax Andron.\n\nBut equally as regards the rest there must inevitably have come a time\nwhen, as the world became crowded, the same necessity of defending\ntheir possessions, would have caused families, among whom there was no\naffinity of race, to coalesce, intermix, succumb, and form communities\nand states.\n\nThese two modes of settlement into communities and states were,\nhowever, essentially dissimilar, and the basis thus laid would have\nremained permanently different. The one was the basis of custom, the\nother of contract; the one the settlement of the East, the other of\nthe West; and it will be seen, I think, that whilst the one was more\nfavourable to the conservation of traditions of religion and history,\nthe other would have better preserved the tradition of right. These are\npoints to which I shall return in a subsequent chapter, when I shall\navail myself of the investigations of Sir Henry Maine.\n\nThis simple outline, however, of human history, conformable, as I\nbelieve it to be, with the scriptural narrative, conflicts with\nat least three theories now much in vogue. The first, which is\nsubstantially that of Sir John Lubbock, Mr Mill,[29] and Mr B. Gould,\nis thus conveniently summarised by Mr Hepworth Dixon.[30]\n\n \"Every one who has read the annals of our race--a page of nature\n with its counterfoil in the history of everything having life--is\n aware that, in our progress from the savage to the civilised state,\n man has had to pass through three grand stages, corresponding,\n as it were, to his childhood, to his youth, and to his manhood.\n In the first stage of his career he is a hunter, living mainly\n by the chase; in the second, he is a herdsman; ... in the third\n stage, he is a husbandman.... Then these conditions of human life\n may be considered as finding their purest types in such races as\n the Iroquois, the Arabian, the Gothic, in their present stage;\n but each condition is, in itself and for itself, _an affair of\n development and not of race_. The Arab, who is now a shepherd, was\n once a hunter. The Saxon, who is now a cultivator of the soil, was\n first a hunter, then a herdsman, before he became a husbandman.\n Man's progress from stage to stage is _continuous_ in its course,\n _obeying the laws of physical and moral change_. It is slow, it\n is _uniform_, it is silent, it is unseen. In one word, it is\n _growth_.... These three stages in our progress upward are strongly\n marked; the interval dividing an Iroquois from an Arab being as\n wide as that which separates an Arab from a Saxon.\"\n\n [29] This view will be found in the first chapter of Mr J. S.\n Mill's \"Principles of Political Economy,\" ch. i. p. 6. \"There\n is perhaps no people or community now existing which subsist\n entirely on the spontaneous produce of vegetation.\" [Whether\n mankind ever lived \"entirely on,\" &c., may be questioned,\n but it is implied in Gen. ix. 3 that man did not subsist on\n animal food until after the Deluge, a fact which lies at\n the foundation of Porphyry's work, \"De Abstinentia.\"] \"But\n many tribes still live exclusively, or almost exclusively,\n on wild animals, the produce of hunting or fishing.... The\n first _great advance beyond this state_ consists in the\n domestication of the more useful animals: giving rise to the\n _the pastoral or nomad state.... From this state of society\n to the agricultural_, the transition is not indeed easy (for\n no great change in the habits of mankind is otherwise than\n difficult, and in general either painful or very slow), but it\n lies in what may be called the spontaneous course of events.\"\n\n [30] Mr Hepworth Dixon's \"New America,\" vol. i. p. 113.\n\nNow, in the first place, I must remark that the Iroquois and the Arab\nhave never progressed;[31] neither does the Arab at the present show\nany signs of a transition to the third stage of necessary growth, nor\ndoes Mr Hepworth Dixon, although he gives some sound practical advice\nas to the best mode in which the red man is to be restrained, venture\nto suggest any mode by which he is to be reclaimed from the first to\nthe third stage, either with or without a transition through the second\nstage of development. The conclusion therefore, one would think, would\nbe inevitable that it is an affair _of race_ and _not_ of development.\nThe Arab and the Iroquois, after the lapse of so many centuries, are\nstill found with the evidences of primitive life strong upon them; and\nso, I imagine, we shall find it wherever we come upon a pure race of\nhomogeneous origin. On the contrary, we shall find that mixed races,\nby the very law and reason of their admixture, have shown the greatest\nadaptibility, and, whenever circumstances were favourable, very rapid\ngrowth. Again, I very much question whether the three stages, or rather\nthree phases of life were ever, as a rule, progressive; and whether,\nin the cases in which they might chance to have been successive,\nanything occurred in the transition at all resembling an uniform law\nof growth. It is very much more probable that the three were from\nthe earliest period contemporaneous[32]--\"and Abel was a shepherd,\nand Cain an husbandman\" (Gen. iv.)--the determination of the sons to\nthe avocations of shepherd, husbandman, and hunter respectively (the\nlatter most probably being the last selected), being influenced by\ntaste, character, and the division of the inheritance, the authority\nof the father, the geographical conditions of the route, and chance\ncircumstances.\n\n [31] _Vide_ Sir S. Baker; _vide_ note, ch. xiii., _Noah_.\n\n [32] The following passage, _inter alia_, from Herodotus seems to\n sustain this--\"To the eastward _of those Scythians_, who apply\n themselves to _the culture of the land_, and on the other side\n of the river Panticapes, the country is inhabited by Scythians\n who _neither plough nor sow_, but are employed in _keeping\n cattle_.\"--_Herod._, iv., Mel.\n\nAnd this is the more confirmed when we consider that when once the\nhunter started on his career, he would have determined their avocation\nalso for his posterity. At his death he would not have had herds of\ncattle to apportion to any one of his sons, and thus the taste for\nwild life, necessarily perpetuated, would be bred in the bone, as an\nindomitable characteristic of race, and the first hunter by choice\nwould inevitably come to be the progenitor of generations of hunters by\ninstinct and necessity.\n\nThe second theory depicts the opening scene of human existence as a\nstate of conflict, which, it must be allowed, is perfectly consistent\nwith the theory that it was one of savagery. The theory I am now\ncombating was originally the theory of Hobbes; and I might have\nregarded it as now obsolete, were it not that it has cropped up quite\nrecently in a most respectable quarter. Mr Hunter, in his charming\nwork, \"The Annals of Rural Bengal,\" has a passage which, as I think,\nhas been taken for more than it intends, though not for more than it\nexpresses. Mr Hunter says, p. 89--\n\n \"The inquiry leads us back to that far-off time which we love to\n associate with patriarchal stillness. Yet the echoes of ancient\n life in India little resemble a Sicilian idyl or the strains of\n Pan's pipe, but strike the ear rather as the cries of oppressed and\n wandering nations, of people in constant motion and pain. Early\n Indian researches, however, while they make havoc of the pastoral\n landscapes of Genesis and Job, have a consolation peculiarly suited\n to this age. They plainly tell us, that as in Europe so in Asia,\n the primitive state of mankind was a state of unrest; and that\n civilisation, despite its exactions and nervous city life, is a\n state of repose.\"\n\nIt is plain that there is here question of restlessness rather than\nof violence; but grant that there was violence too, the account of\nMr. Hunter when examined, so far from conflicting with, appears to me\nto fall exactly into, the lines I have indicated. Is not the scene,\nfrom before which Mr. Hunter lifts the curtain, the scene of that age\nfollowing the dispersion (of which, p. 452, there is such distinct\ntradition in his pages), which is traditionally known to us as the iron\nage? The error, then, of Mr. Hunter is to confound the patriarchal with\nthe iron age. It need not therefore cause surprise that in early Indian\nhistory we should hear of conflict, for it is just at the period and\nunder the circumstances when we should consider the collision probable.\n\nMr. Hunter, indeed, speaks of the aboriginal races as mysterious in\ntheir origin. But from the point of view of Genesis, there seems to\nbe no greater mystery about them than about their conquerors the\nAryans. One representative, at least, of the aboriginal race, the\nSantals, retain to this day the most vivid traditions of the Flood\nand the Dispersion[33] (pp. 151, 452). Now, if there had existed any\nrace anterior to the Santals, I think we should have heard of them.\nOn this point we may consider Mr. Hunter's negative testimony as\nconclusive, both on account of his extensive knowledge of the subject,\nand his evident predisposition (p. 109) to have discovered a prior\nrace, if it had existed; and there is nothing to show that the same\nline of argument would not have applied to it if its existence had\nbeen demonstrated. It must be mentioned that besides their tradition\nof the dispersion, the Santals retain dim recollections--borne out\nby comparative evidence--of having travelled to their present homes\nfrom the north-east, whereas the Aryans came unmistakeably from the\nnorth-west.\n\n [33] These legends, shown to be aboriginal, are very curious. They\n are, however, too long to be extracted here. They would repay\n perusal.\n\nHere, then, just as might have been predicted _\u00e0 priori_, these rival\ncurrents of the dispersion met from opposite points, and ran into a\n_cul de sac_, from which, as there was no egress, there necessarily\nensued a struggle for mastery.\n\nLet us now regard the two people more closely.\n\n \"Our earliest glimpses of the human family in India, disclose two\n tribes of widely different origin, struggling for the mastery. In\n the primitive time, which lies on the horizon even of inductive\n history, a tall, fair-complexioned race passed the Himalaya. They\n came of a conquering stock. They had _known the safety_ and the\n _plenty_ which can only be enjoyed in regular communities.[34]\n _They brought with them a store of legends_ and devotional strains;\n and chief of all they were at the time of their migration southward\n through Bengal, if not at their first arrival in India, imbued\n with that high sense of nationality, which burns in the heart\n of a people who believe themselves the _depositary of a divine\n revelation_. There is no record of the newcomers' first struggle\n for life with the people of the land.\"--_Hunter's Annals_, p. 90.\n\nHere we see the more intellectual, the more spiritual (p. 116),\nmonotheistic (p. 115) Aryan race overpowering the black race which had\nearliest pre-occupied the ground, and which was already tainted with\ndemon worship. This contrast invites further inquiry; but first let me\nclear up and direct the immediate drift of my argument.\n\n [34] Mr Max M\u00fcller also says (\"Chips,\" ii. p. 41)--\"It should be\n observed that most of the terms connected with the chase and\n warfare differ in each of the Aryan dialects, while words\n connected with more peaceful occupations belong, generally,\n to the common heirloom of the Aryan language,\" which proves\n \"that all the Aryan nations had led _a long life of peace\n before they separated_, and that their language acquired\n individuality and nationality, as each colony started in\n search of new homes,--new generations forming new terms\n connected with the warlike and adventurous life of their\n onward migrations. Hence it is that _not only Greek and Latin,\n but all Aryan_ languages have their peaceful words in common.\"\n Also _vide_ p. 28, 29.\n\nIf we estimate--taking the minimum or the maximum either according to\nthe Hebrew or Septuagint version--the time it would have taken these\npopulations, according to the slow progress of the dispersion, to have\narrived at their destinations from the plain of Sennaar (Mesopotamia),\nthe period may be equally conjectured to correspond with that which\ntradition marks as the commencement of the iron age, when the world\nwas becoming overcrowded, and the increasing populations came into\ncollision.\n\nNeither is it a difficulty,[35] it rather appears to me in accordance\nwith tradition, that if this surmise be correct, the earliest arrival\nin the Indian Peninsula should have been of those who took the longest\nroute. For it is natural to suppose that the proscribed and weakest\nraces, _e.g._ the Canaanitish, would have been the first to depart, and\nto depart by the north-east and west, the more powerful families having\npassed down and closed the south-east exit by way of the lower valleys\nof the Euphrates. These latter would have spread themselves out in the\ndirection of India leisurely and at a subsequent period.\n\n [35] I find this conjecture confirmed in the pages of the most\n recent authority on the subject, Mr Brace, \"Ethnology,\" p. 13,\n 14--\"On the continent of Asia the Turanians were probably the\n first who figured as nations in the ante-historical period.\n Their emigrations began long before the wanderings of the\n Aryans and Semites, who, wherever they went, always discovered\n a previous population, apparently of Turanian origin, which\n they either expelled or subdued.\" According to Max M\u00fcller's\n hypothesis there were two migrations, one northern and one\n southern [corresponding to the migration as above], \"the\n _latter_ settling on the rivers Meikong, Meinam, _Irrawaddy_,\n and _Bramapootra_,\" ... \"a third to the south [probably an\n advance of the previous one], is believed to tend toward\n Thibet and India, and in later times pours its hordes _through\n the Himalaya_, and forms the _original population of India_.\"\n Analogy may be discovered in \"the two streams or lines of\n Celtic migration,\" which, says Bunsen (\"Philosophy of Univ.\n Hist.\" i. 148) \"we may distinguish by the names of the Western\n and Eastern stream, the _former_, although the _less direct_,\n seems to be historically the more ancient, and to have reached\n this country (Britain) _several centuries_ before _the other_.\"\n\nFollowing these lines of migration, the Aryan at some period came upon\nthe black Turanian race (_vide infra_, Chap. v.); and Mr Hunter (p.\n110) records the embittered feelings with which the recollection of\nthe strife remained in tradition. Why should this have been? It might\nsuffice to say, in consistency with what has already been advanced,\nthat this was their first encounter, the first check in their advance.\n\nAnother solution seems to me equally ready to hand, and to solve so\nmuch more. But first, how does Mr Hunter account for this bitter\nfeeling? He suggests contempt for their \"uncouth talk,\" \"their gross\nhabits of eating,\" and, what comes near to the truth, as I apprehend\nit, their blackness and their paganism. Suppose, then, we go a step\nfurther, and say that the highly intellectual Japhetic race met thus\nsuddenly and unexpectedly the outcast Canaanitish race, with the curse\nupon them, recognisable in their colour and deficiencies, and of whom\nthey would have remembered that it had been said, \"that they should be\nthe servants of their brethren\"--will not this explain something of\ntheir animosity?\n\nI must here remark that although scientific inquiry takes designations\nof its own, in order the more conveniently to express its distinctions,\nyet whether we accept the ethnological or philological demarcations of\nmankind, it is curious how inevitably, as I think De Maistre remarked,\nwe are led back to Shem, Ham, and Japhet. And this is as true now after\na half century of scientific progress, as it was when De Maistre wrote.\nWithout asserting that the divisions may ever be distinctly traced with\nthe minuteness of Bochart in his \"Geog. Sacra,\" I still say, that the\nbroad lines of the traditional apportionment of the world, and the\nthree-fold or four-fold division of the race indicated in Scripture,\nis seen behind the ultimate divisions into which science is brought\nto separate mankind, whether into Caucasian, Ethiopian, Mongol, with\ntwo intermediate varieties, as by Blumenbach; or into Australioid,\nNegroid, Mongoloid, and Xanthochroic, as by Huxley; or into Brace's\ndivision into Aryan, Semitic, Turanian, and Hamitic. Behind these\nvarious systems, as behind a grill, we seem to see the forms and faces\nof the progenitors of the human race discernible, but their existence\nnot capable of contact and actual demonstration, because of the\nintercepting bars and lattice work.[36]\n\n [36] I am throughout assuming acquaintance, on the part of my\n readers, with the third and fourth of Cardinal Wiseman's\n \"Lectures on Science and Revealed Religion;\" for although\n my argument is distinct from that of the Cardinal, yet I\n everywhere regard his argument as the background and support\n of my position; and it is, moreover, part of the aim and\n intention of this work to show that the general ground and\n framework (this is, in fact, understating the truth) of\n Cardinal Wiseman's argument remains intact. There is, I think,\n somewhere in the Cardinal's works, a passage to the above\n effect, but I have not been able to recover it.\n\nI have spoken above of a three-fold and four-fold division as equally\nindicated in Scripture, and I think, from non-observance of this, the\nclose approximation of these systems to Genesis is not sufficiently\nrecognised. I refer to the three progenital races, and the Canaanite\nmarked off and distinguished from the rest by a curse. I shall enlarge\nupon this point in another chapter (Chap. v).\n\nI will only observe now that I do not venture to say that the Canaanite\nis co-extensive with the Turanian, which is more a philological than\nan ethnological division of mankind, or that their characteristics in\nall respects correspond.[37] I limit my argument now to indicating the\ncorrespondence between the Canaanite and the aboriginal tribes in India.\n\n [37] If space allowed, I think the traditional lines might be\n indicated as plainly from the philological as from the\n ethnological point of view.\n\nThis correspondence I find not only in the features already\nnoted--their blackness and their intellectual inferiority--but in their\nenslavement to the superior races of mankind whenever they came into\ncontact and collision with them. Is not this everywhere also the mark\nof the Turanian race? are not these conflicts in primitive life always\nwith the Turanian race? and are they not in Asia, as in Africa, in a\nstate of subjugation or dependence?\n\nAt any rate, this is the condition in which we find the Turanian in\nIndia, so fully expressed in their name of \"Sudras.\"[38]\n\n [38] \"According to the sacred law-book, entitled the Ordinances of\n Menu, the Creator, that the human race might be multiplied,\n caused the Brahmin, Cshatriya, the Vaisya, and the _Sudra_ (so\n named from Scripture, protection, wealth, and _labour_), to\n proceed from his mouth, arm, thigh, and foot.\"--_Brit. Ency._\n The \"Fatimala,\" a Sanskrit work on Hindu castes, says, \"the\n other, _i.e._, the Sudra, should voluntarily serve the three\n other tribes, and therefore he became a Sudra; he _should_\n humble himself at their feet.\"\n\nAgainst this literal fulfilment of Gen. ix. 25--\"Cursed be Canaan, a\nservant of servants shall he be to his brethren\"--as regards the Indian\nSudra, the text in Gen. x. 19--\"And the limits of Chanaan were from\nSidon ... to Gaza ... even to Sesa\"--may be objected. But I construe\nthis text only to refer to Chanaan proper, and to be spoken rather with\nreference to the limits of the Promised Land and the Hebrews, than\nto the allocation of the tribes of Chanaan; for the text immediately\npreceding seems to me to have its significance--viz. Gen. x. 18,[39]\nwhere it is said in a marked manner, and of the descendants of Chanaan\nalone, \"The families of the Canaanites were spread abroad.\" But if\nwe are to suppose the whole descent of Chanaan to have been confined\nbetween the limits of Sidon and Sesa, it could hardly have been said to\nhave had the diffusion of the other Hamitic races, and the _families_\nof the Chanaanites will not have been \"spread abroad\" in any noticeable\nor striking manner. It appears to me, also, that it may be proved in\nanother way. St Paul, Acts xiii. 19, says that God destroyed _seven_\nnations in the land of Chanaan, whereas Gen. x. enumerates eleven.\n\n [39] Homer's expression (Od. i. 23, 24), that the Ethiopians\n divided in twain, were the _most remote_ of men--\n\n [Greek: \"Athiopas, toi dichtha dedaiatai eschatoi andr\u00f4n,\n Hoi men dysomenoi Yperionos oi d' aniontos,\"]\n\n approximates to the scriptural phrase, and seems to imply a wider\n dispersion than is suggested by Professor Rawlinson, i. 59.\n\nAgain, Kalisch (\"Hist. and Crit. Com. on Old Testament,\" trans. 1858)\nmakes it a difficulty against Gen. ix. that \"Canaan _should_ not only\nfall into the hands of Shem, _i.e._ the people of Israel, but also of\n_Japhet_\" (i. 226).\n\nA remote fulfilment of the prediction may be seen in the Median\nconquest of Phoenicia, and the Roman destruction of Carthage; but if\nI have truly indicated the order of events, it will be seen that it had\nalready come about in the earliest times.\n\nThe text, indeed, of Gen. ix. 27--\"May God enlarge Japhet, and may he\ndwell in the tents of Shem, and Canaan be his servant\"--is so clear as\nalmost to require some such fulfilment.\n\nBut the fulfilment is seen, not only in the degradation of Chanaan, but\nin the prosperity of Japhet;[40] and this is so correlative, that I\nshall still be enforcing the argument whilst connecting a link which\nmay appear to be wanting, viz. the identity of Japhet with the more\nfavoured nations of the world. The identity of the Indo-Germanic races\nwith the descendants of Japhet may almost be said to be a truth \"_qui\nsaute aux yeux_,\" but it may still be worth while to collect the links\nof tradition which establish it.\n\n [40] Tylor (\"Primitive Culture,\" i. p. 44) says, \"The Semitic\n family, which represents one of the oldest known civilizations\n of the world, includes Arabs, Jews, Phoenicians (?),\n Syrians, &c., and may have an older as well as a newer\n connection in North Africa. This family takes in some rude\n tribes, but _none which would be classed as savages_. The\n Aryan family has existed in Asia and Europe certainly for\n several thousand years, and there are well known and marked\n traces of early barbaric condition, which has perhaps survived\n with least change among secluded tribes in the valleys of the\n Hindu Kush and Himalaya.\" [_Query_, What is the nature of the\n evidence that they have survived, and have not degenerated?]\n Mr Tylor continues, \"There seems, again, _no known case of\n any full Aryan tribe having become savage_. The gipsies and\n other outcasts are, no doubt, partly Aryan in blood, but\n _their degraded condition_ is not _savagery_. In India there\n are tribes Aryan by language, but whose physique is rather of\n indigenous type, and whose ancestry is mainly from indigenous\n stocks, with more or less mixture of the dominant Hindu.\"\n Compare _infra_, ch. v., and De Maistre, p. 272.\n\nIn truth, it appears to us a self-evident proposition, simply because\ntradition has familiarised us with the belief that Europe was peopled\nby the descendants of Japhet, and because philology has recently\ndemonstrated the Indo-Germanic race to include this demarcation\n(together with Central and Western Asia); but I think that if we\nexclude the testimony of tradition, we should have difficulty in\nestablishing the point either upon the text of Gen. x. 5, or from the\nevidence of philology.\n\nThat the race of Japhet spread themselves over the islands, and\ncolonised the coasts of the Mediterranean, is the traditional\ninterpretation of that text; and it receives confirmation, in the first\nplace, in the tradition that \"Japetus being the father of Prometheus,\nwas regarded by the Greeks as the ancestor of the human race.\"--Smith's\n\"Myth. Dict.\" We have, I think, become familiar with such\ntranspositions as \"Deucalion the son of Prometheus,\" and \"Prometheus\nthe son of Deucalion,\" &c. Certainly Prometheus (_vide_ Appendix to\nChap. viii. p. 180, and Chap. x. p. 232), supposing Prometheus to be\nAdam,[41] would naturally stand at the head of every genealogy; but\nJapetus, supposing him to be identified with Japhet as the particular\nfounder of the race (after so distinct and definite a starting-point\nas the Deluge), would also, in his way, have claims to be placed at\nthe head of their genealogy; and probably about the time that he began\nto be called \"old Japetus,\" and to be typical of antiquity, his claims\nwould have been regarded as paramount, and Prometheus would have been\naccordingly displaced in his favour. This is conjectural, but must be\ntaken as one link.\n\n [41] Just as Hercules (_vide_ Hercules, p. 180), who embodied\n in another line the tradition of Adam, is said by Mr Grote,\n \"Hist. of Greece,\" i. p. 128-9, \"to have been the most\n renowned and most ubiquitous of all the semi-divine personages\n worshipped by the Hellenes,\" so that \"distinguished families\n are _everywhere_ to be traced who have his patronymic, and\n glory in the belief that they are his descendants.\" To whom\n would they trace back more naturally than to Adam?\n\nWell, the (Indian) Aryans also, according to Mr Hunter (\"Rural Bengal,\"\n103), \"held (Book of Manu and the Vishnu Purana) that the Greeks\nand Persians were sprung from errant Kshatryas, who had lost their\ncaste\"--_i.e._ from their own race. They are called in the same books\n_Yavanas_ and Pahlavas. Now no one, I think, will call it a forced\nanalogy to see in Yavana the name of Javan, the son of Japhet.[42] This\nI may call link the second.\n\n [42] This must be taken in connection with what I have said, ch. x.\n\nBut the Aryans, as we have seen, are one of the three or four primitive\nraces to which both philology and ethnology lead us back. They are\ncontrasted, on the one side, with the Semitic, and, on the other, with\nthe Hamitic or Turanian race. We will assume, then, on the strength of\nthe philological and scriptural lines being so nearly conterminous,\nthat at least, looking from the point of view of Scripture, the Aryan\nmay be identified with great probability as the Japhetic race. If,\nthen, the Aryan is the Japhetic race in its elder branch--to which its\nlater migration would seem to testify--we should exactly expect that it\nwould designate a kindred but collateral race, not by the name of their\ncommon ancestor, but by the name of the progenitor from whom they were\nmore immediately descended--not as from Japhet, but from Javan. Thus\nthe links seem to join; and here I leave them, till there may chance\nto come some one who will gather up all the links in the chain of\ntradition, dislocated and dispersed by the catastrophes which have been\nconsequent upon the derelictions of mankind.\n\nThe third view to which I wish to advert, is that put forward by Mr\nJohn F. M'Lennan in his \"Primitive Marriage,\" 1865, which also revives\nthe theory of a savage state, and moreover professes to discover\nprimitive mankind living in a state of promiscuity, little, if at all,\nelevated above the brute, and this during the long period which was\nrequired to develop 1. the tribe; 2. the gens; 3. the family.\n\nIt will be difficult for any one, who comes fresh from the perusal of\nGenesis, to realise the possibility of such a view being held; but, in\ntruth, there is no view too grotesque for men in whose survey mankind\nappear originally on the scene as a mass of units coming into the\nworld, no one knows how, like locusts rising above the horizon, or\ncovering the earth perhaps like toads after a shower!\n\nYet Mr M'Lennan's theory is virtually endorsed (_vide infra_) by Sir J.\nLubbock, who refers to it (p. 60, note), as \"Mr M'Lennan's masterly\nwork.\" If, then, we must discuss the theory upon its merits, the\nobjection which I should take, _in limine_, is that it is a partial\ngeneralisation from facts, irrespective of the historical evidence as\na whole. There stands against it, of course, the direct evidence of\nthe Bible, also there stands against it the researches of oriental\narchaeology, and, again, what Mr M'Lennan calls the \"so-called\nrevelation of philology,\" which shows that mankind, in the period\nprevious to their dispersion, \"had marriage laws regulating the rights\nand obligations of husbands and wives, of parents and children.\" This\nevidence he rejects because \"the preface of general history _must\nbe_ compiled from the materials presented by barbarism\" (p. 9), thus\n_assuming_ barbarism to have been the primitive state.\n\nMr M'Lennan struggles vainly for universal facts on which to build,\nand seems to find one in what he has termed exogamy (_i.e._ marriage\noutside the tribe), combined with the capture of wives and the\ninfanticide of female children within the tribe. Impossible! If this\nstate of things had been _universal_, the human race would have\nexterminated itself long before \"the historic period!\" The theory\nnecessarily supposes that some tribes were addicted to these practices,\nwhilst others were not. Exogamy, therefore, is not a universal fact;\nbut neither could endogamy have been, _for \"the conversion of an\nendogamous tribe into an exogamous tribe is inconceivable,\"_ p. 146.\nBut as Mr M'Lennan is as much constrained to choose between exogamy and\nendogamy as was Mons. Jourdain between poetry and prose, he apparently\nelects in favour of the universal primitive prevalence of exogamy,\n_i.e._ he supposes mankind to have commenced under conditions which\nwould have ensured its proximate extinction.\n\nMr M'Lennan (p. 144) says, \"the two types of organisation (viz.\nexogamy and endogamy) may be equally archaic;\" but it is evident that\nhe inclines to the opinion that exogamy is the more archaic; and\nhis analysis at p. 142, commencing with \"Exogamy Pure, No. 1, and\ncontinuing on to ... Endogamy Pure, No. 6,\" is \"the analysis of a\nseries of phenomena which appears to form a progression\" (141).\n\nMoreover, the difficulties which I have just urged will immediately\nrecur if we allow \"the two types to have been equally archaic.\"\n\nThe supposed exogamous tribes, according to the theory, enforcing the\ninfanticide of female children, and not permitting marriage within\nthe tribe, must have been wholly dependent upon the endogamous groups\nfor their women. These latter groups must either have succumbed,\nand so have become speedily extinguished through the loss of their\nwomen (for they could not have acquired others who were not of their\nstock, without ceasing to be endogamous); or they must have resisted\nsuccessfully, and even if the matter went no farther, the exogamous\ntribes must have died out or abandoned exogamy; or the endogamous\ntribes must have resisted and retaliated, in which case we should have\nthis further complication that they themselves would have ceased to be\nendogamous, and without any reason or necessity for becoming exogamous;\nfor with the seizure of the females of the exogamous tribes, or even,\nunder the special circumstances, with the recovery of their own, the\nelement of \"heterogeneity\" would have been introduced, and the system\nof endogamy would have been no longer true in theory, or possible in\nfact. All these results must have been immediately consequent upon the\nfirst collision, which from the very conditions of exogamy, must have\noccurred at the outset! Postulating exogamy, it must therefore rapidly\nhave extirpated or absorbed every other system, and yet it could never\nhave stood alone.\n\nMr M'Lennan himself allows that wherever \"kinship through females,\nthe most ancient system in which the idea of blood relationship was\nembodied\" (148) was known, there would have been a tendency among the\nexogamous groups to become heterogeneous, and that thus \"the system\nof capturing wives would have been superseded.\"[43] In other words,\nexogamy would have become extinct. But if \"kinship through females\" was\nnot discovered by the first children of the first mothers, how was it\nsubsequently discovered? We are given no clue except that \"the order of\nnature is progressive!\"\n\n [43] At p. 88, Mr M'Lennan sees evidence of the \"form of capture\"\n and the fact of capture among the Jews; but he will at least\n allow the appeal to be made to the Scriptures, as their most\n authentic history. What do we find at the commencement? In\n the first marriage contract recorded, _i.e._ of Isaac and\n Rebecca? Why, the reverse of capture. Genesis xxvi. 8, \"But if\n the woman will not follow thee thou shalt not be bound by the\n oath.\" Also v. 39, 40.\n\n Mr M'Lennan (p. 29), with reference to the hurling \"stones and\n bamboos at the head of the devoted bridegroom in Khondistan,\"\n says, \"_the hurling of old shoes_ after the bridegroom among\n ourselves _may be_ a relic of a similar custom.\" But this\n custom would seem to be much more directly traced to the\n custom among the Jews of taking the shoes from the man who\n refused to marry his brother's widow (Deuteronomy), and which\n is more generally stated in Ruth iv. 7, as a token of _cession\n of right_--\"the man _put off his shoe_, and gave it to his\n neighbour, _this was the testimony of a cession of right in\n Israel_\" (Ruth iv. 7).\n\nThis compels the remark that if Mr M'Lennan fails to prove that exogamy\nwas universal, as a stage of human progress, or, to use a phrase of\nhis own, \"on such a scale as to entitle it to rank among the normal\nphenomena of human development,\" there is nothing to exclude the\nlikelihood of its being much more satisfactorily and directly traced\nas the result of degeneracy. Mr M'Lennan should clear his ground by\ndemonstrating that the circumstances exclude the possibility of this\nconjecture.\n\nOn the contrary, and on his own showing, they would appear much more\ncertainly to affirm it. Although exogamy is the earliest fact which\nhe believes to be demonstrable by evidence, he assumes an initial\npromiscuity; and seems to see his way out of this initial promiscuity\nthrough the system of \"rude polyandry\" (when one woman was common to a\ndeterminate number of men unrelated) as distinguished from \"regulated\npolyandry\" (where one woman was common to several brothers). It must\nbe noted that before these polyandrous families, if we may so call\nthem, at first necessarily limited, could theoretically or in fact have\nbecome the tribal exogamous groups, many difficulties must be disposed\nof, and many stages traced, of which we are told nothing more than that\nwe are \"forced to regard all the exogamous races as having originally\nbeen polyandrous\" (p. 226). That these families, if it is not an abuse\nof terms to call them so, could not have become tribal by grouping, Mr\nM'Lennan himself maintains, p. 232.\n\nThe two systems which Mr M'Lennan distinguishes as \"rude\" and\n\"regulated polyandry,\" are so essentially different that I fail to\ntrace the possibility of progression from one to the other. \"Rude\npolyandry\" is barely distinguishable from promiscuity, and not at\nall if we regard it as only promiscuity, necessarily limited through\ninfanticide, or other causes destroying the balance of the sexes. The\nlatter has peculiar features--arising in some way out of, and fixed\nin the idea of the relationship of brothers--an idea which it is just\nconceivable might arise directly out of a state of promiscuity--where\ntheoretically the children might be supposed to be in contact with the\nmother only, but which the system of \"rude polyandry,\" by introducing\nconflicting and complicated claims, would immediately tend to weaken\nand obliterate.\n\nLet us see, then, if we can trace the custom better on the lines of\ndegeneracy.\n\nIf we start with the belief in the existence of many primitive\nceremonies and regulations we may then suppose that in the downward\nprogression to promiscuity, the stages of the descent will be traceable\nin the corruptions of these customs. Such surmises at least are as\ngood as the contrary surmises of Mr M'Lennan.\n\nNow, we have already seen[44] that Mr M'Lennan alludes to the law\nof Deuteronomy, which imposed the obligation of the younger brother\nmarrying the widow of the elder--and it will, moreover, be seen (Mr\nM'Lennan, p. 219) that this was also prescribed in the law of Menu.\n\n [44] \"Dr Latham would invert the order of development by producing\n the ruder fact--polyandry--from the less rude obligation. But\n clearly this is an inversion of the order of nature, _which is\n progressive_,\" &c.--_M'Lennan_, \"_Prim. Marriage_,\" p. 206.\n\nWhatever may be the true solution of this coincidence the least likely\naccount would seem to be that they had both, under different conditions\n(different at any rate from the point of divergence, be it exogamy\nor polyandry), advanced to it independently and by similar stages.\nSuch fortuitous coincidences would imply not merely a succession of\nsimilar developments, but also a corresponding succession of accidental\ncircumstances.\n\nIf, however, the custom of the younger brother marrying the widow of\nthe elder was of primitive institution (compare Genesis xxxviii. and\nthe Code of Menu), the corruption of this custom into polyandry, in\ncircumstances which may at any time have disturbed the balance of the\nsexes in the overcrowded East, though it revolts will not absolutely\nastonish us; whereas the converse, _i.e._ restriction to successive\nappropriation contingent upon widowhood, from a state of virtual\npromiscuity, is so uphill a reform and so contrary to probability that\nit requires some internal evidence of the stages, and some warrant in\nmodern observation to make it plausible. None are given. For the fact\nthat we find both the \"rude\" and the \"regulated\" form existing side by\nside cuts both ways;[45] and the discovery of a form of capture--the\nRakshasa, among the eight forms sanctioned by the code of Menu,\nenforces our argument--it would exactly correspond to the military\nexemption among the Jews (Mr M'Lennan, p. 82), supposing we were able\nto read Deuteronomy xx. 10-14 in the same sense as Mr M'Lennan. In that\ncase, therefore, it would be a departure from or relaxation of a rule\nlaid down--a view which is confirmed when we find that the authority\nquoted (Dr Muir, \"Sanscrit Texts,\" the Ramayana) tells that \"Ravana,\nthe most terrible of all the Rakshasas, is stigmatised as a _destroyer\nof religious duties_, and ravisher of the _wives_ of others\" (Prim.\nMar. p. 309), which testifies to degeneracy at some period; whereas if\nMr M'Lennan's view is true, this hero must be relegated to a time when\nthe conception of \"religious duties,\" and even of other men's \"wives\"\nwere unknown.\n\n [45] It seems to me that Turner's account of polyandry in Tibet,\n quoted by Mr M'Lennan, p. 193, gives plain evidence of\n the transition from the Jewish custom to the \"regulated\"\n polyandry. It is said \"that _the choice_ of a _wife_ is the\n _privilege_ of the _elder brother_.\"\n\nWe have seen (_supra_, 46), that when mankind had got, we know not\nhow, into tribal exogamous groups, \"kinship through females would\nhave a tendency,\" and a moment's consideration will show an immediate\ntendency, \"to render the exogamous groups heterogeneous, and thus to\nsupersede the system of capturing wives.\" We ask why did they capture\nwives? Mr M'Lennan implies that their ideas of _incest_ forbade\nmarriage within the tribe.[46] Apparently, then, the groups must have\nbeen exogamous[47] previously to the time when they had attained to\nthe knowledge of \"kinship through females,\" else \"kinship through\nfemales\" would from the first have operated to produce a state of\nthings which would have rendered exogamy unnecessary and inexplicable.\nThe corollary is curious; they must, therefore, have had the idea of\nincest before they had the idea of kinship through females!\n\n [46] \"Instead of endogamy we might, after some explanations, have\n used the word caste. But caste connotes several ideas besides\n that on which we desire to fix attention. On _the other hand,\n the rule which declares_ the union of persons of the same\n blood _to be incest_ has been _hitherto unnamed_\" (p. 49),\n and he terms it _exogamy_; and (p. 130) he says, \"in all the\n modern instances in which the symbol of capture is most marked\n we have found that _marriage within the tribe_ is prohibited\n as _incest_.\"\n\n [47] Mr M'Lennan (p. 148) says, \"We shall endeavour to establish\n the following propositions:--1. That the _most ancient_ system\n in which the idea of blood relationship was embodied, was\n the system of _kinship through females only_. 2. That the\n primitive groups were, or were assumed to be homogeneous. 3.\n That the system of kinship _through females only, tended to\n render_ the _exogamous_ groups _heterogeneous_, and _thus to\n supersede_ the system of capturing wives.\"\n\nThat some tribes should have arrived at some such state through a\nperverted traditional notion of incest, would, on the other hand,\nperfectly fit into the theory of degeneracy.\n\nI had intended to have pursued this subject, but the chapter has\nalready run to too great length. As allusion however, has been made to\nSir John Lubbock, I append an extract (see p. 47) from which it will\nbe seen that his view, although equally remote from historical truth,\nhas a greater _\u00e0 priori_ probability. Indeed, if we could only consent\nto start on the assumption of \"an initial state of hetairism,\" nothing\nwould be more complete than the following theory:--\n\n \"For reasons to be given shortly, I believe that communal marriage\n was gradually superseded by individual marriages founded on\n capture, and that this led firstly to exogamy, and then to female\n infanticide; thus reversing M'Lennan's order of sequence. Endogamy\n and regulated polyandry, though frequent, I regard as exceptional,\n and as not entering into the normal progress of development.\n Like M'Lennan and Bachojen, I believe that our present social\n relations have arisen from an initial stage of hetairism or\n communal marriage. It is obvious, however, that even under communal\n marriage, a warrior who had captured a beautiful girl in some\n marauding expedition, would claim a peculiar right to her, and,\n when possible, would set custom at defiance. We have already seen\n that there are other cases of the existence of marriage, under two\n forms, side by side in one country, and that there is, therefore,\n no real difficulty in assuming the co-existence of communal and\n individual marriage. It is true that, under a communal marriage\n system, no man could appropriate a girl entirely to himself,\n without infringing the rights of the whole tribe.... A war-captive,\n however, was in a peculiar position, the tribe had no right to her;\n her capturer might have killed her if he chose; ... he did as he\n liked, the tribe was no sufferer.\"--_Sir J. Lubbock's \"Origin of\n Civilisation,\"_ pp. 70, 71.\n\nI will only ask one question. At what period does Sir J. Lubbock\nsuppose the custom of inheritance through females arose? This as\nnearly approaches a universal fact as any which Sir J. Lubbock adduces\n(_vide_ p. 105, _et seq._); and, on the point of its having been a\nprevalent custom, I can have no difficulty. Whenever through degeneracy\nman arrived at the state of promiscuity or communal marriages, such\ninheritance as there might be, in such a community, would only be\nclaimed through females, as the paternity would always be uncertain\n(_vide infra_, p. 129). If, however, mankind commenced\nwith communal marriages, inheritance and relationship through females\nwould also have been from the commencement.\n\nLet us now turn to Sir J. Lubbock's theory, as expressed in the\nextract above, in which he shows us how marriage by capture would\nquite naturally have arisen out of the state of communal marriage. But\nif natural, it would have been natural from the commencement, _quid\nvetat_? There must then have been a system also in operation from the\ncommencement, the inevitable tendency of which, by making paternity\ndistinct and recognisable, would have been to substitute inheritance\nthrough males; and this system, by introducing a more robust posterity,\nwould rapidly have gained upon the other system. Male inheritance, it\nwould then appear, commenced and established itself at the outset, and\nto the displacement of inheritance through females. How, then, do we\nfind traces of the latter custom so prevalent? From this point of view\nthe more instances Sir J. Lubbock accumulates, the more he will excite\nour incredulity and surprise.\n\nThis theory again, equally with Mr M'Lennan's, supposes mankind\noriginally in a state of hetairism, in which case it is futile to talk\nof tribes and of marriage out of the tribe; for how did they emerge\ninto this tribal separation out of the state of promiscuity? The\ndifficulty gets more complicated since, _ex hypothesi_, after emerging\nfrom, they still remain within the tribal limits, in the state of\nhetairism. These preliminaries must be settled before the argument can\nbe carried further.\n\nThe usual philosophic formula is, of course, at hand--these changes\nmust have required an indefinite lapse of ages! Into this swamp we\nshall see one philosopher after another disappear, leaving a delusive\nlight behind him! If we could only, Dante like, recall one of these\nphilosophers to life, after he has passed into his state of Nirvana,\nwe would ask, as in this instance, why, supposing the state of\npromiscuity, it would require an indefinite lapse of ages to pass from\nit, according to the conditions of Sir John Lubbock's argument (_i.e._\nto the state of exogamy); considering that, _vide supra_, \"it is\nobvious that, even under communal marriage, a warrior who had captured,\n&c., would claim a peculiar right to her, and, when possible, would set\ncustom at defiance.\" Clearly, then, it only required the man and the\nopportunity.\n\n\n APPENDIX TO CHAPTER III.\n\nThe view at p. 26 substantially coincides with the lines laid down\nby Blackstone (compare Plato; Grote's Plato, iii. 337), which are the\nsubject of Bentham's attack, and to which the recent contributions of\nSir Henry Maine to our knowledge in these matters would seem to run\ncounter. Blackstone, \"Comm.\" i. 47, said--\n\n\"This notion, of an actually existing unconnected state of nature,\nis too wild to be seriously admitted: and, besides, it is plainly\ncontradictory to the revealed accounts of the primitive origin of\nmankind and their preservation two thousand years afterwards, both\nwhich were effected by the means of single families. These formed the\nfirst society among themselves, which every day extended its limits;\nand when it grew too large to subsist with convenience in that pastoral\nstate wherein the Patriarchs appear to have lived, it necessarily\nsubdivided itself by various migrations into more. Afterwards, as\nagriculture increased, which employs and can maintain a much greater\nnumber of hands, migrations became less frequent, and various tribes,\nwhich had formerly separated, reunited again, sometimes by compulsion\nand conquest, sometimes by accident, and sometimes, perhaps, by\ncompact.... And this is what we mean by the original contract of\nsociety, which, though perhaps in no instance it has ever been formally\nexpressed at the first institution of a state, yet, in nature, reason\nmust always be understood and implied in the very act of associating\ntogether.... When society is once formed, government results, of\ncourse, as necessary to preserve and to keep that society in order ...\nunless some superior were constituted ... they would still remain in a\nstate of nature.\"\n\nBentham says of this passage from Blackstone, that \"'_society_,' in one\nplace, means the same thing as a '_state of nature_' does: in another\nplace, it means the same as '_government_.' Here we are required to\nbelieve there _never was_ such a state as a state of nature: then we\nare given to understand there _has been_. In like manner, with respect\nto an original contract, we are given to understand that such a thing\nnever existed, that the notion of it is even ridiculous; at the same\ntime, that there is no speaking nor stirring without supposing that\nthere was one.\"--_Bentham's \"Fragment on Government,\"_ p. 9 (London,\n1823).\n\nThe previous and subsequent chapters (ii., xiii.), will be found to\nmeet these strictures of Bentham, although not originally written with\nreference to them.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER IV.\n\n _CHRONOLOGY FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF TRADITION._\n\n\nTo many it may seem a fundamental objection that my theory supposes\na chronology altogether out of keeping with modern discovery; and I\nfancy there is a somewhat general impression that modern science has an\nhistorical basis, to which not even the Septuagint chronology can be\nmade to conform.\n\nThis really is not the case; but assuming it to be true, I must still\nremark, that if facts of primeval tradition have been established, the\nlong lapse of ages will only enhance our notions of the persistency of\ntradition; or if the lapse of ages is disproved, this conclusion will\nbe in recognition of a truth to which tradition testifies.\n\nI shall now proceed to establish that the strictly historical\ntestimony, and the direct historical evidence, is strikingly concurrent\nin favour of the scriptural chronology, allowing the margin of\ndifference between the Hebrew and LXX. versions.[48]\n\n [48] \"Aucune des trois chronologies bibliques, l\u00e0 ou elles ne\n s'accordent pas entre elles, ne s'impose avec une autorite\n suffisante soit au fidele, soit au savant. L'Eglise catholique\n a laiss\u00e9 le choix libre entre ces chronologies et elles\n n'oblige pas m\u00eame \u00e0 en adopter une.\"--_\"Le Monde et L'Homme\n Primitif selon la Bible,\" par Mgr. Meignan, Ev\u00eaque de\n Chalons-sur-Marne_, 1869.\n\nWith this view I shall successively examine the chronology of the\nprincipal nations whose annals profess to go back to the commencement\nof things--the Aryan (including the Indian, the Persian, the Greek, and\nthe Roman), the Babylonian, the Chinese, Phoenician, and Egyptian.\n\n_Indian Chronology._--There was a time when the Indian (Aryan)\nchronology was believed to attain to the most remote antiquity of all,\nand this belief was sustained by the apparently irrefragable testimony\nof astronomical evidence. Who upholds this evidence now? On this head\nI must refer to Cardinal Wiseman's seventh lecture (\"On Science and\nRevealed Religion\"), where the reader will find a clear and careful\n_precis_ of the discussion on the subject between Bailly and Delambre,\nthe _Edinburgh Review_ and Bentley, to which I am not aware that\nanything of consequence has to be added.\n\nIf, on the other hand, we turn to what I am exclusively directing\nmy attention--the strict historical investigation--we find that the\ncautious inquiries of such men as Sir W. Jones and Heeren concur in\nplacing the Aryan invasion at the antecedently very probable date, from\nthe point of view of Scripture, of some 2000 years B.C.\n\nAt the present moment the discussion takes the form of philological\ninquiry, and into the antiquity (upon internal evidence) of the ancient\nSanscrit literature. In so far, therefore, as it is philological,\nit belongs to the indirect argument, which I am now excluding. In\nso far as the Sanscrit literature is historical, I have discussed\nthe testimony which it brings in the preceding chapter. Professor\nRawlinson, however, in his recent \"Manual of Ancient History,\" refuses\nto discuss the question, as he does not regard the Maha-Bharata and\nRamayana as \"trustworthy sources of history,\" and commences his\nPersian history with the accession of Cyrus, previously to which he\ndoes not consider the Aryan migration and settlement to have been\ncompleted. Apart, then, from the peculiar line of argument to which\nI shall presently refer, it would appear that the Indian chronology,\nas reconstructed from history and tradition, falls easily within the\nlines, not only of the LXX., but of the Hebrew version.\n\nThe Indians, it is true (\"Hales' Chron.,\" i. 196), themselves say that\ntheir history goes back 432,000,000 years. Although Hales gives a\nsolution which may be deemed satisfactory, I think that, if considered\nin connection with the Babylonian computation, it will be seen that,\nthough inexact in their figure, they are accurate in their tradition.\n\n_The primary figure in their (Indian) calculation_--432,000--_is\narrived at through the extended multiplication_ of the Chaldean sossos,\nneros, and saros, _or of their own traditional figures_ corresponding\nto them (_vide infra_).\n\nIn the Chaldean system (_vide_ Rawlinson, \"Anc. Mon.,\" i.), 6 and 10\nwere employed as alternate multipliers. Thus a \"soss\" = 60 years (10\n\u00d7 6), a \"ner\" = 600 (60 \u00d7 10), a \"sar\" = 3600 (600 \u00d7 6); and if the\nmultiplication be continued, the next figure would be 36,000 (3600 \u00d7\n10), next 216,000 (36,000 \u00d7 6). _The Indian figure 432,000,[49] is made\nup of twice 216,000._\n\n [49] 432,000 is also the figure to which Berosus extends the\n Assyrian chronology. Thus the Indian fabrication commences at\n the point where Berosus ends.\n\nProfessor Rawlinson (\"Anc. Mon.,\" i. 192) gives in detail, and endorses\na remarkable _eclaircissement_ of M. Gutschmid on the mythical\ntraditions of Assyrian chronology.\n\n_Babylonian Chronology._--Rawlinson says--\n\n \"Assuming that the division between the earlier and later Assyrian\n dynasty synchronises with the celebrated era of Nabonassar (747\n B.C.), which is probable, but not certain, and taking the year B.C.\n 538 as the admitted date of the conquest of the last Chald\u00e6an king\n by Cyrus, he obtains for the seventh or second Assyrian dynasty 122\n years (747 to 625). Assuming, next, that B.C. 2234, from which the\n Babylonians counted their stellar observations, must be a year of\n note in Chald\u00e6an history, and finding that it cannot well represent\n the first year of the second or Median dynasty, since in that case\n eleven kings of the third dynasty would have reigned no more than\n thirty-four years, he concludes it must mark the expulsion of the\n Medes and accession of the third dynasty (which he regards as a\n native dynasty). From his previous calculations, it follows that\n the fourth dynasty began B.C. 1976; between which and B.C. 2234\n are 258 years, a period which may be fairly assigned to eleven\n monarchs. This much is conjecture ... _the proof now suddenly\n flashes on us_. If the numbers are taken in the way assigned, and\n then added to the years of the first or purely mythical dynasty,\n we get 36,000, equal to the next term, to the sar (saros, _vide\n supra_), in the Babylonian system of cycles.\"\n\nIt will be more apparent in the following table from Rawlinson, _idem_--\n\n |----------------------------------------------\n | | Years. | B.C. |\n |----------------------------|-----------------|\n |Mythical 86 Chald\u00e6ans | 34,800 | |\n | { 8 Medes | 224 | 2458 |\n | {11 [Chald\u00e6ans] | (258) | 2234 |\n | {49 Chald\u00e6ans | 458 | 1976 |\n |Historical. { 9 Arab | 245 | 1518 |\n | {45 [Assyrian] | 526 | 1273 |\n | { 8 [Assyrian] | 122 | 747 |\n | { 6 Chald\u00e6ans | 87 | 625 |\n |----------------------------|----------|------|\n | | 36,000 | |\n |----------------------------|----------|------|\n\n_Chinese Chronology._--The Chinese, also--though, be it observed,\nthe Chinese of modern date, according to Klaproth (\"Mem. Relatifs. \u00e0\nl'Asie,\" i. 405; Klaproth places the commencement of the uncertain\nhistory of China 2637 B.C., the certain history 782 B.C.),[50] in\nthe first year of our era, but more systematically in the ninth\ncentury--forged a mythological history, which carried the empire back\n2,276,000 years (another calculation, 3,276,000). He adds, however,\nthat the Chinese themselves do not consider the Wai-ki, the authority\nfor these statements, to be historical.\n\n [50] Bunsen (\"Egypt,\" iii. 405) says, \"Systematic Chinese\n history and chronology hardly go back as far as the year\n 2000 B.C., _i.e._ to the reign of Y\u00fc (1991).\" Yet\n upon indirect philological conclusions, he would really\n take their history back _beyond the_ Egyptian--iii. p. 379.\n \"An explanation must be given why it (the Chinese history)\n commences at a later period (as above) than Egyptian\n chronology; much _later_, indeed, than is generally supposed.\n Search must be made in _other quarters than_ the regular\n extant chronology for proofs of that _vast antiquity_, which\n the numerous _records_ of language _compel_ us to assign to\n the origines of the Chinese.\" This vast antiquity may be\n measured by the fact that, _ex hypothesi_, it transcends the\n Egyptian, and for the Egyptian in his theory of progress and\n development, he requires _at least 20,000 years_ before the\n Christian era.\n\nAgain, if we allow ourselves to be entangled in certain astronomical\ndisputations, the question may become complicated and confused; but the\nastronomical discussion must depend, in the end, upon a point which\nhistory must determine--_i.e._ whether the astronomical knowledge and\nobservations referred to had come down in primitive tradition, or had\nbeen imported at a later date. Although it need not exclude a belief\nin a tradition of primitive knowledge of astronomy, yet the doubt will\never cause a fatal uncertainty in any calculations, since, if the\nknowledge, or the knowledge of the particular observations and facts,\nhad at any time been imported, they might have calculated back their\neclipses, as has been proved to have been done in India.\n\nLet us then, excluding the purely astronomical calculations, closely\nscrutinise the evidence which tradition affords; for if we can discover\ntradition of \"appearances of rare occurrence, and which are difficult\nto calculate, such as many of the planetary conjunctions,\" they \"must,\"\nas Baron Bunsen observes (\"Egypt,\" iii. p. 389), \"either be pure\ninventions, or contemporary notations of some extraordinary natural\nphenomena.\" Baron Bunsen proceeds to say:--\"One instance that may be\ncited is the traditional observation of a conjunction of five planets\n(among which the sun and moon are mentioned), on the first day of\nLitshin, in the time of Tshuen-hi\u00fc, the _second successor of Hoang-ti_.\nSuppose this should have been the great conjunction of the three upper\nplanets which recurs every 794 years and four months, and to which\nKepler first turned his attention in reference to the year of the\nnativity of Christ. It took place in the following years.\n\nThe one which occurred in historical times was in November, seven years\nB.C.; consequently the conjunctions prior to it occurred in--\n\n Yrs. Mos. Dys.\n\n 794 4 12\n 7 10 12\n ---------------------\n 786 6 0\n 794 4 12\n ---------------------\n 1580 10 12\n And the conjunction in 794 4 12\n ---------------------\n The time of Tshuen-hi\u00fc in 2375 2 24\n\nAccording to the official Chinese tables, as given by Ideler, he\nreigned from 2513 B.C. to 2436 B.C.; but the dates vary to the extent\nof more than 200 years, and the year 2375 comes within the limits of\nthese deviations.\"\n\nBaron Bunsen, we may then assume, has very skilfully brought back\nChinese chronology to within _two generations of Hoang-ti (supra)_.\nIf we could further identify Hoang-ti with Noah, two patriarchal\ngenerations would bring us close to the date of the Deluge as fixed\nby the Septuagint, if we referred them, in the first instance, to the\ndeath of Noah.\n\nBefore proceeding to this identification, I must point to another\nchronological fact in Chinese tradition, which would give to this\nidentification an antecedent probability. It was stated (Bunsen,\n\"Egypt,\" iii. 383) that Hoang-ti established the _astronomical cycle of\n60 years_ in the _sixty-first year_ of his _reign_.\n\nAt p. 387, Bunsen says: \"The scientific problem thus offered for our\nsolution is the following--It is admitted that the Chinese, from the\n_earliest times_, made use of a sexagesimal cycle for the division\nof the year = 6 \u00d7 60 days (360 days), and they marked the years by a\ncycle of 60 years, running concurrently with the cycle of days. This\ncycle, therefore, must have been originally instituted at a time when\nthe first day of the daily cycle coincided with the first year of\nthe annual cycle, _i.e._ when they commenced on the same day. Ideler\nthinks it impossible to ascertain this, owing to the irregularity of\nthe old calendar.\" We may ask, then, what year that could be named\nwould so exactly satisfy these conditions as the sixty-first year of\nthe reign of Noah after the Deluge?[51] Let us, moreover, consider how\ntraditional this cycle of sixty years has been (p. 386),--\"Scaliger\nmade the remark that the twelve yearly zodiacal cycle, which is in\nuse among the Tartars (Mongols, Mandshus, Igurians), the inhabitants\nof Thibet, the Japanese and Siamese dated from _the earliest times_.\nAmong the Tartaric populations, however, this is a cycle of sixty years\n(12 \u00d7 5); of the Indians we have already spoken.\"\n\n [51] Martini (\"Historia Sinica,\" p. 14, edit. Monac.) asserts that\n the Egyptians computed by the era of sixty years of _Hoangho_.\n See De Vignolle's \"Miscellanea Berolinensia,\" I. iv. 37, on\n the cycle of months. Compare Ideler, App. ix., note from\n Bunsen, iii. 385. Humboldt (\"Vues des Cordill\u00e8res\", p. 149;\n Prescott, Mex., i. 105) seems to say that, \"among the Chinese,\n Japanese, Moghols, Mantchous, and other families of the Tartar\n race\" (compare Mexican, do.), \"their series was composed\n of symbols of their five elements, and the twelve zodiacal\n signs, making a cycle of sixty years duration.\" This is not\n incompatible with, the allegation that it is \"the era of sixty\n years of Hoangho.\"\n\nIt will have already been seen that the cycle of sixty years entered\ninto the Chaldean system--viz. cycle of 60 years = a sossos, 600 years\n= a saros, 3600 years = a neros.\n\n \"Now when we find (Bunsen, p. 387) that six hundred years _gives\n an excess of exactly one lunar month, with far greater accuracy_\n than the Julian year, such a cycle must have been indispensable\n when that of sixty years was in use, and consequently must have\n been employed by the Chinese, or, at all events, have been known to\n those from whom they borrowed the latter. Josephus also calls six\n hundred years the great year, which may have been observed by the\n patriarch.\"\n\nAnd at p. 407, in summing up the general chronological result, he\nsays:--\n\n \"_a._ ... The earliest Chinese chronology rests upon a conventional\n basis peculiar to itself, that of limiting the lunar year by a\n cycle of six hundred years, which is common to the whole of North\n Asia and the Chaldeans; and probably (as it is also met with in\n India) to the Bactrians also: this basis is _historical_.\" \"_b._\n The communication took place before the Chaldees invented the cycle\n of six hundred years.\"\n\nFrom our point of view, believing that the Chaldees never invented\nthe cycle but held to it traditionally, the above conclusion must\nbe construed to mean that the \"communication,\" or diffusion of the\nknowledge, must have taken place before the lapse of the first six\nhundred years after the Deluge, which will be further confirmed by\nconclusion _c._\n\n \"_c._ The Chinese observation is based upon the Babylonian gnomon,\"\n\nwhich appears to me tantamount to the admission that it took place, in\nthe plains of Mesopotamia, previous to the Dispersion.\n\nIn arriving, then, at the sixty-first year of the reign of Hoang-ti, we\nare led up to such close proximity to the epoch of the Deluge, that\nthe presumption that Hoang-ti was Noah would be strong, even if no\nother evidence was at hand to corroborate it.\n\nIt is with this supplementary evidence that I now propose to deal.\n\nAlthough the tradition of the Chinese is remarkably accurate, up to a\ncertain point, yet in the period beyond that point, where the confusion\nis manifest, there is no reason why we should not expect to find\nthe same reduplications and amalgamations of ante and post diluvian\ntraditions, which we have already found in the history of other nations.\n\nWithout attempting to unravel all complications, let us turn again to\nBunsen (iii. 382), and setting aside Pu-an-ku, the primeval man who\ncame out of the mundane egg and lived eighteen thousand years, and who\nhas resemblances with the Assyrian Ra and Ana, and the Egyptian Ra,\nthe son of Ptha (to whom thirty thousand are allotted, _vide infra_,\np. 97-100), and Sui-shin, \"who discovered fire,\" and who is the\ncounterpart of Prometheus (_vide_ p. 180). Regarding\nPu-an-ku, the cosmical, and Sui-shin, as the mythical tradition of\nAdam, we come to the historical tradition in the person of Fohi.\n\n \"I. Fohi the great, the brilliant (Tai-hao) cultivator of astronomy\n and religion, as well as writing. He reigned one hundred and ten\n years. Then came fifteen reigns. II. Shin-nong (divine husbandman);\n institution of agriculture; the knowledge of simples applied as\n the art of medicine.\" [Compare pp. 210-214, Saturn, Bacchus,\n \u00c6sculapius.] \"III. Hoang-ti (great ruler) came to the throne in\n consequence of an armed insurrection (new dynasty), and was obliged\n to put down a revolt. _In his reign_ the magnetic needle was\n discovered; _the smelting of copper for making weapons_;[52] vases\n of high art, and money; improvement in the written character,\n said to be borrowed from the lines on the tortoise-shell. It\n consists of five hundred hieroglyphics, of which two hundred\n can still be pointed out. He established fixed habitations\n throughout his dominions, and the astronomical cycle of sixty\n years _in the sixty-first year of his reign_ (_vide supra_, 61);\n musical instruments. It was in his time also that the fabulous\n bird Sin appeared. The empire was considerably extended to the\n _southward_.\"--_Bunsen_, 382.\n\n [52] This tradition would seem to confirm Bryant's (\"Mythology,\"\n iii. 584) conjecture that Hoang-ti was Ham. But Hoang-ti as\n Ham, may absorb and incorporate, as we have seen in other\n instances, the history of his progenitors; and, moreover,\n whether he is Noah or Ham, would scarcely affect the\n chronological argument.\n\nIf we take Fohi as Adam, the fifteen reigns which follow will bear\nanalogy with \"the fifteen generations of the Cynic cycle\" (_vide_\nPalmer i. p. 8, 23-37; also _vide infra_), and will correspond to\nthe thirteen generations, viz. the ten antediluvian, and the three\nsurvivors (excluding Noah) of the Deluge in the Egyptian chronology\n(_vide infra_). Shin-nong, \"the divine husbandman,\"\nwill be Noah, and Hoang-ti, Shem or Ham, or else the two will be\nreduplicate traditions of Noah. Compare the attributions of Hoang-ti\nwith those of Hoa in the Assyrian tradition, p. 239. Certain statements\nregarding him--_e.g._ that he suppressed an insurrection, accord\nmore nearly with epithets applied to Nin, the fish-god, whom I have\nconsidered a duplicate of Hoa (p. 201), _e.g._ \"the destroyer of\nenemies,\"--\"the reducer of the disobedient,\"--\"the exterminator of\nrebels.\" Compare with the Phoenician tradition, p. 211, of Saturn\ncausing the destruction of his son Sadid by the Deluge. The appearance\nof the fabulous bird Sin, seems a reminiscence of the birds sent out of\nthe ark, which is so frequent in tradition. Compare the mystery bird\n(the dove) in the Mandan ceremonies,--the worship of the pigeon in\nCashmere,[53] &c. Other coincidences might be pointed if space allowed.\n\n [53] On the worship of the pigeon in Cashmere, _vide_ \"Travels in\n Kashmir,\" by G. G. Vigne, Esq., F.G.S., ii. p. 11, 13. 1844.\n\nBut analogous to the double tradition of the Deluge in Assyria in the\npersons of Hoa and Nin; and, again, by a distinct channel of tradition\nin Xisuthrus (_vide_ pp. 208, 209), as in China, there seems to have\nbeen a similar reduplication in China in their kings Hoang-ti and Yao\nor Yu.[54]\n\n [54] The reduplication may have occurred in this way. Hoang-ti\n being Noah, Yao or Yu may have been his descendant under whom\n they settled in China at the termination of their migration.\n This is confirmed by Bunsen's view, iii. 405 (iv. and v.)\n In which case it would not be at all unnatural to suppose\n that the traditions appertaining to the remote progenitor,\n would in time settle down upon the head of the actual\n founder. Chevalier de Paravey (_vide_ Gainet, i. 93), \"a\n trouv\u00e9 un hieroglyphe chinois qui nomme la femme de Hoang-ti\n 'Adamon' terre jaune, et si non signifie celle qui entra\u00eene\n les autres dans son propre mal.\" This would merely be the\n confusion between Noah and Adam which we have seen to occur\n in almost every instance. Is not the Japanese god Amida =\n Adima, or perhaps to Adamon--_i.e._, confused in relationship\n to Hoang-ti or Noah? what confirms the impression is, that\n Adima's son is Canon. Query, Chanaan.\n\nNow under this Yao or Yu, according to Chinese tradition (preserved,\nmoreover, in the inscription of Yu), there happened the Deluge, or a\nDeluge. But as there is a confusion between Hoang-ti and Yao, so there\nis between Yao and Yu. Bunsen, however, admits these latter to be\nidentical.\n\nBut although Bunsen asserts the authenticity of the inscription (as\nalso does Klaproth), he utterly scouts the idea that it is a tradition\nof the Deluge, and maintains that it is itself evidence of a local\ninundation. Let us see.\n\n\"All the confusion or ignorance,\" says Bunsen (398), \"of the\nmissionaries [in this matter], arises from their believing that this\nevent referred to the Flood of Noah, which never reached this country.\"\nAnd (p. 406), he says the inundation in the reign of Yao had just as\nmuch to do with Noah's flood as the dams he created, and the canals he\ndug, had to do with the ark. This is said with reference to the \"short\nChinese account of it published by Klaproth,\" viz.--\n\n \"In the sixty-first year of the reign of the Emperor Yao, serious\n mischief was caused by inundations. The emperor took counsel\n with the great men of the empire, who advised him to employ Kuen\n to drain off the water. Kuen was engaged upon it for nine years\n without success, and was condemned to be imprisoned for life. His\n son Yu was appointed in his stead. At the end of nineteen years\n he succeeded in stopping the inundation, and made a report to the\n emperor upon the subject.\"\n\nLet us turn, however, from this later gloss to the inscription itself,\ntranslated by Bunsen, p. 399--\n\n \"The Emperor said, 'Oh thou Governor of the four mountains of the\n Empire!\n The swelling flood is producing mischief;\n It spreads itself far and wide;\n It surrounds the hills, it overflows the dams;\n Rushing impetuously along it rises up to Heaven:\n The common people complain and sigh.'\"\n --_Vide supra_, p. 396.\n\n \"The venerable Emperor exclaimed with a sigh, 'Ho assistant\n Counsellor! the islands great and small up to the _mountain's top_;\n The door of _the birds_ and of beasts, all is overflowed together--\n Is swamped: be it thy care to open the way, to let off the water.'\"\n\nHe then says:--\n\n \"My task is completed; my _sacrifice_ I have offered in the second\n month, trouble is at an end, the dark destiny is changed; the\n _streams_ of the south flow down to the sea; garments are prepared;\n food is provided; _all the nations_ have rest; the people enjoy\n themselves with gambols and dancing.\"--(Compare Commemorative\n Festivals, _infra_, p. 249).\n\nI should have thought that all these phrases pointed much more to a\nuniversal Deluge than to a local inundation. But Bunsen says (398)--\n\n \"The fact is fully proved both by the inscription and the work\n of Yu itself. The inscription was on the _top_ of the mountain,\n Yu-lu-fun, in the district of Shen-shu-lu. Owing to its having\n become illegible in early times, it was removed to _the top_\n of an adjoining mountain.\" ... \"The former _locality_ tallies\n exactly with the very interesting description of the empire in\n the time of Yu, which we find at the opening of the second book\n of the Shuking.\" And Bunsen concludes, \"It may be presumed after\n this verification, that in future nobody will seriously doubt the\n strictly epic description of the Shuking in the Canon of Yu,\" as\n above.\n\nSo far from being impressed by the discovery of the monument on the\ntop of the local mountain, as evidence of the local deluge, I can\nsee in it only a memorial of the universal Deluge localised; and I\ncannot help considering it in connection with the worship of the tops\nof mountains, of which we shall find traces elsewhere (p. 244-46).\nSurely Baron Bunsen proves too much, and describes to us a deluge which\nmust have been on the scale of the universal Deluge for all countries\nbelow the level of the mountain Yu-lu-fun. But, let it be said, that\nthis description, so accordant with the description of the flood, was\nmerely Chinese exaggeration. I here wish to point out two curious\ncoincidences. What if we shall find works similar of those to Yao or\nYu, ascribed to the original founders in Egypt and Cashmere? As in the\nfirst instance, I shall have to quote from Baron Bunsen himself, I am\nsurprised that the coincidence should have escaped his observation.\n\n \"This is the account given of Menes [the first king of Egypt] by\n Herodotus--Menes, the first king of Egypt, as the priests informed\n me, protected Memphis by a dam against the river which ran towards\n the sandy chain of the Libyan Mountains. About 100 stadia above\n Memphis, he made an embankment against the bend of the river,\n which is on the south side. The effect of this was to dry up its\n ancient bed, as well as to force the stream between the two chains\n of mountains. This bend of the Nile, which is confined within the\n embankment walls, was very carefully attended to by the Persians,\n and repaired every year. For, if the river were to burst through\n its banks and overflow at this point, all Memphis would be in\n danger of being swamped. Menes, _the oldest of their kings_, having\n thus drained the tract of land by means of the dyke, built upon\n it the city now called Memphis, which lies in the mountain valley\n of Egypt. To the west and north he dug a lake round it, which\n communicates with the river--on the east it is bounded by the\n Nile--and afterwards erected in it a temple to Vulcan, a splendid\n edifice, deserving of especial notice\" (ii. 48).\n\nBunsen fully endorses this account--\"Herodotus, therefore, has\nrecorded the following fact, that before the time of Menes the Nile\noverflowed the tract of country which he fixed upon as the site of his\nnew metropolis\" (p. 49 and p. 51). \"There is no foundation whatever\nfor Andriossy's hypothesis that the story originated in the fact of\nthe Nile having once run westward from the Pyramid mountains to Bahr\nBela Ma (stream without water) and the Natron and Mareotic Lakes.\nHerodotus mentions an historical fact, and describes the work of an\nhistorical king. Andriossy's hypothesis, if well founded, would belong\nto geology.\" A sagacious and well-founded remark on the part of Baron\nBunsen, but, as I submit, equally applicable to the work of Yao or Yu.\n\nMerely noting that, if the above work was really carried out by Menes,\nand it would have been, from the point of view of Genesis, so carried\nout at a period contemporary with that of Yao or Yu--and, moreover,\nconceding to it in any case (I mean the work of Menes) a certain\nhistorical basis--let us dispassionately compare both with the passage\nfrom Klaproth, which I shall now extract. It is taken from the Sanscrit\nHistory of Cashmere.[55]\n\n [55] Klaproth says:--\"The only Sanscrit history deserving the name\n of the chronicle of the kings of Kashmir, Radja Paringin'i,\n translated by W. H. Wilson.\"--_Klaproth, Mem. Relatif \u00e0\n L'Asie_.\n\nKlaproth says:--\n\n \"The _Hindoo_ history of Kashmir assures us that the beautiful\n valley which forms this kingdom was originally a vast lake, called\n Satisaras. This account is also agreeable to the _local traditions_\n of this country. It was Kasy'apa, _a holy person_ who, according\n to the Hindoo historians, caused the waters which covered this\n valley to escape. He was the son of _Marichi_, the son of Brahma.\n The Mahometan writers call him Kachef or Kacheb, and many of them\n pretend that he was a god, or a genius, and servant of Soliman,\n _under whose orders he effected_ the drying up of Kashmir. To\n execute _this task_ he made, near Baramanleh, _a passage across\n the mountains_, through which the water passed.... The territory,\n recovered in this way by Kasy'apa, _was also peopled_ by this holy\n man, with the assistance of the superior gods, whom he brought for\n this purpose from heaven, _at the commencement_ of the seventh\n manwantara, or that in which we are now.\" Klaproth adds:--\"We must\n therefore suppose that Kashmir has been subjected to the same\n periodical revolutions as the other parts of the world, if we would\n reconcile this date with the ordinary chronology.\"[56]\n\n [56] Compare the following account of existing customs in\n Cashmir with the above extract from Klaproth and ch. xi.,\n with commemorative festivals of the Deluge. Mr G. G. Vigne\n (\"Travels in Kashmir,\" ii. 93) says:--\"What has been\n poetically termed the feast of roses, has of late years been\n rather the feast of signaras or _water_-nuts. It is held, I\n believe, about the 1st May, when plum-trees and roses are in\n full bloom, and is called the Shakergal, from the Persian\n shakergan, to blow a blossom [the Mandan ceremony took place\n when the willow flowered.--Catlin, p. 6]. The richer classes\n come in _boats_ to the foot of the Tukt, ascend it, and\n have a feast upon _the summit_, eating more particularly of\n signaras (_water_-nuts). The feast of the No-warh (new place)\n takes place at the vernal equinox [compare Noah, Taurus], at\n _which period_ the _valley is said to have been drained_. It\n is held chiefly at the _But_ or idol stone on Hari par_but_.\"\n Query--Can this be \"the ark or big canoe\" in the Mandan\n celebration? Considering the prominence of boats in all these\n mysteries, and considering the resemblance of but to boat, and\n the like analogies in so many languages (Sanskrit, pota = boat)\n (_vide_ Vicomte d'Anselme, _infra_, p. 196), may we be\n permitted the conjecture until corrected. Compare also p. 268,\n Ogilby's \"Japan,\" Cook. &c., p. 271.\n\nIt must, I think, be conceded that we have now before us three very\nsimilar accounts of works undertaken with reference to the reclamation\nof inundated land. All are undertaken by the first founders of their\nrespective kingdoms--kingdoms widely separated and inhabited by\npeople of diverse race--and all, more or less, contemporaneously.\nThe Egyptians and Kashmerian have points in common as to their mode\nof reclamation, whilst the Chinese and Kashmerian have still more in\ncommon with the narrative in Genesis.[57]\n\n [57] I have since found this identical tradition (_vide_ p. 325)\n among the Mozca Indians. \"Boshicha,\" it is said, \"taught\n them _to build and to sow_, formed them _into communities_,\n GAVE AN OUTLET TO THE WATERS OF THE GREAT LAKE, &c.\" This\n seems demonstratively to prove, either that the Mozca Indians\n (South America) came from China, India, or Egypt--which I have\n contended for at p. 266--or else, which makes the argument\n I have in hand stronger, they have transmitted an identical\n tradition by a different channel.\n\nFour solutions occur to me as possible. Either they were obscure or\nperverted traditions of the Deluge, or their works were traditions of\nsimilar works effected by Noah after the Deluge; or these works were\nactually carried out upon the precedent and model of similar works\neffected by Noah; or they were fortuitous coincidences.\n\nUpon either of the three former conclusions, it will be shown that\ntraditions of the Deluge, direct or indirect, exist both in Egypt and\nChina, where it has been so confidently asserted that no tradition\nis to be found; and in the latter case, what is more especially to\nmy purpose, a tradition which brings Yao into relation with Noah and\nHoang-ti.\n\nIn conclusion, I must remark that when it is urged that there is no\ntradition, or but slight tradition, of the flood in Egypt, we have a\nright to reply that there is no country where we should have so little\nreason to expect it. If there is any country where we should think\nit likely that the reminiscences of the Deluge would be effaced, it\nwould be in a country periodically subject to inundations, where the\npeople are annually made familiar with its incidents, and where its\nrecurrence is not to them a cause of alarm, but a matter of expectation\nand joy.[58]\n\n [58] \"The Chinese _who migrated before the Deluge (sic)_ have no\n reminiscences, any more than the Egyptians, of the great\n catastrophe which we know by the name of the Flood of Noah\"\n (Bunsen's \"Egypt,\" iii. 397). Palmer (\"Egypt. Chron.,\" i. p.\n 38) says, with reference to a certain date--\"This is only for\n such as know the true date of the flood, the end of the old\n world--an epoch by no means to be named, nor even directly\n alluded to, by any Egyptian.\"\n\n\n\n CHAPTER V.\n\n _CHRONOLOGY FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF SCIENCE._\n\n\nAlthough the testimony of history is definite and decisive as to the\nchronology of the world, within the limits of a few hundred years,\nthere is a general assumption, in all branches of scientific inquiry,\nthat man must have existed many thousand years beyond the period thus\nassigned to him. Lyell speaks of \"the vastness of time\"[59] required\nfor his development, and Bunsen, as we have seen, requires twenty\nthousand years, at least, between the Deluge and the nativity of\nour Lord: and wherefore this discrepancy? Because of a fundamental\nassumption--not merely hypothetical for the convenience of inquiry--but\nconfident and absolute; an assumption which, so far as the argument is\nconcerned, is the very matter in dispute--that man must have progressed\nand developed to the point at which we see him.\n\n[59] \"Principles of Geology,\" tenth edition, 1868, ii. p. 471.\n\nAt the same time, the actual chronology cannot be altogether ignored,\nand some cognisance must be taken of the facts which history presents\nto us; and it is this unfortunate exigency, interrupting the placid\ncourse of development, which not unfrequently lands scientific\ninquirers of the first eminence in difficulties from which it will take\nan indefinite lapse of time to extricate them; _ex. gra._, Bunsen, in\nhis \"Egypt,\" iii. 379, says--\n\n \"It has been more than once remarked, in the course of this work,\n that the _connection between the Chinese and the Egyptians_\n belongs, in several of its phases, to the _general history_ of\n the world. The Chinese language is the furthest point beyond that\n of the formation of the Egyptian language, which represents, as\n compared with it, the middle ages of mankind,--viz., the Turanian\n and Chamitic stages of development.\"\n\nThe conclusion of philology (_vide_ also Brace's \"Ethnology,\" p. 114)\nis, therefore, that the Turanian or Chamitic grew out of the more\ninorganic and elementary Chinese.\n\nNow, let us compare Lyell's conclusions with Bunsen's. Lyell equally\nbelieves (\"Principles of Geology,\" ii. 471) \"that three or four\nthousand years is but a _minute fraction_ of the time required to bring\nabout such wide divergence from a common parent stock, 'as between' the\nNegroes and Greeks and Jews, Mongols and Hindoos, represented on the\nEgyptian monuments.\"\n\nAt the same time, he endorses Sir John Lubbock's view, and pronounces,\nupon what appears to me very light and insufficient grounds (ii. 479),\nthat \"the theory, therefore, that the savage races have been degraded\nfrom a previous state of civilisation _may be rejected_:\" and by\nimplication that the civilised races have progressed from the savage\nstate may be affirmed.[60]\n\n [60] The ground upon which Lyell pronounces this judgment is\n (ii. 479) \"that no fragment of pottery has been found among\n the nations of Australia, New Zealand, and the Polynesian\n islands any more than ancient architectural remains, in all\n which respects, these rude men now living, resemble the men\n of the Pal\u00e6olithic age; when pottery is known to all, it is\n always abundant, and, though easy to break, is difficult to\n destroy. It is improbable that so useful an art should ever\n have been lost by any race of man.\" The argument is strongly\n put, but many things are left out of consideration. Supposing\n the primitive knowledge, is not pottery one of the arts\n which would be most likely to be lost in a migration across\n the seas? Again, that they had no pottery, and that the\n Pal\u00e6olithic age had no pottery, shows that in the interval\n there had been no progress. When will there be? As to the\n circumstance that it is the same among the Australians and\n Polynesians, the fact cuts both ways. You assume that there\n is a uniformity in progress, but may not there be the same\n uniformity in the processes of degradation? and, assuming the\n fact, may it not simply prove that these savages have reached\n the same depth as the other savages?--_Vide_ appendix to ch.\n xii.\n\nI have, then, only to assume one point that Sir C. Lyell will concede,\nthe order of progress or development to have been from black to white,\nand that he will pay us the compliment of being the more favoured race.\n\nBut of all the races that are akin to the Mongol or Turanian, the\nChinese are the whitest, and most nearly approach the European in\ncolour.\n\nHow many years, then, may we suppose that it took the Chinese to\nprogress from the black state of the Egyptian? as many, let us\nconjecture, as it took the Egyptian to progress linguistically from the\nstate of the Chinese or Mongol!\n\nThis is one instance of the entanglement in which the theory of\nprogress, pure and simple, from a parent stock will involve us. The\nobvious mode of escape would be to deny the unity of the human race,\na conclusion which would at once land us in the darkness of a still\nlower abyss, and convert our processes from being scientific in form\nand hopeful of result, into empirical and aimless conjectures. For\neither the theory is started that the various races of mankind were\ncreated separately, in which case we fly into the face of the only\naccount we have of creation, and also of the multiform testimonies\nwhich history and science bring to attest this truth, and we, moreover,\ndebar ourselves from falling back upon any uniform theory applicable to\nthe whole human race; or if, without advertence to creation, we suppose\nmankind to have been variously developed, here again we shall equally\nfind ourselves cut off from the application of any uniform historical\ntheory, equally unable to account for or to exclude the testimony of\nhistory, and in the end reduced to the evidences, whatever they may be\nworth, of certain real or fancied analogies.[61] At this point, the\nhistorical inquiry will be virtually abandoned, and the records of the\npast merged in the phenomena of life, will be considered only in the\nlight of some pantheistic or materialistic theory, or, so far as it is\ndistinguishable, of some theory of evolution.\n\n [61] The following passage from M. A. Bastian's article in _The\n Academy_, June 15, 1871, \"On the People of India,\" seems\n to me to afford an illustration in point--\"The natural\n system becomes an indispensable necessity in every science,\n so soon as it is clearly seen that the question is not of\n classification, but of observation of, and insight into,\n law. Classification was long held to be the sole end,\n instead of being merely or mainly the means of study. As,\n in this respect, systematic botany gave place to vegetable\n physiology, so, in like manner, ethnology will have to look\n upon its classification of race--with which the school books\n hitherto have been almost exclusively occupied--as merely a\n preliminary step towards a physiology of mankind, and to _a\n science of the laws_ which _govern its spiritual growth_.\"\n Now, if no physiology of mankind, in the sense here intended,\n can be traced, and if \"the science of the laws which govern\n its spiritual growth\" (_vide infra_, an exposition of Mr\n Baring Gould's theory) has come to no definite conclusion,\n then the only result, as far as science is concerned, will\n have been the revolutionising of its classifications, and the\n classifications of the different races of men (and, in so far\n as they have been accurately ascertained, their confusion will\n be matter of regret) is the legitimate and ultimate end of\n ethnology under normal conditions.\n\nI am no longer concerned with any of these theories the moment they\ndiscard the historical element; and I shall, accordingly, return to the\ntheory of Sir John Lubbock, which is honestly based upon it.\n\nWhen all is said, I cannot make out that Sir John adduces any argument\nin favour of the antiquity of the human race which does not resolve\nitself into the contrast between our civilisation and the degradation\nof savages; and that the time which must have elapsed to bring about\nthis transformation is measured by the fact that the negro, of the\n\"true Nigritian stamp,\" appears upon the Egyptian monuments, at\nleast as far back as B.C. 2400. \"Historians, philologists,\nand physiologists have alike admitted that the short period allowed\nin Archbishop Usher's chronology could hardly be reconciled with\nthe history of some Eastern nations, and that it did not leave room\n_for the development either of_ the different languages or of the\nnumerous physical peculiarities by which various races of men are\ndistinguished.\"[62] As no facts in the history of Eastern nations are\nadduced, I shall consider that this part of the argument has been\nsufficiently disposed of in the preceding chapters, and if they had\nbeen adduced, I venture to think that they would have been interpreted\nby the latter part of the sentence, and would have been incompatible\nwith the chronology, only because they did not allow sufficient time\n\"for the development,\" &c. Of this sort of fact, I admit, nothing\nstronger can be adduced than the case of the negro on the Egyptian\nmonuments, only I wish to direct attention to the different aspect\nthese facts will bear when the theory of progress is not assumed as\nan infallible proposition. Moreover, as Mr Poole, whom Sir J. Lubbock\nvery candidly quotes, points out, in the interval between this and\n2400 B.C. we do not find \"the least change in the negro or\nthe Arab; and even the type which seems to be intermediate between\nthem, is virtually as unaltered. Those who consider that length of\ntime can change a type of man, will do well to consider the fact\nthat three thousand years give no ratio on which a calculation could\nbe founded.\" So that if Arch. Usher had expanded his chronology so\nas to take in the twenty thousand years Bunsen requires, it really\nwould not appreciably have affected the argument. Sir J. Lubbock,\nindeed, says (p. 477)--\"I am, however, not aware that it is supposed\nby any school of ethnologists that 'time' alone, without a change of\nexternal conditions, will produce an alteration of type.\" \"Let us,\"\nhe continues, \"turn now to the instances relied on by Mr Crawford.\nThe millions, he says, of African negroes that have, during three\ncenturies, been transported to the New World and its islands, are the\nsame in colour as the present inhabitants of the parent country of\ntheir forefathers. The Creole Spaniards ... are as fair as the people\nof Arragon and Andalusia. The pure Dutch Creole colonists of the Cape\nof Good Hope, after dwelling two centuries among black Caffres and\nyellow Hottentots, do not differ in colour from the people of Holland.\"\n[The strongest case is, perhaps, that of the American Indians, who do\nnot vary from a uniform copper colour in north or south--in Canada\nor on the line.][63] In these instances, Sir J. Lubbock says:--\"We\nhave great change of circumstances, but a very insufficient lapse of\ntime, and, in fact, there is no well authenticated case [he does not,\nhowever, advert to the case of the Indians, which seems to satisfy both\nconditions] in which these two requisites are united,\" ... and adds,\n\"there is already a marked difference between the English of Europe and\nthe English of America;\" but is full allowance made here for admixture\nof race? and, also, is his instance to the point? Is not the difficulty\nrather that, whereas climate, food, change of circumstances have (for,\nI think, the balance of the argument is on that side), in many ways,\nmodified other races (though whether to the extent of destroying the\ncharacteristic type, may be open to question), the negro has resisted\nthese influences, and has remained the same negro that we find him 2400\nB.C.? Consider that it is only a question of degree, and that\nit is merely true that the negro has resisted these influences more\npersistently than other races.[64] Still the contrast is not the less\nstartling when we find the negro in the same relative position, and\nwith the same stamp of inferiority, that we find indelibly impressed\nupon him four thousand years ago? It is a case which neither the theory\nof progress, nor the theory of degeneracy, seems to touch.\n\n [62] Sir J. Lubbock's \"Prehistoric Times,\" p. 313.\n\n [63] It has almost passed into a proverb, says Morton--who is among\n those who know the Americans best--that he who has seen one\n Indian tribe has seen them all, so closely do the individuals\n of this race resemble each other, whatever may be the variety\n or the extent of the countries they inhabit.\" Reusch's \"La\n Bible et la Nature,\" _vide_ also Card. Wiseman's \"Lect. on\n Science and Rev. Rel.\" lect. iv., _vide_, however, Reusch,\n p. 498, where \"a remarkable difference in the cranium\" is\n noticed, \"sometimes approaching the Malay, sometimes the\n Mongol shape.\"\n\n [64] That the negro has undergone modifications, seems established\n by the fact that we nowhere find all the characteristics of\n the negro united in any one case--unless, perhaps, in the case\n of the negroes of Guinea, to which I have alluded. Yet, in\n the people who border them, there has been noticed \"un retour\n vers des formes superieures.\" The Yoloss, \"out le front \u00e9lev\u00e9,\n des machoires peu saillantes, leurs dents sont droites, et\n ils sont en g\u00e9n\u00e9ral bein constitu\u00e9s, _mais ils sont tout \u00e0\n fait noirs_. Leurs voisins, les Mandingues, tiennent beaucoup\n plus du type n\u00e9gre ... mais leur teint est beaucoup moins\n noir.\"--De Bur. ap. Reusch, p. 505. But under no influences\n of climate has the negro ever become white like the European,\n or the European black like the inhabitant of Guinea; if they\n become darker, \"c'est simplement la teint particulier \u00e0 leur\n race qui gagne en intensit\u00e9.\"--Burminster, ap. Reusch, p. 509.\n\nBut it is a case which De Maistre's view exactly solves. Now, however\nmuch we may rebel against De Maistre's theory, that the early races of\nmankind were endowed with higher and more intuitive moral faculties\nthan ours, and, whether or not, we accept his _dictum_ that great\npunishments pre-suppose great knowledge, and reversely, that higher\nknowledge implies the liability to great punishments, I do not see\nhow we can refuse to consider the matter, so far as to see whether\nthe view solves all the difficulties of the question. It is not the\nfirst time that the blackness of the African race has been connected in\ntheory with a curse; but De Maistre's theory throws a new light on the\nmalediction--whether it be the curse of Cham or of Chanaan, or whether\nboth were smitten, according to different degrees of culpability:\nand I maintain, further, that it is adequate to the explanation of\nthe phenomena, that it does not clash with history, and that it is\nsustained by tradition.\n\nNevertheless, I apprehend that this view will be as much combated from\nthe point of view of scriptural exegesis, as of scientific speculation.\n\nYet the curse of Cham, or of Chanaan, affecting all their posterity,\nought not in reason to be more revolting even to those who have never\nrealised what sin is, than the narrative of the fall of Adam and Eve\nwith its direful consequences. The theory seems perfectly conformable\nto Scripture, and to what we know of the secrets of the Divine\njudgments. The picture of Cham, or Chanaan, stricken with blackness,\ndoes not present a more sudden or more terrible retribution to the\nmind than the Fall of the Angels. How many thousand years did it take\nto transform Lucifer into Satan? or the primitive Adam into the Adam\nfeeling shame, and conscious of decay, want, and the doom of death?\n\nOn the other hand, blackness, from the commencement, has been\nassociated with evil. To this it may be replied that this is the\nsentiment merely of the white races--a natural prejudice of colour, an\n_ex parte_ deduction; and to this argument, if such is the view really\ntaken by the black races, and if no consciousness can be detected of\ntheir degradation amongst themselves, I see no other reply than this,\nThat since, _ex hypothesi_, they are black because they are cursed,\nthe tradition of this curse would be more naturally preserved by the\nwhite races than by the black. But is there no consciousness of this\ninferiority in the true negro? Without looking at the matter from\nthe same point of view, I may appeal to Captain Burton's statements\non this point as to a fully competent, if not the highest, authority\nthat can be quoted on points of African travel. In the first place,\nhe notices \"the confusion of the mixed and the mulatto with the\nfull-blooded negro. By the latter word I understand the various tribes\nof intertropical Africa, unmixed with European or Asiatic blood\"\n(\"Dahome,\" ii. 187); and p. 193, \"I have elsewhere given reasons for\nsuspecting, in the great Kafir family, a considerable mixture of\nArab, Persian, and other Asiatic blood:\" and as to the particular\npoint in question, he says (p. 200), \"The negro will obey a white man\nmore readily than a mulatto, and a mulatto rather than one of his own\ncolour. He never thinks of claiming equality with the Aryan race except\nwhen taught. At Whydat, the French missionaries remark that their\nscholars always translate 'white and black by master and slave.'\" P.\n189, \"One of Mr Prichard's few good generalisations is, that as a rule\nthe darker and dingier the African tribe, the more degraded is its\norganisation.\"[65] I find a very similar testimony in Crawford's \"Hist.\nof the Indian Archipelago,\" i. 18. He says, \"The brown and negro races\nof the Archipelago may be considered to present, in their physical and\nmoral characters, a complete parallel with the white and negro races in\nthe western world. The first has always displayed as great a relative\nsuperiority over the second, as the race of white men have done over\nthe negroes of the west.\" Yet at p. 20 he says, \"The Javanese, who live\nmost comfortably, are among the darkest people in the Archipelago, the\nwretched Dyaks, or cannibals of Borneo, among the fairest.\" It must\nbe noted, however, that the Javanese have also preserved something of\nprimitive tradition--_e.g._ their marriage ceremony. And, moreover,\nit is not at all essential to the argument to prove that the negroes\nare the _most degraded_ race. Let it be said that they have had their\ncurse, and that the sign of the curse is in their blackness--this is\nmerely equivalent to saying that they are cursed _pro tanto_; but it by\nno means follows that other races have not fallen to lower depths, and\nincurred a deeper reprobation.[66]\n\n [65] Captain Burton (ii. 165) also quotes a Catholic and a\n Protestant missionary as to this point. M. Wallon says, \"Avec\n leur tendance \u00e0 nous consid\u00e9rer comme r\u00e9ellement sup\u00e9rieurs \u00e0\n eux, et leur croyance que cette sup\u00e9riorit\u00e9 nous est acquise\n par celle de notre Dieu, ils renonceraient bient\u00f4t aux leurs\n idoles pour adorer celui qui nous leur prions de conna\u00eetre.\"\n Mr Dawson says, \"Fetish has been strengthened by the white\n man, whom the ignorant blacks would not scruple to call a god\n if he could avoid death.\"\n\n Assuming the identity of Bacchus and Noah, it is a striking\n circumstance, from this point of view, that the name of\n _Bacchus_, among the Phoenicians, was a synonymous term for\n mourning.--_Vide Hesychius in Bryant's \"Mythology,\"_ ii. 335;\n _vide also the verses of Theocritus_. Comp. p. 247, _note_\n (Boulanger).\n\n [66] Perhaps Captain Burton's phrase (ii. 178), \"the _arrested_\n physical development of the negro,\" may, if extended to his\n mental development, exactly hit the truth, the standard being\n fixed by the age at which we conceive the boy Chanaan's\n development to have been _arrested_.--Comp. _Wallace, infra_,\n p. 91; comp. 217.\n\nAmong the Sioux Indians, and in the isle of Tonga (Oceanica), I find\ntrace of the tradition of blackness as a curse, and I should think\nit likely that other instances might be discovered. The former (the\nSioux), in their reminiscences of the Deluge, relate, \"The water\nremained on the earth only two days (for the two months during which\nthe Scripture says it was at its height), at the expiration of which\nthe Master of Life, seeing that they had need of fire, sent it them by\na white crow, which, stopping to devour carrion, allowed the fire to be\nextinguished. He returned to heaven to seek it. The Great Spirit drove\nit away, and punished it by _striking it black_.\"--\"_Annales de la\nProp. de la Foi_,\" l. iv. 537; Gainet, i. 211.\n\nIn Tonga, the tradition is connected with this history of Cain:--\n\n \"The god Tangaloa,[67] who first inhabited this earth, is this\n Adam. He had two sons, who went to live at Boloton.... The younger\n was very clever. Tonbo (the eldest) was very different; he did\n nothing but walk about, sleep, and covet the works of his brother.\n One day he met his brother out walking, and knocked him down. Then\n their father arrived at Boloton, and in great anger said, 'Why\n has thou killed thy brother. Fly, wretched man; fly. _Your race\n shall be black_, and your soul depraved; you shall labour without\n success. Begone; you shall not go to the land of your brother, but\n your brother shall come sometimes to trade with you.' And he said\n to the family of the victim, 'Go towards the great land; your skin\n shall be white; you shall excel in all good things.'\"--_Gainet_, i.\n 93.[68]\n\n [67] \"Annales de Philos. Chret.,\" t. xiii. p. 235.\n\n [68] The expressions in the latter part of this narration recall\n the blessing of Jacob, and suggests the possibility of the\n tradition having come through descendants of Esau.\n\nCardinal Wiseman (in his \"Science and Revealed Religion,\" lect. iii.),\nsays, with reference to Aristotle's distribution of mankind into races\nby colour:--\n\n \"There is a passage in Julius Firmicus, overlooked by the\n commentators of Aristotle, which gives us the same ternary\n division, with the colours of each race. 'In the first place,' he\n writes, 'speaking of the characters and colours of men, they agree\n in saying,--if by the mixed influence of the stars, the characters\n and complexions of men are distributed; and if the course of the\n heavenly bodies, by a certain kind of artful painting, form the\n lineaments of mortal bodies; that is, if the moon makes men white,\n Mars red, _and Saturn black_, how comes it that in Ethiopia all are\n born black, in Germany white, and in Thrace red?'\"--_Astronomicon_,\n lib. i., c. i., ed. Basil. 1551, p. 3.\n\nNow this passage seems to me to have a still further significance in\nthe words I have italicised, with reference to the argument I have in\nhand. It transpires, therefore, that the ancients had the notion that\nSaturn made men black, which provoked the natural query, why then are\nonly the Ethiopians black? That it should ever have been supposed that\nthe distant Saturn, astronomically regarded, should have had such an\ninfluence is preposterous, but if the mythological personage, Saturn,\nch. x., has been sufficiently identified with Noah, and the deification\nof the hero in the planet (comp. pp. 159, 161) probable, the notion\nthat _he made men black_, must be the tradition of the event we are\nconsidering.\n\nI have elsewhere traced the fulfilment of the text which says that\nCanaan shall be the \"servant of servants to his brethren;\" but as the\nfollowing extract from Klaproth, in evidence of the same, has also its\nsignificance with reference to the point I am now considering--viz.\nthe curse of blackness--I prefer to give it a place here:--\"Sakhalian\noudehounga est expliqu\u00e9 en Chinois par 'Khian ch\u00e9on,' et par 'li chu,'\nce qui signifie les '_t\u00eates noires_' et le '_peuple noir_,' expression\npar laquelle on designe la 'bas peuple' ou les 'paysans.' Cette\nune expression _usit\u00e9e dans plusieures pays Asiatiques ainsi qu'en\nRussie.\"--Klaproth, \"Mem. Relatif a l'Asie;\" vide strictures on Pere\nAmyot's \"Mandchou Dict_.\"\n\nIn the oldest books of the Zendavasta, virtue and vice are personified\nas white and black. \"The contrast between good and evil is strongly and\nsharply marked in the G\u00e2th\u00e2s.... They go a step further and personify\nthe two parties to the struggle. One is a 'white,' or holy spirit\n(_spent\u00f4 mainyus_), and the other, a 'dark' spirit (_angr\u00f4 mainyus_).\nBut this personification is merely poetical or metaphysical, not\nreal.\"--_Rawlinson's \"Ancient Monarchies_,\" iii. p. 106. The contrast,\nhowever, between good and evil, as white and black was the genuine\nexpression of their idea or tradition. (Hung. ap. Bunsen, iii. p. 476,\nadmits, at least in one instance in the G\u00e2th\u00e2s, \"an angra ('black') is\nput in opposition to the white, or more holy spirit.\")\n\nMr Hunter (\"Rural Bengal,\" p. 114) says of the primitive Aryans in\nIndia--\"The ancient singer praises the _god_ who 'destroyed the Dasyans\nand protected the _Aryan colour_\" (Rig. Veda., iii. pp. 34-39), and\n\"the thunderer, who bestowed on his white friends the fields,\" &c.\nWhatever obscurity may attach to the latter passage, there can be no\ndoubt of the abhorrence with which the singers speak, _again_ and\n_again_, of \"_the black skin_,\" ... _e.g._ \"the sacrificer poured\nout thanks to his god for 'scattering the _slave_ bands of _black\ndescent_.'\"\n\nAlthough I believe the idea was traditional and had reference to the\ncurse, I will concede that it might have arisen primarily in the\ncontrast of night and day, light and darkness. But does this settle the\nquestion? On the contrary, fortified with this explanation, I return to\nmy argument with those, who say that blackness is a mere prejudice of\nrace, and that it is not demonstrable that it is the sign of a curse,\nor the mark of inferiority. Does not Nature herself proclaim it, in\nher contrast of light and darkness? Day and night, I imagine, would be\nrecognised as apt symbols of error and evil as opposed to truth and\ngoodness, even among the black races, irrespective of any consciousness\nor reminiscence of their degradation. Accordingly, the deeds of evil\nin Scripture are spoken of as the \"works of darkness.\" It may be,\ntherefore, that the idea of blackness as a curse is derived primitively\nfrom its association with the darkness of night; but the fact remains\nthat blackness is connected in our minds with a curse,[69] and there\nis the further fact that a black race exists, and has existed during\nfour thousand years, with this mark of inferiority upon it (compare\n_sup._ ch. iii. ix.)\n\n [69] This is so much in tradition as to be a matter of common\n parlance--for instance, when the late Emperor of the French\n is depicted, this is the language which, upon a certain\n construction, appears most natural--\"On the other side stands\n a phalanx of satirists, represented by Victor Hugo. The only\n colour on the palette of those artists is _lamp black_.\n Morally they paint the ex-Emperor as _dark as a negro_, array\n him _in the livery of the devil_, and _then_ invoke the\n _execration_ of history.\"--_Spectator_, Sept. 17th, 1870.\n\nBut a point of some difficulty remains to be determined--viz. what\nprecisely was the race which came under this ban. Was it the whole\ndescent of Ham, or only the posterity of Chanaan ?\n\nHales, in his learned work on chronology (i. p. 344), discusses this\nquestion. He says that, whereas--\n\n \"Even the most learned expositors (Bochart and Mede) have\n implicitly adopted the appropriation of the curse of servitude to\n Ham and his posterity.\" Yet \"the integrity of the received text of\n prophecy, limiting the curse to 'Canaan' singly, is fully supported\n by the concurrence of the Massorite and Samaritan Hebrew texts,\n with _all the other_ ancient versions except the Arabian; and is\n acknowledged, we see, by Josephus and Abulfaragi (_sup._), who\n evidently confine the curse to Canaan--though they inconsistently\n consider Ham as the offender, and are not a little embarrassed to\n exempt him and _the rest of his children_[70] from the operation\n of the curse--an exemption, indeed, attested by sacred and profane\n history; for Ham himself had his full share of earthly blessings,\n his son Misr colonised Egypt, thence styled the land of Ham (Ps.\n cv. 23), which soon became one of the earliest, most civilised,\n and flourishing kingdoms of antiquity, and was established before\n Abraham's days (Gen. xii. 14-20), and in the glorious reign of\n Sesostris ... while Ham's posterity, in the line of Cush, not only\n founded the first Assyrian empire, under Nimrod, but also the\n Persian (?), the Grecian (?), and the Roman (?) empires, in direct\n contradiction to the unguarded assertion of Mede [that 'there\n hath never yet been a son of Ham that hath shaken a sceptre over\n the head of Japheth.'] How, then, is the propriety of the curse\n exclusively to Canaan to be vindicated?--evidently by considering\n him as the only guilty person ... upon the very ingenious\n conjecture of Faber, that the 'youngest son' who offended was not\n Ham, but Canaan--not the son, but the grandson of Noah. For the\n original, 'his little son,' according to the latitude of the Hebrew\n idiom, may denote a grandson, by the same analogy that Nimrod....\n this (the former) interpretation is supported by ancient Jewish\n tradition, 'Boresith Rabba,' sec. 37, recorded also by Theodoret\n ... the tradition, indeed, also adds that Ham joined in the\n mockery, but for this addition there seems no sufficient grounds.\"\n\n [70] The italics are mine.\n\nThere is, however, the tradition, and, moreover, a distinct tradition\nthat Ham was black. Sir J. Gardner Wilkinson, in his \"Manners and\nCustoms of the Ancient Egyptians,\" i., says--\n\n \"The Hebrew word Ham is identical with the Egyptian Khem, being\n properly written Khm, Kham, or Khem, and is the same which the\n Egyptians themselves gave to their country in the sculptures of\n the earliest and latest periods\" (261). Egypt was denominated\n Chemi (Khemi), or the land of Ham, \"as we find in the hieroglyphic\n legends; and the city of Khem, or Panopolis, was called in\n Egyptian Chemmo, of which evident traces are preserved in that of\n the modern town E'Khmim\" (260). \"Besides the hieroglyphic group,\n composed of the two above alluded to (260), indicating Egypt, was\n one consisting of _an eye_, and the sign land, _which bore the\n same_ signification; and since _the pupil_, or _black_ of the eye,\n was called _Chemi_, we may conclude this to be a phonetic mode\n of writing the name of Egypt, which Plutarch pretends was called\n Chemmia, from the _blackness_ of its soil\" (263). \"_Chame_ is\n _black_ in _Coptic_, Egypt is _Chemi_, and it is remarkable that\n _khom_ or _chom_ is used in Hebrew for black or brown, as in Gen.\n xxx. 32-40.\"--_Id._\n\nHere then, at any rate, the name of Ham or Cham is curiously associated\nwith blackness, and must have been so associated from the commencement\nof Egyptian history. I leave it to the Egyptologist to decide whether\nthe presumption is stronger that the name of Egypt, identical with\nthat of Ham, was originally derived from the blackness of its soil,\nor from the blackness of him whose name was identical with it (\"the\nland of Ham\" being both the scriptural and Egyptian appellation),\nmore especially when \"the eye\" (apparently a personal or historical,\nnot certainly a geographical allusion) was used as an equivalent\nhieroglyphic symbol for land.[71]\n\n [71] The eye would be the very most apposite symbol for blackness,\n if we consider that blackness lingers there after the skin has\n become white, and, in the case of half-breeds, is the test of\n descent in gradations even beyond, I believe, the octoroon.\n\n Captain King (\"Narrative of a Survey of the Intertropical\n and Western Coasts of Australia,\" ii. Append.) says, \"That\n although there is the greatest diversity of words among the\n Australian tribes, the equivalent for 'eye' is common to them\n all.\"\n\nHere, as in other instances, if we follow the strict lines of\ntradition, it seems to me that we shall escape all the difficulties\nwhich are usually alleged against it. It will result then that,\nalthough according to the text of Scripture, the curse of servitude was\nlimited to the posterity of Chanaan; yet, seeing that the criminality\nwas common to Ham and Chanaan, according to the tradition referred to,\nand as is, moreover, implied in the marked manner in which Scripture\n(Gen. xviii. 22) indicates Cham as \"the father of Chanaan,\" it is\npresumable that, if blackness was the concomitant of the curse, it\nextended to both Ham and Chanaan, and, by implication, to their\nposterity, but then _after the curse_. As Chanaan, according to the\ntradition, was then a boy, all his children would have been affected\nby the curse; but does it follow that all Ham's descent was involved\nin the malediction? This would be to suppose a retrospective curse,\nfor which the only analogy would be the hypothesis that if Adam had\nsinned after the birth of Cain and Abel, they and their posterity would\nalso have incurred the guilt of original sin. Now the sons of Ham were\n(Gen. x. 6) \"Chus and Mesram and Phuth and Chanaan,\" _i.e._, Chus and\nMesram and Phuth were the elder brothers of Chanaan, and therefore not\nthe children of Ham after the pronouncement of the curse. If, then, we\nfind the children of Mesram dark, but without the negro features or\nthe blackness of Canaan; if \"Sesostris, his descendant, was a great\nconqueror;\" if Nimrod, the son of Chus, was a powerful chieftain,\nand the founder of the Assyrian empire; if nothing is known of the\nposterity of Phuth beyond the conjecture that they were the Lybians--in\na word, if the descent from these three sons does not bear out the\nevidence of the curse, can it be said to militate at all against the\nhypothesis of the curse of Ham as well as of Canaan?\n\nMoreover, if there are differences among the black races which may\npresent difficulties, would not the knowledge that there may have been\na posterity of Ham, born after the curse,[72] go far to remove them?\nHales, indeed, assumes that \"Ham himself had his full share of earthly\nblessings; his son Misr colonised Egypt,\" &c. (as _sup._); but this\nprosperity, as he indicates it, is only seen in the prosperity of his\nthree sons, whom I assume to have been exempt from the curse. It must\nbe remembered, however, that the occult science of the Cainites was\nsaid to have been preserved by the family of Ham, and, as we have seen,\nthe taint was in the race.[73]\n\n [72] Lenormant, \"Manuel d'Histoire Ancienne,\" i. 23, makes a\n similar suggestion as to this point--\"La texte de la Bible\n n'a rien qui s'oppose formellement \u00e0 l'hypoth\u00e8se que No\u00e8\n aurait eu, post\u00e9rieurement au deluge, d'autres enfants que\n Sem, Cham, et Japhet, d'o\u00f9 seraient sorties les races qui ne\n figurent pas dans la g\u00e9n\u00e9alogie de ces trois personnages.\" But\n two objections seem to me to be fatal to this view. The races\n about whom this difficulty would be raised would be the red\n and black races: why should it be surmised that the supposed\n posterity of Noah, after the Deluge, _should_ have this mark\n of inferiority? In the second place, it does seem to be\n formally opposed to Gen. x. 32--\"These are the _families_ of\n _Noe_, according to their peoples and nations. _By these_ were\n the nations divided on the earth after the flood.\"\n\n The red races might perhaps be accounted for by Gen. xxv.\n 23-25.\n\n [73] There appears to me, however, a text to which attention\n might be directed. We know that the Ethiopians were black,\n but in Amos ix. 7, where God is expressing His anger against\n His people, He says, \"Are you not as the children of the\n Ethiopians unto me, O children of Israel, saith the Lord.\"\n\nI am very far from claiming for these theories any special\necclesiastical countenance and authority. I have already intimated my\nopinion that, on the whole, they would be as much opposed from the\npoint of view of scriptural exegesis as from that of unbelief. It will\nbe said, for instance, that there is evidence in Scripture of the curse\nof Canaan, but no proof that blackness was the concomitant effect of\nthe curse; and certainly it is not Scripture which affirms this, but\nonly tradition.\n\nTo those who admit the curse, but deny the consequences which tradition\nattributes to it, I would oppose an almost identical argument with that\nwhich accounts for all differences in the human race by geographical\nlocation. I do not know where this argument is more forcibly put than\nin Latham's \"Ethnology.\" There it is seemingly demonstrated that\ncertain conditions, not merely of colour, but moral and intellectual,\nare the inseparable accompaniments of geographical location. Grant it,\n_pro argumento_, but I am arguing now upon the scriptural evidence, and\nwith one with whom I assume I have a common belief in its inspiration.\n\nIt is true, then, that the curse of blackness is not recorded, but\nthe distribution of the races is at least implied: Deut. xxxii. 8,\n\"_When the Most High divided the nations, when He separated the sons\nof Adam_, he appointed the bounds of people according to the number\nof the children of Israel;\" and Acts xvii. 26, \"And hath made of one\nall mankind, to dwell upon the _whole face_ of the earth, _determining\nappointed times_, and _the limits_ of _their habitation_.\" (The Prot.\nversion translates, \"Having appointed the _predetermined seasons_ and\n_boundaries of_ their dwellings.\" _Vide_ Hales's Chron., i. 351, who\nadds that this was conformable to their own allegory \"that Chronos, the\ngod of time, or Saturn, divided the universe among his three sons.\")[74]\n\n [74] _Vide_ also ch. x., p. 239. The tradition that Phoroneus,\n \"the father of mankind,\" distributed the nations over the\n earth, _idem nationes distribuit_.\n\nIf, then, the different races of mankind, according to their merits or\ndemerits, were apportioned to, or miraculously directed or impelled\nto, respective portions of the earth, which necessarily superinduced\ncertain effects, is not the curse as apparent in its indirect operation\nas it would have been in its suddenness and directness?\n\nThis consideration must, I think, bring those who raise scriptural\ndifficulties against the theory to the admission that blackness was a\nsign of inferiority, and that certain races were either smitten with,\nor were predestined to, in consequence of culpability, this degradation.\n\nThis, I admit, is no reply to those who argue from the evidence of the\nEgyptian monuments. But the evidence from the monuments, so far from\nembarrassing my conclusion, seems absolutely to enforce it. If, indeed,\nthe evidence from the monuments did not stare one in the face, we might\nfall back upon the line of argument which I have just indicated, and\nwhilst recognising in their blackness the operation of a curse, trace\nit in the lapse of centuries and the influences of the torrid zone. But\nthey are recorded as being black on the earliest monuments known to us,\nand within a few centuries of the Deluge. The conclusion, therefore,\nseems inevitable, that they were so from the commencement, which\nexactly hits in with the tradition of the curse of Canaan.\n\nSuch, from his own point of view, is the conclusion of Sir J. Lubbock\n(\"Prehistoric Times,\" p. 478)--\n\n \"If there is any truth in this view of the subject (p. 478), it\n will necessarily follow that the principal varieties of man are of\n great antiquity, and, in fact, go back almost to the very origin\n of the human race. We may then cease to wonder that the earliest\n paintings on Egyptian tombs represent so accurately several various\n varieties still existing in those regions, and that the Engis\n skull, probably the most ancient yet found in Europe, so closely\n resembles many that may be seen even at the present day.\"\n\nThe following conclusion of Mr Wallace also exactly coincides with De\nMaistre's view.\n\nLyell, in his \"Principles of Geology\" (ii. 471) says--\n\n \"Wallace suggests that at some former period man's corporeal frame\n must have been _more pliant and variable_ than _it is now_; for,\n according to the observed rate of fluctuation in modern times,\n scarcely any conceivable lapse of ages would suffice to give rise\n to such an amount of differentiation. He therefore concludes, that\n when first the _mental_ and _moral_ qualities of man acquired\n predominance, his bodily frame _ceased to vary_.\"\n\nBut, although science in its own way may arrive at approximations to\nthe truth, yet, if the traditional solution be true, assuredly it is\nnot a solution which will be reached by any merely scientific process;\nand therefore, if it should be the truth, the ethnological difficulty\nwill remain an enigma and embarrassment to the learned in all time to\ncome.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER VI.\n\n _PALMER ON EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY._\n\n\nHaving probed the chronologies of India, Babylonia, Phoenicia,[75]\nChina, &c., and having found that one and all, when touched with the\ntalisman of history, shrink within the limits of the Septuagint, and\neven of the Hebrew text, we come, perforce, to the conclusion, that\nthere is one nation, and one only, which presents a _prim\u00e2 facie_\nantiquity irreconcileable with Holy Writ--viz. Egypt.\n\n [75] _Vide ante_ ch. iv.; and also _vide_ Palmer, i. 49.\n\nThis impression is sustained by the knowledge, somewhat indefinite\nand in something disturbed, that the Egyptian tradition had always\nattributed a fabulous antiquity to the dynasties of its kings, and\nthat these dynasties have been marvellously resuscitated through the\ndiscovery which has enabled us to decipher the inscriptions on their\ntombs and monuments.\n\nMy reader need not fear, however, lest I should plunge him into the\nchaos of hieroglyphics; not, indeed, that much has not been rescued\nfrom the abyss, and that there is not good expectation of more to come,\nbut when once it is established, as we may now consider to be the case,\nthat many of these dynasties were cotemporaneous, and not successive,\nan uncertainty is introduced which again reduces the chronology to\nprimitive chaos, although floating objects in it, the _d\u00e9bris_ of\ntombs and dynasties, remain clearly distinguishable, and, in point of\nfact, have been perfectly identified. If we had no other evidence,\nI should feel irresistibly drawn to the dictum of M. Mariette (ap.\nMgr. Meignan, \"L'Homme Primitif,\" p. 391), \"Le plus grand de tous les\nobstacles \u00e0 l'\u00e9tablissement d'une chronologie \u00e9gyptienne reguli\u00e8re,\nc'est que les Egyptiens eux-m\u00eames n'ont jamais eu de chronologie.\"\n\nI shall, on the contrary, from another point of view, attempt to show,\nnot only that they had a chronology, but that this chronology has\nactually been re-discovered and re-constituted.\n\nIn the conviction that this is the case, and that it is not\nsufficiently known that it is so, I shall devote some space to an\nabstract of Mr William Palmer's \"Egyptian Chronicles\" (1861), in which\nit appears to me that this exposition and solution is to be found.\n\nMr Palmer at least has brought the Egyptian chronology (upon the system\nof the Old Chronicle) to so close a reconciliation with Scripture (upon\nthe basis of a collation of the Septuagint and Josephus), that we have\na right to compare any Egyptologist making an attempt to advance into\nthe interior to the monuments, whilst disregarding it, to a commander\nleaving an important fortress in his rear.[76] As Mr Palmer takes his\nstand upon the Old Chronicle, and as the Old Chronicle has been in\nconsiderable disrepute with Egyptologists (Bunsen, i. 216), I do not\nsee that I can adopt a better plan of bringing the whole subject before\nthe reader, than by confronting Mr W. Palmer's discovery and exposition\nwith Baron Bunsen's strictures on the Old Chronicle.\n\n [76] And yet, with the exception of Professor Rawlinson's \"Manual\n of Ancient History,\" where mention is made of Mr Palmer's\n work as among eight principal works to be referred to on the\n subject of Egyptian chronology, and of a series of articles in\n the _Month_ on the same subject, I do not recollect to have\n seen allusion made to it. A previous perusal of the articles\n in the _Month_ above referred to will greatly facilitate the\n study of this question.\n\nBunsen (i. 214-217) says (the italics are mine)--\n\n \"'The Egyptians,' says Syncellus, 'boast of a certain Old\n Chronicle, by which also, in my opinion, Manetho (the impostor) was\n led astray.' ... The origin of this fiction is obvious. Its object,\n as well as that of the pseudo-Manetho, is to represent the great\n year of the world of 36,525 years, or twenty-five Sothic cycles.\n The _timeless_ space of the book of Sothis becomes the rule of\n Vulcan.... _The number fixed for the other gods, 3984, is quite\n original_; perhaps it may not be mere accident that it agrees with\n the computation of some chronographers for the period from the\n Creation to B.C. The dynasty of the demigods reflects the\n same judicious moderation as in the scheme of the pseudo-Manetho\n (214-1/2). Then comes a series of corruptions of the genuine\n Manetho, _i.e._, of the Manetho of the thirty historical Egyptian\n dynasties. He is, however, confounded with the Manetho of the\n Dog-star, and hence it is that the fifteen dynasties of Manetho are\n called the fifteen dynasties of the Sothiac cycle. _But how is the\n number 443 to be explained?_ Is this entry to be understood in the\n same sense as the similar one in Clemens, namely, that the first\n fifteen dynasties comprehended the 443 years prior to the beginning\n of the last cycle, consequently prior to 1322? or is it simply\n taken, with a slight alteration by Eusebius, to the fourteenth\n and fifteenth dynasties (435)? The following dates for the length\n of reigns are in the gross _evidently_ borrowed from Eusebius....\n In the sequel, there is no more reckoning by dynasties, but\n seventy-five generations are numbered, in order to make up the 113\n of Manetho. So palpable is that,.... Lastly, the dates and numbers\n ... are brought into shape by various arbitrary expedients; but\n Eusebius on all occasions appears as the authority.... As the\n dates of the individual dynasties now run, 184 years are wanting\n to make up the promised 36,525 years. _It is scarcely worth while\n to inquire where the mistake lies._\" He finally pronounces the Old\n Chronicle to be the compilation of a Jewish or Christian impostor\n of the third century, or later.\n\nAs Mr Palmer has not directly adverted to this passage from Bunsen in\nhis \"Egyptian Chronicles,\" I will give an extract from a letter which I\nhave received from Mr Palmer on the subject, which will clear off some\nof the tissues of confusion into which the strictures of Baron Bunsen\nhave got entangled.\n\n \"I assert, in the first instance (there being nothing whatever\n to the contrary), that we have the Old Chronicle in a _perfectly\n genuine form, i.e._ in the text of Syncellus and Africanus, but\n by no means in Bunsen; and further, that it really is, and they\n from whom we have it _tell us it was_, the oldest Greco-Egyptian\n writing of the kind current in the time of Africanus.... Bunsen\n pronounces the Old Chronicle to be the compilation of a Jewish or\n Christian impostor of the third century ('Eusebius appearing on all\n occasions as the authority,' &c.) In the _Old Chronicle_, as given\n by Syncellus and Africanus, there is _nothing whatever_ borrowed\n from Eusebius; but Eusebius has borrowed from and altered the Old\n Chronicle, so as to suit his own sacred chronology. The 'Book of\n Sothis,' too, has worked up and altered the Old Chronicle, with\n which it is by no means to be identified.... But I deal with three\n so-called Manethos--viz. (1.) the original Manetho of Josephus and\n Eratosthenes, who had only twenty-three historical dynasties of\n his total of thirty dynasties (the Old Chronicle, from which he\n took the number of thirty, having twenty-nine historical and one\n [that of the sun god] unhistorical); (2.) the Manetho of Ptolemy\n of Mendes, which is the Manetho of Africanus, who has thirty-one\n dynasties, all pretending to be historical; and, lastly, the\n Manetho of the 'Book of Sothis,' used by Anianus and Panadorus\n (to which last alone Bunsen's ... mention of 'fifteen dynasties\n of the Dog-star' refers).... If any figures in the Manetho of the\n 'Book of Sothis' of the fifth century A.D., are borrowed\n from Eusebius, there is nothing in this, Eusebius himself having\n used and altered the Old Chronicle before, just as the author of\n the Book of Sothis or Anianus may have used Eusebius and the old\n chronicle. But I am not now dealing with the question of fact,\n whether Eusebius' figures were so followed or not.... When Bunsen\n says, 'Perhaps it may not be mere accident that the figures 3984\n agrees,' &c.; he should have said rather that some 'chronographers'\n 'agree' 'with it,' and perhaps so agree not by accident. I do\n not remember whether any one, or who in particular, of modern\n chronographers agree with it; but certainly if any do, it is _quite\n by accident_. The number 3984, as given by the Old Chronicle to\n Chronos and the other twelve gods, has no relation whatever to any\n reckoning of the year of the world to Christ; and a chronologer\n might as well adapt his sum of years from the Creation to Christ,\n or to any other fanciful number, as to this. The truth is, that\n with the shorter numbers of the Vulgate, many chronologers have\n made out sums of about four thousand years, some rather more, some\n less.\"\n\nIn the somewhat lengthened extract which I have made (_sup._ p. 94)\nfrom Bunsen, _four_ figures (3984, 217, 443, and 184) will have struck\nthe eye, which baffle even Bunsen's penetration, and only make twice\nconfounded what was confused before. But what if these four figures\nshould all be accounted for? and, when accounted for, fitted into the\nchronology so as to be in keeping, not only with the other figures of\nthe Chronicle, but also with the systems of Manetho and Eratosthenes,\nas exactly as \"the key fits the wards of the lock?\" (_vide infra_, p.\n332), will not the matter begin to wear a different aspect? When the\nfigures are shown to be imbedded in all the different systems which\nhave been transmitted to us, will it then be said that the figures\n\"are evidently borrowed from Eusebius?\" But, in fact, it is also\ndemonstrated by internal evidence that the Chronicle, as we have it,\nmust be referred to the date 305 B.C.\n\nThis, then, is how the argument stands; but it is a matter of some\ndifficulty to compass Mr Palmer's elaborate argument, and I cannot\nattempt to do more than to indicate its most salient points.\n\nPremising that the Sothic cycle (a period of 1461 vague, or 1460 fixed\nsidereal years) was connected by the Egyptians with their recurring\nperiods of transformation and renovation (\"common to the mythologies\nof Egypt and India\"), and also that two such periods (1461 \u00d7 2) = 2922\ncorresponded with the antediluvian period, or rather with the sum\nof the lives or reigns of the antediluvian patriarchs, inclusive of\nsurvivors of the Deluge, with something added in order to throw the\nwhole into cyclical form, all which is shown in detail in \"Egyptian\nChronicles,\" i. 23-37, I may now proceed to Mr Palmer's analysis of\nthe scheme of the Old Chronicle, which is thus given by Syncellus,\n\"probably from the Manetho of Africanus\" (Palmer's \"Egypt. Chron.,\" i.\n7):--\n\n \"There is extant among the Egyptians a certain Old Chronicle,\n the source, I suppose, which led Manetho astray, exhibiting xxx\n dynasties and again cxiii generations, with an infinite space of\n time (not the same either as that of Manetho), viz. three myriads,\n six thousand five hundred and twenty-five years--1st, Of the\n Aerit\u00e6; 2dly, Of the Mestr\u00e6ans; and, 3dly, Of the Egyptians,--being\n word for word as follows:--\n\n [Dynasty I. to XV. inclusive of the chronicle of the gods]:--\n\n Time of Phtha there is _none_, as he shines equally by\n night and by day [but all generations being from him]\n\n [First dynasty] [Greek: H\u00ealios] [_i.e._ Ra, the sun-god],\n son of Phtha, reigned three myriads of years, 30,000\n\n Then [Dynasty II. to XIV. inclusive, and generations\n II. to XIV. inclusive] [Greek: Kronos] [or [Greek:\n Chronos], _i.e._ Seb], and all the other xii\n gods [who are the Aerit\u00e6 perhaps of Eusebius and\n Africanus], reigned years 3984\n\n Then [Dynasty XV.] viii demigod kings [the Mestr\u00e6ans of\n Eusebius and Africanus] reigned [as viii generations\n but one dynasty], years 217\n\n And after them xv generations _of the Cynic cycle_ were\n registered in years 443\n\n Then Dynasty XVI. of Tanites, generations viii, years 190\n\n Then Dynasty XVII. of Memphites, generations iv, years of\n the same generations 103\n\n After whom there followed--\n\n Dynasty XVIII. of Memphites, generations xiv, years of\n the same generations 348\n\n Then Dynasty XIX. of Diospolites, generations v, years 194\n\n Then Dynasty XX. of Diospolites, generations viii, years\n of the same generations 228\n\n Then Dynasty XXI. of Tanites, generations vi, years 121\n\n Then Dynasty XXII. of Tanites, generations iii, years 48\n\n Then Dynasty XXIII. of Diospolites, generations ii, years\n of the same generations 19\n\n Then Dynasty XXIV. of Saites, generations iii, years 44\n\n Besides whom is to be reckoned--\n\n Dynasty XXV. of Ethiopians, generations iii, years of the\n same generations 44\n\n After whom again there followed--\n\n Dynasty XXVI. of Memphites, generations vii, years of the\n same generations 177\n\n And then after--\n\n Dynasty XXVII.\n\n [Here the designation, generations, and years are\n purposely omitted; but the years are implied by the\n sum total, which follows below, to be certainly 184]\n\n Dynasty XXVIII. of Persians, generations v, years of the same\n generations 124\n\n Then Dynasty XXIX. of Tanites, generations , years 39\n\n And, lastly, after all the above--\n\n Dynasty XXX. of one Tanite king, years\n ------\n Generations cxiii, years 36,525\n\n Sum of all the years of the XXX. Dynasties, three myriads, six\n thousand five hundred and twenty-five (Kings 1881 years).\"\n\nThese 36,525 years, when divided by 1461, the Sothic cycle (as noted\nby Syncellus), give the quotient xxv. We need not digress into the\nconjectural reasons why twenty-five such periods were taken, rather\nthan any other number. We will be content at starting to see in its\nrelation to the cycle evidence of the purely fictitious character of\nits myriads of years, and a clue to the significance of the indication,\n\"after them xv generations of the Cynic cycle,\" &c.\n\nMr Palmer (i. xxiii.) says, that the question which first suggested\nitself to him was--\n\n \"To what Sothic cycle are these 443 years or xv generations said\n to belong?\" [for there was the doubt whether there was any _real_\n Sothic cycle at all.] \"For a Sothic cycle is not merely a space\n of 1461 Egyptian years, but it is that particular space of 1461\n such years, and that only, which begins from the conjunction\n of the movable new year or Thoth, with the heliacal rising of\n Sirius, fixed to 20th July of our Gregorian calendar for that part\n of Egypt which is just above Memphis.... For the author of a\n chronicle ending with Nectanebo, or at any date between the Sothic\n epochs, 20th July B.C. 1322 (the known commencement of a cycle),\n and 20th July A.D. 139, 'the Sothic cycle,' could only mean the\n cycle _actually_ current\" [_i.e._ B.C. 1322 to A.D. 139 = 1461]....\n \"After this discovery, if the perception of a truism can be called\n a discovery, it followed naturally to observe further that in\n constructing a fanciful scheme ... ending at any other date than a\n true cyclical epoch, the first operation ... must be to _cut off\n all those years of the true current cycle_ which were yet to run\n out, below the date fixed upon, and to throw them back so that\n they might be reckoned _as past_ instead of being looked forward\n to as future. This, then, was what the author of the Old Chronicle\n had done; and, with an ironical humour common among the Egyptians,\n he had told his readers to their faces the nature of his trick,\n ticketing and labelling the key to it (the 443 years) and tying it\n in the lock, or rather leaving it in the lock itself.\" Counting,\n then, back 139 years of the 443 \"from the 20th July A.D. 139 to\n 20th July B.C. 1, and 304 more from 20th July B.C. 1, we come to\n 20th July in 305 B.C. (if the years be fixed, sidereal, or solar\n years), or to 8th November 305, if they be (as they really are)\n vague Egyptian years\" (305 B.C. being the year in which Ptolemy\n Lagi assumed the crown).\n\n[For the discrepancy between this date and the conquest of Ochus, \"at\nwhich the series of the Chronicle ostensibly ends,\" _vide_ \"Egypt.\nChron.,\" p. xxiv.]\n\nLet the reader now return to the scheme of the chronicle (_sup._ p.\n97). The analysis of the whole sum, 36,525 years, gives 30,000 years\n(to the sun), + 3984 (to xiii gods), + 217 (to viii demigods), + 443\n(to the Sothic cycle), + 1881 to kings from Menes to Nectanebo (the\nlast native sovereign).\n\nSo far we have only 1881 years, corresponding to an historical period,\n+ 443 of the cycle thrown up. It has been previously noted, however,\nthat 2922 (two Sothic cycles) correspond to the antediluvian and\npatriarchal period (i. 37). The intricate part of the scrutiny will\nbe found in the discrimination of the 2922 years (which, with 217 +\n1881, make up the sequence of human time, A.M., to Nectanebo) from the\nfigures 3984 years in the analysis above.\n\nFor the full and scientific discrimination, I must refer the reader to\n\"Egyptian Chronicles,\" i. 17; but for a simple demonstration, we may\ntake the historical figures as above--viz. 2922 + 217 + 1881, added to\nthe figures thrown in to complete the cycle (_vide infra_), viz. 341 +\n483, all which figures = 5844, and deduct them from the whole cyclical\nnumber thus--\n\n 36,525\n 5,844\n ------\n 30,681\n\nNow, reverting to the scheme of the Chronicle, we shall see the round\nnumber 30,000 years (being as it were an Egyptian month, in thousands\nof years instead of days) apportioned off to the sun-god. To obtain\nthis round number, the fractional number 681 would have to be detached,\nand there being at hand the cyclical number 2922 years (two perfect\nSothic cycles), any number in reason of fractional remainders might\nbe added to it, since with the symmetrical nucleus, the agglomeration\nwould always be recognisable by the initiated, _i.e._ by the priests.\nThe 681 years were therefore added to 2922, and also the 341 fictitious\nyears (\"to make time from the beginning to run in the form of Sothic\ncycles\") were added, because _there_ they would cause no confusion;\n\"whereas if they had been added to the 217 years of the demigods, no\none could any longer have distinguished the original fraction.\"\n\nWe thus collect, therefore, those various figures into the sum which\nwas the figure of difficulty--viz. 3984 (681 + 2922 + 341 + 40), the\n_forty_ years included having merely reference to the point at which\nthe current Sothic cycle was thrown up--being the years intervening\nbetween the flight of Nectanebo in B.C. 345, and the coronation of\nPtolemy Lagi in B.C. 305.\n\nUpon his own method, based upon Josephus, who follows in the main\nthe Septuagint (\"on a principle of compromise such as all readers,\n_whatever_ may be their system, may agree in accepting provisionally,\nand as an approximation\"), Mr Palmer (i. 22-29) brings the Scripture\nA.M. to B.C. 1, to a synchronism of \"five years four months\" and some\ndays, with the Egyptian computation.\n\nBut the same key is made to unlock all the systems of Egyptian\nchronology, and in the course of his two volumes of close and learned\ninvestigation, Mr Palmer demonstrates that \"Manetho, Eratosthenes,\nPtolemy of Mendes, Diodorus, Josephus, Africanus, Eusebius, Anianus,\nPanodorus, and Syncellus, have, either of themselves or by following\nothers, transferred dynasties, generations, and years of the gods and\ndemigods of the Chronicle, and even fifteen generations of Ptolemies\nand C\u00e6sars, as yet unborn at the date of the Chronicle, to kings after\nMenes.\"\n\nLet the above scheme of the Chronicle be compared, for instance, with\nthe scheme of Diogenes Laertius (which Mr Palmer conjectures, upon\nintrinsic evidence, to have been transmitted through Aristotle).\n\nDiogenes Laertius' whole figure is 48,863 years, which contains for its\nfictitious part _thirty_ times 1461 = 43,830, which, being deducted\nfrom 48,863,\n 43,830\n ------\n 5,033\n\nleaves 5033 for \"true human time.\" Now 5033 years are equal to those\n2922 years + 217 years + 1881 years, which alone in the Chronicle\nbelong properly and originally to the xiii gods and viii demigods and\nthe last xv dynasties of the kings from Menes to Nectanebo, with only\nthirteen surplus years, _i.e._ from the conquest of Darius Ochus to\nAlexander; \"seemingly to the autumn of B.C. 332, when he first entered\nEgypt.\"\n\nHere I might conclude my outline of Mr Palmer's scheme, so far as is\nnecessary to the vindication of the Chronicle as against Bunsen, were\nit not for the remaining figure (all the others, if the reader will\nrefer back, have been accounted for)--viz. 184, to which Bunsen refers.\n\nThis figure is shown to correspond with the 184 years of the Hyksos or\nShepherds (i. 134, 135, _et seq._, 155, 285, 299). Dynasty XXVII., to\nwhich the 184 years in the Chronicle are attributed, has been displaced\nfrom between Dynasties XVII. and XVIII. of the Chronicle, and its\n184 years are \"restored to their true place and to the Shepherds by\nManetho,\" and are given \"by the Theban priests, _i.e._ by Eratosthenes,\nsuppressing the Shepherds, to the kings of Upper Egypt.\"\n\nAs regards Manetho (i. 284) \"having, besides the 1881 years of the\nChronicle, 1674 additional years of kings, of which (22 + 217 =\n) 239 only are in themselves, though not in their attributions,\nchronological, and having given of these 1491 (which are thrice 477\nand 60 over) to his six early dynasties of _Lower_ Egypt (and sixteen\ninconvenient years he isolated between his Dynasties XIV. and XV.,\nso as to include them in his Book i.), he gave to the three early\ndynasties of _Upper_ Egypt _no other unchronological years_ than two\ncomplementary sums, the one of 43 (to the first), and the other, of 124\nyears, to the second of the three dynasties, that these same sums might\nboth coalesce with the remainder of sixty years belonging to the sum of\nthe six dynasties of Lower Egypt, so as to make with it, or rather to\nindicate, the one of them the sum of 103, the other the sum of 184.\"\n\n_Vide_ table, p. 285.... Sum of six dynasties of Lower Egypt, 1491.\nBut this sum 1491 is equivalent to\n\n 190 + 103 + 184 = 477\n 190 + 103 + 184 = 477\n 190 + 103 + 184 = 477\n ---- But 60\n (1431 + 60) = 1491 43\n ----\n (1431 + 60) + 43 = 103\n (43 of Dyn. XIV. of Upper Egypt.)\n (1431 + 60)\n 124\n ----\n 184 (124 of Dyn. XV. of Upper\n Egypt in Book ii.)\n\nThe place of the 184 years of the Shepherd Dynasty will be seen as\nclearly in the analysis of Eratosthenes' scheme F. in \"Egyptian\nChronicles\" (i. 299), and if I had space I should like to give it _in\nextenso_, because it is upon his 1076 from Menes to XVIII. Dynasty,\nthat Bunsen mainly relies for his fundamental theory (Bunsen's \"Egypt,\"\nii. xvi.) As the confutation of Bunsen does not enter into Mr Palmer's\nplan, I think it worth while to add, that these 1076 years are thus\nmade up 477, the true historical length of the epoch (from Menes\nto XVIII. Dynasty), as we know from the chronicle (_vide_ Palmer's\n_supra_), hence the significance of this figure in table above, + 443\nof the cycle added, + 156 of Dyn. XVIII. encroached upon[77] for the\nsymmetrical purpose displayed in scheme F, in which scheme it will be\nseen that the 184 years of the Shepherds again enter as a constituent\npart.\n\n [77] It will be understood that, in the above scheme and\n throughout, Mr Palmer assumes the existence of cotemporaneous\n dynasties elsewhere demonstrated. It is admitted, on all\n hands, that cotemporary dynasties ceased with the XVIII.\n Dynasty; and, in the other direction, all schemes commence\n with Menes. If, then, this interval of time is known or\n determined by one part of a scheme (as it is known from\n the chronicle to be 477 years), and at the same time, the\n exigences of the case (owing to fictitious additions) require\n the location of other figures within the interval, then the\n super-additions must overlap (apparently to those who know\n 477 years to be the true historical figure) at one end or\n the other. One hundred and fifty-six years (as above) is the\n extent of the overlapping (the 443 years of the cycle standing\n apart) in the scheme of Eratosthenes.\n\nBut as I am merely indicating the scheme, and not elaborating the\nargument, I must here part company with Mr Palmer. If, however, any\none wishes to examine the question more in detail, and seeks to know\nin what manner the years in the above scheme are apportioned among the\ndifferent generations and dynasties, he must take up with Mr Palmer at\ni. p. 300. My purpose is sufficiently answered by establishing that\na scheme exists, if not irrefutable, at least up to this unconfuted,\nwhich perfectly harmonises the scriptural with the Egyptian chronology.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER VII.\n\n _THE TRADITION OF THE HUMAN RACE._\n\n\n \"Tradition reveals the past to us, and consequently it reveals\n to us also the future. It is the tie which binds the past, the\n present, and the future together, and is the science of them\n all. If we possessed the memory of mankind, as we do that of our\n personal existence, we should know all. But if we have not the\n memory of mankind, does not mankind possess it? Is mankind without\n memory, without tradition?... There is no nation which does not\n exist through tradition, not only historical traditions relative to\n its earthly existence, but through religious traditions relative to\n its eternal destiny. To despise this treasure, what is it but to\n despise life, and that which constitutes its connection, its unity,\n its light, as we have just seen?... When God spoke to men His Word\n passed into time ... Happily tradition seized upon it as soon as it\n left the threshold of eternity; and tradition is neither an ear,\n nor a mouth, nor an isolated memory, but the ear, the mouth, and\n the memory of generations united together by tradition itself, and\n imparting to it an existence superior to the caprices and weakness\n of individuals. Nevertheless, God would not trust to oral tradition\n alone ... Symbolical tradition was to add itself to oral tradition\n by sustaining and confirming it ... The five terms constituting\n the mystery of good and evil: the existence of God, the creation\n of the world and of man by God, the fall of man, his restoration\n by a great act of divine mercy, and, lastly, the final judgment\n of mankind ... and that which oral tradition declared, symbolical\n tradition should repeat at all times and in all places, in order\n that the obscured or deceived memory of man might be brought back\n again to truth by an external, a public, an universal, all-powerful\n spectacle. [Lacordaire is speaking principally with reference to\n sacrifice and the sacrifice of Mount Calvary.] ... Each time that\n oral tradition underwent a movement of renovation by the breath of\n God, symbolical tradition felt the effects of it. The sacrifice\n of Abel marks the era of patriarchal tradition; the sacrifice of\n Abraham marks the era of Hebrew tradition; the sacrifice of Jesus\n Christ, the final and consummating sacrifice, marks the era of\n Christian tradition.... Such is the nature of tradition, and such\n its history. Tradition is the connection of the present with the\n past, of the past with the future; it is the principle of identity\n and continuity which forms persons, families, nations, and mankind.\n It flows in the human race by three great streams which are clearly\n perceptible--the Christian, the Hebrew, and the patriarchal or\n primitive; in all these three it is oral and symbolical, and\n whether as oral or symbolical it speaks of God, the creation, the\n fall, reparation and judgment.... Without occupying ourselves with\n the question as to whether Scripture was a gift from above or an\n invention of men, we see that there exists two kinds of it--human\n and sacred scripture. I understand by human scripture, that which\n is considered by men as the expression of the ideas of a man; I\n understand by sacred scripture that which is venerated by nations\n as containing something more than the ideas of a man.... There are\n in the world an innumerable quantity of books, nevertheless there\n are but six of them which have been venerated by nations as sacred.\n These are the 'Kings' of China, the Vedas of India, the Zend-Avesta\n of the Persians, the Koran of the Arabs, the Law of the Jews, and\n the Gospel. And at first sight I am struck with this rarity of\n sacred writings. So many legislators have founded cities, so many\n men of genius have governed the human understanding, and yet all\n these legislators, all these men of genius, have not been able to\n cause the existence of more than six sacred books upon earth!...\n Every sacred book is a traditional book, it was venerated before\n it existed, it existed before it appeared. The Koran, which is\n the last of the sacred writings in the order of time, offers to\n us a proof of this worthy of our thoughtful attention. Without\n doubt, Mahommed relied upon pretended revelations; however, it\n is clear to all those who read the Koran, that the Abrahamic\n tradition was the true source of its power.... The same traditional\n character shines upon each page of the Christian and Hebrew books;\n we find it also in the Zend-Avesta, the Vedas, and the Kings of\n the Chinese. Tradition is everywhere the mother of religion; it\n precedes and engenders sacred books, as language precedes and\n engenders scripture; its existence is rendered immovable in the\n sacred books ... a sacred book is a religious tradition which has\n had strength enough to sign its name.... The sacred writings are,\n then, traditional; it is their first character. I add that they are\n constituent, that is to say, they possess a marvellous power for\n giving vitality and duration to empires. Strange to say, the most\n magnificent books of philosophers have not been able to found, I do\n not say a people, but a small philosophical society; and the sacred\n writings, without exception, have founded very great and lasting\n nations. Thus the Kings founded China, the Vedas India, &c.... Look\n at Plato ... how is it that Plato has not been able to constitute,\n I do not say a nation, but simply a permanent school? How is it\n that communities totter when thinkers meddle with them, and that\n the _precise moment of their fall_ is that when men announce to\n them that mind is emancipated, that the old forms which bound\n together human activity are broken, that the altar is undermined\n and reason is all-powerful? Philosophers! if you speak the truth,\n how is it that the moment when all the elements of society become\n more refined and develop themselves, _is the moment of its\n dissolution_?\"--_From P\u00e8re Lacordaire's \"Conferences.\" Conf. 9 and\n 10._ (Tran. H. Langdon; Richardson, 1852.)\n\n I should also wish M. Auguste Nicolas' \"Etudes Philosophiques\n sur le Christianisme\"--particularly lib. I. chap. v., \"Necessite\n d'une revelation Primitive;\" and lib. II. chap. iv., \"Traditions\n universelles\"--to be read in connection with the following chapter.\n I did not become acquainted with M. Nicolas until after the chapter\n was concluded. I have, however, fulfilled my obligations in the\n above extract from L'Abbe Lacordaire, which lies more _au fond_ of\n my view than the chapters referred to in M. Nicolas. I also wish to\n direct attention to a remarkable article in the _Home and Foreign\n Review_, Jan. 1864, entitled \"Classical Myths in relation to the\n Antiquity of Man,\" signed F. A. P.\n\nTradition, in the sense in which we have just seen it used by\nLacordaire, in what we may call its widest signification, is not\nlimited to oral tradition, but may be termed the connection of\nevidence which establishes the unity of the human race; and, with this\nevidence, establishes the identity and continuity of its belief, laws,\ninstitutions, customs, and manners (Manners, _vide_ Goguet's \"Origin\nof Laws,\" i. 327-329). The more closely the tradition is investigated,\nthe more thoroughly will it be found to attest a common origin, and the\nmore fully will its conformity with the scriptural narrative be made\napparent.\n\nNow, although in all ages there have been men of great intellect who\nhave held to tradition, it may be stated as one of those truths,\n_qui saute aux yeux_, and which will not be gainsaid, that the human\nintellect has been throughout opposed to tradition, has been its most\nconstant adversary, equally when it was the tradition of a corrupt\npolytheism, as when it was the tradition of uncontested truth; and so\nactive has been this antagonism, that the marvel is that anything of\nprimitive tradition should have remained.\n\nHence arose the divergence between religion and philosophy--a\ndivergence which, as it seems to me, is inexplicable from the point of\nview of those who believe that, in the centuries which preceded the\ncoming of our Lord,[78] religion simply was not, had ceased to be;\nunless we suppose that a tradition of the antagonism had survived,\nwhich would still partially disclose how it came about that when\nreligion had ceased to be (_pro argumento_), or had become corrupt,\nphilosophy, which then (_ex hypothesi_) alone soared above the\nintellect of the crowd, did not, and could not become a religion to\nthem, _infra_, pp. 142, 145, 146.\n\n [78] Such appears to me to be the conclusion of Mr Allies in his\n learned work (\"The Formation of Christendom,\" ii. chap. viii.\n 57), \"Universality of false worship in the most diverse\n nations the summing up of man's whole history.\" I request\n attention, however, to the following passage, at page 382,\n which has an especial bearing upon my argument:--\"No doubt the\n Greek mind had lived and brooded for ages upon the remains\n of original revelation, nor can any learning now completely\n unravel the interwoven threads of tradition and reason so as\n to distinguish their separate work. However, it is certain\n that in the sixth century B.C., the Greeks were\n without a hierarchy, and without a definite theology: not\n indeed without individual priesthoods, traditionary rites,\n and an existing worship, as well as certain mysteries which\n professed to communicate a higher and more recondite doctrine\n than that exposed to the public gaze. But in the absence of\n any hierarchy ... a very large range indeed was given to the\n mind, acting upon this shadowy religious belief, and re-acted\n upon by it, to form their philosophy. The Greeks did not, any\n more than antiquity in general, use the acts of religious\n service for instruction by religious discourse. In other\n words, there was no such thing as preaching among them. A\n domain, therefore, was open to the philosopher, on which he\n might stand without directly impeaching the ancestral worship,\n while he examined its grounds, and perhaps _sapped its\n foundations_. He was therein taking up a position which these\n priests, the civil functionaries of religious rites, _scarcely\n any longer_ retaining a spiritual meaning or a moral cogency,\n had not occupied.\"\n\nAnd the history of this antagonism seems to be, that the human\nintellect has ever had, and now more confidently than ever, the aim\nand ambition to substitute something better than the revelation of\nprimitive tradition, and the experiences of the human race.\n\nIt is quite conceivable that human life and human institutions might\nhave been arranged upon some scheme different from that of the divine\nappointment; and although we may believe that any such scheme would\nresult in ultimate confusion and the final extinction of the human\nrace, it is still theoretically possible that the experiment might have\nbeen made.[79]\n\n [79] Take for instance Mr J. S. Mill's peculiar views as to the\n status of women, \"The law of servitude in marriage\" [\"Wives\n be obedient to your husbands,\" St Paul], he says, \"is in\n monstrous contradiction to all the principles of the modern\n world\" (p. 147). \"Marriage is the only actual bondage known\n to our law,\" _id._ But at p. 49, Mr Mill says, \"The general\n opinion of men is supposed to be, that the natural vocation\n of a woman is that of a wife and mother.\" But he then adds\n (p. 37), \"It will not do to assert in general terms that the\n experience of mankind has pronounced in favour of the existing\n system. Experience cannot possibly have decided between two\n courses, so long as there has only been _experience of one_.\n If it be said that the doctrine of the equality of the sexes\n rests only on theory, it must be remembered that the contrary\n doctrine also has only theory to rest upon. All that is\n proved in its favour by direct experience, is that mankind\n have been able to exist under it, and to attain the degree of\n improvement and prosperity which we now see; but whether that\n prosperity has been attained sooner, or is now greater than it\n would have been under the other system, experience does not\n say.\"\n\n Take in illustration, again, the communistic schemes\n as against the institution of property. Now, although\n Christianity has realised all that will ever be possible in\n the way of communism in its religious orders, the communistic\n sects have always instinctively directed their first efforts\n against religion as against the basis of the social order of\n things which they attacked. This was forcibly brought out in\n certain letters on \"European Radicalism,\" in the _Pall Mall\n Gazette_, October and November 1869, _e.g._ \"all the contests\n on the three capital questions ('government, property,\n religion') which we are now engaged in, are but continuations\n of the _original divergence_ of opinion (before settled\n government), considerably modified, of course, under the\n influence of time, the various _traditional notions_ mankind\n preserves under the _name of beliefs_, and the whole stock of\n experience it has accumulated under the name of knowledge. So\n like, indeed, are the ancient and modern contests on these\n matters,\" &c.... (Letter I.) Again (Letter V.), speaking of\n our English socialist discussing \"the necessity of building\n social edifices upon material, not religious grounds,\" the\n writer adds, that among continental socialists \"no one thinks\n there of the possibility of matters standing otherwise;\" and\n that in the socialist workshops of France and Germany it is\n well known \"that the very basis of social radicalism requires\n the abandonment of all kinds of religious discussion, as\n matter of purely personal inclination, and the abolition of\n all kinds of privileges as incompatible with equality.\" [All\n this has been put out of date by the deeds of the Commune\n and the programme of the \"International Society\"--viz. \"_The\n burning of Paris_ we _accept the responsibility of_. _The old\n society must_ and will perish.\"] The _Spectator_, December\n 1869, speaks still more explicitly:--\"Infirm and crippled\n though she be, the Roman Church is still the only one who\n has the courage to be cosmopolitan, and claim the right to\n link nation with nation, and literature with literature. Such\n an assembly as the Council is, at least, an extraordinary\n testimony to the cosmopolitanism of the great Church\n which seems trembling to its fall; and who can doubt that\n that fall, whenever it comes, will be followed by a great\n temporary loosening of the faith in human unity--in spite of\n the electric telegraph--by a deepening of the chasm between\n nation and nation, by the loss of at least a most potent\n spell over the imagination of the world, by a contraction\n of the spiritual ideal of every church? This ideal, even\n Protestants, even Sceptics, even Positivists have owed, and\n have owned that they owed, to the Roman Church, the only\n Church which has really succeeded in uniting the bond between\n any one ecclesiastical centre and the distant circumference\n of human intelligence and energy. But if the consequence of\n the collapse of Romanism would be in this way a loss of power\n to the human race, think only of the gain of power which\n would result from the final death of sacerdotal ideas, from\n the final blow to the system of arbitrary authority exercised\n over the intellect and the conscience, from the new life which\n would flow into a faith and science resting on the steady\n accumulation of moral and intellectual facts and the personal\n life of the conscience in Christ--from the final triumph of\n moral and intellectual order and freedom. It would doubtless\n be a new life, subject to great anarchy at first; but the old\n authoritative systems have themselves been of late little more\n than anarchy just kept under by the authority of prescription\n and tradition; and one can only hope for the new order from\n the complete recognition that it is to have no arbitrary or\n capricious foundation.\"\n\nHere comes in, with its full significance, the great saying of\nLacordaire's--\"Order I compare to a pyramid reaching from heaven to\nearth. Men cannot overthrow its base, because the finger of God rests\nupon its apex.\"\n\nIf the finger of God did not so rest, there is no assignable reason\nwhy this pyramid--this incubus, as some would call it--which goes\nback, stone upon stone, to the primitive ages, should not have been\noverturned, and some system purely atheistical, purely material, purely\ncommunistic, substituted for it. But I believe that no democratic\norganisation, however extended among the masses, will overthrow the\nestablished order of things, so long as the possessors of property,\nthe upper classes, are true to the objects for which property was\ninstituted.\n\nConsidering how much man has effected in the material order, and\nconsidering also the varied intellectual faculties with which he is\nendowed, it strikes one as strange, as something which has to be\naccounted for, that he has been able to effect so little in the moral\norder. It is the same whether we regard the action of the intellect\nupon the individual man, or upon society. And from this latter point\nof view it is so true, that it is more than doubtful whether those\nepochs in which man has attained the highest point of intellectual and\nmaterial civilisation, are not those also in which he has reached the\nlowest depths of immorality;[80] and in which--having touched the\nlowest point of corruption--the human intellect is unable to devise\nany better plan for the government of mankind, than the repression of\ndespotism.[81]\n\n [80] \"It is, upon the whole, extremely doubtful whether those\n periods which are the richest in literature, possess the\n greatest shares, either of moral excellence or of political\n happiness. We are well aware that the true and happy ages of\n Roman greatness long preceded that of Roman refinement and\n Roman authors; and, I fear, there is but too much reason to\n suppose that in the history of the modern nations we may find\n many examples of the same kind\" (F. Schlegel's \"History of\n Literature,\" i. 373). See also the account of the corruption\n of morals in Rome in the Augustan period (Allies' \"Form. of\n Christendom,\" I. Lect. I.) \"It is curious to observe that the\n more eloquent, polite, and learned the Greeks became, in the\n same proportion they became the more degraded and corrupt in\n their national religion\" (Godfrey Higgins' \"Celtic Druids,\"\n 1829, p. 207).\n\n [81] \"Il n'y a, Messieurs, que deux sortes de repression\n possibles: l'une int\u00e9rieure, l'autre ext\u00e9rieure.... Elles\n sont de telle nature que quand le thermom\u00e8tre politique est\n \u00e9lev\u00e9, le thermom\u00e8tre de la religion est bas, et quand le\n thermom\u00e8tre religieux est bas, le thermom\u00e8tre politique, la\n repression politique, la tyrannie s'\u00e9l\u00e8ve. Ceci est une loi\n de l'humanit\u00e9, une loi de l'histoire.\" _Vide_ Disc. de Donoso\n Cortes (Marq. de Valdegamas), 4th January 1849; in which he\n pursues this remarkable parallelism throughout history.\n\nBut if the human intellect cannot prevent or control corruption, cannot\nit disenchant vice of its evil, and so counteract its effects? Is there\nno new conception of virtue with which to allure mankind? No second\ndecalogue which will attract by its novelty, or convince by logical\ncogency and force? The Comtists, I believe, have a scheme for setting\nall these things right. But what portion of mankind do they influence?\nThey are at present formidable only as may be the cloud on the horizon,\nnor have they found sympathy even where they might have had some\nexpectation of finding it. If there was any separate section of mankind\nwhich might have given them countenance, it would, one would think,\nbe the rationalist section, whose principles would disincline them to\nregard old modes of thought with undue partiality. It is from this\nquarter, if I mistake not, that the unkindest cut has come, and that\nit has been said that \"the latter half of Comte's career and writings\nis the despair and bewilderment of those who admire the preceding\nhalf;\" yet in this latter half he only aimed at converting rationalism\nfrom a negative to a positive system. But, allowing that a system of\nsome sort might thus be constructed, can positivism be defined as\nmore than the system of those who are positive by mutual consent and\nagreement without faith or certainty, and who are the more positive\nin proportion as they recede from Catholic truth and tradition. We,\nhowever, who believe in the identity of Catholicism and Christianity,\nmay still appreciate Professor Huxley's definition of positivism,\nviz.--\"Catholicism _minus_ Christianity.\"[82]\n\n [82] Montalembert (\"Disc. de Reception,\" 1852, Discours iii.\n pp. 614, 615, 621, 622) says of the Constituent Assembly\n of 1789--\"It was the Assembly of 1789 which made the word\n revolution the synonyme of methodical destruction, of\n permanent war against all order and all authority.... It had\n that mania for uniformity which is the parody of unity, and\n which Montesquieu called the passion of mediocre minds....\n In a word, the Constituent Assembly was wanting not only in\n justice, courage, and humanity, but it was also deficient in\n good sense. The evil which it created has survived it. It has\n made us believe that it is possible to destroy everything\n and to reconstruct everything in a day.... God has chastised\n it, above all, by the sterility of its work. It had had the\n pretence of laying the foundations of liberty for ever, and\n it had for its successors the most sanguinary tyrants who\n ever dishonoured any nation. Its mission was to re-establish\n the finances, the empire of the law, and it has bequeathed\n to France bankruptcy, anarchy, and despotism--despotism\n without even the repose which they have wrongly taken as the\n compensation of servitude. It has done more: it has left\n pretexts for every abuse of force, and precedents for any\n excess of future anarchy. [Montalembert could hardly have\n foreseen the last application of its principles which we\n have recently witnessed in Paris by the Commune, which, too,\n forsooth, was to have inaugurated a new era for humanity.] But\n it (this Constituent Assembly) founded nothing--Nothing! The\n ancient society which it reversed had lasted, in spite of its\n abuses, a thousand years.\"\n\nCan any one adduce a more typical representative of the clear,\npowerful, penetrating intellect of man than Voltaire! Voltaire,\nmoreover, had the aim and ambition (\"ecraser l'infame\") to obliterate\nthe tradition of the past; yet can there be a better example of\nthe impotence of the intellect in the moral order? Does it not seem\nstartling that, when the human intellect, as in the case of Voltaire,\nshould be able to detect with so much acumen, so much wit, what is\nwrong, that it should be wholly struck with sterility when it attempts\nto tell us what is right, to reveal to man any truth in the moral order\nnot traditionally known to them. And if the disciples of Voltaire have\noccasionally, in spasmodic efforts, attempted this, it has not been in\nthe manner of Voltaire; it has been in the spirit of eclecticism, of\nreconstruction out of the elements of the past--that is to say (with\npardon, if the phrase has been used before), an attempt to create, out\nof the elements he would have spurned, edifices which he would have\nderided.\n\nNow, the pretension of the human intellect is quite contrary to this\nexperience. It claims to have progressively elevated mankind out of\na state of primitive barbarism, to have indoctrinated them with the\nideas of morality which they possess, to have humanised them, and thus\naffirms the converse of the theory of tradition which it pursues with\nmuch unreasoning and implacable animosity.\n\nThe _Saturday Review_ (July 24, 1869), in reviewing Mr Gladstone's\n\"Juventus Mundi,\" says--\"Mr Gladstone is doubtless well aware that\nthere was no portion of his Homeric studies which was received with\nmore surprise, or with more unfavourable comment, than his speculations\non what he described as the traditive and the inventive elements in\nthe Homeric mythology.\"[83] In consequence, Mr Gladstone says he has\nendeavoured to avoid in his more recent work \"a certain crudity of\nexpression.\" The _Saturday Review_, however, says--\"That 'the crudity\nof expression' here referred to seems to have been corrected and\nmodified to some extent by disguising the process of argument by which\nit was sustained, and by the adoption of a lighter touch and slighter\ntreatment of the subject than in the former book. But the theory\nitself, we believe, remains the same.\"\n\n [83] From a purely philosophical point of view, why should these\n speculations of Mr Gladstone have been received \"with more\n surprise and unfavourable comment\" than any other \"portions of\n his Homeric studies?\"\n\nI may assume, then, that the passage which I have elsewhere quoted\nfrom Mr Gladstone, and laid as the basis of my argument, still has\nhis countenance and support, in spite of the manifest antagonism it\nhas provoked. And this passage, I venture to think, acquires fresh\nlight and an accession of force when placed in juxtaposition with the\nparallel passages from De Maistre and Dr Newman. These passages will\npresent no difficulties to the believer in the Bible. How far the\nview is sustainable, with reference to the more recent conclusions in\nchronology, I shall consider in another chapter; but, assuming that it\nis not chronologically disproved, there is no intrinsic impossibility\nwhich will debar belief.\n\nThe general probability of tradition being thus avouched,[84] I proceed\nto examine certain statements that have been made as to its necessary\nvariability, and as to the uncertainty and indefiniteness of its\nutterances.\n\n [84] In one way, nothing is so uncertain as tradition, and,\n moreover, tradition is rarely positive and direct, but, on the\n contrary, prone to concrete into strange, fragmentary, and\n distorted shapes. As an instance, we may take the tradition\n which Genesis attests,--When Abraham's hand had been stayed by\n the angel from the sacrifice of Isaac, ... \"He called the name\n of that place 'The Lord seeth.' Whereupon, even to this day it\n is said, '_In the mountain the Lord will see_.'\"--_Gen._ xxii.\n 14.\n\n In illustration of the mode and manner of tradition, is the\n anecdote of Mr Hookham Frere, who states, that when the\n Maltese talk without reserve upon religious subjects, they\n say, \"Everybody knows that Adam was the first man, but we\n alone know that he possessed fishing-boats;\" which Bunsen says\n \"Can be nothing but a Phoenician reminiscence.\"--\"Egypt,\"\n iv. 215, the reminiscence of the legend of the Fisherman.\n Compare the Fisherman and his wife in Grimm's \"Popular Stories\n from Oral Tradition.\"\n\nIn the first place, as to its variability, it is true that tested by\nthe experience which we possess of the persistency and exactness of\nfamily and local traditions, tradition in the broader sense which I\nhave indicated may appear to be of little value. I have elsewhere\nattended a closer argument on this point in reply to Sir John Lubbock\n(ch. xii.), but I may also make what appears to me, as regards this\nmatter, a sufficiently important distinction.\n\nFamily tradition is so confused, because at each remove in each\ngeneration, it is necessarily crossed through marriage with\nthe traditions of another family. These may be either rival or\nirreconcileable. But this remark will apply with much less force,\nit will only secondarily and accidentally apply at all to the\ncommon traditions, the inheritance of all families starting from a\ncommon origin. If these traditions acquired some dross through the\nintermarriage of families, they will, on the other hand, through the\nvery action of intermarriages, have been more frequently compared,\nmore vividly, therefore, kept in remembrance, and more recognisable\nin their distortion, because the distortion is more likely to have\nbeen in the way of super-addition of what was thought congruous and\nsupplemental. And this seems to me to meet Mr Max M\u00fcller's objection in\nthe _Contemporary Review_ for April 1870. \"Comparative philology,\" he\nsays, \"has taught again and again, that when we find _exactly_ the same\nname in Greek and Sanscrit, we may be certain that it cannot be the\nsame word;\" for we here see reason why and how these traditions have\nbeen specially protected against the natural action and law which it is\nthe peculiar province of philology to trace.\n\nI say this more especially with reference to the etymology in Bryant's\nand other kindred works, which it is now the fashion to set aside\nwith much _hauteur_; and I assert it without impugning in any way the\nresults of modern philological inquiry, extending, of course, over a\nmuch wider field than the writers of the last century could embrace.\nBut I do contend, that when the discussion has reference to the common\nprogenitors of the human race, or the incidents of primitive life--for\ninstance, the names of the ark, and what I may call its accessories,\nthe dove and the rainbow[85]--a certain probability of identity may\nbe presumed in such sort that it may chance that the probabilities of\ntradition must be held to override the conjectures, and in some cases\neven the conclusions of philology.[86]\n\n [85] _Vide_ \"Bryant's Mythology,\" ii.\n\n [86] After the exposition of his own theory, Mr Grote says--\"It\n is in this point of view that the myths are important for\n any one who would correctly appreciate the general tone of\n Grecian thought and feeling, for they were the _universal\n mental stock_ of the Hellenic world, _common to men and\n women, rich and poor_, ignorant and instructed, they _were in\n every one's memory and in every one's mouth_, while science\n and history were confined to comparatively few. We know from\n Thucydides how erroneously and carelessly the Athenian public\n of his day retained the history of Pisistratus, only one\n century past; but the adventures of the gods and heroes, the\n numberless explanatory legends attached to visible objects\n and _periodical ceremonies_, were the theme of _general\n talk_, and every man unacquainted with them would have\n found himself partially excluded from the sympathies of his\n neighbours.\"--_Hist. Greece_, i. p. 608; comp. _infra_, ch.\n xi.\n\nI incline, moreover, to the belief that the fidelity and persistency of\nlocal tradition is greater than is generally supposed. Sir H. Maine[87]\nsays--\"The truth is, that the stable part of our mental, moral, and\nphysical constitution is the largest part of it, and the resistance it\nopposes to change is such that, though the variations of human society\nin a portion of the world are plain enough, they are neither so rapid\nnor so extensive that their amount of character and general direction\ncannot be ascertained.\" This establishes a presumption, at any rate,\nin favour of tradition, although I admit that the quotation from Sir\nH. Maine does not go further than point to a tradition of usages; but\nI contend that a tradition of usage would enable us, after the manner\nof Boulanger,[88] to disclose \"L'antiquite devoil\u00e9e par ses usages,\"\nand to establish the main points and basis of the history of the human\nrace, _e.g._ the Fall, the Deluge, the Dispersion, the early knowledge\nand civilisation of mankind, the primitive monotheism, the confusion of\ntongues, the family system, marriages, the institution of property, the\ntradition of a common morality,[89] and of the law of nations.\n\n [87] \"Ancient Law,\" p. 117.\n\n [88] \"Pour trouver le veritable objet de ces derni\u00e8res solemnit\u00e9s,\n dont les motifs sont compliqu\u00e9s, nous nous attachons \u00e0\n analyser leur c\u00e9r\u00e9moniel et \u00e0 chercher l'esprit de leurs\n usages; et cet esprit ach\u00e8ve de nous faire reconna\u00eetre\n l'objet que nous n'avions d'abord qu'entrevu ou soup\u00e7onn\u00e9,\n quelquefois m\u00eame il nous d\u00e9veloppe encore la nature des\n motifs \u00e9trangers et mythologiques, et ces motifs se trouvent\n pour la pl\u00fbpart n'\u00eatre que des traditions du _m\u00eame fait_\n qui ont \u00e9t\u00e9 ou corrompu\u00e9s par le temps, ou travesties par\n des all\u00e9gories.\"--Boulanger, _\"L'Antiquite devoil\u00e9e par ses\n Usages\"_, i. 31.\n\n [89] _Vide_ other lines of tradition indicated in B. iii., C. iii.,\n of De Maistre, \"Du Pape.\"\n\nThis inquiry might no doubt form a department either of scriptural\nexegesis, universal history, or of ethnological research; but, in\npoint of fact, its scope is too large practically to fall within such\nlimits; whereas, if it were recognised as a separate branch of study,\nit would, I venture to think, in the progress of its investigation,\nbring all these different branches of inquiry into harmony and\ncompleteness. And I further contend, that the conclusions thus attained\nare as well-deserving of consideration as the conclusions of science\nfrom the implements of the drift, or as the evidence of \"some bones,\nfrom the pliocene beds of St Prest, which appear to show the marks of\nknives;\"[90] which are adduced in evidence of a Pal\u00e6olithic age. So\nthat, when on one side it is said that science (meaning the science\nof geology or philology, &c.) has proved this or that fact apparently\ncontrary to the scriptural narrative, it can, on the other hand, be\nasserted that the facts, or the inferences from them, are incompatible\nwith the testimony of the science of tradition. The defenders of\nScripture will thus secure foothold on the ground of science, which,\nwhen properly entrenched, will stand good against the most formidable\nrecognizances or assaults of the enemy.\n\n [90] Sir J. Lubbock, Intro. to Nillson's \"Stone Age,\" xii.\n\nI cannot help thinking that some such thought lurks in the following\npassage of Cardinal Wiseman's Second Lecture on \"Science and Revealed\nReligion\" (5th Edition, p. 73)--\n\n \"Here again I cannot but regret our inability to comprehend in\n one glance the bearings and connections of different sciences;\n for, _if_ it appears that ages must have been required to bring\n languages to the state wherein we first find them, other researches\n would show us that these ages never existed; and we should thus be\n driven to discover some shaping power, some ever-ruling influence,\n which could do at once what nature would take centuries to effect;\n and the Book of Genesis hath alone solved this problem.\"\n\nNo doubt a greater general acquaintance and power to grasp--or better\nstill, an intuitive glance--with which to comprehend \"the bearings and\nconnections of different sciences,\" would tend to circumscribe the\naberrations of any particular science; but the special intervention\nwhich appears to me destined to bring the various sciences into\nharmony, will be the elevation of the particular department of history\nor arch\u00e6ology which has to do with the traditions of the human race\nas to its origin into a separate and recognised branch of inquiry;\nand I am satisfied that if any portion of that intellect, which is\ncunning in the reconstruction of the mastodon from its vertebral bone,\nhad been directed to the great lines of human tradition, that enough\nof the \"reliqui\u00e6\" and vestiges of the past remain to establish their\nconformity with that \"which alone has solved this problem--the Book of\nGenesis;\" and which, apart from the consideration of its inspiration,\nwill ever remain the most venerable and best attested of human\nrecords.[91]\n\n [91] _E.g._, Mr Grote says, in his Introduction, that through the\n combination and illustration of scanty facts, \"the general\n picture of the Grecian world may now be conceived with a\n degree of fidelity which, considering our imperfect materials,\n it is curious to contemplate.\"\n\n The Duke of Argyll (\"Primeval Man,\" p. 24) says--\"Within\n certain limits it is not open to dispute that the early\n condition of mankind is accessible to research. Contemporary\n history reaches back a certain way. Existing monuments afford\n their evidence for a considerable distance farther. _Tradition\n has its own province still more remote_; and latterly geology\n and arch\u00e6ology have met upon common ground--ground in which\n man and the mammoth have been found together.\"\n\nIt is much too readily assumed that traditions must be worthless where\nno records are kept. Gibbon,[92] I think, was the first who took\nthis position. To this I reply, that although records are valuable\nfor the attestation, they are not guarantees for the fidelity of\ntradition.[93] I do not assert that the tradition is more trustworthy\nthan the record; but that, when mankind trust mainly to tradition, the\nfaculties by which it is sustained will be more strongly developed, and\nthe adaptation of society for its transmission more exactly conformed.\nIn other words, tradition in ancient times seemed to flow as from a\nfountain-head, and the world was everywhere grooved for its reception.\nWe may take in evidence the strange resemblances in mythological\ntradition in various parts of the world on the one hand, and on the\nother the oral tradition of the Homeric verses; the frequent concourse\nof citizens, and at recurring festivals of the surrounding populations,\nto listen to their recital. And not only was there oral tradition in\nverse, but all public events were recorded in the attestations of the\nmarket-place. When a treaty was ratified it was commonly before some\ntemple, or in some place of public resort, and its terms were committed\nto memory by some hundred witnesses; and in like manner was the\nrecollection of other public events and memorable facts preserved.[94]\n(_Vide_ Pastoret's \"Hist. de la L\u00e9gislation,\" i. 71; also, account of\n\"Annales Maximi\" in Dyer's \"Rome,\" xvii.)\n\n [92] Gibbon (\"Decline and Fall,\" i. 353) says, \"But all this\n well-laboured system of German antiquities is annihilated\n by a single fact, too well attested to admit of any doubt,\n and of too decisive a nature to leave room for any reply.\n The Germans, in the days of Tacitus, were unacquainted with\n the use of letters, and the use of letters is the principal\n circumstance which distinguishes a civilised people from a\n herd of savages, incapable of knowledge or reflection. Without\n that artificial help, the human memory ever dissipates or\n corrupts the ideas intrusted to her charge.\" Compare with\n Coleridge, _infra_, p. 122; Ozanam, _infra_, ch. xiii.\n\n [93] Eusebius (\"Ecclesiastical Hist.,\" ch. xxxvi.) says, speaking\n of St Ignatius--\"He exhorted them to adhere firmly to the\n tradition of the apostles; which, for the sake of greater\n security, he deemed it necessary to attest by committing it\n to writing.\" I do not remember to have seen this quoted in\n testimony and proof of ecclesiastical tradition.\n\n [94] Goguet (\"Origin of Laws,\" i. 29) says--\"The _first laws_\n of all nations were composed in verse, and sung. Apollo,\n according to a very ancient tradition, was one of the first\n legislators. The same tradition says that he published his\n laws to the sound of his lyre; that is to say, that he had\n set them to music. We have certain proof that the first\n laws of Greece were a kind of song. The laws of the ancient\n inhabitants of Spain were verses, which they sung. Tuiston was\n regarded by the Germans as their first lawgiver. They said he\n put his laws into verses and songs. This ancient custom was\n long kept up by several nations.\"\n\n E. Warburton (\"Conquest of Canada,\" i. 214) says--\"The want\n of any written or hieroglyphic records of the past among the\n Northern Indians was to some extent supplied by the accurate\n memories of their old men; they were able to repeat speeches\n of four or five hours' duration, and delivered many years\n before, without error, or even hesitation; and to hand them\n down from generation to generation with equal accuracy.... On\n great and solemn occasions belts of wampum were used as aids\n to recollection ... when a treaty or compact was negotiated.\"\n\nYet, although during long periods oral transmission was for mankind\nthe main channel of tradition, it must not necessarily be concluded\nthat writing was unknown, and was not employed for monumental and\nother purposes. What strikes one most forcibly in contemplating these\nages, is the contrast between their intellectual knowledge and their\nmechanical and material contrivances for its application. During these\ncenturies in which the 30,000 hexameters of the \"Iliad\" and \"Odyssey\"\nwere transmitted in memory, by repetition, at public festivals, oral\ntradition was doubtless employed, because during this period \"paper,\nparchment, or even the smoothed hides, as adapted for the purposes of\nwriting, were unknown.\"[95] This, whilst it certainly is in evidence of\nthe paucity of their available resources, at the same time establishes\nthe retentive strength of their memory,[96] and their intellectual\nfamiliarity with great truths.\n\n [95] _Vide_ H. N. Coleridge (\"Greek Classic Poets,\" p. 38-42), in\n speaking of the \"Dionysiacs, the Thebaids, the Epigoniads,\n Naupactica, genealogies, and the other works of that sort,\"\n p. 44, he adds--\"Just as in the Indian and Persian epics, in\n the Northern Eddas, in the poem of the 'Cid,' in the early\n chronicles of every nation with which we are acquainted, one\n story follows another story in the order of mere history; and\n the skill and fire of the poet are shown, not in the artifice\n of grouping a hundred figures into one picture, but in raising\n admiration by the separate beauty of each successive picture.\n _They tell the tale as the tale had been told to them, and\n leave out nothing._\"\n\n [96] According to the account which the Chinese themselves give of\n their annals, the works of Confucius were proscribed, after\n his death, by the Emperor Chi-Hoangti, and all the copies,\n including the Chu-King, were recovered from the dictation of\n an old man who had retained them in memory.\n\n \"The great moralist of the East\" himself, Confucius,\n asserted--\"that he only wrought on materials already\n existing.\" _Vide_ Klaproth ap., Cardinal Wiseman, \"Science and\n Rev. Religion,\" ii. p. 49.\n\n In the article in the _Cornhill Magazine_, Nov. 1871,\n containing the valuable collection of Dravidian (South Indian)\n folk-songs, it is said, p. 577, that \"they are handed down\n from generation to generation, entirely viv\u00e2 voce, and from\n the minstrels have passed into public use.\"\n\nAnd this seems to me the sufficient reply to Sir Charles Lyell's\nsomewhat captious objection, that if the intellectual knowledge of the\nprimitive age was so great, we ought now to be digging up steam engines\ninstead of flint implements.\n\nEvery age has its own peculiar superiority, as hath each individual\nmind--_non omnia possumus omnes_--and it is as reasonable to object\nto an age of philosophic thought, or of intuitive perception, that it\nwas not rich in the wealth of material civilisation, as it would be\nto object to Plato or Shakspeare, that they did not acquire dominion\nover mankind; or to Alexander, that he did not excel Aristotle; or\nto Sir C. Lyell, supposing geology to be certain, that he did not\nanticipate Darwin, supposing Darwinism to be true. And if it should\nbe more precisely objected that, if in those ages there was the\nknowledge of writing for monumental purposes, we ought at least to find\nmonuments,[97] I say that the _onus probandi_ lies with the objector to\nprove the invention or introduction of writing in the interval between\nthe age of Homer and the age of Pericles, as against us who believe in\nits primeval transmission; or to show that its introduction was more\nprobable at this latter period than at the former.[98]\n\n [97] The Duke of Argyll (\"Primeval Man,\" p. 30) says--\"Knowledge,\n for example, or ignorance of the use of metals are, as we\n shall see, characteristics on which great stress is laid\"\n (by the advocates of the \"savage theory\"). \"Now, as regards\n this point, as Whately truly says, the narrative of Genesis\n distinctly states that this kind of knowledge did not belong\n to mankind at first.... It is assumed in the savage theory\n that the presence or absence of this knowledge stands in close\n and natural connection with the presence or absence of other\n and higher kinds of knowledge, of which an acquaintance with\n metals is but a symbol and a type. Within certain limits this\n is true.\"\n\n [98] Presuming total ignorance of writing--its invention at _any_\n period seems to me much more marvellous than the discovery\n of printing after the invention of writing. For the rest we\n have seen that writing was known at an early period to the\n Chald\u00e6ans and Egyptians, and probably to the Chinese and\n Japanese, and to the Medians (ch. xii.) Plutarch tells us\n that a law of Theseus, written on a column of stone, remained\n even to the time of Demosthenes.\n\nSchlegel says[99]--\n\n \"I have laid it down as an invariable maxim to follow historical\n tradition, and to hold fast by that clue, even when many things\n in the testimony and declarations of tradition appear strange and\n almost inexplicable; or, at least, enigmatical; for so soon as,\n in the investigations of ancient history, we let slip that thread\n of Ariadne, we can find no outlet from the labyrinth of fanciful\n theories and the chaos of clashing opinion.\"\n\n [99] Phil. Hist.\n\nI propose to give a few instances of tradition, casually selected,\nwhich appear to me to be in illustration of this dictum of Schlegel's.\n\nTake, in illustration, the question whether mankind commenced with the\nstate of monogamy. Not that there is any obscurity on this point in\nthe Book of Genesis. It is indeed sometimes loosely said that we find\ninstances of polygamy in patriarchal times; but, as our Lord said, it\nwas not so in the beginning; and the Book of Genesis exhibits mankind\nas commencing with a single pair, and subsequently as re-propagated\nthrough a group of families, all represented to us at their\ncommencement as monogamous. But if this highest testimony is discarded,\nand men gravely discuss whether or not they commenced with a state of\npromiscuity, the argument from tradition will go for as much as the\nargument from the analogy of circumstances and conditions as inferred\nfrom the existing state of savages, since this state, from our point of\nview, must have been the result of degeneracy.[100]\n\n [100] Burke (\"Regicide Peace,\") says--\"The practice of divorce,\n though in some countries permitted, has been discouraged in\n all. In the East polygamy and divorce are in discredit, and\n the manners correct the laws.\"\n\nI must, moreover, contend that the practice of monogamy, in any one\ncase, must weigh for very much more than the practice of polygamy in\nten parallel instances; because the natural degeneracy and proclivity\nof man in his fallen state is in this direction.\n\nAnd also, polygamy is much more naturally regarded as the departure\nfrom monogamy, than the latter as the restraint of, or advance out of,\na state of promiscuity.\n\nIt may further, I think, be maintained that monogamy--in the way\nof separation with a single woman by reason of strong love or\npreference--would be the more probable escape from the state of\npromiscuity than through the intermediary and progressive stage of\npolygamy.[101]\n\n [101] This was written before the appearance of Sir J. Lubbock's\n chapter on \"Marriage,\" in his \"Origin of Civilization,\" to\n which reference is made at pp. 51, 52.\n\nNow, I need scarcely say, that the opponents of monogamy can show\nno instance of an advance out of the state of promiscuity either to\nmonogamy or polygamy. But they can point to certain communities in\nancient and modern times in a state of polygamy.\n\nEither, then, they must have degenerated into this state from the\nprimitive monogamous family system, or they must have arrived at the\nstage in growth and progress out of a state of promiscuity.\n\nDoes tradition give any clue out of this labyrinth? To simplify the\nquestion, I will consent to appeal to the identical tradition to which\nthe advocates of an original promiscuity direct our attention.\n\nMr J. F. M'Lennan, who, in his \"Primitive Marriage,\" 1865 (_vide\nsupra_), apparently describes mankind as originally in a state of\npromiscuity, subsequently limited by customs of tribal exogamy and\nendogamy, in a recent article in the _Fortnightly Review_ (Oct. 1869),\n\"Totems and Totemism,\" sees further evidence of his theory in the\nfollowing traditions from Sanchoniathon:--\n\n \"Few traditions respecting the primitive condition of mankind are\n more remarkable, and perhaps none are more ancient, than those that\n have been preserved by Sanchoniatho; or rather, we should say,\n that are to be found in the fragments ascribed to that writer by\n Eusebius. They present us with an outline of the earlier stages\n of human progress in religious speculation, which is shown _by\n the results of modern inquiry to be wonderfully correct_. They\n tell us for instance that '_the first men consecrated the plants\n shooting out of the earth, and judged them gods_, and worshipped\n them upon whom they themselves lived, and all their posterity,\n and all before them, and to these they made their meat and drink\n offerings.'[102] They further tell us that the first men believed\n the heavenly bodies to be animals, only differently shaped and\n circumstanced from any on the earth. 'There were certain animals\n which had no sense, out of which were begotten intelligent animals\n ... and they were formed alike in the shape of an egg. Thus shone\n out M\u00f4t [the luminous vault of heaven?], the sun and the moon,\n and the less and the greater stars.' _Next they relate, in an\n account of the successive generations of men_, that _in the first\n generation the way was found out of taking food from trees_;\n that, in the second, men, having suffered from droughts, began to\n worship the sun--the Lord of heaven; that in the third, Light,\n Fire, and Flame [conceived as persons], were begotten; that in the\n fourth giants appeared; while in the fifth, 'men were named from\n their mothers' because of the uncertainty of male parentage, this\n generation being distinguished also by the introduction of 'pillar'\n worship. It was not till the twelfth generation that the gods\n appeared that figure most in the old mythologies, such as Kronos,\n Dagon, Zeus, Belus, Apollo, and Typhon; and then the queen of\n them all was the _Bull_-headed Astarte. The sum of the statements\n is, that men first worshipped plants; next the heavenly bodies,\n supposed to be animals; then 'pillars;' ... and, last of all, the\n anthropomorphic gods. Not the least remarkable statement is, that\n in primitive times there was kinship through mothers only, owing to\n the uncertainty of fatherhood.\"[103]\n\n [102] A tradition of the constellations, a proof from tradition that\n they were so named in the ante-diluvian period.\n\n [103] Sanchoniatho's \"Phoenician History,\" by the Right Rev. R.\n Cumberland. London, 1720, pp. 2, 3, 23, _et seq._ Eusebius,\n Pr\u00e6par. Evangel. lib. i. cap. 10.\n\nThe fragments of Sanchoniathon here referred to are found at earlier\ndate than Eusebius, having been copiously extracted by Philo (_vide_\nBunsen's \"Egypt\").\n\nSanchoniathon was to Phoenicia what Berosus was to Assyria; that is\nto say, the earliest post-diluvian compilers of history when tradition\nwas becoming obscure. Let us scrutinise his testimony. We are here\ntold \"that the first men _consecrated the plants_ shooting out of the\nearth, and _judged them gods_.\"... \"Next they relate, in an account of\nthe successive generations of men, that in the first generation _the\nway was found out of taking food from trees_.\" Here, I submit, that we\nhave plainly and unmistakably a tradition of that first commencement\nof evil, the first man and woman plucking the apple from the tree,\nthinking they would become as gods (Gen. iii. 4, 5), ... \"and the\nserpent said ... for God doth know that in what day soever you shall\neat thereof ... and you shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.\"\n\nThen follows the succession of ages (_vide infra_, ch. xiii.), of\nwhich there is a curious parallel tradition in Hesiod and Apollodorus,\nand partial correspondences in the traditions of India, China, and\nMexico (_infra_, ch. xiii.).[104]\n\n [104] _Vide_ Grote, i.\n\nIt will be noted, however, that whilst running into the tradition of\nHesiod on the one side (in Hesiod and in the Chinese tradition there\nis trace of a double tradition, ante and post-diluvian), Sanchoniathon\nstill more closely runs in with the narrative of Genesis on the other,\nthus connecting the links of the chain of tradition.[105]\n\n [105] This chapter was written before I became acquainted with Mr\n Palmer's \"Chronicles of Egypt\" (_vide_ ch. vi.) If the\n reader will refer to chap. i., he will there find a learned\n and exhaustive exposition of the ages of Sanchoniathon,\n identifying them with Scripture on the one side, and Egyptian\n tradition on the other.\n\nIn the succession of ages we have in outline the history of mankind in\nthe ante-diluvian period--the Fall, _supra_--followed in the succeeding\nage by a great _drought_--[compare this tradition with the following\npassage in Fran. Lenormant's \"Histoire Ancienne,\" i. p. 5, 2d ed.,\nParis 1868--\"and when geology shows us the first ante-diluvian men who\ncame into our part of the world, living in the midst of ice, under\nconditions of climate analogous to those under which the Esquimaux live\nat the present day ... one is naturally brought to the recollection\nof _that ancient tradition of the Persians_, fully conformable to the\ninformation which the Bible supplies on the subject of the fall of man,\n... which ranks among the first of the chastisements which followed\nthe fall, along with death and other calamities, the advent of an\n_intense and permanent cold_ which man could scarcely endure, and which\nrendered the earth almost uninhabitable.\"[106]] It is to this period,\nand the short period immediately following the Deluge (_vide_ ch. ii.\np. 21, and _infra_, pp. 136, 137), that I am inclined to trace\nthe notions of a primitive barbarism--compare, for instance, the facts\nwhich Goguet, in his \"Origin of Laws,\" i. p. 72, adduces in proof of\nhis progress from barbarism, with the above tradition of the Persians\nrecorded by Lenormant.\n\n [106] Is not this the meaning of the cxlvii. psalm, in the\n expression, \"ante faciem frigoris ejus quis sustinebit\"?\n Does not the psalm recount to the Jewish people, in rapid\n allusions, all that God had done for them, in contrast to the\n chastisements that had befallen other nations; and if it is\n objected that there is no allusion to the Deluge, unless in\n its indirect and beneficial influences, in the words, \"flavit\n spiritus ejus et fluent aqu\u00e6,\" I reply that to the survivors,\n the Deluge, regarded largely, and in its permanent effects,\n was no calamity, but the commencement of a new and more\n favoured era.\n\nGoguet says--\"The Egyptians, Persians, Phoenicians, Greeks, and\nseveral other nations (_vide_ his references, p. 72), acknowledged that\ntheir ancestors were once without the use of fire. The Chinese confess\nthe same of their progenitors.... Pomponius, Mela, Pliny, Plutarch, and\nother ancient authors speak of nations, who, at the time they wrote,\nknew not the use of fire, or had only just learned it. Facts of the\nsame kind are attested by several modern relations.\" Let this latter\nstatement be compared with _infra_, pp. 136, 137 .\n\nIn the third age we are told--\"Light, Fire, and Flame (conceived as\npersons) were begotten,\" which looks like a tradition of Vulcan,\nTubalcain, &c. (_vide_ ch. xii. _infra_); and \"in the fourth, giants\nappeared;\" while in the fifth, the corruption of mankind is indicated,\nas is declared in Genesis vi. 4: \"Now giants were upon the earth in\nthose days. For after the sons of God went in to the daughters of men\nand brought forth children,\" &c., ver. 12, \"and when God had seen\nthat the earth was corrupted (for all flesh had corrupted its way\nupon the earth), ver. 13, He said to Noe,\" &c. \"It was not till the\ntwelfth generation that the gods appeared that figured most in the\nold mythologies,\" says Mr M'Lennan, quoting Sanchoniathon, or what is\nbelieved to be his testimony. I trust that this fragment of tradition\nmay be remembered in connection with what I have written in chapters\nviii., ix., x. [107]\n\n [107] Compare ch. xiii. The successive ages of Hesiod, more\n especially the lines describing the iron age, parallel to the\n tradition, _supra_, \"that in the fifth age _men were named\n from their mothers_.\"\n\n \"No fathers in their sons their features trace,\n The sons reflect _no more_ their father's face;\n The host with kindness greets his guest no more,\n And friends and brethren love not as of yore.\"\n --HESIOD.\n\n President Goguet (\"Origin of Laws,\" i. 21,) had noticed\n the ancient allusions to \"kinship through mothers,\" and\n his statement that \"women belonged to the man who seized\n them first.... The children who sprang from this irregular\n intercourse scarce ever knew who were their fathers. They knew\n only their mothers, for which reason they always bore their\n name.\" For this statement he also quotes Sanchoniathon, ap.\n Eus. p. 34, as his principal authority. But Sanchoniathon's\n statement, as we have seen, refers to the ante-diluvian\n period, in which it is borne out by Genesis vi. 4.\n\n There is one fact adduced by Goguet (i. 43), viz. that the\n _Assyrians_ had an analogous ceremony which must be decisive\n for us, though not, perhaps, for Mr M'Lennan, that the custom\n of seizure was ante-diluvian, since the commencement of the\n Assyrian monarchy in the times immediately following the\n flood, is one of the best established foundations of history.\n _Vide_ Genesis and Rawlinson.\n\n \"This race of _many languaged_ man.\" To any one who rightly\n grasps the bearing of the argument, the appositeness of\n this quotation will, I think, be rather strengthened than\n diminished by the evidence that the lines of Hesiod plainly\n refer to post-diluvian times (_vide_ ch. xiii.)\n\n\"The sum of the statements\" then, so regarded, is to confirm the\ntradition of the human race as recorded in Genesis, that they sprang\nfrom three brothers and their three wives, forming three monogamous\npairs who accompanied their father Noah into the ark, with his wife;\nand who again were more remotely descended from a single pair.\n\nIf, then, in the two most ancient traditions of which we have any\nrecord, we find concordance on some points and divergence on others,\nthe circumstance of identity at all is so much more startling than the\noccurrence of discrepancy, that it will fairly be taken to warrant\nthe presumption of a common origin; and this conformity will also be\nnaturally claimed in support of our narrative as against the other\non the points of disagreement, which will then be set down to the\ncorruption of that which is deemed the most ancient and authentic.\nFor those, therefore, who believe the Bible to be the revealed Word\nof God, and even for those who regard it as the most ancient record,\nthe coincidences with Sanchoniathon will afford a striking testimony;\nwhereas the coincidence of the fifth age of Sanchoniathon with\nGenesis (chap. vi. 1, 2, 4) and the tradition of Hesiod, must be an\nembarrassment to those who seek in this tradition evidence that what\nwas characteristic of the fifth age, was true of the preceding and\npristine ages.\n\nTo take a second instance, more exactly in illustration of the\nquotation from F. Schlegel, _supra_, p. 124, there is no such barrier\nto tradition (regarded retrospectively) as the notion, if we accept\nit, which crept over many nations, that they were \"autochthones.\"\nLike the sand-drifts known to geologists as dunes, such notions, if\nthey had been received absolutely, would have involved all tradition\nin a general extinction. But as the dunes, when minutely measured and\nsubmitted to calculation, have afforded the best evidence in favour\nof what may be called the diluvian chronology, so will this notion\nthat men sprang out of the soil in which they dwelt, when analysed,\ncontribute fresh evidence to the truth and persistence of tradition.\nBut first of all, will any one start with the theory--that any nation\nthat had this notion about itself--the Greeks, for instance, were\nreally autochthones? There is, then, simply a confusion of ideas, a\ndifficulty which has to be unravelled; but seeing that the Greeks\nnotoriously believed themselves to be autochthones, it becomes an\nobstruction in the main channel of tradition, and it is especially\nincumbent upon us to consider the facts.\n\nIn the \"Supplicants\" of \u00c6schylus--and I am not aware that the notion\ncrops up at earlier date--Pelasgus is introduced as saying--\n\n \"Pelasgus bids you, sovereign of the land,\n My sire, Pal\u00e6cthon, of _high ancestry,\n Original_ with this _earth_; from me, their king,\n The people take their name, and boast themselves\n Pelasgians.\"\n --v. 275.\n\nHere the high descent, and the origin from the soil, the ancestry\nreferred to in the same breath with the allusion to his sire, \"original\nwith this earth,\" strikes one as incongruous. And the incongruity\nappears still greater when we recollect that Pelasgus is the person\nwhom all historical evidence proves to have been the first settler in\nthe country; it being also borne in mind that the term \"autochthones,\"\nwhether in a primary or a secondary sense, is always applied to the\nsupposed aboriginals of the country, and therefore excludes the\nhypothesis of any more primitive colonisation.[108]\n\n [108] The Phoenician cosmogony seems to me to clinch the argument.\n There (_vide_ Bunsen, Egypt, iv. 234), \"_The son of Eliun_ is\n called by Philo, Epigeios or _autokhthon_, 'the earth-born,'\n primeval inhabitant. By the latter of these expressions we\n have no doubt that Adam-Tadmon ('the Kadmos of the Greeks,'\n p. 195), the first man, the man of God, is implied\" (\"Eliun,\n _i.e._ Helyun, God the Most High,\" p. 232).\n\n There is an analogy in their confused tradition of the\n creation. \"Eudemus says, according to the Phoenician\n mythology, which _was invented by M\u00f4khos_, the first principle\n was \u00e6ther and air; from these two beginnings sprang Ul\u00f4mos\n (the eternal), the rational (conscious) God\" (Bunsen, iv.\n 179). Bunsen, (178) adds, \"as regards M\u00f4khos the thing is\n clear enough; the old materialistic philosopher is matter,\n and that in the sense of primeval slime.\" [Whence it has been\n suggested that we derive our word Muck, M\u00f4kh, or M\u00f4khos.]\n This beginning Bunsen considers (p. 179) \"a philosophising\n amplification of the simply sublime words of Genesis: 'The\n earth was without form, and void, and darkness was over the\n face of the waters.'\" Here we see the human reason hampered\n by the tradition that confused matter or chaos was somehow\n at the commencement, and with the conflicting tradition and\n conclusion of the intellect that it was, and must have been,\n created by a power superior to matter (\"In the beginning God\n created heaven and earth\"), emancipating itself, so far as to\n identify the Creator with the \u00e6ther and air, as nearer the\n conception of a pure Spirit, and personifying matter, and so\n shunting it aside as the \"inventor of the mythology.\"\n\nBut if we regard it as a corruption of the tradition that man was\ncreated out of the earth (\"for dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt\nreturn,\" Genesis iii. 19), does not this solve all difficulties? The\nextension of the knowledge that they were created out of the earth, to\nthe notion that they were created out of this or that particular clay,\nis not violent. Is it not this same \u00c6schylus[109] who has the allusion\n\"to the earth drinking the blood of the two rival brothers, the one\nslain by the other.\" It will be seen at p. 175, that the Mexicans\nbelieved that the first race of men were created \"out of the earth,\"\nand \"the third out of a tree,\" a reminiscence of the creation, and of\nthe fall, the intermediate event being probably the creation of Eve. In\nlike manner, the Red Indians have a tradition that they were created\nout of the _red clay_ by the Great Spirit; and to go to another part of\nthe world, the supposed aboriginal tribes of China were called Miautze,\nor \"soil children.\"[110]\n\n [109] _Vide_ De Maistre (ch. xii.)\n\n [110] Max M\u00fcller, \"Chips,\" &c., ii. 274. The Titans were also said\n to be \"earth-born.\" Bryant (iii. 445) says Berosus gives the\n following tradition of the Creation. Belus after deification\n being confounded with the Creator, as we have seen Prometheus,\n id. 104--\"Belus, the deity above mentioned, cut off his own\n head, upon which the other gods mixed the blood as it gushed\n out _with the earth_, and _from thence_ men _were formed. On\n this_ account it is that they are rational and partake of\n divine knowledge. _This_ Belus, whom men called _Dis, divided\n the darkness_ and separated the heavens from the earth,\" &c.\n\nThis testimony must be connected with the phrase so startling in the\nseventh ode of the fourth book of Horace, \"_pulvis_ et umbra sumus,\"\nand with the text in Genesis iii. 19, \"for dust thou art.\"[111] It may\npossibly be said that this is merely matter of every day's experience.\nBut it is precisely at this point that we must ask those who dispute\ntradition to discard tradition. Do bodies--so far as the exterior\nsenses tell us--return to dust, or to other forms of life? If it is\ntrue that we return to dust--Scripture apart--it is tradition and not\nexperience which attests it, and yet so common is the belief, that it\nmight readily pass as the result of common observation.\n\n [111] Compare Cicero, De Legibus, i. 8: \"Est igitur homini _cum deo\n similitudo_;\" and with Gen. ii. 26, 27: \"and God created man\n in his own likeness.\"\n\nSo general a tradition that man was created, and created out of\nthe ground,[112] is so completely in accordance with the text of\nGenesis, that one can hardly see what more can be demanded; yet\nCatlin says[113]--\"Though there is not a tribe in America but what\nhas _some_ theory of man's _creation_, there is not one amongst them\nall that bears the _slightest resemblance_ to the Mosaic account.\"\nCatlin instances the traditions of the Mandans, Choctaws, and the\nSioux--_1st_, The Mandans (who have the ceremony commemorative of\n_the Deluge_ referred to, ch. xi.), believe that they were created\n\"under the ground.\" _2d_, The Choctaws assert that they \"were created\ncrawfish, living alternately under the ground and above it as they\nchose; and, creeping out at their little holes in the earth to get the\nwarmth of the sun one sunny day, a portion of the tribe was driven\naway and could not return; they built the Choctaw village, and the\nremainder of the tribe are still living under the ground.\" The Iroquois,\nhowever, believe that they \"came out of the ground,\" which is identical\nwith the Greek notion of their being \"autochthones\" (_vide_ Colden,\nii. 103), where one of their chiefs speaks thus--\"For we must tell you\nthat long before one hundred years our ancestors _came out of this very\nground_.... You _came out of the ground_ in a country that lies beyond\nthe seas.\" Now, even if we consent to detach the Iroquois tradition,\nthere is still in both the Mandan and Choctaw tradition, a common idea\nof their having come from \"under the ground,\" which seems to me the\ntradition that they were created out of the ground at one remove. To\nthis it would seem the Choctaws have super-added their recollection\nof some incident of their tribe, possibly that they were an offshoot\nof the Esquimaux, or were at one period in their latitude and lived\ntheir life, which would be in accordance with the theory of their\nmigrations from Asia by Behring's Straits. 3_d_, About the Sioux, the\nthird instance of contrariety adduced by Catlin, it seems to me that\nthere is no room for argument, the Sioux having the tradition referred\nto above, that the Great Spirit _told_ them that \"The red stone was\ntheir flesh.\" To these three instances Mr Catlin adds--\"Other tribes\nwere created under the water, and at least _one half of the_ tribes in\nAmerica represent that man was created _under the ground_ or in the\nrocky caverns of the mountains. Why this diversity of theories of the\nCreation if these people brought their traditions of the Deluge from\nthe land of inspiration?\"[114]\n\n [112] \"The Chinese cosmogony speaks as follows of the creation of\n man--'God took some yellow earth, and He made man _en deux\n sexes_.'\" This is the true origin of the human race. A Hebrew\n tradition says that it was of the red earth, which is the\n same idea. The Hebrew word \"Adam\" expresses this idea. This\n correspondence as to the manner in which the body of the\n first man was formed, between two people who have never had\n relations, is very remarkable. Indian and African cosmogonies\n relate that the name of the first man was 'Adimo,' that of\n his wife 'Hava,' and that they were the last work of the\n Creator.\"--Gainet, _La Bible sans la Bible_, i. p. 74. I must\n note, too, the identity of the American Indian (_supra_) and\n the Hebrew tradition, which is curious, as it might naturally\n be supposed that the tradition of the Red Indian took its\n _colour_ from his own complexion.\n\n Max M\u00fcller (\"Lect. on the Science of Language,\" 1st series,\n p. 367) says of \"man\"--\"The Latin word _homo_, the French\n _l'homme_, ... is _derived from the same root_, which we\n have in _humus_, soil, _humilis_, humble. _Homo_, therefore,\n would express the idea _of being made out of the dust\n of the earth_.\" Bunsen also (\"Phil. Univ. Hist.\" i. 78)\n says--\"The common word for man in all German dialects is\n 'manna,' containing the same root as Sanscrit 'manusha' and\n 'manueshya.' The Latin 'homo' is intimately connected with\n 'humus' and [Greek: chamai] and means _earth-born_; [Greek:\n anthr\u00f4p\u00f4n chamaigene\u00f4n], says Pindar. But what is [Greek:\n anthr\u00f4pos]?\"\n\n [113] \"Last Rambles,\" p. 324.\n\n [114] The following tradition of the Tartar tribes seems to supply a\n link. In their tradition of the Deluge (_vide_ Gainet, i. 209)\n it is said, \"that those who saved themselves from the Deluge\n shut themselves up with their provisions in the crevices of\n mountains, and that after the scourge had passed they came out\n of their caverns.\"\n\n And compare, again, with the tradition of Kronos (Noah, _vide_\n Bryant's \"Mythology,\" iii. 503)--\"He is said to have had\n _three_ sons (Sanch. ap. Euseb. P. E., lib. i. c. 10, 37), and\n in a _time of danger_ he formed a _large cavern in the ocean_,\n and in this he shut himself up, together _with these sons_,\n and thus escaped the danger.\"--_Porph. de Nymphar. Antro._, p.\n 109.\n\n Bryant (\"Mythology,\" iii. 405) says--\"I have shown that Gaia,\n in its original sense, signified a sacred cavern, a hollow in\n the earth, which, from its gloom, was looked upon as an emblem\n of the ark. Hence Gaia, like Hasta Rhoia Cybele, is often\n represented as the mother of mankind.\" The following is very\n important with reference to my argument above:--The Scholiast\n upon Euripides says--\"[Greek: Meta ton kataklysmon en oresin\n oikount\u00f4n t\u00f4n Argei\u00f4n pr\u00f4tos autous syn\u00f4kisen Inachos]. When\n the Argivi or Arkites, _after the Deluge_, lived _dispersed on\n the mountains_, Inachus first brought them together and formed\n them into communities.\"--Comp. _infra_, p. 157, 158, 193,\n 332.\n\n The instances adduced of myths connecting man with the monkey\n are, as a rule, traditions of degeneracy, _i.e._ of men turned\n into monkeys (_vide_ Tylor's \"Primitive Culture,\" i. 340),\n and to which I would add the rabbinical tradition of men\n turned into monkeys at the Tower of Babel (De Quincey, Works,\n xiii. 235), and the classical epic of the Ceropes, \"founded\n on the transformation of a set of jugglers into monkeys.\"\n But if compared with the above tradition, I think that the\n only two instances (Tylor, i. 341) which seem to bear out the\n opposite theory will wear a different aspect. I quote from\n Tylor as above--\"Wild tribes of the Malay peninsula, looked\n down upon as lower animals by the more warlike and civilised\n Malays, have among them traditions of their own descent from\n _a pair_ of the \"unka-putch\" or _white_ monkeys, who reared\n their young ones _and sent them into the plains_, and there\n they perfected so well that they and their descendants became\n men, but those _who returned to the mountains_ still remained\n apes. The Buddhist legend relates the origin of the flat-nosed\n uncouth tribes of Tibet, offspring of _two miraculous apes_,\n transformed to _people_ the snow-kingdom. Taught to till the\n ground, when they had grown corn and eaten it, their tails\n and hair gradually disappeared, they began to speak, became\n men, and clothed themselves with leaves. The population grew\n closer, the land was more and more cultivated, and at last a\n prince of the race of Sakya, driven from his home in India,\n _united their isolated tribes_ into a single kingdom.\"--Comp.\n Cecrops, &c., p. 332, _infra_.\n\nNow, just as the tribes who said they were created \"under the ground\"\nimplied the same tradition as those who said they were created _out\nof_ the ground, so, too, the tribes who said they were created \"under\nthe water\" probably held the tradition that the creation of the race\npreceded the Deluge.\n\nThe tradition which connects the creation with \"the rocky caverns of\nthe mountains\" is more recondite--may it possibly be a recollection of\nthe commencement of civil life after the Deluge, when Noah led them,\naccording to tradition, from the mountains to the plains?\n\nM. L'Abb\u00e9 Gainet says (i. 176)--\"The Lord repeated four times the\npromise that He would not send another deluge.... The children of Noah\nwere long scared by the recollection of the dreadful calamity.... It is\nprobable that they did not decide upon leaving the 'plateaux' of the\nmountains till quite late. Moreover, caverns have been found in the\nmountains of the Himalaya, and in many other elevated regions of Asia,\nwhich they suppose to have been formed by the first generations of man\nafter the Deluge. The works of the learned M. de Paravey make frequent\nmention of them.\" This tradition is supported by the lines of Virgil\nreferring to Saturn (_vide infra_, p. 210).\n\n \"Is genus indocile, ac dispersum _montibus altis_\n Composuit; legesque dedit.\"--_\u00c6n._ viii. 315.\n\nI give these suggestions for what they may be worth.[115] Truly,\nwhere some see nothing but harmony, others see nothing but diversity.\nOnly to put it to a fair test, I should like to see Mr Catlin or\nsome one else group these various traditions round any one tradition\nwhich they believe to be at variance with the revelation of Genesis,\nand which, at the same time, they happen to consider to be the true\none. It must be conceded that in one way the facts accord with Mr\nCatlin's theory--contradicted, however, by other evidence (_infra_, ch.\nxi.)--that the Indians were created on the American continent. But\nupon any theory that they were not created at all, but existed always\nin pantheistic transformation, or had progressed from the monkey,\nor had been developed in evolution from some protoplasm, is not the\ntradition incongruous and inexplicable?\n\n [115] It occurs to me as possible that these various traditions may\n have had their foundation in the recollection of hardship, at\n some early period of their subsequent migration, which were\n transferred back and connected with their tradition of the\n altered state of things after the Deluge, arising out of the\n substitution of animal for vegetable food--of which the notion\n that man once lived on acorns may have been only an extreme\n form of expression. The following tradition of Saturn (_vide\n infra_, Saturn, p. 210), seems to tend in this direction:\n \"Diodorus Siculus gives the same history of Saturn as is by\n Plutarch above given of Janus--[Greek: ex agriou diait\u00eas eis\n \u00eameron Bion metar\u00easa anthr\u00f4pous].--Diodorus, 1. 5, p. 334. He\n brought mankind from their foul and savage way of _feeding_ to\n a more mild and rational _diet_.\"--Bryant, ii. 261.\n\nTo take another instance. The Hindoos had a fanciful notion that the\nworld was supported by an elephant, and the elephant by a tortoise.\nNothing can be imagined more incongruous and grotesque. Yet Dr Falconer\nhas recently discovered, in his explorations in India, a fossil\ntortoise adequate to the support of an elephant. The incongruity then\nof the tradition disappears; its grotesqueness remains. I cannot help\nthinking, however, that it may have been the embodiment in symbol, or\nelse the systematisation of the confused medley of their tradition\nof the order, _i.e. of the sequence of days of the creation_ (_vide_\nAppendix to this chapter).[116]\n\n [116] This fable of the tortoise is also among the Mandans, whom,\n Catlin (_supra_, 135) says, had no other tradition of the\n Creation than that they were created under the ground. Their\n tradition is confused with the Deluge, which dominates in\n their tradition.\n\n \"The Mandans believed that the earth rests on four tortoises.\n They say that \"each tortoise rained ten days, making forty\n days in all, and the waters covered the earth\" (_vide_\n \"O-kea-pa,\" p. 39, _infra_, ch. xi.) Does not this\n tradition of the tortoise decide the _Oriental_ origin of the\n North American Mandans?\n\n Falconer's \"Pal\u00e6ontological Mem.,\" 1868, i. 297, ii. 377-573,\n &c., \"As the pterodactyle more than realised the most\n extravagant idea of the winged dragon, so does this huge\n tortoise come up to the lofty conceptions of Hindoo mythology;\n and could we but recall the monsters to life, it were not\n difficult to imagine an elephant supported on its back\"(i. 27).\n\n The New Zealanders have a curious tradition of their ancestors\n having encountered a gigantic saurian species of reptile,\n which must have been before they arrived in New Zealand.\n _Vide_ Shortland's \"Traditions of the New Zealanders,\" p. 73.\n\nI have alluded, p. 199, to the tradition preserved by Berosus, that\nOannes, whom I identify with Noah, left writings upon the origin of the\nworld, in which he says, \"that there was a time when all was darkness\nand water, and that this darkness and water contained _monstrous\nanimals_.\" Here, perhaps, two distinct traditions are confused; but\nis not the tradition of animals so much out of the ordinary nature of\nthings as to be called monstrous sufficiently marked to make us ask\nif the discovery of the skeleton of the \"megatherium\" ought to have\ncome upon the scientific world as a surprise? Might they not have\nanticipated the discovery if they had duly trusted tradition?\n\nOther instances might doubtless be adduced. My present object is merely\nto suggest that there may be truths in tradition not dreamt of by\nmodern philosophy. If the human intellect were as capacious as it is\nacute, we might then listen with greater submission to its strictures\nupon tradition; because then we might at least believe that its\nvision extended to all the facts. But in truth, no intellect, however\nencyclop\u00e6dic, can grasp them all. Indeed, knowledge in many departments\nis becoming more and more the tradition of experts, and must be\ntaken by the outside world on faith. How many facts, again, once in\ntradition, but at some period put on record, lie as deeply shrouded\nin the dust of libraries as they had previously lain hidden in the\ndepths of ages? Who will say what facts are traditional in different\nlocalities? Barely do we move from place to place without eliciting\nsome information strange and new. Who again will say what ideas are\ntraditional in different minds? Barely is there a discussion which\nprovokes traditional lore or traditional sentiment which does not bring\nto light some such thought or experience, re-appearing, like the lines\nin family feature, after the lapse of several generations.\n\nWhenever, then, mankind is called upon to discard its traditions at the\nvoice of any intellect, however powerful, is it unreasonable to demand\nthat some cognizance should be taken of these facts.[117]\n\n [117] I have elsewhere (_vide_ ch. iv., _et seq._, x., xi.) traced\n the tradition of the Deluge, of the chronology of the world,\n &c., &c.\n\nLet us now, returning to the tradition we have more especially in view,\nask this further question,--What could the human intellect have done\ntowards the regeneration of the race if there had been no revelation\nand no tradition?\n\nIt is not often that unbelief is constructive and supplies us with the\nnecessary data with which to furnish the answer. But recently a work\nwhich is said to embody considerable learning has appeared, entitled,\n\"The Origin and Development of Religious Belief,\" which is written\n\"from a philosophic and not from a religious point of view;\" in which\n\"the existence of a God is not assumed, the truth of revelation is not\nassumed,\" and \"the Bible is quoted not as an authoritative, but as an\nhistorical record open to criticism.\"--Mr Baring Gould, \"Origin and\nDevelopment of Religious Belief,\" preface, 1869.\n\nHere then, if anywhere, we are likely to get the solution from the\npoint of view of unbelief.\n\nAt p. 119, Mr B. Gould thus summarises his views:--\n\n \"Religion, as has been already shown, is the synthesis of thought\n and sentiment. It is the representation of a philosophic idea. It\n always reposes on some hypothesis. At first it is full of vigour,\n constantly on the alert to win converts. Then the hypothesis\n is acquiesced in, it is received as final, its significance\n evaporates. The priests of ancient times were also philosophers,\n but not being able always to preserve their intellectual\n superiority, their doctrines became void of meaning, hieroglyphs\n of which they had lost the key; and then speculation ate its way\n out of religion, and left it an empty shell of ritual observance,\n void of vital principle. Philosophy alone is not religion, nor is\n sentiment alone religion; but religion is that which, based on an\n intelligent principle, teaches that principle as dogma, exhibits\n it in worship, and applies it in discipline. Dogma worship and\n discipline are the constituents, so to speak, the mind spirit, and\n body of religion.\"--\"_Origin and Development of Religious Belief._\"\n By S. Baring Gould, M.A. Rivingtons, 1869. Part i., p. 119.\n\nHere it is said that \"religion is the representative of a philosophic\nidea. It always reposes on some hypothesis.\" This philosophic idea\nmay be that there must necessarily be a Creator. But also it may not\nbe, for \"the existence of God is not assumed\" (_vide_ preface).\nIf it is not, then, according to this definition, religion may be\nthe representative of any philosophic idea (_i.e._ any idea of any\nphilosopher), even that which may be diametrically opposed to the\nexistence and goodness of God.[118] But if, on the other hand, the\nexistence of God is this primary philosophic idea, then all other\nphilosophic ideas must succumb to it. It is a point which you must\nsettle at starting in your definition of religion.\n\n [118] Devil-worship is based upon the hypothesis that the evil\n spirit exists, and is the influence from which man has most\n to dread. Prudence suggests that it is wise to propitiate\n evil when it is powerful; and if \"the existence of God is not\n assumed,\" or the conception of God not yet developed, it is\n hard to see how the conclusion can be impugned; and (_vide_\n next page) Mr Baring Gould endorses Grimm's opinion that man's\n first \"idea of God is the idea of a _devil_.\"\n\nWhat follows seems to assume that some individual, or some set of\nindividuals, at a period more or less remote, evolved the idea of\nGod and religion out of their own consciousness; but that, as the\ndescendants of these individuals had not the same intellectual vigour,\nthe conception lapsed,--\"their doctrines became hieroglyphs of which\nthey had lost the key.\" Nothing can be more conformable to the theory\nof tradition;[119] but from the point of view of Mr Baring Gould,\nwhat was to forbid other individuals broaching fresh conceptions? Is\nthere, however, any instance known to us? Is there any instance of a\nreligion not eclectic or pantheistic (the one being the mere revivalism\nor reconstruction of the elements of former beliefs, and the other\ntheir absorption), any religion \"based on an intelligible principle,\"\nheretofore unknown to mankind, rising up and obtaining even a temporary\nascendancy among mankind? No; mankind, even in the darkness of\nPaganism, persistently distinguished between religion and philosophy,\npriests and sophists--though intellectually so much alike--and this\nI consider to be a master-key to the history of the past (_ante_, p.\n109).\n\n [119] The most favourable review of Mr B. Gould's work which I\n have seen says:--\"In tracing the origin and development\n of religious belief, the object of Mr Baring Gould is to\n establish the foundation of _Christian_ doctrine on the\n nature, the intuitions, and the reason of man, _rather than\n upon traditionary dogmas_, historical documents, or written\n inspirations. He is of opinion that the elements of true\n religion are to be found in a revelation naturally impressed\n upon the soul of man, and that the investigation of man's\n moral nature will be found to disclose the surest proofs of\n his religious wants and destination. The author holds that\n if theological doctrines can be inculcated by demonstrative\n evidence of their harmony with man's intellectual and moral\n constitution, they will be received with more perfect\n acquiescence and conviction than when appeals are made simply\n to man's veneration for antiquity and authority.\" I think I\n am, at any rate, right in taking Mr B. G.'s as the view most\n directly opposed to tradition, and it is from this point of\n view that I am brought into collision with him.\n\nThere is a further point which Mr Baring Gould must settle. Religion\nmay be theoretically regarded as an affair of growth, progressive,\nor as an affair of revelation, or something so nearly counterfeiting\nrevelation as to arise spontaneously; but it cannot well be both. Now,\nin the pages of Mr Baring Gould it appears at one time \"springing\ninto life\" (p. 109), and, as in the passage above, analogously to a\nconception in the mind:--\"_At first_ it is full of vigour, constantly\non the alert to win converts;\" at another, \"as a conception slowly\nevolved;\" then all at once \"a living belief, vividly luminous\"\n(p. 109). Again (p. 110), \"Religion does not reach perfection of\ndevelopment at a bound; generations pass away, before,\" &c.; and (p.\n329) we find that in all _primitive_ religions the idea of God is the\nidea of a _devil_, or (_id._) \"that the first stage in the conception\nof a devil is the attribution of evil to God,\" which is different,\ninasmuch as it supposes man to start with the knowledge of God, and is,\nmoreover, inconsistent with what is said at page 113:--\"The shapeless\nreligion of a primitive people gradually assumes a definite form. It\nis that of _nature_ worship. It progresses through polytheism and\nidolatry, and emerges into monotheism or pantheism.\" Of course this\nis said upon _the assumption_ that the primitive man was barbarous.\nBut however remote from the fact, it is theoretically as conceivable\nthat man should worship nature as an ideal of beauty and power, as\nthat he should regard it from the first as an apparition of terror;\nor, in other words, that taking nature-worship for granted, Mr Max\nM\u00fcller's view of it, viz.:--\"He begins to lift up his eyes, he stares\nat the tent of heaven, and asks who supports it? He opens his eyes\nto the winds, and asks them whence and whither? He is awakened from\ndarkness and slumber by the light of the sun, and Him whom his eyes\ncannot behold, and who seems to grant him the daily pittance of his\nexistence, he calls 'his life, his breath, his brilliant Lord and\nProtector'\" (Chips, i. 69, _apud_ B. G., 139),--is as likely to be\nthe true one as Mr Baring Gould's,[120] viz.:--\"At first man is ...\nantitheist; but presently he feels resistances.... The convulsions\nof nature, the storm, the thunder, the exploding volcano, the raging\nseas, fill him with a sense of there being a power superior to his\nown, before which he must bow. His religious thought, vague and\nundetermined, is roused by the opposition of nature to his will\" (p.\n137).\n\n [120] _Vide_, however, Dr Newman's \"Grammar of Assent,\" p. 386, _et\n seq._\n\nMr Baring Gould postulates, I am aware, the lapse of several\ngenerations for the evolution of these ideas. But there is nothing in\nMr Baring Gould's statement of the progression or development of the\nconception of the Deity among mankind which might not pass in rapid\nsequence through the mind of the primitive man,--call him \"Areios,\"\nif you shrink from close contact with history, and refuse to call\nhim Adam. Why then the indefinite lapse of time? why the progressive\nadvance of the idea through successive generations of mankind? Why,\nexcept that the primitive barbarism _must_ be assumed; and because (p.\n239), \"in the examination of the springs of religious thought, we have\nto return again and again to the wild bog of savageism in which they\nbubble up.\" But if the savagery was so great, the perplexity how man\never came to make the first step in the induction is much greater than\nthat, having made it, he should proceed on to make the last.\n\nIt is certain that reason can prove the existence of God and His\ngoodness, and this knowledge evokes the instincts of love and worship.\nIt is true also that man has a conscience of right and wrong, and that\namong its dictates is a sense of the obligation of love and worship.\nStill this will not account for the existence of religion in the world.\nMuch less will Mr Baring Gould's theory of an induction by mankind\ncollectively, spread over several centuries, account either for the\nnotion or for the institution.\n\nNeither, apart from direct or indirect revelation, would it prove\nmore than that man was religious, though without religion; capable of\narriving at the knowledge of God's existence, but without any knowledge\nhow to propitiate him; seeking God, but not able to find Him.\n\nTherefore, Mr Baring Gould truly says--\"Philosophy alone is not\nreligion.\" Philosophy, as we have seen, may prove the existence of God.\nBut religion, from the commencement of the world, has conveyed the idea\nthat there is a particular mode in which God must be worshipped. Here\nphilosophy is entirely at fault. Mr Baring Gould again truly says that\n\"dogma, worship, and discipline are the constituents, so to speak, the\nmind, spirit, and body of religion\" (p. 119). But he goes no further,\nand does not explain how it came about that mankind in all ages have\nadhered with singular pertinacity to the notion that religion could\nteach that on which philosophy must perforce be silent. Has not the\ngreater intellect ever been on the side of philosophy? Nay,[121] in the\nepochs in which intellectual superiority was undeniably on the side of\nphilosophy, did the populace go to the academy or to the oracles? If\nthe human intellect had originally framed the ritualistic observances,\nwhich bore so strange a resemblance in different parts of the world;\nif human sagacity had originated the idea of sacrifice (and wherefore\nsacrifice from the point of view of human sagacity?); if philosophy had\nrevealed to them the religious conceptions which they retained, and\nhad been able to define the relation of man to the Divinity--would not\nmankind, in all ages, have had recourse to its greatest intellects for\nthe solution of its doubts, rather than to the guardians of an obscure\nand corrupt tradition? The question no doubt is complicated with the\nevidence as to demonolatry; but the extent to which this prevailed only\nenforces the argument against Mr Baring Gould, to whom, apparently, the\ndemon (p. 135) is not a real existence, but only the embodiment of a\nphase of thought, and must seriously embarrass those who attribute the\nregeneration of man from savagery to intellectual growth and natural\nprogress.\n\n [121]\n\n \"The lively Grecian, in a land of hills,\n Rivers, and fertile plains, and sounding shores,\n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . In despite\n Of the gross fictions chanted in the streets\n By wandering rhapsodists, and in contempt\n Of doubt and bold denial hourly urged\n Amid the wrangling schools, a Spirit hung,\n Beautiful region! o'er thy towns and farms,\n Statues and temples, and memorial tombs;\n And emanations were perceived, and acts\n Of immortality, in nature's course,\n Exemplified by mysteries that were felt\n As bonds, _on grave philosopher imposed_,\n And armed warrior; and in every grove\n A gay or pensive tenderness prevailed,\n When piety more awful had relaxed.\"\n --WORDSWORTH, _Excursion_, B. iv.\n\nBut demonology apart, what would have countervailed against the\nsuperiority of reason and the intellectual prestige of the world except\na belief in a tradition of primitive revelation? What else will account\nfor the different recognitions of philosophy and religion--priests and\nsophists? What else would have prevented mankind from resorting in\ntheir difficulties to where the greatest intellect was found?\n\nAt page 134, this truth seems to gain partial recognition in the pages\nof Mr Baring Gould:--\n\n \"In conclusion, it seems certain that for man's spiritual\n well-being, these forces ('the tendency to crystallise, and the\n tendency to dissolve') need co-ordination. Under an infallible\n guide, regulating every moral and theological item of his spiritual\n being, his mental faculties are given him that they may be\n atrophied, like the eyes of the oyster, which, being useless in the\n sludge of its bed, are re-absorbed. Under a perpetual modification\n of religious belief, his convictions become weak and watery,\n without force, and destitute of purpose. In the barren wilderness\n of Sinai there are here and there green and pleasant oases. How\n come they there? By basaltic dykes arresting the rapid drainage\n which leaves the major part of that land bald and waste. So in the\n region of religion, _revelations and theocratic systems have been\n the dykes saving it_ from barrenness, and encouraging mental and\n sentimental fertility\" (p. 134).\n\nIt is impossible that we should quarrel with this illustration, it\nis so exactly to our point. Is it not another way of affirming the\nposition which I maintain against Sir John Lubbock? (ch. xii.) May\nnot we, too, take our stand upon these \"oases\" of tradition, which\n\"revelations\" and \"theocratic systems\" have formed, and ask what the\nhuman intellect has been able to achieve for the spiritual cravings of\nman in the waste around?\n\nMr Baring Gould, indeed, says (p. 61):--\n\n \"A power of free volition within or outside all matter in motion\n was a rational solution to the problems of effects of which man\n could not account himself the cause. Such is the origin of the\n idea of God--of God _whether many_, inhabiting each brook and\n plant, and breeze and planet, _or as_ being a world-soul, _or\n as_ a supreme cause, the Creator and sustainer of the universe.\n The common consent of mankind has been adduced as a proof of a\n tradition of a revelation in past times; but the fact that most\n races of men believe in one or more deities proves nothing more\n than that all men have drawn the same inference from the same\n premises. It is idle to speak of a 'Sensus Numinis' as existing as\n a primary conviction in man, when the conception may be reduced to\n more rudimentary ideas. The revelation is in man's being, in his\n conviction of the truth of the principle of causation, and thus it\n is a revelation made to every rational being.\"\n\nGrant that it is so, there is nothing here which militates against our\nposition, which is this,--not certainly that there is not a revelation\nof God in man's being, made to every rational creature, but that\nthere has been an express revelation superadded to it; and that it is\nnot true that \"the common consent of mankind to the existence of God\nhas been adduced as a proof of a tradition of a revelation in past\ntimes,\" but that the mode and manner of the consent attests the fact of\ntradition and the fact of revelation. But what have we just heard? That\nthere is a revelation of God's existence in man's nature, _i.e._ in\n_each_ man's nature--\"it is a revelation made to every man's nature.\"\nThen the indefinite lapse of time demanded for the evolution of the\nideas, which we have just been combating, is not after all necessary.\n\"_Habemus reum confitentum._\"\n\nBut inasmuch as the consent of mankind is only \"to one or more\ndeities,\" it is only so far a testimony to the existence of God as\nit is shown that polytheism arose out of the corruption of this\nbelief; and, moreover, by no means proves \"that all men have drawn the\nsame inference from the same premises,\" even if it were possible to\nreconcile this statement with what is said at page 113--\"The shapeless\nreligion of a primitive people gradually assumes a definite form. It\nis that of nature-worship. _It progresses through_ polytheism and\nidolatry, _and emerges into_ monotheism or pantheism\" (_vide infra_).\n\nAt this point I should wish to put in the accumulation of evidence\nwhich L'Abbe Gainet has collected to prove that monotheism was the\nprimitive belief.[122] When this evidence is dispersed, it will be\ntime enough to return to the subject.\n\n [122] \"Monotheisme des Peuples Primitifs,\" in vol. iii. of \"La\n Bible sans la Bible.\"\n\nIn any case, we may fall back upon the following testimony in Mr Baring\nGould:--\n\n \"It is the glory of the Semitic race to have given to the world, in\n a compact and luminous form, that monotheism which the philosophers\n of Greece and Rome only vaguely apprehended, and which has become\n the heritage of the Christian and Mohammedan alike. Of the Semitic\n race, however, one small branch, Jewdom, preserved and communicated\n the idea. Every other branch of that race _sank into_ polytheism\n (_vide supra_).... It is at first sight inexplicable that Jewish\n monotheism, which was in time to exercise such a prodigious\n influence over men's minds, should have so long remained the\n peculiar property of an insignificant people. But every religious\n idea has its season, and the thoughts of men have their avatars....\n It was apparently necessary that mankind should be given full\n scope for unfettered development, that they should feel in all\n directions after God, if haply they might find Him, in _order that_\n the foundations of _inductive philosophy might be laid_, that the\n religious idea might run itself out through polytheistic channels\n _for the development of art_. Certainly Jewish monotheism remained\n in a state of congelation till the religious thought of antiquity\n _had exhausted its own vitality_, and _had worked out every other\n problem of theodicy_; then suddenly thawing, it poured over the\n world its fertilising streams\" (p. 259).[123]\n\n [123] Mr B. Gould also says, p. 104--\"The Semitic divine names\n bear _indelibly on their front the stamp of their origin_,\n and the language itself testifies against the insulation and\n abstraction of these names from polytheism. The Aryan's tongue\n bore no such testimony to him. The spirit of his language\n _led him away from monotheism_, whilst that of the Shemite\n was an ever-present monitor, directing him to a God, sole and\n undivided. 'The glory of the Semitic race is this,' says M.\n Renan, 'that from _its earliest days_ it grasped that notion\n of the Deity which all other people have had to adopt from its\n example, and on the faith of its declaration.'\"\n\nFrom all this it results that, so far as the testimony of the Semitic\nrace is concerned (which, by the by, a concurrence of tradition points\nto as the oldest), the human race did not \"emerge into monotheism,\" but\n\"sank into polytheism;\" that monotheism was their belief from \"their\nearliest days,\" and their language bearing testimony to the same, shows\nalso that it was primitively so. It moreover results, that although\nmankind may have been allowed to sink into polytheism, as a warning or\na chastisement, it certainly could not have been \"in order that the\nfoundations of inductive philosophy might be laid;\" for it is quite\napparent from this extract that the induction was _never made_ that man\ndid _not_ \"emerge into monotheism;\" but that having \"_exhausted its\nvitality_,\" and \"worked out every problem of theodicy\" in the way of\ncorruption, it _received_ monotheism back again from the only people\nwho had preserved it intact.\n\nAt any rate, monotheism came to it _ab extra_, and before polytheism\nhad attained the \"full scope of that development\" which was necessary\nfor the perfection of art!\n\nBut Mr Baring Gould having a perception that this admission (although\nhe has not apparently seen its full significance) is fatal to his\ntheory, hastens to unsay it at page 261, \"Whence did the Jews derive\ntheir monotheism? Monotheism is _not_ a feature of any primitive\nreligion; but that which is a feature of secondary religions is the\nappropriation to a tribe of a particular god, which that tribe exalts\nabove all other gods.\" In support of this view, Mr Baring Gould quotes\ncertain texts of Scripture--Isa. xxxvi. 19, 20 (_i.e._ words spoken by\nRabsaces the Assyrian), and Jos. xxiv. 15, \"But if it seem evil to you\nto serve _the Lord_, you have your choice: choose this day that which\npleaseth you, whom you would rather serve, whether the gods which your\nfathers served in Mesopotamia [query, an allusion to the idolatry in\nthe patriarchal households? Gen. xxxv. 2, \"the gods\" being of the same\nkind with \"the gods of the Amorites\"], or the gods of the Amorites,\nin whose land you dwell; but as for me and my house, we will serve\n_the Lord_.\" One would have thought this text too plain to be cavilled\nat. Is not _the Lord_ whom Josue invokes _the same Lord_ who (Gen. i.\n1) \"in the beginning created heaven and earth,\" and who said to Noah\n(Gen. vi. 7), \"I will destroy _man whom I have created_, from the face\nof the earth;\" and who (Exod. iii. 2) appeared to Moses in a flame of\nfire in the bush which was not consumed; and to whom Moses said, \"Lo, I\nshall go to the children of Israel, and say to them, _The God of your\nfathers_ hath sent me to you; if they should say to me, What is His\nname? what shall I say to them? (ver. 14), God said to Moses, _I am who\nam_: He said thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel, _He who is_\nhath sent me to you.\" When or where has monotheism been more explicitly\ndeclared? Is there any phrase which the human mind could invent in\nwhich it could be more adequately defined? And when God speaks as \"the\nGod of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob,\" is it not as if He would\nsay, I am not only the God who speaks to the individual heart, but\nwho is _also traditionally_ known to you all collectively through my\nmanifestations and revelations to your forefathers? Compare Matt. xxii.\n32.\n\n_Inter alia_, Mr B. Gould also instances such unmistakable orientalisms\nas \"'Among the gods there is none like unto Thee, O Lord,' says David,\nand he exalts Jehovah above the others as a 'King above all gods.'\"\nWhere, then, may we ask, is the monotheism, \"the glory of the Semitic\nrace,\" to be found, if not in the time of David?\n\nThe proof which follows is more clinching still--\n\n \"Jacob seems to have made a sort of bargain with Jehovah that he\n would serve Him instead of other gods, on condition that He took\n care of him during his exile from home. The _next_ stage in popular\n Jewish theology was a denial of the power of the Gentile gods,\n and the treatment of them as idols. Tradition and history point\n to Abraham as the first on whom the idea of the impotence of the\n deities of his father's house first broke. He is said to have\n smashed the images in Nahor's oratory, and to have put a hammer\n into the hands of one idol which he left standing, as a sign to\n Nahor that that one had destroyed all the rest.\"\n\nUnfortunately for this view--according to the only authentic narrative\nwe have of the facts, Gen. xii.--Abraham must have preceded Jacob by at\nleast two generations!\n\nI think that, after this, we may fairly ask Mr Baring Gould, who is\nlearned in medieval myths, to trace for us more distinctly the notion\nof the chronicler who had a theory that Henry II. lived before Henry I.\n\nWith this passage I shall conclude this chapter, merely observing, that\nif any department of study existed which had for its special object the\ninvestigation of tradition,[124] it is simply impossible that a work\n(clever in many respects) such as that of Mr Baring Gould should ever\nhave been written.\n\n [124] I append, however, the following passage from Mr Baring\n Gould, as it may be serviceable in tracing tradition, and\n to which I may have occasion to recur (p. 161):--\"Among the\n American Indians an object of worship, and the centre of a\n cycle of legend, is Michabo, the great hare or rabbit. From\n the remotest wilds of the north-west to the coast of the\n Atlantic, from the southern boundaries of Carolina to the\n cheerless swamps of Hudson's Bay, the Algonquins are never\n tired of gathering round the winter fire, and repeating the\n story of Manibozho or Michabo, the Great Hare. With entire\n unanimity, their various branches, the Powhatans, &c., ... and\n the western tribes, perhaps without exception, spoke of this\n 'chimerical beast,' as one of the old missionaries called it,\n as their common ancestor (Brinton's \"Myths of the New World,\"\n p. 162). Michabo is described as having been four-legged,\n monstrous, crouching on the face of the primeval waste of\n waters, with all his court, composed of four-footed creatures,\n around him. He formed the earth out of a grain of sand taken\n from the bottom of the ocean. It is strange that such an\n insignificant creature as a hare should have received this\n apotheosis, and it has been generally regarded as an instance\n of the senseless brute-worship of savages. But its prevalence\n leads the mythologist to suspect that some confusion of words\n has led to a confusion of ideas, a suspicion which becomes a\n certainty when the name is analysed, for it is then found to\n be The Great White One, or Great Light, and to be in reality\n the sun, a fact of which the modern Indians are utterly\n unaware.\"\n\n If Mr Baring Gould finds that the word Michabo also signifies\n \"The Great Light,\" or \"The Great White One,\" it goes far to\n identify the worship of the hare with the worship of the\n sun, more especially when it is noted (_vide_ Prescott's\n \"Conquest of Mexico,\" i. 103) that the hare was one of the\n four hieroglyphics of the year among the ancient Mexicans.[A]\n Animal worship seems here plainly connected with sun-worship.\n But above and beyond it, do we not here also get a glimpse of\n more celestial light? \"The Great Light\" is also \"The Great\n White One.\" He is described as \"crouching on the face of the\n primeval waste of waters.\" In these phrases we seem almost to\n read the text of Gen. i. 3, \"And God said, Be light, and light\n was made;\" ver. 2, \"Darkness was on the face of the deep, and\n the Spirit of God moved over the waters.\"\n\n The Indians also say that he \"formed the earth out of a grain\n of sand taken from the bottom of the ocean.\" Does not this not\n only embody the tradition that God created the world out of\n nothing, but also the mode of the creation by the separation\n of the water from the land: ver. 9, \"God also said, Let the\n waters that are under the heavens be gathered together in one\n place; and let the dry land appear.... And God called the dry\n land earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called\n seas.\"\n\n [A] These hieroglyphics were symbolical of the four elements.\n Prescott adds--\"It is not easy to see the connection between\n the terms 'rabbit' and 'air,' which lead the respective\n series.\" Possibly he may not have been aware of the tradition\n of the Algonquins as above.\n\n\n APPENDIX TO CHAPTER VII.\n\nCARDINAL WISEMAN (\"Lectures on Science and Religion,\" ii.\n228-232), in speaking of what was characteristic of most Oriental\nreligions--a belief \"in the existence of emanated influences\nintermediate between the divine and earthly natures,\" is led on to give\nan account of the curious Gnostic sect, the Nazarians--\"The first of\nthese errors was common, perhaps, to other Gnostic sects; but in the\nCodex Nasar\u00e6us we have the two especially distinguished as different\nbeings--light and life. In it the first emanation from God is the king\nof light; the second, fire; the third, water; the fourth, life.\" I wish\nto note that, whether or not their notions as to emanations originally\nmeant more than the act of creation, a tradition as to the successive\norder of the creation seems clearly embodied in the text. God created\nfirst of all light; _then_ the sun (the firmament) is fire (the\ndistinct creation of the light and the sun in Genesis is so marked as\nto create a special difficulty in the cosmogony); _then_ water; _then_\nlife, in beasts, birds, reptiles, &c.; lastly, man. Comp. with _supra_,\np. 138, and with the above legend of Michabo.\n\n\"A SLAVONIAN ACCOUNT OF CREATION.--The current issue of the\nLiterary Society of Prague includes a volume of popular tales collected\nin all the Slavonian countries, and translated by M. Erben into Czech.\nWe extract the shortest--'_In the beginning there was only God, and He\nlay asleep and dreamed._ At last it was time for Him to wake and look\nat the world. Wherever He looked through the sky, a star came out. He\nwondered what it was, and got up and began to walk. At last He came to\nour earth; He was very tired; the sweat ran down His forehead, and a\ndrop fell on the ground. We are all made of this drop, and that is why\nwe are the sons of God. Man was not made for pleasure; he was born of\nthe sweat of God's face, and now he must live by the sweat of his own:\nthat is why men have no rest.'\"--_The Academy_, Feb. 12, 1870.\n\nI wish also to examine, in greater detail than I should have had space\nfor in a note, how far the case of the Samoyeds bears out Mr Baring\nGould's theory of the development of idolatry from its grosser to its\nmore refined manifestations, or of the progress of the human race from\nbarbarism to the light of religion and of civilisation.\n\nMr Baring Gould says, p. 136--\n\n\"'When a Schaman is aware that I have no household god,' said a\nSamoyed to M. Castren, the linguist, 'he comes to me, and I give him a\nsquirrel, or an ermine skin.' This skin he brings back moulded 'into\na human shape.' ... 'This Los is a fetish; it is not altogether an\nidol; it is a spirit entangled in a material object. What that object\nis matters little; a stump of a tree, a stone, a rag, or an animal,\nserves the purpose of condensing the impalpable deity into a tangible\nreality.' Through this coarse superstition glimmers an intelligent\nconception. It is that of an all-pervading Deity, who is focussed, so\nto speak, in the fetish. This deity is called Num. 'I have heard some\nSamoyeds declare that the earth, the sea--all nature, in short--are\nNum.' 'Where is Num? asked Castren of a Samoyed, and the man pointed\nto the blue sea: but an old woman told him that the sun was Num. The\nSiethas, worshipped by the Lapps, had no certain figure or shape formed\nby nature or art; they were either trees or rough stones, much _worn\nby water_. Tom\u00e6us says they were often mere tree stumps with the roots\nupwards.\"[125]\n\n [125] Is not \"Num\" cognate to \"Numen?\" and their worship of trees\n and worn stones worship of memorials of the Deluge? Compare\n Boulanger, _infra_, ch. xi., and on the regard for boulders\n in India (_vide_ Gainet, vol. i.) Bryant (\"Mythology,\" iii.\n 532) says, speaking of the Egyptians--\"I have mentioned that\n they showed a reverential regard to fragments of rock which\n were particularly uncouth and horrid; and this practice seems\n to have prevailed in _many other countries_.\" Probably for the\n same reason the Lapps worshipped their lakes and rivers, as is\n known from the names annexed to them--\"Ailekes Jauvre,\" that\n is, sacred lake, &c. _Vide_ Pinkerton, i. 468. (Leems.)\n\nIt is curious to contrast this recent account of the Samoides with\nan account, apparently well informed and discriminating, in 1762.\nPinkerton, i. 522--\"The religion of the Samoides is very simple....\nThey _admit the existence of a Supreme Being_, Creator of all things,\neminently good and beneficent; a quality which, according to their mode\nof thinking, dispenses them from any adoration of Him, or addressing\ntheir prayers to Him, because they suppose this Being takes no interest\nin mundane affairs; and consequently, does not exact nor need the\nworship of man. They join to this idea that of a being eternal and\ninvisible, very powerful, though subordinate to the first, and disposed\nto evil. It is to this being that they ascribe all the misfortunes\nwhich befall them in this life. Nevertheless, they do not worship,\nalthough much in fear of him. If they place any reliance in the\ncounsels of Koedesnicks or Tadebes (the 'Schamans' referred to above),\nit is only on account of the connection which they esteem these people\nto have with this evil being; otherwise they submit themselves with\nperfect apathy to all the misfortunes which can befall them.\" \"The\nsun and moon, as well, hold the place of subaltern deities. It is by\ntheir intervention, they imagine, that the Supreme Being dispenses\nHis favours; but they worship them as little as the idols or fitches\n(fetishes) which they carry about them according to the recommendation\nof their Koedesnicks.\" Without pursuing the investigation further, it\nseems plain that the Samoides, from being (at least) Deists in the last\ncentury (Dr Hooker, \"Himalayan Journal,\" gives a similar account of the\nLepchas), have lapsed, apparently through sun-worship, to a state of\nPantheism, if not Fetishism.\n\nOf the Tongusy, a people who, if not kin to the Samoides, have an\nanalogous worship--(\"They are altogether unacquainted with any kind\nof literature, and worship the sun and moon. They have many Shamans\namong them, who differ little from those I formerly described.\"--Bell's\n\"Travels in Asia, Siberia\")--Bell, travelling in Siberia, 1720,\nsays--\"Although I have observed that the Tongusy in general worship\nthe sun and moon, there _are many exceptions_ to this observation.\nI have found intelligent people among them who believed there was a\nBeing superior to both sun and moon, and who _created them and all\nthe world_.\" If, then, we may connect the Tongusy with the Samoides,\nit would appear that whereas Mr Baring Gould (_i.e._, Castren) finds\nthe latter sunk in Fetishism, they were, the one in 1762, the other in\n1720, the worshippers of the sun and moon, joined with the knowledge\nand tradition of the true God still subsisting amongst them.\n\nF. Schlegel (\"Phil. of History,\" p. 138) says--\"The Greeks, who\ndescribed India in the time of Alexander the Great, divided the Indian\nreligious sects into Brachmans and _Samaneans_.... But by the Greek\ndenomination of _Samaneans_ we must certainly understand the Buddhists,\nas among the _rude nations of Central Asia_, as in other countries,\nthe priests of the religion of Fo bear _at this day_ the name of\n_Schamans_.\" Compare Professor Rawlinson, \"Ancient Monarchies,\" i. 139,\n172. (_Vide infra_, p. 163, 164, 205.)\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER VIII.\n\n _MYTHOLOGY._\n\n\nSince all antediluvian traditions meet in Noah, and are transmitted\nthrough him, there is an _\u00e0 priori_ probability that we shall find all\nthe antediluvian traditions confused in Noah. I shall discuss this\nfurther when I come to regard him under the aspect of Saturn.\n\nAs a consequence, we must not expect to find (the process of corruption\nhaving commenced in the race of Ham, almost contemporaneously with\nNoah) a pure and unadulterated tradition anywhere; and I allege more\nspecifically, that whenever we find a tradition of Noah and the Deluge,\nwe shall find it complicated and confused with previous communications\nwith the Almighty, and also with traditions of Adam and Paradise.\n\nBut inasmuch as the tradition is necessarily through Noah, and in\nany case applies to him at one remove, it does not greatly affect\nthe argument I have in hand. There is a further probability which\nconfronts us on the outset, that in every tradition, with the lapse\nof time, though the events themselves are likely to be substantially\ntransmitted, they may become transposed in their order of succession.\nWe shall see this in the case of Noah and his posterity. The principal\ncause being, that the immediate founder of the race is, as a rule,\namong all the nations of antiquity, deified and placed at the head of\nevery genealogy and history. \"Joves omnes reges voc\u00e2runt antiqui.\"\nThus Belus, whom modern discovery seems certainly to have identified\nwith Nimrod, in the Chaldean mythology appears as Jupiter, and even\nas the creator separating light from darkness (Rawlinson, \"Ancient\nMonarchies,\" i. 181; Gainet, \"Hist. de l'Anc. et Nouv. Test.,\" i. 120).\nBut Nimrod is also mixed up with Jupiter in the god Bel-Merodach. In\nmore natural connection Nimrod--(\"who may have been worshipped in\ndifferent parts of Chaldea under different titles,\" Rawlinson, i.\n172)--_Nimrod_ appears as the _father_ of _Hurki_ the moon-god, whose\nworship he probably introduced; and, what is much more to the point,\nhe appears as the father of Nin (whom I shall presently identify with\nNoah); whilst in one instance, at least, the genealogy is inverted,\nand he appears as the _son of Nin_. Thus, too, Hercules and Saturn are\nconfounded, just as we find Adam and Noah confounded (\"many classical\ntraditions, we must remember, identified Hercules with Saturn,\" _vide_\nRawlinson, i. 166). Also in Grecian mythology Prometheus (Adam) figures\nas the son of Deucalion (Noah), and also of Japetus (Japhet); and so,\ntoo, Adam and Noah, in the Mahabharata, are equally in tradition in the\nperson of Manou (_vide_ Gainet, i. 199), and in Mexico in the person of\nthe god Quetzalcoatl (_vide infra_, p. 326).\n\nBefore, however, pursuing the special subject of this inquiry further,\nit appears to me impossible to avoid an argument on a subject\nlong debated, temporarily abandoned through the exhaustion of the\ncombatants, and now again recently brought into prominence through the\nwritings of Mr Gladstone, Dr Dollinger, Mr Max M\u00fcller, and others--the\nsource and origin of mythology.[126]\n\n [126] This chapter was written before the publication of Mr Cox's\n \"Mythology of the Aryan Nations.\" It will be seen, however,\n that I indulge the hope that much that is seductive, and much\n even that is systematic, in Mr Cox's view, will be found to be\n compatible with the line I have indicated.\n\nNow, here, I am quite ready to adopt, in the first place, the opinion\nof L'Abb\u00e9 Gainet, that every exclusive system must come to naught, \"que\ntoutes les tentatives qu'on ai faites pour expliquer le polyth\u00e9isme par\nun syst\u00e8me exclusif tombent \u00e0 faux et n'expliquent rien.\"\n\nYet, whilst fully admitting an early and perhaps concurrent admixture\nof Sabaism,[127] I consider that the facts and evidence contained in\nthe pages of Rawlinson will enable us to arrive at the history of\nidolatry by a mode much more direct than conjecture. The pages of\nRawlinson prove the identity of Nimrod and Belus, and his worship\nin the earliest times. On the other hand, there has been a pretty\nconstant tradition[128] that Nimrod first raised the standard of\nrevolt against the Lord; and the erection of the tower of Babel seems\nto show a state of things ripe for idolatry. Here recent discovery and\nancient tradition concur in establishing hero-worship as among the\nearliest forms of idolatry. But further, the Arab tradition of Nimrod's\napotheosis, analogous to the mysterious and miraculous disappearance\nof Enoch (_vide infra_, p. 192), suggests how hero-worship might\nbecome almost identical with the worship of spirits, which L'Abb\u00e9\nGainet inclines to think the first and most natural mode. If there was\na tradition among them that one of their ancestors was raised up to\nheaven,[129] why may they not have argued, when their minds had become\nthoroughly corrupted, that their immediate ancestor, the mighty Nimrod,\nhad been so raised? and when one ancestor was deified the rest would\nhave been deified in sequence, or according to their relationship to\nhim. What, again, more likely than that, when through the corruptions\nof mankind the communications of the Most High ceased, they should\nturn to those to whom the communications had been made, at first\nperhaps innocently in intercession, and, as corruption deepened, in\nworship?[130]\n\n [127] Philo. _apud_ Eusebius, who has transmitted the Phoenician\n tradition (_vide_ Bunsen's \"Egypt,\" iv. 281), seems to me to\n indicate the mode in which it came about in the following\n words--\"Now Chronos, whose Phoenician epithet was El,\n _a ruler of the land_, and subsequently after his death,\n _deified_ in the constellation of Kronos (Saturn),\" &c. As to\n Saturn, _vide_ ch. x.\n\n In the cosmical theory there is analogy as to the process of\n deification--\"In the Phoenician cosmogonies, the connection\n between the highest God and a subordinate male and female\n demiurgic principle is of frequent occurrence\" (Bunsen, iv.\n 447). It would seemingly be more in fitness with a cosmical\n theory to find direct adoration of the principle, without\n evidence of any previous or concurrent process of deification.\n\n Mr W. Palmer (\"Egyptian Chronicles,\" i. 37) says--\"But when we\n find the rulers of the first two periods in the Chronicle, its\n xiii. gods and viii. demigods, answering closely to the two\n generations of the antediluvian and post-diluvian patriarchs\n in number, and therefore also in the average length of the\n reigns and generations; and when we know, besides, as we do,\n that the Pantheon of the Egyptians and other nations, which\n they said had all borrowed from them, was peopled, in part\n at least, _with deified ancestors_--for even the heavenly\n luminaries, and the _elements_, and _powers of nature_, and\n _notions of the true God still remaining_, or of angels and\n demons, so far as they were invested with humanity and sex,\n _were identified with human ancestors_; we cannot doubt that\n Kronos,\" &c.\n\n [128] \"Venator contra Dominum,\" St Augustine; \"Cit\u00e9 de Dieu,\" xvi.\n ch. iv.; Pastoret, \"Hist. de la Legislation.\"\n\n [129] Gen. v. 24, says only--\"And he walked with God, and was\n seen no more: because God took him.\" (_Vide_ also John iii.\n 13.) There might still have been the belief and tradition\n (according to appearances) that he was so raised. (Compare 4\n Kings ii. 11, and Ecclesiasticus, xliv. 16.)\n\n [130] I believe, however, that the apostasy in the Hamitic race\n generally was much more direct; and I entirely agree with\n Bryant that it must have resulted at an early period in a\n systematic scheme of mixed solar and ancestral worship.\n Therefore, in any Hamitic tradition, we shall not be startled\n at finding (even in the commemorative ceremonies of the\n Deluge) evidence of solar mythology inextricably blended with\n ancestral traditions. We, however, are only concerned with the\n ancestral traditions, and in so far as we can discriminate\n them, Mr Cox's evidence of solar mythology will form no\n barrier to our inquiry.\n\n In the preceding page I have quoted a passage from\n Sanchoniathon, which seems to indicate the mode in which the\n mixed system arose; but there \"Cronos\" (Noah) is deified in\n the planet Saturn. As a rule, however, we find him deified in\n the sun (Bryant, ii. 60, 200, 220). Ham, however, is sometimes\n also deified in the sun; and in cases where Ham is so deified,\n it is not unlikely that we shall find the patriarch relegated\n to Saturn.\n\nL'Abb\u00e9 Gainet, in another part of his work, draws attention to the\nworship of ancestors in China, and asks whether the idols of Laban had\nreference to more than some such secondary objects?\n\nIt will be recollected that it was precisely the extent to which this\nveneration was to be considered culpable which was the subject-matter\nof the unfortunate disputes between certain religious orders in the\nseventeenth and eighteenth centuries (_vide_ Huc's \"Chinese Empire,\"\nand Cretineau Joly's \"Hist. de la Com. de Jesus,\" vol. iii. chap. iii.,\nand vol. v. chap. i.) Indeed, among the Semitic races it may never have\ndegenerated into idolatry. Still it appears to me that weight should\nbe attached to this tendency, more especially in primitive times, when\nthe recollection of ancestors who had been driven out of Paradise, to\nwhom direct revelations had been made, and who were naturally reputed\nto have been \"nearer to the gods\" (Plato, Cicero[131]), would have been\nall in all to their descendants. Then, again, as we have just seen,\nthere was the tradition among them of one man who had been carried\nup into heaven, and accordingly, when hero-worship culminated in the\ndeification of man, we are not surprised to find it taking the form of\nthis apotheosis as in the identification of Nimrod and Enoch.\n\n [131] \"Quoniam antiquitas proxime accedit ad deos.\"--_De Legibus_,\n ii. 11.\n\nThis tendency to idolatry through hero-worship seems to me so natural\nand direct, that I think, apart from the facts _\u00e0 priori_, I should\nhave been led to the conclusion that it was the actual manner in which\nit was brought about.[132] It is not denied, on the other hand,\nthat there always has been a tendency to nature-worship also; and,\nindeed, there is probably a stage during which every mythology will\nbe found to have come under its influence. But the inclination at the\npresent moment is unmistakably to an exclusive astral or solar system.\nThe point of interest which excites me to this inquiry is simply to\ndetermine the value of the historical traditions which may lie embedded\nin these systems; and I shall be content to find them, whether or not\nthey form the primary nucleus, or whether only subsequently imported\ninto, and blended with, solar mythology. It is easy to conceive how a\nmythology embodying historical traditions could pass into an astral\nsystem. In this case incongruity would not startle; but it is difficult\nto imagine a pure astral system which would not be too harmonious and\nsymmetrical to admit of the grossness, inconsistency, and incongruity\nto which the process of adaptation would inevitably give rise, and to\nwhich hero-worship is inherently prone. As Mr Gladstone says (Homer,\nii. 12):--\n\n \"There is much in the theo-mythology of Homer which, if it had\n been a system founded on fable, could not have appeared there. It\n stands before us like one of our old churches, having different\n parts of its fabric in the different styles of architecture, each\n of which speaks for itself, and which we know to belong to the\n several epochs in the history of the art when their characteristic\n combinations were respectively in vogue.\"\n\n [132] The adverse decision, in the matter of the ceremonies, did\n not, I apprehend, touch the question we are now considering,\n albeit the ceremonies had reference to deceased ancestors.\n This will be apparent, I think, from consideration of the\n grounds upon which the question was debated. The Jesuits\n relied upon the sense in which the ceremonies were regarded\n by the Mandarins and literary men whom they consulted, whilst\n their opponents supported their arguments by reference to the\n popular notions and the superstitious practices _introduced_\n by the Bonzes. (_Vide_ Cretineau Joly's \"Hist. de la Com. de\n Jesus,\" vol. v. chap. i.)\n\nMr Gladstone (_passim_) victoriously combats the theory of\nnature-worship as applied to Grecian mythology; but it appears to me\nthat his argument and mode of reasoning would apply with tenfold effect\nto the Chaldean mythology, where there is a likelihood at least that we\nshall view idolatry in its early commencements. I consider that this\nview is borne out by the following passage from Professor Rawlinson's\n\"Ancient Monarchies,\" i. 139:--\n\n \"In the first place, it must be noticed that the religion was\n to a certain extent _astral_. The heaven itself, the sun, the\n moon, and the five planets, have each their representative in\n the Chaldean Pantheon among the chief objects of worship. At the\n same time it is to be observed, that the astral element is not\n universal, but partial; and that even where it has place, it is\n but one aspect of the mythology, not by any means its full and\n complete exposition. The Chaldean religion even here is far from\n being mere Sabeanism--the simple worship of the 'host of heaven.'\n The ether, the sun, the moon, and still more the five planetary\n gods, are something above and beyond those parts of nature. Like\n the classical Apollo and Diana, Mars and Venus, they are real\n persons, with a life and a history, a power and an influence, which\n no ingenuity can translate into a metaphorical representation\n of phenomena attaching to the air and to the heavenly bodies.\n It is doubtful, indeed, whether this class of gods are really\n of astronomical origin, and not rather primitive deities, whose\n characters and attributes were, to a great extent, fixed and\n settled before the notion arose of connecting them with certain\n parts of nature. Occasionally they seem to represent heroes rather\n than celestial bodies; and they have all attributes quite distinct\n from their physical and astronomical character.\n\n \"Secondly, the striking resemblance of the Chaldean system to that\n of the classical mythology, seems worthy of particular attention.\n This resemblance is too general and too close in some respects\n to allow of the supposition that mere accident has produced the\n coincidence.\"\n\nThe evidence in the \"Ancient Monarchies\" seems to me to decide the\npoint, not only for perhaps the earliest mythology with which we are\nacquainted, but also for the Grecian mythology, which has generally\nbeen the ground of dispute. It is curiously in illustration, however,\nof the common origin of mythology, that the mythology of Greece should\nbe equally well traced to Assyria and Egypt. As evidence of the theory\naccording to the Assyrian origin, let us turn, for instance, to\nProfessor Rawlinson's identification of Nergal with Mars. It is true\nhe appears as the planet Mars under the form of \"Nerig,\" and he also\nfigures as the storm-ruler; but can anything well be more human than\nthe rest of his titles?\n\n \"His name is evidently compounded of the two Hamitic roots 'nir' =\n a man, and 'gula' = great; so that he is 'the great man' or 'the\n great hero.' His titles are 'the king of battle,' 'the champion of\n the gods,' 'the strong begetter,' 'the tutelar god of Babylonia,'\n and 'the god of the _chase_.'... We have no evidence that Nergal\n was worshipped in the primitive times. He is just mentioned by some\n of the early Assyrian kings, who regard him as _their ancestor_....\n It is conjectured that, like Bil-Nipru, he represents the _deified\n hero Nimrod_, who may have been worshipped in different parts of\n Chaldea under different titles.... It is probable that Nergal's\n symbol was the man-lion. Nir is sometimes used in the inscriptions\n in the meaning of lion, and the Semitic name for _the god himself_\n is 'aria,' the ordinary term for the king of beasts both in Hebrew\n and Syriac. Perhaps we have here the true derivation of the Greek\n name for the god of war 'Ares' ([Greek: Ar\u00eas]), which has _long\n puzzled classical scholars_. The lion would symbolise both the\n hunting and the fighting propensities of the god, for he not only\n engages in combats, but often chases his prey and runs it down like\n a hunter. Again, if Nergal is the man-lion, his association in the\n buildings with the _man-bull_ would be exactly parallel with the\n conjunction which _we so constantly find between him and Nin in the\n inscriptions_.\"[133]--_Rawlinson_, i. 172-174.\n\n [133] \"Notwithstanding his stature, beauty, hand, and voice, which\n constitute, taken together, a proud appearance, it seems\n as if Mars had stood lower in the mind of Homer than any\n Olympian deity who takes part in the Trojan war, except Venus\n only.\"--_Gladstone's \"Homer,\"_ ii. 225.\n\nI must draw attention also to the remarkable absence here of all the\nmonotheistic epithets we shall find attached to Ana, Enu, and Hoa.[134]\n\n [134] _Vide infra_, next chap. ix.\n\nLet us now turn to the theory which is most in the ascendant, and which\nprofesses to see in the old mythological legends only the thoughts and\nmetaphors of a mythic period.\n\nThis theory, which was Mr Max M\u00fcller's in the first instance, being\nnot only exclusively drawn from the conclusions of philology, but also\nexclusive in itself, cannot be anywhere stronger than its weakest point.\n\nIf it is shown in the instance of one primary myth, that it was the\nembodiment of an historical legend, or theological belief, the whole\nideal structure of a mythic period must collapse; for the rejection of\neclecticism in any form, which would embrace a Biblical or euhemeristic\ninterpretation of the myths, is at the foundation of Mr Max M\u00fcller's\nidea, and, indeed, would be incompatible with the theory of a mythic\nperiod such as he conceives it.\n\nThe connection of Nimrod with Nergal in the Assyrian mythology, of\nNergal with their planet Nerig, and of the Semitic name of the god\n\"Aria\" with the Greek [Greek: Ar\u00eas] and the Latin Mars, must, I think,\nform a chain of evidence destined to embarass Mr Max M\u00fcller and Mr Cox:\nfor, apart from the numerous points of contact of the Assyrian and\nEgyptian with the Greek mythologies, it can hardly be contended that\nthere was a mythic period for the Aryan which was not common to the\nwhole human race.\n\nIt would be natural to suppose, that a mythology which was generated\nin a mythic period--which was the invention of mankind in a peculiar\nstate of the imagination--would have been developed in its fulness\nand completeness, like Minerva starting from the brain of Jupiter,\nand would have borne the evidence of its origin in the symmetry of\nits form. Mr Max M\u00fcller, on the contrary, seems to yield the whole\nposition, in what, from his point of view, looks like an inadvertent\nphrase, that \"there were myths before there was a mythology.\" It is\nnot that the view is not true, or that it is inconsistent with his\nanalysis of the myths, but that it is so perfectly consistent with\nours! Incongruity, such as would come from the confusion of separate\nmyths, would be no difficulty for us; but it is hard to understand how\nmere fragmentary legends--sometimes attractive, but more frequently\nrepulsive and revolting, having no hold on what is nearest the heart of\na people, the traditions of its past--should have been so tenaciously\npreserved for so long a time under such different conditions in various\ncountries.\n\nSolar legends, spun out of confused metaphors, seem an inadequate\nexplanation, unless we also suppose idolatry of the sun. In that case,\nthe mythology, in so far as it was solar, would precede the myths; in\nother words, the myths would be radiations from a central idea. That\nin the day when mankind prevaricated after this fashion, and committed\nthe act of idolatry in their hearts, everything, from the phenomena\nof nature to the remote events of their history, would come under the\ninfluence of a new set of ideas may be easily conceived.\n\nAt such a period--and the commencement of these things at least was not\nimpossible in the days when, in the spirit of mistrust or defiance,\nmen drew together to build the city and tower in the plain of Sennaar\n(Shinar)--much of what Mr Cox supposes to have been the common\nparlance of mankind becomes natural, and a mythic period within these\nlimits conceivable.\n\nBut such a theory would not necessarily be exclusive of other forms of\nidolatry--as, for instance, the worship of ancestors--whilst it might\nclear up obscure points in the evidence which tends to establish the\nlatter.\n\nThe theory, however, must embrace many shades and gradations--from\nthe Hamitic extreme to the protomyths, which in time obscured the\nmonotheism of the Aryan of ancient Greece, and of the Peruvian Incas.\n(p. 304.)\n\nThis would seem, unless they ignore all difficulties, a better\nstandpoint for those who think, through the application of the solar\nlegends, \"to unlock almost all the secrets of mythologies;\" and any\ntheory connected with the sun and sun-worship has this advantage, that\nit can be extended to everything under the sun!\n\nIt is sufficiently obvious that no system can be held to have settled\nthese questions, which, if there were myths before there was a\nmythology, does not appropriate these antecedent myths, or exclude\ncounter explanations; and it is equally clear that there can have\nbeen no mythology of which the solar legends were the offspring, if\nthe legends embody thoughts which transcend the mythology; and no\nmythic period if they testify to facts and ideas incompatible with its\nexistence.\n\nAllowing for a certain confusion arising out of \"polyonomy,\" this sort\nof confusion, if there were nothing else, ought not to baffle the\ningenuity of experts like Mr Max M\u00fcller and Mr Cox. Such complications\nshould be as easily disentangled as the superadded figures in Egyptian\nchronology (_vide_ chapter vi.) when the key has been found.\n\nBut does Mr Max M\u00fcller profess to have brought the various legends into\nharmony? On the contrary (ii. 142), he frankly admits--\"Much, no doubt,\nremains to be done, and _even_ with the assistance of the Veda, the\nwhole of Greek mythology will never be deciphered and translated.\"\n\nI have no wish to push an admission unfairly, but this appears to me\nfatal as regards the argument with which I am dealing.[135] If there\nare myths which never will be deciphered, this must be because they\nhave had some non-astral or non-solar origin, which I consider to be\nalmost equivalent to saying that they must have had some pre-astral\norigin. What that precise origin was I think I have been able\nsufficiently to indicate in italicising the subjoined sentences from\nMr Max M\u00fcller. If these enigmas can be shown to be strictly local and\nGrecian, _cadit qu\u00e6stio;_ but if they are common to other mythologies,\nand these the oldest, I must say they have the look of antecedent\nexistence. At any rate, like those inconvenient boulders in the sand\nand gravel strata, they require the intervention of some glacial period\nto account for them.[136]\n\n [135] Mr Cox (\"Mythology,\" p. xiv.) says--\"Mythology, as we call\n it now, is simply a collection of the sayings by which men,\n once upon a time, described whatever they saw or heard in\n the countries where they lived. This key, which has unlocked\n almost all the secrets of mythology, was placed in our hands\n by Professor Max M\u00fcller, who has done more than all other\n writers to bring out the exquisite and touching poetry which\n underlies those ancient legends. He has shown us that in this,\n their first shape, these sayings were all perfectly natural,\n and marvellously beautiful and true. We see the lovely\n evening twilight die out, &c.... They said that the beautiful\n Eurydice,\" &c. (_vide infra_, p. 173). It would appear,\n however, from Mr Cox's more extended work, \"The Mythology of\n the Aryan Nations,\" that the sayings of mankind in the mythic\n period did not extend to speculations as to their origin and\n destiny, or embrace the facts of their history, or the deeds\n of their ancestors, but that their whole converse was upon the\n sun and moon, and the phenomena of the outward world.\n\n [136] Mr Max M\u00fcller makes the distinction between \"primitive or\n organic legends\" (and it is to these I wish to limit the\n discussion) \"and the second, those which were imported in\n later times from one literature to another.... The former\n _represents one common ancient stratum of language and\n thought_ reaching from India to Europe; the latter consist\n of boulders of various strata carried along by natural and\n artificial means from one country to another\" (ii. 245).\n\n It is clear that Mr Max M\u00fcller looks for _harmony_ in his\n system--\"We naturally look back to the scenes on which the\n curtain of the past has fallen, _for we believe that there\n ought to be one thought pervading the whole drama of mankind_.\n And here history steps in, and gives us the thread which\n connects the present with the past\" (p. 7). Why it was that\n harmony was not attained seems to be disclosed, if we read\n the passage in our sense and with a certain transposition of\n parts, at p. 3--\"There were at Athens then, as there have been\n at all times and in all countries, men who had no sense for\n the miraculous and supernatural, and who, without having the\n moral courage to deny altogether what they could not bring\n themselves to believe, endeavoured to find some plausible\n explanation _by which the sacred legends_ which _tradition_\n had _handed down to them_, and which had been _hallowed_ by\n _religious observances_, and sanctioned by the authority of\n the law, might be brought _into harmony with_ the dictates of\n reason and the _laws_ of _nature_.\" (Compare with _infra_, p.\n 351, Maine.)\n\nI have already hinted that a further consideration appears to me to\nincapacitate the theory of nature-worship, in any of its disguises,\nfrom being taken as the exclusive, or even the primitive form of\nidolatry, or of perverted tradition; and it is this,--that all the\nexplanations, even the most ingenious, even those which would be\naccounted \"primitive and organic,\" have their counter explanations,\ntraceable in the corruptions of truth and the perversions of\nhero-worship. Take, for instance, the name Zeus, which is in evidence\nof the primitive monotheism, and which stood in Greece, as Il or Ra in\nAssyria, for the true Lord and God, and which has its equivalents in\nDyaus (\"from the Sanscrit word which means 'to shine'\"); Dyaus-pater\n(Zeus-pater), Jupiter; Tiu (Anglo-Saxon, whence Tuesday); and Zia (High\nGerman)--_vide_ Cox's \"Mythology.\"\n\nWhat more natural than to associate the Almighty with the heaven\nwhere He dwelt? Mr Max M\u00fcller (\"Comparative Myth.,\" \"Chips,\" ii. 72)\nsays--\"Thus [Greek: Zeus], being originally a name of the sky, like\nthe Sanscrit Dyaus, became gradually a proper name, which betrayed\nits appellative meaning only in a few proverbial expressions, such as\n[Greek: Zeus hyei], or _sub Jove frigido_.\" Taking this passage in\nconnection with what is said (p. 148, of Welcker)--\"When we ascend\nwith him to the most distant heights of Greek history, the idea of God\nas the Supreme Being stands before us as a simple fact. Next to the\nadoration of one God, the Father of heaven, the Father of men, we find\nin Greece a worship of nature.\" I conclude that Mr Max M\u00fcller means,\nas Mr Cox means, that the names, Zeus or Dyaus, was applied to the\none true God, whose existence was otherwise and previously known to\nthem.[137] At starting, therefore, we find that the language borrowed\nfrom nature was only called in to give a colouring and expression to\na previously known and familiar truth; and here, too, we also see the\ncommencement of incongruity. The simple idea of the heavens might have\nbeen harmoniously extended by the imagination; but, complicated with\nthe idea of personality, it gave birth to the awkward and incongruous\nexpression, \"[Greek: Ze\u00fas huei], or _sub Jove frigido_,\" a phrase\nwhich never could have been originated by the Grecian mind, unless\nthe personality of Jove had been the idea most prominently before\nthe mind. But if the knowledge of the Deity, or even the conception\nof the personality of Zeus was operative in the mythic period, it\nmust have been operative to the extent of embodying what was known or\nrecollected of his dealings in love and anger with mankind, in the\nlegends which they wove, and also of blending them with the confusions\nwhich \"polyonomy\" occasioned. The introduction of this element would\nseriously embarass Mr Cox, and would give to Mr Gladstone's explanation\nan \"_\u00e0 priori_\" probability.\n\n [137] Mr Max M\u00fcller, in his essay on \"Semitic Monotheism,\"\n when opposing M. Renan's view that the monotheism of the\n Semitic race was instinctive, seems to say this still more\n explicitly--\"He thunders and Dyaus thunders became synonymous\n expressions; and by the mere habit of speech He became Dyaus\n and Dyaus became He\" (\"Chips,\" i. 358). \"At first the names of\n God, &c., were honest attempts at expressing or representing\n an idea which could never find adequate expression or\n representation.... If the Greeks had remembered that Zeus\n was but a name or symbol of the Deity, there would have been\n no more harm in calling God by that name than by any other\"\n (359). It must be remembered that after the name of \"Zeus,\"\n or \"Dyaus,\" = sky, had been adopted, they still retained\n the conception of the Divine nature and personality, as is\n evidenced in the words of the oracle of Dodona--\"[Greek: Ze\u00f9s\n \u00ean, Zeus \u00e9st\u00edn, Zeus essetai \u00f4 megale Zeu],--He was, He is, He\n will be, O great Zeus!\"\n\n Also (ii. 15) in the Orphic lines--\n\n \"Zeus is the beginning, Zeus the middle;\n Out of Zeus all things have been made.\"\n\n If we are agreed upon this, then I have no contention with\n Mr Max M\u00fcller; but with Max M\u00fcller as an auxiliary, I direct\n my argument to the attack of Dr Dollinger's position (\"The\n Gentile and the Jew,\" I. B. ii. p. 64)--\"The beginnings of\n Greek polytheism,\" viz., \"the deification of Nature and her\n powers, or of particular sensible objects, _lay at the root of\n all the heathen religions_, as they _existed from old time_,\n amongst the nations now united under the Roman empire.\"\n\n According to Mr Lewes (\"Hist. of Phil.,\" i. 44), it\n was Xenophanes who first confused the sky with the\n Deity--\"Overarching him was the deep blue infinite\n vault, immovable and unchangeable, embracing him and all\n things--_that he proclaimed_ to be God.\" (Contrast the\n Peruvian tradition, _infra_, p. 304.) St Clement of\n Alexandria (Strom. v. p. 601, Max M\u00fcller, chapter i. p. 366.)\n says, on the contrary, that Xenophanes maintained that there\n was but \"one God, and that he was not like unto men, either in\n body or mind.\"\n\nTake, again, the following passage from Mr Max M\u00fcller (p. 107)--\"The\nidea of a young hero, whether he is called _Baldr_, or Sigurd, or\nSigrit, or Achilles, or Meleager, or Kephalos, dying in the fulness of\nyouth--a story so frequently told, localised, and individualised--was\nfirst suggested by the sun dying in all his youthful vigour, either at\nthe end of a day, conquered by the powers of darkness, or at the end\nof the sunny season, stung by the thorn of winter.\"\n\nHere is a myth evidently very widely diffused. Let it be interpreted by\nwhat is told us at p. 108--\n\n \"_Baldr_, in the Scandinavian Edda, the divine prototype of Sigurd\n and Sigrit, is beloved by the whole world. Gods and men, the whole\n of nature, all that grows and lives, had sworn to his mother not to\n hurt the bright hero. The mistletoe alone, that does not grow on\n the earth, but on trees, had been forgotten, and with it Baldr was\n killed at the winter solstice....\n\n Baldr, whom no weapon pierced or clove,\n But in his breast stood fix'd the fatal bough\n Of mistletoe, which Lok, _the accuser, gave\n To Hoder_, and the unwitting Hoder threw;\n 'Gainst that alone had Baldr's life no charm.\"\n\n\"Thus Infendiyar, in the Persian epic, cannot be wounded by any\nweapon.... _All these are fragments of solar myths_.\" One hardly likes\nto disturb such illusions. Solar myths! well, allow me at least to\nrepeat the history which seems to me so very like this myth. Many\ncenturies ago, in a beautiful garden which a concurrence of tradition\nplaces somewhere in Central Asia, a man, the first man of our race,\nframed according to the \"divine prototype,\" dwelt beloved by the whole\nworld. God and the angels, and the whole of nature--all that grows and\nlives, were agreed that nothing should do him harm. One fruit or growth\nalone--the mistletoe it may have been--something that does not grow on\nthe earth, but on trees, was excepted; and it was told to this man,\nwhose name was--but we will not anticipate--that on the day on which\nhe touched this fruit he should die the death. It so came about that\nthe accuser, whom some call the serpent, had previously handed it to\nhis companion, and his unwitting companion gave it to him. He took it,\nand he died. Against that fatal bough his life had no charm. No weapon\npierced or clove him; for Baldr--I should say Adam--was invulnerable,\nas was Achilles and Meleager, except in one single respect.\n\nI believe that instances might be indefinitely multiplied. I shall\ncontent myself, however, with the following, which I think will be\ngenerally considered among the happiest illustrations of nature\nworship.[138]\n\n [138] Granting the tendency to nature-worship, I conclude that the\n conspicuous luminaries of the heavens would become primary\n objects of such worship. In amusing illustration of this I\n remember a friend of mine telling me that he happened to ask\n a young lad, the son of one of his tenants, who had just\n returned from a voyage to the Northern seas, how he liked his\n captain? He said, \"Oh, he was an _awful_ man--he swore by the\n _sun, moon_, and _stars_.\" Still less do I deny the tendency\n to sun-worship. It was, as Gibbon tells us (ii. 438, iii.\n 150), the last superstition Constantine abandoned before his\n conversion, and the first to which Julian betook himself after\n his apostacy.\n\n It may, moreover, be urged, that the sun figures in all these\n legends. I say, on the other hand, so also does the _serpent_.\n This serpent may be the serpent \"of _darkness_,\" and still\n be the serpent of _tradition_, but how darkness or night is\n aptly personified by a serpent I am at a loss to perceive.\n Then again the sun _may_ always be only the symbol of what\n is bright and heavenly. But when (Max M\u00fcller, ii. 171) we\n see this serpent Zohak, called by the Persians \"by the name\n of Dehak, _i.e., ten evils_, because he introduced \"_ten\n evils into the world_,\" we cannot help recalling the profane\n expressions attributed to the devil when he saw the ten\n commandments--proscribing the _ten_ evils in question.\n\n\"And as it is with this sad and beautiful tale of Orpheus and Euridike\n(Euridice). [The story of Euridice was this--'Euridice was bitten by\n_a serpent_, she dies, and descends into the lower regions. Orpheus\nfollows her, and obtains from the gods that his wife should follow\nhim if he promised not to look back, &c.' It reads to me like a sad\nreminiscence of Adam and Eve.] Mr Max M\u00fcller proceeds--'so it is with\nall those which may seem to you coarse, or dull, or ugly. They are so\nonly because the real meaning of the names has been half-forgotten or\nwholly lost. OEdipus and Perseus (_vide_ Appendix), we are told,\nkilled their parents, but it was only because the sun was said to kill\nthe darkness from which it seemed to spring.'\"[139]\n\n [139] Mr Max M\u00fcller may perhaps lay stress upon the circumstance\n that Baldr dies at the winter solstice. But this equally bears\n out the tradition noticed by Lenormant, that immediately after\n the Fall, there came upon the world a great cold. (_Vide\n supra_, ch. vii.)\n\nBut why is darkness called the parent of the sun, and not rather light\nthe parent of darkness? and why not a contrary legend founded on this\nsurmise? Is it merely accidental that the metaphor is not reversed?\n\nCompare the above speculation of Mr Max M\u00fcller's with the following\npassage from Gainet, \"Hist. de l'Ancien. Nouv. Test.,\" i.; \"Les\nSouvenirs du genre Humain,\" p. 79:--\n\n \"Chaos was placed at the commencement of all things in the\n Phoenician cosmogony (Euseb. Pr\u00e6p. Evan. l. i.), as in that of\n Hesiod (Theog., p. 5). The latter calls upon the Muses to tell\n him what were the beings that appeared first in existence, and he\n replies--'At the commencement of all things was Chaos, and from\n Chaos was born Erebus and dark night.'\n\n \"Thus, in the order of existence, as in the order of time, there is\n a concurrence of profane tradition to place night before day. This\n is the reason why the Scandinavians, the Gauls, the Germans, the\n Kalmucks, the Numidians, the Egyptians, and Athenians, according to\n Varro and Macrobius, count their days, commencing with sunset and\n not with sunrise.\"\n\nCuriously enough, in another chapter on a different subject, Mr\nMax M\u00fcller enables me to clinch this argument against himself. In\nan article on the \"Norsemen in Iceland,\" he says--in proof of the\ngenuineness of the Edda--\"There are passages in the Edda which sound\nlike verses from the Veda.\" But what are these verses from the ends of\nthe earth which are identical? Let us listen--\n\n \"'Twas the _morning_ of _time_\n When yet _naught was_,\n Nor sand nor sea were there,\n Nor cooling streams;\n Earth was not formed,\n Nor _Heaven_ above;\n A yawning gap there was,\n And grass nowhere.\"[140]\n\n [140] From the \"Elder Edda.\" (Quoted from Dr Dasent's \"Norsemen in\n Iceland.\" Oxford Essays, 1858.)\n\nUnder these conditions, I think it will be conceded that there was also\ndarkness--and therefore, that the tradition of the precedence of chaos\nand darkness is confirmed.\n\n\"A hymn,\" continues Mr Max M\u00fcller, \"of the Veda begins in a very\nsimilar way--\n\n \"Nor aught, nor naught existed; yon _bright sky\n Was not_, nor Heaven's broad roof outstretch'd above,\n What cover'd all? what shelter'd? what conceal'd?\n Was it the waters' fathomless abyss?\" &c.\n\nMr Max M\u00fcller adds, \"There are several mythological expressions common\nto _the Edda_ and _Homer_. In the Edda, man is said to have been\ncreated out of an _ash tree_. In Hesiod, Zeus created the third race\nof men out of _ash_ trees, and that this tradition was not unknown to\nHomer we learn from Penelope's address to Ulysses--\"Tell me thy family\nfrom whence thou art: for thou art not sprung from the olden trees, or\nfrom the rocks\" (Max M\u00fcller, ii. 195).\n\nThe tradition about the ash tree in Hesiod, Homer, and the Edda,[141]\nis curious but inexplicable: the general drift of the tradition may be\ndetermined by the recollection of two facts--that man was created,\nand that a tree was inseparably connected with his history from its\nearliest commencement. But I have quoted the passage more especially\nwith reference to its confirmation of the extract from Gainet, which\nattests the wide-spread tradition--so exactly in accordance with the\ncosmogony of Scripture--that Chaos was at the commencement of all\nthings, and that darkness existed before light.[142] I conclude by\nasking why this should be? When we are in the midst of solar and\nastral systems and legends, it seems natural that a theory of cosmogony\nshould commence with light rather than darkness--at least, as well\nthat it should commence with light as with darkness. But no, the\nuniversal tradition seems against it. Much more strange is this if we\nconnect the solar and astral legends with any system of Sabaism. These\nconsiderations make it plain to me that the solar and astral legends\nembodied anterior traditions.\n\n [141] What is still more remarkable, the same tradition is found\n in the \"Popol Vul\" (Mexican traditions), and as it is there\n given, fits in still more exactly with the solution I have\n suggested. It is there said that the _first race_ of men\n were created \"_out the earth_,\" the third out \"_of a tree_\n called Tzit\u00e9.\"[B] _If_ the \"Popol Vul\" came under Christian\n or European influences in the 17th century, it would have\n been more likely to have been brought into harmony with the\n Bible, rather than with either Homer, Hesiod, or the Edda.\n Let us pursue the myth a little further. Mr W. K. Kelly,\n \"Indo-Europ. Tradition and Folklore\" (_vide_ Max M\u00fcller, ii.\n 197) says, \"This healing virtue, which the mistletoe shares\n with the _ash_, is a long descended tradition, for the Kushtha\n ... a healing plant, was one that grew beneath the _heavenly\n Asvattha_,\" which is elsewhere called \"the imperishable\n Asvattha or Peepul (_Ficus religiosus_), out of which the\n immortals shaped the heaven and the earth,\" which legend Mr\n Kelly further traces in the German Yggdrasil (although Mr Max\n M\u00fcller from his own point of view dissents); at the foot of\n which tree (p. 207) \"lies the serpent Nidh\u00f6ggr, and gnaws its\n roots.\" Neither Mr Max M\u00fcller nor Mr Kelly discuss the point\n with reference to the view suggested above.\n\n [B] _Tiki_ was the great progenitor among New\n Zealanders.--_Shortland_, p. 56.\n\n [142] Gen. i. 1, \"In the beginning God created heaven and earth.\n 2. And the earth was void and empty, and _darkness was_ upon\n the face _of the deep_; and the spirit of God moved over the\n waters. 5. And He called the light day and the darkness night;\n and there was _evening_ and morning one day.\"\n\n In addition to the instances adduced by Gainet, it will\n be remembered that the Jewish sabbath was from evening to\n evening, and with us the astronomical day commences at noon,\n and the commencement and termination of the civil day at mean\n midnight.\n\n In the _second_ [Chinese] dynasty the day commenced at\n mid-day. Wei-Wang, the founder of the _third_ dynasty, fixed\n it at midnight.\" (Bunsen's \"Egypt,\" vol. iii. p. 390.)\n\n In the Phoenician cosmogony \"the beginning of all was a dark\n and stormy atmosphere,\" \"thick, unfathomable black chaos.\"\n (_Vide_ Bunsen's \"Egypt,\" iv. 176.)\n\n The New Zealanders have preserved the tradition with still\n greater distinctness. \"In the _beginning of time_ was Te Po\n (the night or darkness). In the generations that followed\n Te Po came Te Ao (the light)\" &c., &c. (_Vide_ Shortland's\n \"Traditions of the New Zealanders,\" p. 55.)\n\n _Vide_ Gladstone, \"Homer,\" ii. 155; Cox, \"Mythology of Aryan\n Nations,\" i. 15, on the relation of Phoibos to Leto. \"This is\n precisely the relation in which the _mythical night_ stood to\n the day which was to be born of _her_.\"\n\n _Vide_ on this point Wilkinson's \"Ancient Egyptians\" (I.\n chap. xiii.) \"The Mygale,\" says Champollion, \"received\n divine honours by the Egyptians, because it is blind, and\n _darkness is more ancient than light_.\" The Arabs have the\n expression \"_night and day_\" (_vide_ Wilkinson). Aristotle\n says \"The theologians consider all things to have been born of\n night.\" The Orphean fragments call \"night the Genesis of all\n things.... The Anglo-Saxons also, like the Eastern nations,\n began their computations of time from night, and the years\n from that day corresponding with our Christmas, which they\n called \"Mother Night,\" and the Otaheitans refer the existence\n of their principal deities to a state of darkness, which they\n consider the origin of all things.\" (_Vide_ Gen. i. 2, 3;\n _id._ p. 273-4.)\n\nI think Mr Max M\u00fcller will at least recognise them as spots on the disk\nof his solar theory, and which must ever remain obscure to those who\nrefuse the light of Scripture and tradition.\n\n\n APPENDIX TO CHAPTER VIII.\n\n \"OEDIPUS, PERSEUS.\"\n\nHere again, the explanation of Mr Max M\u00fcller, \"si non vrai est\nvraisemblable,\" and yet I cannot help seeing that the legends of\nPerseus and [OE]dipus may just as well be supposed to embody primitive\ntradition. Let us read the histories of OEdipus and Perseus in the\nlight of the tradition concerning Lamech (Gen. iv. 23, 24). \"And\nLamech said to his wives, Adah and Zillah ... I have slain a man to\nthe wounding of myself, and a stripling to my own bruising. Sevenfold\nvengeance shall be taken for Cain, but for Lamech seventy times\nsevenfold.\" The note to the Douay edition says--\"It is the tradition\nof the Hebrews that Lamech, in hunting, slew Cain, mistaking him for\na wild beast, and that having discovered what he had done, he beat so\nunmercifully the youth by whom he was led into that mistake that he\ndied of the blows.\" OEdipus was the son of Laius, who had supplanted\nhis brother. OEdipus was exposed to destruction as soon as born,\nbecause his father had been warned that he must perish by the hand of\nhis son,--but was rescued and brought up by shepherds. Hearing from\nthe oracle of Delphi (the tradition is of course localised), that if\nhe returned home he must necessarily be the murderer of his father, he\navoided the house of Polybus, the only home he knew of, and travelled\ntowards Phocis (from west to east by the by). (Comp. with _infra_, p.\n194.) He met Laius, his father, in a narrow road. Laius haughtily\nordered OEdipus to make way for him, which provoked an encounter,\nin which Laius and his armour-bearer were slain. Other circumstances,\neither separate traditions of the same event, or distinct legends, are\nno doubt mixed up in the narration, but still four facts remain as a\nresiduum available for the comparison.\n\nOEdipus was the son, as Lamech was the grandson, of one who\nsupplanted his brother, both kill their respective progenitors, and\nin the _casual_ encounter in which in both instances the tragedy\noccurred, _two_ persons were slain. In this there is a fair outline of\nresemblance.\n\nIn the legend of Perseus, certainly the legend is more indistinct,\net, in one point, that he inadvertently killed his _grandfather_, the\ncoincidence is perfect. And it must be borne in mind that it is not\na question of absolute but of comparative resemblance--in fact, a\nchoice between a mythical or an historical, an astral or a scriptural\nsolution, and when you come to degrees of relationship, the astral or\nsolar explanation becomes more attenuated at each remove,--\"the father\nof the sun\" may be metaphorically intelligible, but the grandfather of\nthe sun!\n\nI see further trace of the tradition of Lamech in the Phrygian legend\nof Adrastus, somewhat confused in the tradition of Cain, and in\nsome points reversed. Adrastus, the son of the Phrygian king, had\n_inadvertently killed_ his brother, and was in consequence expelled by\nhis father and deprived of everything. Whilst an exile at the court\nof Croesus, he was sent out with Prince Atys as guardian to deliver\nthe country from a wild boar. Adrastus had the misfortune to kill\nPrince Atys while aiming at the wild beast. Croesus pardoned the\nunfortunate man, as he saw in this accident the will of the gods, and\n_the fulfilment of a prophecy_, but Adrastus killed himself on the tomb\nof Atys (Herod. i. 35; Smith, \"Myth. Dict.\")\n\nNow let us take up the proof at another point. Will any one refuse\nto see in the following tale from the \"Gesta Romanorum,\"[143] at\nleast a medi\u00e6val corruption of the legend of OEdipus:--\"A certain\nsoldier, called Julian, unwittingly killed his parents. For being\nof noble blood, and addicted as a youth frequently is to the sports\nof the field, a stag which he hotly pursued suddenly turned round\nand addressed him--'Thou who pursuest me thus fiercely shall be the\ndestruction of thy parents.' These words greatly alarmed Julian....\nLeaving, therefore, his amusement, he went privately into a distant\ncountry ... where he marries. It chances that his parents come into\nthat country, and in his absence were received kindly by his wife, who,\n'in consideration of the love she bore her husband, put them into her\nown bed, and commanded another to be prepared elsewhere for herself.'\nIn the meantime, Julian returning abruptly home and discovering\nstrangers in his bed, in a fit of passion slays them. When he discovers\nthe parricidal crime he exclaims--'This accursed hand has murdered my\nparents and fulfilled the horrible prediction which I have struggled to\navoid.'\"\n\n [143] \"Gesta Romanorum,\" tale xviii. Swan. Rivingtons 1824.\n\nNow, I submit that this is not a greater distortion of the classical\nstories of OEdipus, Adrastus, &c., than are the classical legends of\nthe biblical traditions of Cain and Lamech.\n\nFor further trace read Bunsen, iv. 235, also, 253, 254. Mr Cox\n(\"Mythology of Aryan Nations\") says:--\"_The names Theseus_, _Perseus_,\n_Oidipous, had all been mere epithets_ of one and the same being; but\nwhen they ceased to be mere appellatives, these creations of mythical\nspeech were regarded not only as different persons, but as beings in\nno way connected with each other.... Nay, the legends inter-change\nthe method by which the parents seek the death of their children; for\nthere were tales which narrated that Oidipous was shut up in an ark\nwhich was washed ashore at Sikyon,\" p. 80. Sicyon was the oldest Greek\ncity. Compare p. 157 of this ch., and ch. on Deluge. This was merely\nthe traditional record that the tradition was preserved in the Ark, and\nsubsequently emanated from Sicyon.\n\n\n II. PROMETHEUS AND HERCULES OR HERAKLES.\n\nI have elsewhere (p. 202) alluded to the confusion of Prometheus, as\nthe creator of man, with Prometheus, the first man created. But the\nmost curious instance of reduplication is the further confusion of what\nI may call the human Prometheus, with his deliverer Hercules,--Hercules\nand Prometheus both in different ways embodying traditions of Adam!\nPrometheus is the Adam[144] of Paradise and the Fall, Hercules is Adam\nthe outcast from Paradise, with his skin and club sent forth on his\nlong labours and marches through the world. But how can Hercules, who\nfrees Prometheus from the rock, be the same as Prometheus who is bound\nto the rock? If, however, we are entitled to hope that Adam in the\nlabour of his long exile worked off the sentence and expiated the guilt\non account of which Adam, the culprit, was sentenced, may we not accept\nthis as an adequate explanation? Is it a forced figure that he should\nbe said to unbind him from the rock, to drive off the vulture which\npreys upon him, and thus finally liberate him?\n\n [144] On this point, that Prometheus is Adam, _vide_ M. Nicolas'\n \"Etudes Philos. sur le Christ.,\" 1. ii. ch. v. 30 (19th edit.)\n\nThis disjunction of Adam and separate personification in the two\nperiods of his life, _before_ and _after_ the Fall, will accord well\nenough with the addition in some legends of a brother Epimetheus, and\nI submit that this explanation is as good as that (_vide_ Smith's\n\"Myth. Dict.\") which regards the legend as purely allegorical,\nand _Pro_metheus and _Epi_metheus as signifying \"forethought\" and\n\"afterthought.\"\n\nThe travels of Hercules, it must be confessed, as traditionally\nrecorded, are somewhat eccentric. But are they explicable on any solar\ntheory? He begins by travelling from _west_ to east; he then proceeds\n_south_, and although he traverses Africa westward, he diverges\nabruptly to the _north_, from which he proceeds south, and ends as\nhe began by travelling from _west_ to east. All this, however, is\nperfectly explicable if we are prepared to admit Bryant's (\"Mythology,\"\nii. 70) historical surmises, and to go along with him so far as to\nbelieve that the tradition was mainly preserved through Cuthite or\n_Chus_ite channels. We can, then, see a probability in the conjecture\nthat the descendants of Chus, in preserving the tradition of the\ntravels of Hercules (Herakles), superadded or substituted the scenes\nand incidents of their own wanderings, after they had settled down in\nthe place of their final location.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER IX.\n\n _ASSYRIAN MYTHOLOGY._\n\n \"But surely there is nothing improbable in the supposition, that\n in the poems of Homer such vestiges may be found. Every recorded\n form of society bears some traces of those by which it has been\n preceded, and in that highly primitive form, which Homer has\n been the instrument of embalming for all posterity, the law of\n general reason obliges us to search for elements and vestiges more\n primitive still.... The general proposition that we may expect\n to find the relics of scriptural traditions in the heroic age of\n Greece, though it leads, if proved, to important practical results,\n is independent even of a belief in those traditions, as they stand\n in the scheme of revealed truth. They must be admitted to have\n been facts on earth, even by those who would deny them to have\n been facts of heavenly origin, in the shape in which Christendom\n receives them; and the question immediately before us is one of\n pure historical probability. The descent of mankind from a single\n pair, the lapse of that pair from original righteousness, are apart\n from and ulterior to it. We have traced the Greek nation to a\n source, and along a path of migration which must in all likelihood\n have placed its ancestry, at some point or points, in close local\n relations with the scenes of the earliest Mosaic records: the\n retentiveness of that people equalled its receptiveness, and its\n close and fond association with the past, made it prone indeed to\n incorporate novel matter into its religion, but prone also to keep\n it there after its incorporation.\n\n \"If such traditions existed, and if the laws which guide historical\n inquiry require or lead us to suppose that the forefathers of\n the Greeks must have lived within their circle, then the burden\n of proof must lie not so properly with those who assert that\n the traces of them are to be found in the earliest, that is,\n the Homeric form of the Greek mythology, as with those who deny\n it. What became of those old traditions? They must have decayed\n and disappeared, not by a sudden process, but by a gradual\n accumulation of the corrupt accretions, in which at length they\n were so completely interred as to be invisible and inaccessible.\n Some period, therefore, there must have been at which they would\n remain clearly perceptible, though in conjunction with much corrupt\n matter. Such a period might be made the subject of record, and if\n such there were, we might naturally expect to find it in the oldest\n known work of the ancient literature.\n\n \"If the poems of Homer do, however, contain a picture, even though\n a defaced picture, of the primeval religious traditions, it is\n obvious that they afford a most valuable collateral support to the\n credit of the Holy Scripture, considered as a document of history.\n Still we must not allow the desire of gaining this advantage\n to bias the mind in an inquiry, which can only be of value if\n it is conducted according to the strictest rules of rational\n criticism.\"--_Gladstone on Tradition in \"Homer and the Homeric\n Age_,\" vol. ii. sect. i.\n\n\nHaving laid, as I think, in what has been premised in the last chapter,\ngrounds for a presumption that primitive traditions may be shrouded in\nthe ancient mythology, I proceed to seek traditions of the patriarch\nNoah among the inscriptions and monuments of the Chald\u00e6ans; for\nthen we shall find ourselves in a period when the results of modern\narch\u00e6ological science are in contact with the events and incidents of\nprimitive patriarchal life recorded in Scripture; and, in seeking them\nwhere we shall best find them, in the able and discriminating pages\nof Rawlinson, we shall at least feel that we are treading on safe and\nsolid ground.\n\nThe deities in the Chald\u00e6an Pantheon are thus enumerated by Professor\nRawlinson--\n\n \"The grouping of the principal Chald\u00e6an deities is as follows:--At\n the head of the Pantheon stands a god Il or Ra, of whom little\n is known. Next to him is a triad, Ana, Bil or Belus, and Hea or\n Hoa, who correspond closely to the classical Pluto, Jupiter, and\n Neptune. Each of these is accompanied by a female principle or\n wife.... Then follows a further triad, consisting of Sin or Hurki\n the moon-god, San or Sanci the sun, and Vul (or Yem, or Ao, or\n In, or Ina, according to various readings of the hieroglyphics)\n the god of the atmosphere (again accompanied by female powers or\n wives).... Next in order to them we find a group of five minor\n deities, the representatives of the five planets, Nin or Ninip\n (Saturn), Merodach (Jupiter), Nergal (Mars), Ishtar (Venus), and\n Nebo (Mercury). [The bracket indications are Rawlinson's.]...\n These principal deities do not appear to have been connected like\n the Egyptian and classical divinities into a single genealogical\n scheme\" (i. 141).\n\nIn a note at p. 142 it is said, \"These schemes themselves were probably\nnot genealogical at first ... but after a while given to separate\nand independent deities, recognised in different places by distinct\ncommunities, or even by distinct races\" (_vide_ Bunsen's \"Egypt,\" iv.\n66; English Tran.)\n\nNow to this opinion I venture unreservedly to adhere, and I connect it\nwith the statement (_id._ i. 72), that \"Chald\u00e6a in the earliest times\nto which we can go back, seems to have been inhabited by four principal\ntribes. The early kings are continually represented in the monuments\nas sovereigns over the Kiprat-arbat, or 'Four Races' (_vide supra_, p.\n30). These 'Four Races' are sometimes called the Arba Lisun or 'Four\nTongues,' whence we may conclude that they were distinguished from one\nanother, among other differences, by a variety in their forms of speech\n... an examination of the written remains has furnished reasons for\nbelieving that the differences were great and marked; the languages,\nin fact, belonging to the four great varieties of human speech, the\nHamitic, Semitic, Aryan, and Turanian.\" Compare pp. 39, 40.\n\nIf it is allowed that there may have been mythological systems\ncorresponding to these divers nationalities, we may fairly conclude\nthat the deities above enumerated may not necessarily have been\ndifferent deities, but the same deities viewed in different lights, or\nincluded in duplicate in the way of incorporation, or in recognition\nof subordinate nationalities. If, therefore, I find the representation\nof Noah in any one of these deities, is there not a _prima facie_\nprobability that I shall find the reduplication of him in others? I\nconsider, at least, that I shall have warrant for thus collecting the\nscattered traditions concerning the patriarch who stands at the head of\nthe second propagation of our race.\n\nBut first as to the god Il or Ra--\n\n IL OR RA.\n\n The form _Ra_ represents, probably, the native Chald\u00e6an name of\n this deity, while _Il_ is the Semitic equivalent. _Il_, of course,\n is but a variant of _El_, the root of the well-known biblical\n _Elohim_, as well as of the Arabic Allah. It is this name which\n Diodorus represents under the form of _Elus_, and Sanchoniathon, or\n rather Philo Biblius, under that of Elus, or _Ilus_. The meaning of\n the word is simply \"God,\" or perhaps \"The God\" emphatically. _Ra_,\n the Cushite equivalent, must be considered to have had the same\n force originally, though in Egypt it received a special application\n to the sun, and became the proper name of that particular deity.\n The word is lost in the modern Ethiopic. It formed an element\n in the native name of Babylon, which was _Ka-ra_, the Cushite\n equivalent of the Semitic _Bab-il_, an expression signifying \"the\n gate of God.\"\n\n Ra is a god with few peculiar attributes. He is a sort of fount\n and origin of deity, too remote from man to be much worshipped, or\n to excite any warm interest. There is no evidence of his having\n had any temple in Chald\u00e6a during the early times. A belief in his\n existence is implied rather than expressed in inscriptions of the\n primitive kings, where the Moon-god is said to be \"brother's son\n of Ana, and eldest son of Bil or Belus.\" We gather from this, that\n Bel and Ana were considered to have a common father, and later\n documents sufficiently indicate that that common father was Il or\n Ra.\"--_Rawlinson_, i. p. 143.\n\nIf in the Il or Ra of the Chald\u00e6ans the primitive monotheism is not\nrevealed, I do not see how it can be discerned in the Zeus of the\nGreeks. We have the same god in the same relation in the Scandinavian,\nor at any rate in the Lapland mythology. Leems (\"Account of Danish\nLapland,\" Pinkerton, i. 458) says--\"Of the Gods inhabiting the starry\nmansions the _greatest is Radien_, yet it is uncertain whether he is\nover every part of the sidereal sky, or whether he governs only some\npart of it. Be this as it may, I shall be bold to affirm that the\nLaplanders never comprehended, under the name of this false god, the\ntrue God; _which is obvious from this_, that some have not scrupled to\nput the image or likeness of the true God by the side of their Radien,\non Runic boxes.\"[145] If, however, of their gods \"the greatest was\nRadien,\" they would not have placed the true God by his side until\nthey had become acquainted with the true God, or until they had come\nto commingle Christianity and Paganism; but then would they not have\nplaced \"Ra\" by the side of the true God as His counterpart? I am\nassuming that \"Radien\" means simply the god Ra, as I suppose Mr Max\nM\u00fcller would recognise \"dien\" as cognate to \"Dyaus\" ... \"Dieu.\"\n\n [145] In like manner, the Peruvians recognised \"Pachacamac\" (_vide\n infra_, p. 304), in the description which the Spaniards\n gave of the true God; and in so far as they had retained the\n monotheistic belief, this was true. Garcilasso de la Vega, a\n most competent witness who testifies to this, adds--\"If any\n one shall now ask me, who am a Catholic Christian Indian, by\n the infinite mercy, what name was given to God in my language,\n I should say Pachacamac.\"--Hakluyt Society, ed. of Garcil. de\n la Vega, i. 107.\n\nYet it has been opposed, _in limine_, to M. L'Abbe Gainet's valuable\nchapter on the \"Monotheisme des Peuples primitifs,\" \"that he does not\nmeet the specific assertions of historians such as Rawlinson, who finds\nidolatry prevalent among the Chald\u00e6ans on their first appearance on the\nstage of history.\"\n\nI must submit, however, that although the discovery of idolatry at this\nearly period may appear to disturb the particular theory, yet on closer\nexamination it will be found to sustain L'Abbe Gainet's argument, on\nthe whole, by sustaining the truth of tradition upon which his main\nargument reposes; for the idolatry which we find is intimately bound\nup with the worship of Belus, identified with Nimrod, whose rebellion\nagainst the Lord has always been in tradition, and is according to\nthe more accepted interpretation of the sacred text. The discovery of\nidolatry, therefore, under the particular circumstances, is exactly\nwhat we should expect, and affords a remarkable confirmation of the\nfidelity of tradition.\n\nMoreover, there are Chald\u00e6ans and Chald\u00e6ans, as we have just seen in\nRawlinson (_sup._ p. 184), and as will be made more evident in the\nfollowing passage from Gainet's \"Monotheisme,\" &c.\n\n \"It is sufficiently agreed, says Lebatteux (Mem. Acad. t. xxvii. p.\n 172), that the Babylonians recognised a supreme being, the Father\n and Lord of all (Diod. Sic. l. ii.) St Justin Cohortat. ad gent.\n Eusebi. Prep. Evan., l. iii. Porphyry (Life of Pythagoras) cites an\n oracle of Zoroaster, in which the Chald\u00e6ans are coupled in encomium\n with the Hebrews for the sanctity of the worship which they paid to\n the Eternal King. These are the words of the oracles--The Chaldeans\n alone with the Hebrews have wisdom for their share, rendering a\n pure worship to God, who is the Eternal King.\"--_Gainet_, iii. 408.\n\nThe pure monotheism here alluded to may have been preserved in Chald\u00e6an\nfamilies of Semitic origin, but the extract I have just given from\nRawlinson seems to prove that the knowledge was preserved also, dimly\nand obscurely, among the predominant Chald\u00e6ans of Hamitic descent. This\nwill be more apparent from the monotheistic epithets attached to the\nthree next deities.\n\n\n ANA.\n\n\"Ana is the head of the first triad which follows immediately after\nthe obscure god Ra.\" \"Ana, like Il and Ra, is thought to have been a\nword originally signifying God in the highest sense.\" \"He corresponds\nin many respects to the classical Hades, who, like him, heads[146] the\ntriad to which he belongs.\" In so far he is undistinguishable from\nIl or Ra, and may only transmit the monotheistic tradition through\na different channel. But Ana has human epithets applied to him very\nsuggestive of hero-worship. \"His epithets are chiefly such as mark\npriority and antiquity.\" \"He is the Old Ana,\" \"the original chief,\"\n\"the father of the gods\" [_inter alia_, of Bil Nipru, _i.e._ Nimrod].\nHe is also called--which imports another association of ideas--\"the\nlord of spirits and demons,\" \"the king of the lower world,\"[147] \"the\nlord of darkness or death,\" \"the ruler of the far-off city.\"\n\n [146] \"This is not a mere arbitrary supposition, for it is expressly\n said in Holy Writ, that the first man, ordained to be 'the\n father of the whole earth' (as he is then called), became,\n on his reconciliation with his Maker, the wisest of all men,\n and, according to tradition, the greatest of prophets, who in\n his far-reaching ken, _foresaw the destinies of all mankind_\n in all successive ages down to the end of the world. All this\n must be taken in a strict historical sense, for the moral\n interpretation we abandon to others. The pre-eminence of the\n Sethites chosen by God, and entirely devoted to His service,\n must be received as an undoubted historical fact, to which\n we find many pointed allusions even in the traditions of the\n other Asiatic nations. Nay, the hostility between the Sethites\n and Cainites, and the mutual relations of these two races,\n form the chief clue to the history of the primitive world, and\n even of many particular nations of antiquity.\"--_Fred. Von\n Schlegel's \"Philosophy of Hist.,\" Robertson's trans._, p. 152.\n\n [147] Compare these epithets, and what was said above, of\n resemblance \"to classical Hades,\" with the following verses\n from the \"Oracula Sybillina,\" lib. i. 80--\n\n \"Orcus eos cepit gr\u00e6co qui nomine dictus\n Est _Ades_, quod primus eo descenderit _Adam_,\n Expertus mortis legem,\" &c.\n\nSetting aside such titles as belong exclusively to the Deity, but\nassuming hero-worship--supposing man deified--who more appropriately\nplaced in these primitive times at the head of the list, than their\noriginal progenitor Adam.[148] To whom would these titles, \"the old\nAna,\"[149] \"the original chief,\" \"the lord of darkness and death,\" he\nwho introduced death into the world, more exactly apply? Rawlinson\nalso says--\"His position is well marked by Damascius, who gives the\nthree gods Anus, Illinus, and A\u00fcs, as _next in succession to the\nprimeval pair_, Assorus and Missara,\" i. 145. Now, it will not be\ncontested, I think, that Assorus is the same as Alorus, the first of\nthe ten antediluvian (deluge of Xisuthrus) Assyrian kings enumerated\nby Berosus, and which correspond to the ten antediluvian patriarchs.\nConsequently Assorus = Alorus = Adam.[150]\n\n [148] Osiris also is \"the judge of the soul, or the god of the world\n of spirits.\" \"Osiris is never represented in an animal form,\n but is called the Bull\" (_infra_ pp. 203, 204), _vide_\n Bunsen's \"Egypt,\" iv. 332. Bunsen's own view is, that \"the\n history of Osiris is the history of the cycle of the year,\n of the sun dying away and resuscitating himself again.\" Mr\n Palmer (\"Egyptian Chronicles,\" i. p. 3) says--(and I think\n it as well that I should state that I had come to an almost\n identical conclusion, and had written this and the following\n chapter before I became acquainted with Mr Palmer's profound\n and yet still neglected work, _vide_ ch. vi.)--\"The first\n human ('Osiris = Adam and Isis = Eve') having been thrown back\n into pairs of anthropomorphous deities (p. 2), the original\n Osiris and Isis, formed by the divine potter as parents of\n all, disappear in name, and are represented by Seb and Nutpe,\n while Osiris, Typhon, and Horus, the progeny of Seb and Nutpe,\n answers rather to Cain, Abel, and Seth, in the old world,\n and to the three sons of Noah in the new.... From Osiris-Seb\n (whether he be viewed as Adam or Noah) are derived downwards\n all the successive generations of Egyptian, gods and demigods,\n patriarchs, kings, and other men\" [and for a parallel\n exposition of the Phoenician myth, _vide_ Palmer, p. 53 and\n seq., \"each dynast in turn, in the early generations, being\n identifiable at once with Seb and Osiris, as father of those\n following, with Osiris again by sharing the same mortality,\n and with Horus as renewing his father's life and being the\n hope of the coming world. _So each ancestor in turn went_, it\n was said, _to the original Osiris as patriarch of the dead_,\n and to his intermediate Osirified fathers, and was himself\n Osirified like them, all making one collective Osiris.\" [I\n have not space to discuss the question at what stage the\n mythology became pantheistic.] \"Waiting for that reunion and\n restoration which was to come through successive generations\n by the great expected Horus, who was to take up into himself\n the old, and to be himself the new Osiris.\"\n\n [149] In a note to Cardinal Wiseman's \"Science and Revealed\n Religion\" on Conformity between Semitic and Indo-Europ.\n grammatical forms, it will be seen that _Ana_ in Chaldaic is\n the pronoun of the first person singular, and corresponds with\n the revealed appellation of the Deity, \"I Am who Am\" (Exod.\n iii. 14) = the [Greek: t\u00f2 Eg\u00f4].\n\n [150] Max M\u00fcller, Chips i. 153, refers to Dr Windischmann's\n (\"Zoroastrian Studies\") discovery that there are ten\n generations between Adam and Noah, as there are ten\n generations in the Zendavesta between Yima (Adam) and\n Thr\u00e2stouna (Noah), and without controverting the point. Mr\n Palmer (\"Egypt. Chron.,\" i. 45) says--\"And though the fancy\n of making the ten kings to begin only after 1058 years, and\n to be not all named from the same city, seems to distinguish\n them from Adam and the nine patriarchs his descendants, still\n Xisuthrus, the tenth, being clearly identified with Noah, by\n the flood and the ark, the very number ten, and the relation\n of the succession in which they stand one to the other, show\n that Alorus, the first of them, is no other than Adam.\"\n\nHere, then, we have a reduplication, or else what I have above\nreferred to, the tendency to place the head of the dynasty at the\ntop of the list superior to gods and men. In any case, granting\nthis juxtaposition, would there not have been the proximate risk\nand probability of the two running into one another and becoming\nconfounded, on the supposition that Ana and Alorus were not originally\nidentical?\n\nThis will become more evident when we have considered the next in the\ntriad--\n\n\n BIL OR ENU.\n\nBut the evidence, though it will more clearly establish the fact of\nhero-worship, will perhaps raise a doubt whether we have rightly\nregarded Adam as the object of hero-worship in Ana, a point which we\nwill then consider.\n\nRawlinson says of this god--\"He is the Illinus (Il-Enu) of Damascius.\"\n\"His name, which seems to mean merely lord\" (again the primitive\nmonotheistic appellation) \"is usually followed by a qualificative\nadjunct possessing great interest. It is proposed to read this term as\nNipru, or in the feminine Niprut, a word which cannot fail to recall\nthe scriptural Nimrod, who is in the Septuagint Nebroth. The term\n_nipru_ seems to be formed from the root _napar_, which is the Syriac\n\"to pursue,\" to \"make to flee,\" and which has in Assyrian nearly the\nsame meaning. Thus Bil Nipru would be aptly translated as \"the hunter\nlord\" or the \"god presiding over the chase,\" while at the same time\nit might combine the meaning of the \"conquering lord\" or \"the great\nconqueror.\"\n\nHere, at any rate, it must be admitted that \"we have, in this instance,\nan admixture of hero-worship in the Chald\u00e6an religion\" (Rawlinson, i.\n148). But if in one instance what _\u00e0 priori_ reason is there that it\nshould not be so in others? Let us, then, examine further. The name of\nthis deity, as Bel Nipru or Nimrod, has, I consider, been completely\ntraced in the pages of Rawlinson (to which I must refer my readers).\nBut what are we to say about the alternative name of Enu? And why,\nalthough no great stress can be laid upon the location of a deity in\na genealogy or a system, yet why is Nimrod thus placed intermediate\nbetween Adam and the third of the triad Hoa, whom, on grounds quite\nirrespective of the similarity of name, I identify with Noah?[151]\n\n [151] Gainet (i. 211) quotes as follows from \"Ceremonies Relig.\" i.\n vii.: \"The Mandans pretend that the Deluge was caused by the\n white men to destroy their ancestors. The whites caused the\n waters to rise to such a height that the world was submerged.\n Then _the first man, whom they regard as one of their\n divinities, inspired mankind with the idea of constructing,\n upon an eminence, a tower and fortress of wood_, and _promised\n them that the water should not rise beyond this point_.\" Here\n seems a very analogous confused tradition of Adam and Nimrod,\n the Deluge and the Tower of Babel. Comp. with the distinct\n testimony to the Mandan tradition, _infra_, ch. xi.\n\nIf Ana is Adam, and Hoa Noah, why should not Enu, in another point\nof view, be Enoch? There is, I admit, an absence of direct evidence,\nbut I think I discover a link of connection in a note in Rawlinson\n(i. p. 196). \"Arab writers record a number of remarkable traditions,\nin which he (Nimrod) plays a conspicuous part.\" \"Yacut declares that\nNimrod attempted to mount to heaven on the wings of an eagle, and makes\nNiffers (Calneh) the scene of this occurrence (Lex. Geograph. in voc.\nNiffer). It is supposed that we have here an allusion to the building\nof the Tower of Babel.\" But I cannot help regarding it as much more\ncertainly like an allusion to Enoch's disappearance from the earth. At\np. 187, Prof. Rawlinson notices the confusion of Xisuthrus with Enoch,\nwhich proves that the tradition of Enoch was amongst them, and would\nhave been common also to the Hamitic Arabs.[152]\n\n [152] I find that the Egyptians had the same confused tradition\n respecting Menes, who stood to them in the same relation as\n Nimrod to the Assyrians (_vide_ Bunsen's Egypt, ii. p. 65).\n \"The statement in Manetho's lists that Menes was torn to\n pieces by a hippopotamus, is probably an exaggeration of an\n early legend, that he was carried away by a hippopotamus, one\n of the symbols of the god of the lower world. The great ruler\n was snatched away from the earth, to distinguish him from\n other mortals, just as Romulus was.\"\n\nI will now return to my doubt as to Ana. For although I feel tolerably\ncertain that Ana in his human attributes represents one or other of the\nantediluvian patriarchs, it may well be that he is only a reduplication\nof Enu = Enoch. If we are to seek in the translation of Enoch the clue\nto the origin of the deification of man, and its commencement in the\nperson of Nimrod (_vide supra_, p. 160), it is likely, in the legend\nof the apotheosis of Nimrod, that all the analogies should have been\nsought for in the striking historical event which was in tradition.\nThere is, moreover, the analogy of name with Annacus, Hannachus =\nEnoch.[153] If he is Enoch, he naturally also falls into his place as\nsecond to Assorus.\n\n [153] \"Etienne de Byzance dit qu'\u00e0 'Icone' ('de urbibus' voce\n 'Iconium') ville de Lycaonie pr\u00e8s du Mont Taurus dans les\n r\u00e9gions occup\u00e9es par les habitants antediluviens regnait\n Annacus dont la vie alla au-d\u00e9la de trois cents ans. Tous\n les habitants d'alentour demand\u00e8rent \u00e0 un oracle jusqu'\u00e0\n quelle \u00e9poque se prolongerait sa vie. L'oracle r\u00e9pondit que\n ce patriarche \u00e9tant mort, tout le monde devait s'attendre \u00e0\n p\u00e9rir. Les Phrygiens \u00e0 cette m\u00e9nace jet\u00e8rent les hauts cris,\n d'o\u00f9 est venu le proverbe: 'Pleurer sous Annacus, ce que l'on\n dit de ceux qui se livrent \u00e0 des grands g\u00e9missements. Or le\n D\u00e9luge \u00e9tant surv\u00e9nu tous p\u00e9rirent.... Dans ces r\u00e9cits tout\n est conform\u00e9 \u00e0 la Bible. Annacus a v\u00e9cu trois cents ans avant\n le D\u00e9luge. Il a averti ses concitoyens: il est entour\u00e9 du m\u00eame\n respect que le patriarche No\u00eb lui-m\u00eame. Annacus parait venir\n d'Enoch; tout announce une identit\u00e9 de personnages.\" (Gainet,\n Hist. de L'Anc. et Nouv. Test. i. 94, 95.) The connection\n between the death of Enoch and the destruction of mankind may\n accord as well with the traditional belief in his reappearance\n at the end of the world.\n\n Compare the Grecian tradition of Inachus, son of Oceanus\n (_vide_ Bryant, ii. 268), and with it, Hor., Od. 3, lib. ii.:\n\n \"Divesne, prisco et natus ab Inacho,\n Nil interest, an pauper, et infim\u00e2\n De gente,\" &c.\n\nI retain, however, my original opinion, that Ana is Adam (though\npossibly with some confusion with Enoch), in addition to the arguments\nalready urged, upon the following grounds:--\n\nRawlinson mentions (i. 147) \"Telane,\" or the \"_Mound_ of Ana,\" distinct\nfrom Kalneh or \"Kalana.\" We know that there has been a constant\ntradition that the bones of Adam were preserved in the ark, and this\nname of the \"Mound of Ana\" may be connected with it. If so, it will\nalso account for Ana (Dis = Orcus) being the patron deity of Erech,\n\"the great city of the dead, the necropolis of Lower Babylonia\"\n(Rawlinson i. 146).\n\nThe son of Ana is Vul. If Vul could be identified with Vulcan, and\nVulcan with Tubalcain, it would go far to decide the point that Ana was\nAdam.\n\nBut in the matter of etymology, I do not know that we can advance\nbeyond the quaint phrase of old Sir Walter Raleigh in his \"History\nof the World,\" that \"there is a certain likelihood of name between\nTubalcain and Vulcan.\" I rely more upon the wide-spread tradition of\nTubalcain in the legends of D\u00e6dalus, Vulcan, Weland, Galant, Wielant,\nWayland Smith, which approaches very nearly an identification. _Vide_\nWilson's \"Arch\u00e6ologia of Scotland,\" p. 210. Compare the Phoenician\ntradition, Bunsen's \"Egypt,\" iv. 217, 219.\n\nIt is to be noted, however, that although Ana (_vide_ Rawlinson)\n\"like Adam had several sons, he had only two of any celebrity\" (we\ncan suppose that Abel had died out of the Cainite tradition), \"Vul\nand another whose name represents 'darkness' or '_the west_,'\" which\nmight well be the view of Seth from a Cainite point of view (and it is\ntraditional that the Cainite lore was preserved by Cham in the ark).\nNow it is remarkable that the Scripture (Gen. iv.) expressly says that\nCain dwelt on the _east_ side of Eden.\n\nI now come to\n\n\n HEA OR HOA.\n\n \"The third god of the first triad was Hea or Hoa, the Ana of\n Damascius. This appellation is perhaps best rendered into Greek\n by the [Greek: \u00d4\u00ea] of Helladius, the name given to the mystic\n animal, half man half fish, which came up from the Persian Gulf to\n teach astronomy and letters to the first settlers on the Euphrates\n and Tigris. It is perhaps contained in the word by which Berosus\n designates this same creature--Oannes ([Greek: \u00d4\u00e1nn\u00eas]), which\n may be explained as Hoa-ana, or the god Hoa. There are no means of\n strictly determining the precise meaning of the word in Babylonian,\n but it is perhaps allowable to connect it provisionally with\n the Arabic Hiya, which is at once life and 'a serpent,' since,\n according to the best authority, 'there are very strong grounds\n for connecting Hea or Hoa with the serpent of Scripture, and the\n paradisaical traditions of the tree of knowledge and the tree of\n life.'\n\n \"Hoa occupies in the first triad the position which in the\n classical mythology is filled by Poseidon or Neptune, and in some\n respects he corresponds to him. He is 'the lord of the earth,' just\n as Neptune is [Greek: gai\u00eaochos]; he is the 'king of rivers,' and\n he comes from the sea to teach the Babylonians, but he is never\n called the 'lord of the sea.' That title belongs to Nin or Ninip.\n Hoa is the lord of the abyss or of 'the great deep,' which does\n not seem to be the sea, but something distinct from it. His most\n important titles are those which invest him with the character so\n prominently brought out in O\u00eb and Oannes, of the god of science and\n knowledge. He is 'the intelligent guide,' or, according to another\n interpretation, 'the intelligent fish,' 'the teacher of mankind,'\n 'the lord of understanding.' One of his emblems is the 'wedge' or\n 'arrow-head,' the essential element of cuneiform writing, which\n seems to be assigned to him as the inventor, or at least the\n patron, of the Chald\u00e6an alphabet. Another is the serpent, which\n occupies so conspicuous a place among the symbols of the gods\n on the black stones recording benefactions, and which sometimes\n appears upon the cylinders. This symbol here, as elsewhere, is\n emblematic of superhuman knowledge--a record of the primeval\n belief that 'the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the\n field.' The stellar name of Hoa was Kimmut.... The monuments do\n not contain much evidence of the early worship of Hoa. His name\n appears on a very ancient stone tablet brought from Mugheir (Ur),\n but otherwise his claim to be accounted one of the primeval gods\n must rest on the testimony of Berosus and Helladius, who represent\n him as known to the first settlers.... As Kimmut, Hoa was also the\n father of Nebo, whose functions bear a general resemblance to his\n own.\"--_Rawlinson's Ancient Monarchies_, i. 152.[154]\n\n [154] _Vide_ his other epithets, _infra_, p. 239; also Rawlinson\n (Herod. i. p. 600), says that \"upon one of the tablets in\n the British Museum there is a list of thirty-six synonyms\n indicating this god (Hoa). The greater part of them relate\n either to \"the abyss\" or to \"knowledge.\"\n\n Compare this with the following verses from the \"Oracula\n Sybillina,\" i. ver. 145--\n\n \"Collige, No\u00eb, tuas vires ...\n ... Si scieris me\n Divin\u00e6 te nulla rei secreta latebunt.\"\n\n Now, without entering into the question of the authenticity of\n the Sybilline verses, I may at least quote them in evidence of\n the current tradition concerning Noah in the second century of\n the Christian era, supposing them to have been forged at that\n period.\n\nI have said that I shall not rely too much on the resemblance of name,\nHoa; but I must draw attention to the curious resemblance which lurks\nin the name \"A\u00fcs\" to the words upon which the Vicomte D'Anselme has\nfounded an argument in the appended note.[155]\n\n [155] \"Comment le nom du premier navigateur connu, tel qu'il se\n pronon\u00e7a en H\u00e9breu et qu'il nous est transmis par la G\u00e9nese,\n 'Noh, Naus, Noach,' serait-il devenu le nom d'une arche\n flottante, d'un navire, en Sanscrit et en vingt autres\n langues? _Nau_, sanscrit; _Naw_, armenien; _Naus_, grec;\n (_Navis_, latin); _Noi_, hibernien; _Neau_, bas breton; _Nef_,\n nav. franc; _Noobh_, irlandais; _Naone_, vanikoro; _Nacho_,\n allemand vieux; _Naw_, timor; _Nachen_, allemand; _S'nechia_,\n islandais; _S'naeca_ ou _Naca_, anglo-sax.; _S'nace_, ancien\n anglais; _Sin-nau_, cambodge, &c.\n\n \"Enfin nous demandons comment le nom H\u00e9breu de l'arche de No\u00eb.\n Tobe, prononc\u00e9 comme on \u00e9crivait g\u00e9n\u00e9ralement en Orient, en\n sens inverse, donne le nom d'un vaisseau dans vingt langues\n qui sont des dialectes du Sanscrit? L'\u00e9criture boustrophedone,\n qui fait les lignes alternativement \u00e0 droite et gauche\n sans interruption a pu donner naissance \u00e0 cette mani\u00e8re de\n lire:--_Boat_, anglais; _boite_, fran\u00e7ais; _bat_, anglo-saxon;\n _boot_, hollandais; _bat_, suedois, _baat_, danois; _batr_,\n islandais; _bad_, breton; _bote_, espagnol; _boar_, persan;\n _batillo_, italien; _pota_, sanscrit.\" _Vide_ other similar\n proofs from Vicomte d'Anselme's \"Monde Pa\u00efen,\" &c. In Gainet,\n i. 223, a curious additional instance of the same word having\n connections with \"boat\" and arc (_tobe_) might be discovered\n in Kibotos, the name of a mountain in Phrygia, where the ark\n is said to have rested (Gainet, i. 220). Also we have almost\n the same words--ark and arc--to express (though according to a\n different etymology) these dissimilar objects.\n\n \"The words oar and rudder can be traced back to Sanskrit,\n and the name of the ship is identically the same in Sanscrit\n (naus, n\u00e2vas), in Latin (navis), in Greek (naus), and in\n Teutonic, Old High Germ. (nachs), Anglo-Saxon (naca).\"--Max\n M\u00fcller, \"Comp. Mythol.,\" p. 49.\n\n I may draw attention, as having reference to other branches\n of this inquiry, to a possible affinity with the name of the\n patriarch, in the term _Noaaids_, applied by the Laplanders\n to their magicians (Pinkerton, i. 459, &c.); and to the term\n Koader_nicks_, applied by the Samoids to the same (_id._ 532).\n I own there might be danger in pushing the inquiry further,\n as I might even bring the patriarch Noah into contact and\n connection with Old Nick!\n\n I may also refer to the term \"Janna\" (Janus), as applied to\n the officer \"who had the office of entertaining ambassadors\"\n at the court of Kenghis Khan (_id._ v. 7, p. 40; Rubruquis's\n Embassy, A.D. 1253, also 56).\n\nIn the above extract from Rawlinson, although Hoa is said not to be\n\"the true fish-god,\" yet he is called \"the intelligent fish,\" and is\nassociated with that mystic animal, half man half fish, which came\nup from the Persian Gulf to teach astronomy and letters to the first\nsettlers on Euphrates and Tigris.\n\nLet us compare this information with the following \"History of\nthe Fish,\" which the Abb\u00e9 Gainet, i. 199, has translated from the\nMah\u00e2bh\u00e2rata. The same history has been translated from the Bhagavad\nPourana by Sir W. Jones (\"Asiatic Researches\"). Indeed, as the Abb\u00e9\nGainet argues, as this same history is found in all the religious poems\nof India, there is a certain security that it would not have been taken\nfrom the Hebrews.\n\nI shall merely attempt to give the drift of the legend from the Abb\u00e9\nGainet's original translation of that portion of the Matysia Pourana\nwhich has reference to Noah:--\n\n \"The son of Vaivaswata (the sun) was a king, and a great sage,\n a prince of men, resembling Pradjapati in _eclat_. In his\n strength, splendour, prosperity, and above all, his penitence,\n Manou surpassed his father and his grandfather.[156]... One day a\n small fish approached him, and begged him to remove him from the\n water where he was, 'because the great fish always eat the little\n fish--it is our eternal condition.' Manou complies, and the fish\n promises eternal gratitude. After several such migrations, through\n the intervention of Manou, the fish at each removal increasing in\n bulk, he is at length launched in the ocean. The fish then holds\n this discourse with Manou:--'Soon, oh blessed Manou, everything\n that is by nature fixed and stationary in the terrestrial world,\n will undergo a general immersion and a complete dissolution. This\n temporary immersion of the world is near at hand, and therefore\n it is that I announce to you to-day what you ought to do for your\n safety.' He instructs him to build a strong and solid ship, and\n to enter it with the _seven_ richis or sages.[157] He instructs\n him also to take with him all sorts of seeds, according to\n certain Brahminical indications. 'And when you are in the vessel\n you will perceive me coming towards you, oh well-beloved of the\n saints, I will approach you with a _horn_ on my head, by which\n you will recognise me.' Manou did all that was prescribed to him\n by the fish, and the earth was submerged accordingly, as he had\n predicted. 'Neither the earth, nor the sky, nor the intermediate\n space, was visible; all was water.' 'In the middle of the world\n thus submerged, O Prince of Bharatidians, were seen the seven\n richis or sages, Manou, and the fish. Thus, O King, did this fish\n cause the vessel to sail' (with a rope tied to its horn), 'for many\n years, without wearying, in this immensity of water.' At length\n the ship was dragged by the fish on to the highest point of the\n Himalaya. 'That is why the highest summit of the Himaran (Himalaya)\n was called _Nan_bundhanam, or the place to which the ship was\n attached, a name which it bears to this day--_Sache cela, O Prince\n des Bharatidians._' Then _le gracieux_, with placid gaze, thus\n addressed the richis--'I am Brahma, the ancestor (_l'ancestre_) of\n all creatures. No one is greater than I. Under the form of a fish\n I came to save you from the terrors of death. From Manou, now,\n shall all creatures, with the gods, the demons (_au souras_), and\n mankind, be born.... This is the ancient and celebrated history\n which bears the name of the 'History of the _Fish_.'\"[158]\n\n [156] Comp. \"Traditions of the New Zealanders.\"\n\n [157] Do not the seven richis or sages correspond to the seven (or\n eight) (Phoenician) Kabiri. (There were seven or eight\n persons in the ark, accordingly as we take separate account\n or not of Noah.) As regards the Kabiri, their number (seven\n or eight, accordingly as we include \"\u00c6sculapius\") must be\n the clue to the solution of \"the most obscure and mysterious\n question in mythology.\" Bunsen (\"Egypt,\" iv. 229) says of an\n astral explanation:--\"It does not enable us to explain the\n details of those representations which do not contain the\n number seven (or eight), and, in fact, seven brothers.\" It\n will suffice, from our point of view, if there are numerically\n seven persons. Bunsen (iv. p. 291) says--\"It is quite clear\n that the fundamental number of the gods in the oldest\n mythologies of Phoenicia, and all Asia, as well as Egypt,\n was seven. There were seven Kabiri, with the seven Titans.\n There are also seven Titans mentioned in other genealogies\n of the race of Kronos. Of the latter, one dies a virgin and\n disappears.\" But as with the Kabiri we have seen the number\n seven, or eight, accordingly as \u00c6sculapius is included or\n not, so (vide p. 314) we see the primitive gods of Egypt\n either seven or eight, accordingly as Thoth, \"the eighth,\"\n or Horus, figure as the \"last divine king\" (p. 319). When\n Horus so figures, \"_he_ is frequently represented as _the\n eighth, conducting the bark of the gods_, with _the seven\n great gods_,\" &c. Moreover, it is elsewhere (p. 347) said\n that \"the Phoenicians, in their sacred books, stated that\n the Kabiri _embarked in ships_, and landed near Mount Kaison.\n This legend was corroborated by the existence of a shrine\n on that coast in historic times.\" [_Query_, The tradition\n of the Deluge localised, and the shrine commemorative of\n that catastrophe (_vide_ Boulanger, &c., _infra_, p. 244);\n and supposing that the tradition of the number saved in the\n Flood had been preserved down to a certain date, we should\n then expect that the number would become rigid and fixed.\n But that if the tradition of the actual survivors had become\n indistinct, what more natural than that the eight principal\n characters of ante-diluvian, or even post-diluvian, history\n should be substituted for them, and that the same confusion\n and agglomeration of legend should take place as we shall see\n occurring in the tradition of Noah?]\n\n In the Persian or Iranian legend of Sh\u00e2h-n\u00e2meh, \"the three\n sons of Fer\u00ead\u00fbn--Ireg, Tur, and Selm--are mentioned as\n their patriarchs, and among them the _whole earth was\n divided_.\" But in the more ancient G\u00e2th\u00e2s there is mention\n of \"the _seven_-surfaced or _seven_-portioned earth.\"\n [_Query_--apportioned by _the eighth_?] _Vide_ Bunsen's\n \"Egypt,\" iii. 478.\n\n For the Indian tradition compare the following from Hunter's\n \"Bengal\" (i. p. 151)--\"Another coincidence--I do not\n venture to call it an analogy--is to be found in the number\n of children born to the first pair. As the Santal legend\n immediately divides the human species into _seven_ families,\n so the Sanscrit tradition assigns the propagation of _our\n race after the flood_ to _seven rishis_.\" I also find in\n F. Schlegel's \"Philosophy of History\" (p. 150, Robertson's\n trans.)--\"The Indian traditions acknowledge and revere the\n succession of the first ancestors of mankind, or the holy\n patriarchs of the primitive world, under the name of the\n _seven great rishis_, or sages of hoary antiquity, though they\n invest their history with a cloud of fictions.\"\n\n [158] Syncellus, quoting Berosus (_vide_ Abb\u00e9 de Tressan,\n \"Mythology,\" p. 10), says that _Oannes_ (the mysterious fish,\n _vide ante_) left some _writings_ upon the origin of the\n world. These, no doubt, correspond to the \"Liber Noachi.\" I do\n not disguise that this statement is probably derived from what\n is called the false Berosus. The reference, however, which\n I have made to these writings at p. 139 may raise doubt\n whether they did not embody true traditions.\n\nHere we seem to see what looks like the commencement of the legendary\norigin of the fish symbol; and here also we see it unmistakeably in\nconnection with Noah. We have, moreover, seen the connection of Hoa\nwith the fish.[159]\n\n [159] I fancy it might be traced also in the Phoenician fish-god,\n Dagon. The _Saturday Review_ (June 4, 1870) in its review of\n Cox's \"Mythology,\" says--\"Dagon cannot be divided Dag-on,\n the fish 'On,' for a Semitic syllable cannot begin with a\n vowel; and if the necessary breathing 'aleph' were inserted\n (which it is very unsafe to do), it would then mean 'the fish\n of On,' which is not the signification required.\" But it is\n the signification which would fit in here; moreover, might\n not the terminal \"aon,\" or \"_haon_,\" suggested, have been\n originally, _i.e._ before displacement by \"boustrophedon\"--Noa\n or Noa_h_? I give this suggestion with all proper diffidence,\n and with some genuine misgiving as to the \"breathing aleph.\"\n I find that Bryant (\"Mythology,\" iii. p. 116) makes a similar\n suggestion.\n\n Bunsen (\"Egypt,\" iv. 243) says--\"Dagon is Dagan, _i.e._\n corn. This is also implied by the Greek form of it--Sit\u00f4n,\n wheat-field (comp. p. 219). We have in the Bible, Dagon, a\n god of the Philistines, a name usually supposed to be derived\n from 'dag,' fish; the god has a human form ending in a fish,\n like the fish-shaped goddess, Derketo-Atergatis. It is clear,\n from Philo's own account, that the Phoenician Poseidon was\n a god of this kind, and it is difficult to find any other\n name for him. Yet we cannot say that Dagon is very clearly\n explained. Here is a god of agriculture, well authenticated,\n both linguistically and documentally, Dagan, _i.e._ wheat,\n and he is the _Zeus of agriculture_.\" _Vide_ p. 219. P. 261\n says Dagon must not be confounded with \"Dagan,\" but without\n reconciling it with the above at p. 243, on the contrary,\n we find \"Dagon, Dagan = corn (the fish-man).\" At p. 241,\n quoting from the _text_ of Philo, it is said still more\n pointedly--\"Dagon, after he _had discovered corn and the\n plough_, was called Zeus Arotnios.\" Comp. p. 204.\n\n Believing (_vide_ ch. xii.) in the tradition of mythology,\n even among savages, I could not but be much struck on coming\n upon the following passage in Roggeveen's voyage, to find--in\n his account of the Eastern Islanders--the same conjunction of\n the bull and fish implied in the traditional names of their\n idols:--\"The name of the largest idol was called _Taurico_,\n and the other _Dago_; at least, these were the words they\n called to them by, and wherewith they worshipped them. These\n savages had great respect for the two idols, _Taurico_ and\n _Dago_, and approached them with great reverence ... and\n to supplicate for help against us, and to call upon with a\n frightful shout and howling of _Dago! Dago!_\" (\"Historical\n Account of Voyages Round the World,\" 1774, i. 469, 470.)\n\n After showing the resemblance of a feast at Argos to other\n commemorative feasts of the Deluge, Boulanger (_vide infra_,\n i. 83) says--\"Les Argiens avoient encore une autre f\u00eate\n pendant laquelle ils pr\u00e9cipitoent dans un ab\u00eeme un agneau....\n ils \u00e9toient arm\u00e9s de javelines, ils appelloient _Bacchus_\n au son des trompettes et l'invitoient _\u00e0 semontrer hors de\n l'eau_; cette apparition n'arrivoit pas fr\u00e9quemment sans\n doute\" (comp. _supra_, 197, and 237). \"Plutarque remarque\n que lors qu'ils pr\u00e9cipitoient l'agneau, ils avoient soin de\n cacher leurs trompettes et leurs javelines. Nous ne pr\u00e9tendons\n point expliquer tous ces myst\u00e8res.\" Is it that they feared,\n with armed weapons in their hands, to evoke the apparition of\n the old man \"whose conquests were all peaceful\" (p. 216), and\n who, as Manco Capac (p. 326), \"shut his ears when they spoke\n to him of war.\"\n\nLet us now turn to his reduplication, as I conceive, in Nin, or Ninip,\nwho is said to be \"the true fish god.\"\n\n\"His names, Bar and Nin, are respectively a Semitic and a Hamitic\nterm, signifying 'Lord,' or 'Master,'\" (p. 166). Astronomically Nin\n\"should be Saturn.\" However, a set of epithets which _seem to point_ to\nhis stellar character are very difficult to reconcile with the notion\nthat, as a celestial luminary, he was (the dark and distant) Saturn.\nWe find him called, \"the light of heaven and earth,\" \"he who, _like_\nthe sun, the _light_ of the _gods_, irradiates the _nations_.\" All this\nis very difficult to reconcile with legends arising out of the simple\nworship of a celestial luminary, but perfectly consistent with the\nsupposition of the patriarch Noah, after deification, being located\nin the planetary system. The phrase, \"he who, like the sun, the light\nof the gods, irradiates the nations,\" is perfectly applicable to him\nwho, as Oannes, we have ever regarded as \"the god of science and of\nknowledge;\" and who \"taught astronomy and letters to the first settlers\non the Euphrates and Tigris.\" Let us glance at the other epithets\napplied to Nin in the inscriptions. He is the \"lord of the brave,\"\n\"the champion,\" \"the warrior who subdues foes,\" \"_he who strengthens\nthe hearts of his followers_.\" [The Scripture mentions the repeated\nassurances of the Almighty to Noah, that there should not be another\nDeluge; and the above is in keeping with the tradition that the early\ninhabitants long hesitated to quit the mountains for the plains, and\nonly did so incited by the example of the patriarch.] \"The destroyer\nof enemies,\" \"_the reducer of the disobedient_,\" \"the exterminator\nof rebels,\" \"he whose sword is good.\" Like Nergal, or Mars, he is a\ngod of battle and the chase. (I shall refer later on to these warlike\nepithets as applied to Noah.) At the same time he has qualities which\nseem wholly unconnected with any that have been hitherto mentioned.\nHe is the true \"fish-god\" of Berosus, and is figured as such in the\nScriptures. (I hope I may persuade some reader, who may be interested\nin this inquiry, to compare the figure of Nin, in Rawlinson, i.\n167, with figure 23, Dupaix's \"New Spain\" in Lord Kingsborough's\n\"Mexico,\" representing an emblematic figure with fish[160] (as in the\nrepresentation of Nin) over a human head, which also has inverted\ntusks. Compare also with representations of Neph, associated with\nsnake and ram's head, and also with \"History of the Fish,\" _supra_,\np. 197.) To continue--in this point of view he (Nin) is called the\n\"god of the sea,\" \"he who dwells in the deep;\" and again, somewhat\ncuriously, \"the opener of the aqueducts.\" Now, as applied to Noah,\nthis is not at all strange, and corresponds to the Scriptural phrase,\n\"He opened the fountains of the deeps.\" Subsequently to deification\nwe cannot be surprised to find all that was done by the Almighty\nattributed to the individual to whom it was done; as in Prometheus we\nhave a double legend of the Creator, who created man with the vital\nspark, and of Prometheus, the man who was so created. \"Besides these\nepithets he has many of a more general character, as 'the _powerful\nchief_,' 'the supreme,' 'the _favourite_ of the _gods_,' 'the chief of\nthe spirits,' and the like.\"\n\n [160] This closely corresponds to the description of Oannes given by\n Sanchoniathon, \"Ap. Euseb.\" (Bryant, ii. 301), _i.e._ with two\n heads (comp. _infra_, p. 220), the human head being placed\n below the head of a fish:--\"[Greek: all\u00ean kephal\u00ean hypokat\u00f4\n t\u00eas tou ichthyos kephal\u00eas].\"\n\nI must, moreover, request attention to the following from Rawlinson, i.\n168,--\"Nin's _emblem_ in _Assyria_ is the _man-bull_, the impersonation\nof strength and power. He guards the palaces of the Assyrian kings,\nwho reckon him their tutelary god, and gives his name to their\ncapital city. We may conjecture that _in Babylonia_ his _emblem_ was\nthe _sacred fish_, which is often seen in different forms upon the\ncylinders.\"[161]\n\n [161] _Vide_ similar traditions of the man-bull in India and Japan.\n Bryant, iii. 589, who adds, \"We shall find hereafter that in\n this (Parsee) mythology there were two ancient personages\n represented under the same character, and named L'Homme\n Taureau; _each_ of whom was looked upon as the _father_ of\n mankind.\" Compare pp. 158, 189, the two Menus and the two\n Osiris.\n\nI turn to Gainet, i. 198, and I find this legend concerning the\nman-bull from Bertrand's \"Dict. des Religions,\" 38, i. ii.[162]\n\n [162] The prayer used in the worship of Dionysos at Elis, preserved\n by Plutarch, ended with \"[Greek: Axie Taure--Axie Taure],\"\n worthy bull! (_vide_ Bunsen's \"Egypt,\" iv. 446.) Compare p.\n 215 with Dionysius = Bacchus = Noah; also of the three\n Samothracian names of the Kabiri--viz., Axieros, Axiokerse,\n Axiokersos. Bunsen says, \"the syllable Axi or Axie which is\n found in all three, cannot be anything but the Greek word\n 'Axios,' which was used in the worship of Dionysos at Elis\"\n (_id., vide infra_).\n\n On this symbol of the bull in connection with Noah and the\n Ark _vide_ Bryant (ii. 416, _et seq._ 439). He says, \"Every\n personage that had any connection with the history of the Ark\n was described with some reference to this hieroglyphic ...\n that the Apis and Mnenis (Menes) were both representations\n of an _ancient personage_ is certain; and who that personage\n was may be known from the account given of him by Diodorus.\n He speaks of him by the name of Mnenes, but confines his\n history to Egypt, as the history of Saturn was limited to\n Italy; Inachus and Phoroneus to Argos; Deucalion to Thessaly\n ... the same person who in Crete was styled Minos, Min-nous,\n and whose city was Min-Noa; the same who was represented under\n the emblem of Men-taur, or Mino-taurus (_Minotaur_). Diodorus\n speaks of Mnenes as the _first lawgiver_,\" &c., &c....\n [Mnenes or Menes may embody traditions of Noah and Misraim,\n as Osiris does of Adam and Noah.] At p. 422-435 [plate], we\n find Menes represented as a bull _with the sacred dove_....\n Plutarch (Isis and Osiris) says the bulls, Apis and Mnenes,\n were sacred to Osiris ... and Eustath. (in Dion. v. 308) says\n of the Tauric Chersonese, \"that the _Tauric_ nation was so\n named from the animal Taurus or bull, which was looked upon\n as a memorial of _the great husbandman_ Osiris, who first\n _taught agriculture_, and to whom was ascribed _the invention_\n of the _plough_.\" ... Lycophron (v. 209 and scholia) says,\n [Greek: Tauros], [Greek: Dionysos]. Plutarch says Dionusus\n (_vide supra_, p. 203) was styled [Greek: Bougen\u00eas], or\n the offspring of a bull, by the people of Argos, who used to\n invoke him as a _resident of the sea_, and entreat him _to\n come out of the waters_. The author of the Orphic hymns calls\n him \"Taurogenes.\" [Greek: Taurogen\u00eas Dionysos euphrosun\u00ean\n pore Thn\u00eatois]. [Greek: Taurogen\u00eas], is precisely of the\n same purport as [Greek: Th\u00eabaigen\u00eas] [ark-born], and the\n words of this passage certainly mean \"that the ark-born deity\n Dionusus restored peace and happiness to mortals.\" [Noah's\n name in Scripture signifies \"peace and consolation\"--[Greek:\n N\u00f4e hebra\u00efsianapaysis] (rest), Hesychius.]... The title given\n to Diana--viz. _Taurione_, is remarkable, for \"Taurus was\n an emblem of the Ark, and by Taurione was signified the\n arkite _dove_.\" _Taurus_, and _ione_ from [Greek: Oinas]\n of the Greeks, and Ionas of the eastern nations = _dove_,\n and curiously in an inscription in Gruter, Diana is at _the\n same time_ called \"Regina _undarum_,\" and \"decus _nemorum_\"\n (Bryant, ii. 434). The connection of Diana, Juno, and Venus\n with _the dove_ and _rainbow_ is very striking, but would\n lead to too long a digression. So, too, would a discussion as\n to how Noah or the Ark (secondarily) came to be associated\n with the bull, as a hieroglyphic. Compare the above with the\n ox-heads and bull dance in the Mandan commemoration of the\n Deluge, _infra_, ch. xi.\n\n\"D'apr\u00e8s les livres Parsis, le souverain Cr\u00e9ateur sut que le mauvais\ng\u00e9nie se disposait \u00e0 tenter l'homme. Il ne jugea pas \u00e0 propos de\nl'emp\u00eacher par lui-m\u00eame; il se contenta d'envoyer des anges pour\nveiller sur l'homme. Cependant le mal augmenta; l'homme se perdit;\nDieu envoya un Deluge, qui dura dix jours et dix nuits et d\u00e9truisit le\ngenre humain. L'apparition de Kaioumons (_l'homme-taureau_), le premier\nhomme, y est aussi pr\u00e9c\u00e9d\u00e9e de la creation d'une grande eau.\" Here, in\na confused tradition, with Adam--just as Nin is confused with Hercules\nand Saturn--the man-bull is apparently associated with a great flood.\n\nIn the curious Etruscan monument commemorative of the\nDeluge--discovered in 1696--and to which Cardinal Wiseman draws\nattention in his \"Conferences\" (_vide_ Gainet, i. 190), being a vase\nsupposed to represent the ark, and containing figures of twenty couples\nof (12) animals, (6) birds, (2) serpents, &c., and several human\nfigures represented in the act of escaping from an inundation, there\nwere also discovered certain signets and amulets. These consisted\nof hands joined, _heads_ of _oxen_, and olives. Now the olive in\nconnection with the Deluge will speak for itself,--the hands joined are\nthe symbol of Janus (_vide_ next chapter), and heads of oxen--here\nunmistakably connected with the Deluge--may also be conjectured to have\nallusion to the man-bull above referred to.\n\nThus Nin, through both his emblems (bull and fish), is brought into\ncontact with the Noachic tradition.[163] It is also said (Rawlinson,\ni. 174) of Nergal, _vide supra_, who is clearly identified with\nNimrod,--\"Again, if Nergal is the man-lion, his association in the\nbuildings with the man-bull would be exactly parallel with the\nconjunction which we so constantly find between him and _Nin_ in the\ninscriptions.\"\n\n [163] Since writing the above I have found the following note\n in Rawlinson's \"Herodotus,\" i. 623, on Ninip:--\"There is,\n however, another explanation of the name Bar-sam or Bur-shem,\n of which some notice must be taken. It has been already stated\n that if the _Noachid_ triad be compared with the Assyrian, Ana\n will correspond with Ham, Bel-Nimrod with Shem, and Hoa with\n Japhet.\"\n\n The following passage, also from Rawlinson's \"Herodotus,\"\n i. 609, appears to me valuable in proof of the transition\n from ancestral to solar worship, or at least of their\n interfusion:--\"The sun was probably named in Babylonia both\n San and Sanei, before his title took the definite _Semitic_\n form of _Shamas_, by which he is known in Assyrian and _in\n all_ the languages of _that family_.\" Now, standing by itself,\n this might not appear very significant; but compare it with\n the following passages connecting _Ham_ with the sun:--\"By\n the Syrians the sun and heat were called ... Chamba; by the\n Persians, Hama; and the temple of the sun, the temple of\n _Am_mon or _Ham_mon.\" Mr Bryant shows that Ham was esteemed\n the Zeus of Greece and the Jupiter of Latium. Mr G. Higgins'\n \"Anacalypsis,\" p. 45. Bryant says, \"the worship of Ham, _or\n the sun_, as it was the most ancient, so it was the most\n universal of any in the world.\" These passages may possibly be\n so interpreted as to support a solar theory, but is it not at\n least suspicious to see the name of the central luminary so\n apparently identified with historical characters whose memory\n is distinctly preserved _aliunde_ in the traditions of their\n descendants? Compare Nimrod, ch. viii. 164, _et seq._\n\nIt is true that the majority of the inscriptions, p. 169, assert that\nNin was the son of Bel-Nimrod. This may be referred to that tendency,\npreviously noted in ancient nations, to place the ancestor with whom\nthey were themselves identified at the head of every genealogy. One\ninscription, however, \"makes Bel-Nimrod the son of Nin instead of\nhis father.\" Nin, in any case, is unquestionably brought into close\nhistorical relationship with Bel-Nimrod, an historical character, and\nwe must, in fine, choose whether we shall admit him to be Noah--to\nwhom all the epithets would apply--or whether, upon the more literal\nconstruction of the inscriptions, we shall believe him to be some\nnameless son or successor of Nimrod.\n\nThere is one god more in whom I fancy I see a counterpart of Noah, or\nat least a counterpart of Hoa and Nin--viz.\n\n\n NEBO.\n\nI base my conclusion upon the epithets applied to him in common with\nHoa and Nin, and inconsistently applied if, according to the evidence,\np. 177, \"mythologically he was a deity of no very great eminence,\" but\nin no way conflicting with the supposition that he represented the\ntradition of Noah, the counterpart to the tradition of Hoa and Nin,\namong some subordinate nationality, and such appears to be the fact.\n\"When Nebo first appears in Assyria, it is as a foreign god, whose\nworship is brought thither from Babylonia,\" p. 178.\n\nOf Nebo it is said, \"his name is the same or nearly so, both in\nBabylonian and Assyrian, and we may perhaps assign it a _Semitic_\nderivation, from the root _'nibbah,' to prophesy_. It is his special\nfunction to preside over _knowledge_ and _learning_. He is called 'the\ngod who possesses intelligence'--'he who hears from afar'--'he who\n_teaches_,' or 'he who teaches and instructs.' In this point of view\nhe of course approximates to Hoa, _whose son_ he is called in some\ninscriptions, and to whom he bears a general resemblance. Like Hoa,\nhe is symbolised by the simple wedge or arrow-head, the primary and\nessential element of cuneiform writing, to mark his _joint_ presidency\nwith that god over writing and literature. At the same time Nebo has,\nlike so many of the Chald\u00e6an gods, a number of general titles, implying\ndivine powers, which, if they had belonged to him only, would have\nseemed to prove him the supreme deity. He is 'the lord of lords, who\nhas no equal in power,' _'the supreme chief_,' '_the sustainer_,' 'the\nsupporter,' the 'ever ready,' 'the guardian over the heavens and the\nearth,' 'the lord of the constellations,' 'the holder of the sceptre\nof power,' 'he who grants to kings the sceptre of royalty for the\n_governance_ of their people'\" (Rawlinson, i. 177).\n\nThere is just a possibility, however, that Nebo may be Sem or Shem. He\nwould be the son of Hoa as Nebo was stated to be.\n\nI think, moreover, a striking resemblance will be seen between the\nabove epithets and the traditions concerning _Shem_, collected by\nCalmet (Dict. \"Sem.\")\n\n \"The Jews attribute to Sem the theological _tradition_ of the\n _things which Noah taught to the first men_.... They say that he is\n the same as Melchisedek.... In fine, the Hebrews believe that he\n taught _men the law of justice_, the manner of counting the months\n and years, and the intercalations of the months. They pretend that\n _God gave him the spirit of prophecy_ one hundred years after the\n Deluge, and that he continued _to prophesy_ during four hundred\n years, with little fruit among mankind, who had become very\n corrupt. Methodius says that he remained in the isle of the sun,\n that he invented astronomy, and that he was _the first king who\n ruled over the earth_.\"[164]\n\n [164] Rawlinson says that there is no doubt that Nebo represents\n the planet Mercury, and between the attributes of Mercury or\n Hermes, the epithets of Nebo, and the traditions concerning\n Shem, there is something in common. He is the god of\n eloquence and persuasion--the god of alliances and peace.\n \"He contributed to civilise the manners and cultivate the\n minds of the people.\" \"He united them by commerce and good\n laws.\" The Egyptian Mercury or Thaut first invented landmarks.\n Finally, \"He was consulted by the Titans, his relations, _as\n an augur_, which gave occasion to the poets to describe him\n as interpreter of the will of the gods.\"--_L'Abbe de Tressan,\n \"Mythology.\"_\n\nThe difficulty, however, is in understanding how the worship of Shem\ncame to Assyria _from_ Babylonia. I can only reconcile it upon a theory\nthat _all_ idolatry came from Babylonia, _i.e._ from the Hamitic race.\n\nThere remains a difficulty which will doubtless occur to every one who\nhas read the chapter in Rawlinson to which I must acknowledge myself\nso much indebted, and it is a difficulty which I ought, perhaps, to\nhave dealt with before; and that is, that there is in the pages of\nRawlinson (I. vii. 184) the most distinct identification of Noah with\nXisuthrus. Of this there can be no doubt, from his direct connection\nwith the Deluge, the circumstances of which are perfectly recorded\nin the Babylonian tradition.[165] This establishes the fact that the\ntradition of Noah and the Deluge was still among them when Berosus\nwrote. But if Xisuthrus is Noah, then it may be said Hoa, Oannes, and\nNin cannot be Noah. It is a _non sequitur_, but will still, I fear, be\nvery influential with many. It is difficult to understand the tendency\nto reduplication, and still more difficult to realise how a tradition\nso clear and decided could be contemporaneous with other identical\ntraditions so entangled and confused. I believe this explanation to\nbe that the account of Xisuthrus was part of the esoteric tradition\nto which Rawlinson refers, and which was also the tradition of their\nlearned men--\"Vixere fortes ante Agamemnon\";--and we cannot suppose\nthat Berosus (of whom we should have known nothing if his works had not\nbeen preserved to us at third or fourth hand) was the first chronicler\nof his nation.[166]\n\n [165] \"Notwithstanding the difficulty of ascending to so distant a\n period, there will always be found some traces by which truth\n may be discovered.... The historian Josephus relates that the\n Chald\u00e6ans from the _earliest_ times _carefully preserved_ the\n remembrance of past events by public inscriptions on their\n monuments. He says they caused these annals to be written by\n the wisest men of their nation.\"--_L'Abbe de Tressan, \"Hist.\n of Heathen Mythology.\"_ London, 1806.\n\n [166] I had come to the above conclusion upon the perusal of\n Rawlinson, and before I had read Bryant, who, I find, had\n already come to this identical conclusion. (\"Mythology,\" iii.\n 109.) Speaking of Berosus' account of Oannes and Xisuthrus, he\n says, \"The latter was undoubtedly taken from the archives of\n the Chald\u00e6ans. The former is allegorical and obscure, and was\n copied from _hieroglyphical representations_ which could not\n be precisely deciphered.... In consequence of his borrowing\n from records so very different, we find him, without his being\n apprized of it, giving _two histories of the same person_.\n Under the character of _the man of the sea_, whose _name was\n Oannes_, we have _an allegorical representation of the great\n patriarch_; whom _in his other history he calls Sisuthrus_.\"\n\nI shall pursue this inquiry into the classical mythology in the next\nchapter, and then recapitulate the results as regards this inquiry.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER X.\n\n _THE TRADITION OF NOAH AND THE DELUGE._\n\n\nI now come to a different set of illustrations still more germane to my\nsubject.\n\nCalmet says:--\"Plusieurs scavans out remarqu\u00e9 que les pagans ont\nconfondu Saturne, Deucalion, Ogyges, le Dieu Coelus ou Ouranus,\nJanus, Proth\u00e9e, Prom\u00e9th\u00e9e, Virtumnus, Bacchus, Osiris, Vadimon,\nNisuthrus avec No\u00eb.\"\n\nI must add that this enumeration by no means exhausts the list.\nIt is not my purpose, however, to pursue the subject in all its\nramifications. I shall limit myself to the examination of one or two of\nthese counterparts of Noah.\n\n * * * * *\n\nI. And in the first place, \"Him of mazy counsel, Saturn,\" the\nexpression of Hesiod ([Greek: t' Iapeton te ide Kronon agkylom\u00eat\u00ean]),\nHesiod. Theog. v. 19, which so well befits the intermediary between God\nand the survivors of the Deluge. \"Under Saturn,\" as Plutarch tells us,\n\"was the golden age.\" Calmet says (Dict. \"Saturne\"), \"Quant aux traits\nde ressemblance qui se trouvent entre No\u00eb et Saturne, ils ne peuvent\n\u00eatre plus sensibles.[167] Il (Saturne) est repr\u00e9sent\u00e9 avec une faulx\ncomme inventeur de l'agriculture[168]: No\u00eb est nomm\u00e9 'vir agricola'\n(Gen. ix. 20) et il est dit qu'il commen\u00e7a \u00e0 cultiver la terre. Les\n_Saturnales_, qu'on c\u00e9l\u00e9brait dans le vin et dans la licence et _o\u00f9\nles serviteurs s'\u00e9galoient \u00e0 leurs maitres_--marquent l'ivresse de\nNo\u00eb et sa mal\u00e9diction qui assujettit Chanaan \u00e0 ses fr\u00e8res tout \u00e9gal\nqu'il leur \u00e9toit par sa naissance.\" [I have _little doubt that this\nBacchanalian recollection originated the tradition of the equality of\nconditions_ in the _golden_ age, contrary to the facts of Scripture and\nhistory.] \"On disoit que No\u00eb avait d\u00e9vor\u00e9 tous ses enfans \u00e0 l'exception\nde Jupiter, de Neptune, et de Pluton. No\u00eb vit p\u00e9rir dans les eaux du\nd\u00e9luge tous les hommes de son temps dont plusieurs \u00e9toient ses parents\net plus jeunes que lui. Dans la stile de l'\u00e9criture on dit souvent que\nl'on fait ce qu'on n'emp\u00eache pas, ou m\u00eame ce que l'on pr\u00e9dit.\" Further\nresemblances are traced in Calmet.\n\n [167] Bochart also says (Geog. Sacra, lib. i.) \"Noam esse Saturnum\n tam multa docent, ut vix sit dubitandi locus.\"\n\n [168] \"Cum falce, messis insigne.\"--_Macrobius, \"Saturn.\"_\n\nNow, I find in Sanchoniathon,[169] _i.e._ in the most ancient\nPhoenician historian, a tradition running exactly parallel with this\nGreek tradition as interpreted by Calmet:--\"Ces genies, ces sages, ces\ndieux, nous expliquent les autres dieux qui, d'apr\u00e8s Berose, forment\nl'homme du sang de B\u00e9lus, et tous les dieux que Sanchoniaton nous\nrepr\u00e9sente saisis d'\u00e9pouvante _\u00e0 la vue de Saturne, faisant p\u00e9rir par\nle d\u00e9luge son fils Sadid_.\"--(Le Peuple Primitif; Rougemont, i. 303,\nquoted by Gainet, iii. 561, with reference to the worship of spirits.)\nI adduce it in evidence of the connection in tradition between Saturn\nand the Deluge, and in corroboration of Calmet's interpretation, which\nclears the Greek myth of what is grotesque and repulsive in it.\n\n [169] Sanchoniathon, _vide supra_ M'Lennan (ch. vii.)\n\nIf I have sufficiently identified Saturn with Noah and the period of\nthe Deluge, the lines of Virgil (\u00c6neid, 8th Book, 315), besides bearing\ntestimony in the same direction, appear to me to acquire a new meaning\nand significance:--\n\n \"Primus ab \u00e6therio venit _Saturnus_ Olympo,\n Arma Jovis fugiens, _et regnis exul ademptis_,\n Is genus indocile, ac dispersum montibus altis\n Composuit; _legesque dedit_; Latiumque vocari\n Maluit.\"...\n\n \"_Aurea_, qu\u00e6 perhibent, _illo sub rege_ fuerunt\n _S\u00e6cula_; sed placid\u00e2 populos in pace regebat,\n Deterior donec paulatim ac discolor \u00e6tas\n Et belli rabies et amor successit habendi.\"[170]\n\n [170] Bryant (Mythology, ii. 261) says:--\"He is by Lucian made to\n say of himself [Greek: oudeis hyp' emou doulos \u00ean]. The Latins\n in great measure confine his history to their own country,\n where, like Janus, he is represented as refining and modelling\n mankind, and giving them laws. At other times he is introduced\n as prior to law; which are seeming contrarieties very easy to\n be reconciled.\" There were traditions also of Saturn in Crete\n and Sparta.--_Bryant_, iii. 414.\n\nAllowing for the confusion incidental to the deification of Noah in the\nperson of Saturn, which necessitates his descent from heaven, the rest\nof the verses seem merely to describe what is recorded in tradition,\nif not implied in the scriptural narrative, that Noah, a voyager and\nexile, his possessions having been lost in the Flood, flying the\nwrath--not indeed as directed against himself, but the consequences of\nthe wrath of the Almighty[171]--persuaded the survivors of the Flood\nto abandon the mountains, to which they clung in fear of a second\nDeluge, and brought them into the plains, incited and encouraged by his\nexample,--he who, if he be the same (_vide supra_, 208, 209) with\nNin and Nebo, we have seen called \"the sustainer,\" \"the supporter,\"\n\"he who strengthens the hearts of his followers,\" who taught them the\ncultivation of the soil, and of whom it is now said more distinctly\nthan we have seen it heretofore stated, _legesque dedit_.[172]\n\n [171] _Vide supra_, p. 211.\n\n [172] An indirect argument in proof of the identity of Saturn\n and Noah might be adduced if I had space to incorporate\n Boulanger's evidence of the ceremonies among the ancients'\n commemoration of the Deluge, (\"Vestiges d'usages\n hydrophoriques dans plusieurs f\u00eates anciennes et modernes\").\n This being assumed, is it not of some significance that when\n the Roman pontiffs proceeded to the banks of the Tiber to\n perform their annual (commemorative) ceremonial, that they\n should make their expiatory sacrifices to Saturn? The points\n that Bryant takes (ii. 262) are very striking:--\"He was looked\n upon as the _author_ of time, 'Ipse qui _auctor_ temporum'\n (Macrob. i. 214). [His medals had on the reverse the figure\n of _a ship_.] They represented him as of an uncommon age,\n with hair white as snow; they had a notion that he _would\n return to second childhood_. 'Ipsius autem canities primosis\n nivibus candicabat; _licet etiam ille puer posse fieri\n crederetur_.'--Martianus Capella. Martial's address to him,\n though short, has in it something remarkable, for he speaks of\n him as a native _of the former world_--\n\n 'Antiqui rex magne poli, _mundique prioris_,\n Sub quo prima quies, nec labor ullus erat.'--l. 12, E. 63.\n\n I have mentioned that he was supposed, [Greek: katapinein],\n to have _swallowed up his children_; he was also said to have\n _ruined all things_; which, however, _were restored with a\n vast increase_.\"--Orphic Hymn, 12, v. 3. Compare Calmet,\n _supra_, pp. 211 and 212.\n\n Martianus Capella and Varro de Ling. Lat. lib. i. 18, call him\n _Sator_, a sower, \"Saturnus Sator.\" Now it is curious that\n the ancient Germans had a god \"of the name of _Sator_.\" He\n is described by Verstegan as \"standing _upon a fish_, with a\n wheel in one hand, and in the other a _vessel of water_ filled\n with fruits and flowers.\"\n\n _N.B._--I was surprised to find in Carver's \"Travels in\n North America\" (p. 282) the phrase among the North American\n Indians, of things being done at the instigation \"of the Grand\n _Sautor_.\"\n\nThere is no doubt much that is monstrous and grotesque in the classical\nconception of Saturn, but I must again suggest that as all traditions\nmet in Noah, and were tradited through him, we must not be surprised\nto find all antediluvian traditions confused in Noah. Thus even the\ntradition of Lamech, which we have seen (_vide supra_, 178) variously\ndistorted in the legends of Perseus and OEdipus, are again repeated\nin the legends of Saturn.\n\nThere are, no doubt, also divers astral complications arising out of\nSaturn's place in the planetary system. When, however, we are told\nthat Saturn was son of Coelus and Tellus or Coelus and Vesta,[173]\nthe same as Terra (Montfau\u00e7on), it seems to occur to us, as a thing\n\"qui saute aux yeux,\" that this was only a mode of expressing a truth,\napplicable to all men in general, and Saturn as a primal progenitor in\nparticular, and having reference to the composite nature of man; in\nother words, that this was simply the tradition which Noah would have\nhanded down that he was created,[174] as were all other men, out of the\nearth, yet with something ethereal in his composition which came direct\nfrom the Deity. What the astral explanation may be I am at a loss to\nimagine. It cannot by any possibility be supposed to have reference to\ntheir relative positions in the heavens.\n\n [173] \"Saturn is by Plato supposed to have been the son of\n _Oceanus_.\"--Bryant, ii. 261.\n\n [174] _Vide_ Autochthones, ch. vii.\n\nI shall return to Saturn, under the representation of Oceanus, when I\ncome to speak of Janus.\n\n\nII. _Bacchus._--The _Saturnalia_ may be taken as the connecting link\nbetween _Saturn_ and _Bacchus_, and I think that it is sufficiently\nremarkable that there should be this link of connection.\n\nBut as the legends of Saturn are not all derived from Noah, so neither\ndo all the traditions concerning Bacchus appertain to Saturn. I shall\nsimply separate and note such as appear to me to be in common, _e.g._\n\"that Bacchus found out the making of wine, the art of planting trees,\nand many things else commodious for mankind.\" [\"And Noah, a husbandman,\nbegan to till the ground, and planted a vineyard, and drinking the\nwine was made drunk,\" Gen. ix. 20.][175] It is said there were several\nBacchuses. This may be only a reduplication, such as we have seen in\nthe case of Oannes, Nin, and Nebo, or as in the multiplications of\nJupiter. \"Joves omnes reges vocarunt antiqui.\"[176]\n\n [175] \"The Scriptures tell us that Noah cultivated the vine; and\n all profane historians agree in placing Bacchus in the first\n ages of the world\" (in proof of early cultivation of the\n vine).--Goguet, \"Origin of Laws,\" i. 116. Compare _supra_,\n p. 213, \"Saturnus _Sator_.\" Bryant says, \"The history of\n Dionusus is closely connected with that of Bacchus, though\n they are two distinct persons.\" He supposes Dionusus to be\n Noah, and Bacchus Ham. But he may very well have embodied the\n traditions of both. Pausanius (lib. iii. 272) says Dionusus\n was exposed _in an ark_ and wonderfully _preserved_. He\n was also said to have been twice born, and to have had two\n fathers and two mothers, in allusion to the two periods of his\n existence separated by the Deluge.\n\n Dionusus (Orphic Hymn, 44, 1) is addressed as [Greek: elthe,\n makar Dionyse, pyrispore tauroumet\u00f4pe].\n\n [176] The phrase \"Father Bacchus,\" current among the ancients\n (_vide_ Hor. Odes. i. xviii.) has always struck me as\n singular. It is perfectly congruous with the tradition of\n Noah; but who will tell us its appropriate solar or astral\n application?\n\nOn this subject Montfau\u00e7on says (i. 155)[177] apropos of a point to\nwhich I shall again refer, viz. that Bacchus was _Tauri_cornis.\n\n \"Diodorus Siculus says that the horns are only ascribed to the\n second Bacchus, the son of Jupiter and Proserpine; but these\n distinctions of various Bacchus were minded only in the more\n ancient times, hardly known in their worship.... This will also\n hold good of most of the other gods who were multiplied in the same\n manner.\"\n\n [177] Montfau\u00e7on, from whom I have quoted, was simply an\n antiquarian--a very erudite and laborious antiquarian, but one\n whose sole concern was to discriminate facts without reference\n to their bearings, and who would have had, I have little\n doubt, a supreme contempt for the speculations in which I have\n indulged. He says in his preface--\"I have a due regard for\n those great men who have excelled in this sort of learning,\n but must own at the same time I have no taste for it.... _It\n signifies very little to us to know_ whether they who tell us\n Vulcan was the same with Tubalcain, or they who say he was the\n same with Moses, make the best guess in the matter.\" Though\n the general opinion may not incline any more now than then\n to the biblical interpretation, yet I think a great change\n has taken place in public opinion as to the importance of the\n inquiry.\n\n Triptolemus was also said to have been \"the inventor of\n the plough and of agriculture, and of civilisation, which\n is the result of it,\" and to have instituted the Elusinian\n mysteries. Like Bacchus he is also said to have \"ridden all\n over the earth, making men acquainted with the blessings of\n agriculture.\"--_Smith. Myth. Dict.; vide_ also _infra_, p.\n 224: \"Deucalion.\"\n\nVicomte d'Anselme (Gainet, i. 224), asks with reference to his Greek\nname of Dionysius, \"Pourquoi les Grecs donnaient-ils le nom de Dionysos\nou de divin Noush (dios nous ou No\u00eb) \u00e0 l'inventeur du vin?\"--_Vide\nsupra_, ch. ix.; vide also Gainet, i. 225.\n\nBacchus is by some called \"_Tauri_cornis\" (compare _supra_, p. 203,\nNin) \"or Bucornis, and moreover he is frequently so represented,\"\n(_i.e._ not only with the horn in hand, a \"_bull's_ horn,\" as he is\nsometimes, which might be a drinking horn or cornucopia, in its way\nemblematical of the vir agricola\"), \"but also with horns on the head.\nHorace calls him \"Bicorniger,\" Orpheus, [Greek: Bouker\u00f4s]; Nicander,\n[Greek: Tauroker\u00f4s].\"--_Montfau\u00e7on_, i. 147, 155; comp. p. 204, note to\n\"Nin.\"\n\nOne Bacchus, Cicero tells us, \"was King of Asia and author of the\n_Laws_ called Subazian.\"--_Montfau\u00e7on_, i. 144. It is, moreover, said\nthat Bacchus travelled through all nations as far as India,[178] doing\ngood in all places, and teaching many things profitable to the life of\nman. His conquests are said to have been easy and without bloodshed.\nBut it is also noted that amidst his benevolence to mankind, he was\nrelentless in punishing all want of respect for his divinity, and\nindeed the _conduct_ and punishment of Chanaan may be said to be\nnarrated in the history of Pentheus.--_Vide_ _Montf._ i. 161.[179]\n\n [178] Dionusus like Bacchus came to India from _the\n west_.--_Philostratus_, lib. ii. 64; _Byrant_, ii. 78. The\n Indian Bacchus \"appears in the character of a wise and\n distinguished oriental monarch; his features an expression of\n sublime tranquillity and mildness.\"--_Smith, Myth. Dic._\n\n [179] This appears to me still more apparent in the 26th Idyll of\n Theocritus, where, when the Bacchanals were at their revels,\n\n \"Perched on the sheer cliff Pentheus would espy\n All....\n\n (For profaning thus \"these mysteries weird that must not be\n profaned by vulgar eyes,\" Pentheus is torn to pieces by the\n Bacchanals)....\n\n \"Warned by this tale, let no man dare defy\n Great Bacchus; lest a death more awful should he die.\n And when he counts _nine_ years or scarcely _ten_\n Rush to his ruin. May I pass my days\n _Uprightly_, and be loved by _upright_ men.\n And take this motto, all who covet praise\n ('Twas \u00e6gis-bearing Jove that spoke it first),\n The godly seed fares well, _the wicked is accurst_.\"\n --_Caverley's Theocritus_, xxvi.\n\n This seems to bear out what is perhaps only vaguely implied in\n the sacred text that the curse was on Chanaan--the boy and his\n posterity--and not on the whole race of Cham.--_Vide ante_:\n also compare the \"Bacch\u00e6\" of Euripides, in the following\n passage from Grote's \"Plato\" (iii. 333):--\"So in the 'Bacch\u00e6'\n of Euripides, the two old men, Kadmus and Teiresias, after\n vainly attempting to inculcate upon Pentheus the belief in\n and the worship of Dionysus, at last appeal to his prudence\n and admonish him of the danger of unbelief;\" which, if it be\n tradition, would look as if Chanaan's offence was only the\n final and overt expression of previous unbelief.\n\nIII. _Janus._--Janus represented the most ancient tradition of Noah in\nItaly; subsequent migrations brought in the legend of Saturn, and thus\nwe find them variously confounded--Saturn sometimes figuring as his\nguest, sometimes as his son, sometimes as his colleague on the throne.\nLike Saturn he appears as double-headed or bifrons, he is said to have\nintroduced civilisation among the wild tribes of Italy, and under him,\nas under Saturn, there appears to have been a golden age.\n\nI have made reference to _Saturn_ as Oceanus (_vide Montfau\u00e7on_, i.\n5), and as Oceanus his representations are very remarkable. In one\nhe appears as an old man sitting on the waves of the sea, with a _sea\nmonster_ on one side of him, and his spear or rod in his hand. In\nanother as sitting on the waves of the sea with ships about him; he is\n\"holding an urn and pours out water, the symbol of _the sea, and also\nof rivers and fountains_.\"\n\n_But Janus is also_ represented in his medals \"with a prow of a ship on\nthe reverse,\" and he is said to have first invented crowns, _ships_,\nand _boats_, and to have coined the first money.\n\n\"According to the accounts of mythologists,\" says Macrobius, \"_all\nfamilies in the time of Janus_ were full of religion and _holiness_.\"\n\"Xenon says he was the first that built temples and instituted sacred\nrites,\" and was therefore always mentioned at the beginning of\nsacrifices.\n\nWith reference to his description as \"bifrons,\" Macrobius says (some\nsay) he was so called \"because he knew the past and future things....\nSome pretend to prove that Janus is the Sun, and that he is represented\nwith two faces, because he is master of the two _doors_[180] of heaven,\nand opens the day at his rising and shuts it at his setting.\"\n\n [180] _Vide_ Dr Smith's \"Myth. Dict.\" art. Janus:--\"Whereas the\n worship of _Janus_ was introduced at Rome by Romulus, that of\n _Sol_ was instituted by _Titus Tatius_.\"\n\nA good secondary explanation is,[181] that \"as Janus always began the\nyear\" (whence January) \"the two heads do look on and import the old\nand new year;\" but then occurs the question--and this is why I submit\nthat it is only a secondary explanation--how came Janus to commence the\nyear?\n\n [181] If Janus is allowed to have been identified with Saturn\n (_supra_) we may see through the analogy of Saturn how these\n secondary functions came to be attributed to him--Saturn was\n also Chronos [that Chronos = Noah, _vide_ _Palmer's Egypt.\n Chron._, i. p. 60]; \"but,\" as Dr Smith says, \"there is no\n resemblance between the deities, except that both were\n regarded as the most ancient deities in their respective\n countries.\" As Chronos simply personifies antiquity itself,\n this only means that Saturn was the most ancient deity. When\n subsequently he became merged in \"Chronos,\" his ancient sickle\n became converted into a scythe. Dr Smith (\"Dict. Myth.\")\n says, \"He held in his hand a crooked pruning knife, and his\n feet were surrounded with a _woollen_ riband;\" and Goguet\n (\"Origin of Laws,\" i. 94) says, \"All old traditions speak of\n the _sickle_ of Saturn, who is said to have taught the people\n of his time to cultivate the earth.\"--_Plut._ i. p. 2, 275;\n _Macrob. Sat._, lib. i. 217.\n\n Goguet (\"Origin of Laws,\" i. 283) says, \"Several critics are\n of opinion that the Janus of the ancients is the same with\n Javan the son of Japhet, Gen. x. 3.\"\n\n It may afford a clue if I advert to the circumstance that\n whilst in the Phoenician alphabet (_vide Bunsen's Egypt_.\n iv. 290, 293, 297), Dagon, Dagan = Corn (the Fish-man,\n _vide supra_, p. 200), stands for the letter D. \"The\n door\" is its hieroglyphic equivalent. Thus we get in strange\n juxtaposition what we may call symbols, connecting Janus with\n the Fish-god and with the god of agriculture.--_Vide supra_,\n p. 200, and _infra_.\n\nIn the nomenclature of the calendar connected with any system of hero\nworship, worship of ancestors, or even spirit worship, who more fitly\nchosen to commence the year than Janus, supposing him to be Noah?\n\nThere are, however, two what we may call primary explanations, and\nwe must take our choice. The epithet is either applied to him, as\nexactly according with the reminiscence of Noah, who was pre-eminently\nacquainted with the past and the future; or we can take the astral\nexplanation that Janus was called Bifrons,[182] because he opened the\nsun at his rising and shut it at his setting. As a symbol of Noah\nthis double head appears to me very simple and natural, Noah forming\nthe connecting link between the antediluvian and modern worlds; but as\napplied to the Sun or to Janus as in relation to the Sun, even allowing\nfor personification, this twofold head of man strikes me as incongruous\nin the extreme. Besides, if it be allowed that it might apply to Saturn\nand Janus through the connecting idea of Chronos, how does it apply to\n_Bacchus_? Let us press this argument further. Here is a symbol common\nto Bacchus, Saturn, and Janus, and combining harmoniously in each\ninstance with the representation of Noah. Can this symbol, common to\nthese three, combine even congruously with any solar or astral legend?\nI have somewhere seen it noted as suspicious and as tending to confirm\nthe solar theory that these mythological personages all \"journey from\n_east_ to west, and meet their fate in the evening.\" But is this so?\nHave we not just seen that Bacchus, according to mythology, travelled\nfrom the _west_ into India?\n\n [182] Bryant (\"Mythology,\" ii. 254) says, \"Many persons of great\n learning have not scrupled to determine that Noah and Janus\n were the same. By Plutarch he is called [Greek: Iannos], and\n represented as an ancient prince who reigned in the infancy of\n the world.... He was represented with two faces, with which he\n looked both forwards and backwards; and from hence he had the\n name of Janus Bifrons. One of these faces was that of an aged\n man; but in the other was often to be seen the countenance\n of a young and beautiful personage. About him ... many\n emblems.... There was particularly a _staff in one hand_, with\n which he pointed to a rock, from whence issued a profusion of\n water. In the other hand he held a key.... He had generally\n near him _some resemblance of a ship_.... Plutarch does not\n accede to the common notion\" (that it was the ship that\n brought Saturn to Italy), \"but still _makes it a question why_\n the coins of this personage bore on one side the resemblance\n of Janus Bifrons, and on the other the representation of\n either the hind part or the fore part _of a ship_.... He\n is said to have first composed a chaplet, and to him they\n attributed the _invention of a ship_. Upon the Sicilian coins\n (at the temple) of Eryx _his_ figure often occurs with a\n twofold countenance, and on the reverse _is a dove_ encircled\n with a crown, which seems _to be of olive_. He is represented\n as a _just man_ and _a prophet_ (comp. pp. 207-208), and had\n the remarkable characteristics of being in a manner the author\n of time and the god of the year.\"\n\nBut not only were Saturn, Janus, and Bacchus represented as \"bifrons,\"\nbut so also was Cecrops. Cecrops will present a difficulty the more\nin the way of any solar theory; but Cecrops,[183] like all founders\nor supposed founders of states, has something in common with Noah.\nLike Saturn and Janus in Italy, Cecrops was said to have brought the\npopulation of Attica into cities, to have given them laws, taught\nthem the worship of the idols, _planted the olive_, and finally, was\nrepresented as half man, half serpent.[184]\n\n [183] \"Megasthenes stated that the first king (of India) was\n Dionysus. He found a rude population in a savage state,\n clothed in skins, unacquainted with agriculture, and without\n fixed habitations. The length of his reign is not given. The\n introduction of civilization and agriculture is a natural\n allusion to the immigration of the Aryans into a country\n inhabited by Turanian races.... Fifteen generations after\n Dionysus, Hercules reigned.... Now all this is obviously pure\n Indian tradition. Dionysus is the elder Manu, the divine\n primeval man, son of the Sun (Vivasvat). He holds the same\n position in the primeval history of India as does Jima or\n Gemshid, another name of the primeval man in the Iranian\n world.... The first era, then, is represented by Megasthenes\n as having fourteen generations of human kings, with a god as\n the founder and a god as the destroyer of the dynasty, in\n all fifteen or sixteen generations.\"--_Bunsen's Egypt_, iii.\n 528. Compare those fifteen generations with Palmer. Compare\n the confusion of Dionysus and Hercules with Deucalion and\n Prometheus, &c., p. 232. Pelasgus among the Arcadians passed\n for the first man and the first legislator (Boulanger, i.\n 133). Of Cadmus, too, it is said--\"Greece is indebted to him\n for alphabetical writing, the art of _cultivating the vine_,\n and the forging and working of _metals_.\"--_Goguet_, ii. 41.\n\n [184] _Vide supra_, Oannes, ch. ix.; _vide_ Smith, \"Myth. Dict.\"\n\nTo return to Janus. Before concluding I must note that Janus is called\nEanus by Cicero, which may perhaps have analogy with \"Hea and Hoa\" (ch.\nix.), and with Eannes and \"Oannes,\" although Cicero derives it from\n\"eundo.\"\n\nJanus was also called \"consivius a conserendo,\" because he presided\nover generation, a title singularly appropriate to Noah as the second\nfounder of the race, and through whom the injunction was given\n\"to increase and multiply.\"[185] He is moreover called \"Quirinus\nor Martialis,\" \"because he presided over war,\" which is precisely\nthe aspect under which it is the original and main purpose of this\ndissertation to consider Noah; and here I think I am entitled to urge,\nthat if I have succeeded on other grounds in showing that Nin, Hoa,\nJanus, &c., represented Noah, then that these epithets, \"Quirinus,\"\n\"Martialis,\" \"King of Battle,\" &c., can only be applied to him whose\nconquests were bloodless in the sense of controlling and regulating\nwar.[186] In connection with this title of \"Martialis,\" as applied to\nJanus--and, by the by, all the traditions concerning him are altogether\npeaceful and bloodless--it will be remembered that his temple was open\nin war and shut in peace, and closed for the third and last time at the\nmoment of the birth of our Lord.\n\n [185] \"All nations have given the honour of the discovery of\n agriculture to their _first_ sovereigns. The Egyptians said\n that Osiris (_vide supra_, p. 204) made men desist from\n eating each other, by teaching them to cultivate the earth.\n The Chinese annals relate that Gin-Hoang, one of the first\n kings of that country, invented agriculture, and by that\n means collected men into society, who before had wandered in\n the fields and woods like brute beasts.\" (Goguet, \"Origin of\n Laws.\") I need not remind the reader that Goguet's learned\n work is not written from our point of view. Compare _infra_,\n p. 240.\n\n [186] _Vide_, chap. xiii. Golden age, Mexican tradition.\n\nHis name was also invoked first in religious ceremonies, \"because, as\npresiding over armies,\" &c., through him only could prayers reach the\nimmortal gods. Is not this a reminiscence of the communications of the\nAlmighty to man through Noah?\n\n\nIV. _Ogyges and Deucalion._--I might pass over these traditions of\nNoah, since, having reference only to the fact of the Deluge and the\npersonality of Noah, they will not furnish matter for the special\npurpose of this inquiry; but on these grounds the investigation may be\njustified, and moreover seems necessary, for the completion of this\nchapter, and to indicate the independent source and derivation of the\nclassical tradition.\n\nIt appears to me manifest that the deluges of Ogyges and Deucalion\nwere neither locally historical nor partial deluges, but merely the\nreminiscences of the universal Deluge. Of the universal Deluge, whether\nwe call it the Mosaic Deluge or not, there is evidence and tradition in\nall parts of the world; though in every instance it is localised in its\ndetails and its history of the survivors.[187]\n\n [187] Although the greater number of these traditions have been\n localised, yet in almost every case we shall find embodied\n in them some one incident or other of the universal Deluge,\n as recorded by Moses. Kalisch (\"Hist. and Crit. Commentary\n on the Old Testament\") says:--\"It is unnecessary to observe\n that there is scarcely a single feature in the biblical\n account which is not discovered in one or several of the\n heathen traditions; and the coincidences are not limited to\n desultory details, they extend to the whole outlines, and the\n very tenor and spirit of the narrative; ... and it is certain\n that none of these accounts are derived from the pages of\n the Bible--they are independent of each other.... There must\n indisputably have been a common basis, a universal source, and\n this source is the general tradition of primitive generations.\"\n\n It is not, I think, generally known how widespread these\n traditions are. L'Abb\u00e9 Gainet has collected some thirty-five\n (\"La Bible sans la Bible\"); but Mr Catlin (_vide infra_, p.\n 245) says he found the tradition of a deluge among one\n hundred and twenty tribes which he visited in North, South,\n and Central America. This accords with Humboldt's testimony\n (Kalisch, i. 204), who \"found the tradition of a general\n deluge vividly entertained among the wild tribes peopling the\n regions of Orinoco.\" To these I must add the evidence of the\n indirect testimony of the commemorative ceremonies which I\n have collected in another chapter (_vide_ p. 242). It has\n been said that the Chinese tradition is too obscure to be\n adduced, but we shall see (p. 65) whether, when in contact\n with other traditions, it cannot be made to give light; and\n I shall refer my readers to the pages of Mr Palmer (_supra_,\n p. 71) for evidence of the tradition in Egypt, where it\n had heretofore been believed that no such evidence was to be\n found. In India (_vide_ ch. ix.) the tradition is embodied\n in the history of Manu and the fish; and Bunsen (\"Egypt,\" iii.\n 470) admits \"that there is evidence in the Vedas, however\n slight, that the flood does form a part of the reminiscences\n of Iran.\" _Vide_ also p. 68, evidence of the tradition in\n Cashmere. I wish also to direct attention here to two recent\n and important testimonies to the existence of the tradition\n in India and the Himalayan range. At pp. 151 and 450 of\n Hunter's \"Bengal,\" it will be seen that the Santals have a\n distinct tradition of the Creation, flood, intoxication of\n Noah, and the dispersion; and of the Vedic evidence, which\n Bunsen (_supra_, 223) calls slight, Mr Hunter says:--\"On the\n other hand, the Sanscrit story of the Deluge, like that in the\n Pentateuch, makes no mystery of the matter. A ship is built,\n seeds are taken on board, the ship is pulled about for some\n time by a fish, and at last gets on shore upon a peak of the\n Himalayas.\" Dr Hooker (\"Himalayan Journal,\" ii. 3) says:--\"The\n Lepchas have a curious legend of a man and woman having saved\n themselves on the _summit_ of Tendong (a very fine mountain,\n 8613 feet) during a flood which _once deluged Sikhim_,\" which\n he authenticates on the spot. Here, as in many of Mr Catlin's\n instances of local tradition, I may observe that the event\n as recorded proves the universality of the Deluge for the\n rest of the world, or at least all the world below the level\n of Tendong. In speaking, however, of the universal Deluge\n (universal as far as the human race are concerned), I do\n not enter into the geological argument, or exclude the view\n (permissible I believe, _vide_ Reusch, p. 368, and note to\n Rev. H. J. Coleridge's fourth sermon on \"The Latter Days\")\n that it was not geographically universal. I merely adhere to\n the testimony of tradition, and from this point of view it\n would suffice (_vide_ Reusch) that it was universal so far as\n the horizon of the survivors extended.\n\nSince, however, there is nothing to be said against the possibility of\nsubsequent partial inundations, there will, I suppose, always be found\npersons ready to maintain that the deluges of Ogyges and Deucalion were\npartial and historical; although I submit that the arguments which\nwere formerly used to prove the priority of Ogyges to Deucalion, and\nthe posteriority of both to the general Deluge, turned upon points of\nchronology which will hardly be sustained at the present day.\n\nIf, however, I can succeed in showing that the deluge of Deucalion is\nidentical with the deluge of Noah, I shall consider that I shall have\nalso proved the point for the deluge of Ogyges, which all agree to have\nbeen much older!\n\nThe following is Mr Grote's narrative collating the different\ntraditions respecting the deluge of Deucalion:--\n\n \"Deukalion is important in Grecian mythical narration under two\n points of view. First, he is the person specially saved at the time\n of the general deluge; next, he is the father of Hell\u00ean, the great\n eponym of the Hellenic race; at least that was the more current\n story, though there were other statements which made Hell\u00ean the son\n of Zeus.\" [This was merely the incipient process of the apotheosis\n of their more immediate founder.] \"The enormous iniquity with\n which the earth was contaminated, as Apollodorus says, by the then\n existing _brazen_ race, or, as others say, by the fifty monstrous\n sons of Sykor\u00f4n, provoked Zeus to send a general deluge.\" \"The\n latter account is given by Dionys. Halic. i. 17; the former seems\n to have been given by Hellenikus, who affirmed that the _ark_\n after the Deluge stopped upon Mount Othrys, and not upon Mount\n Parnassus (_Schol. Pind. ut supra_), the former being suitable\n for a settlement in Thessaly.\" [I have already pointed out how\n the general tradition is everywhere localised.] \"An _unremitting_\n and _terrible rain_ laid the whole of Greece under water except\n the highest mountain-tops, where a few stragglers found refuge.\n Deukalion was saved in a chest or ark, which he had been forewarned\n by his father Prometheus to construct. After he had floated for\n nine days on the water, he at length landed on the summit of Mount\n Parnassus. Zeus hearing, sent Hermes to him, promising to grant\n whatever he asked. He prayed that men and companions might be\n sent him in his solitude: accordingly Zeus directed both him and\n Pyrrha to cast stones over their heads, those cast by Pyrrha became\n women, those by Deukalion men. And thus the 'stony race of men'\n (if we may be allowed to translate an etymology which the Greek\n language presents exactly, and which has not been disdained by\n Hesiod, by Pindar, by Epicharmes, and by Virgil), came to tenant\n the soil of Greece. Deukalion on landing from the ark sacrificed a\n grateful offering to Zeus Phyxios, or the God of Escape; he also\n erected altars in Thessaly to the twelve great gods of Olympus.\n The reality of this deluge was firmly believed throughout the\n historical ages of Greece (localising it, however, and post-dating\n it to 1528 B.C.) Statements founded upon this event were\n in circulation throughout Greece even to a very late date. The\n Magarians ... and in the magnificent temple of the Olympian Zeus\n at Athens, a cavity in the earth was shown, through which it was\n affirmed that the water of the Deluge had retired. Even in the time\n of Pausanias the priests poured into this cavity holy offerings\n of meal and honey. In this, as in other parts of Greece, _the\n idea of the Deukalionian deluge was blended with the religious\n impressions of the people, and commemorated by their most sacred\n ceremonies_.\"--_Grote's \"History of Greece,\"_ vol. i. ch. v. 132,\n 133, \"_The Deluge_.\"[188]\n\n [188] Mr Grote certainly says--\"Apollodorus connects this deluge\n with the wickedness of the brazen race in Hesiod, according\n to the practice general with the logographers of stringing\n together a sequence out of legends totally unconnected with\n each other.\" One would have thought in one's simplicity that\n if any two legends linked well together, uniting in common\n agreement with the scriptural account, it would be the legends\n of the Deluge and the brazen age.\n\nMr Max M\u00fcller (comp. \"Myth.,\" \"Chips.,\" ii. 12), incidentally speaking\nof the legend of Deucalion, treats it with great contempt. \"What is\nmore ridiculous,\" he says, \"than the mythological account of the\ncreation of the human race by Deucalion and Pyrrha throwing stones\nbehind them (a myth which owes its origin to a mere pun on [Greek:\nlaos] and [Greek: laas]).\" And ridiculous it certainly is from any\npoint of view from which Mr Max M\u00fcller could regard it, _i.e._ either\nas the invention of a mythic period, or as a fugitive allegory arising\nout of some astral or solar legend: _per contra_, I shall submit that\nthere is nothing forced in supposing that this legend arose out of some\none of the processes of corruption to which all tradition is prone, of\nthe known fact that the human race was re-propagated by Deucalion or\nNoah.[189] If I am asked to explain how it came about that there should\nhave been this identity between the word for a \"man\" and a \"stone,\"\nI must simply confess my ignorance. Perhaps if Mr Max M\u00fcller could\nbe brought to look at things more from the point of view of biblical\ntraditions, he might be enabled to see it. All that I can suggest is,\nthat perhaps it may have a common origin with that Homeric expression\nquoted by Mr Max M\u00fcller at p. 175 (_vide supra_), \"Thou art not\nsprung from the olden tree or from the rock.\" I consider that I shall\ndefinitely establish, however, that it originates in a tradition and\nnot \"a mere pun,\" and at any rate that it is not local, it is not\nGreek. It is no doubt singular that the word for man, [Greek: laos],\npopulus, should so closely resemble the word for a stone, [Greek:\nlaas]; but not only is this coincidence found in the Greek, but we\nshall see that it is widely spread in all parts of the world. In proof,\nI adduce the following extract from Dr Hooker's inaugural lecture at\nNorwich in 1868, (since the publication of Mr Max M\u00fcller's work):--\n\n \"It is a curious fact that the Khasian word for a stone, 'man,' as\n commonly occurs in the names of their villages and places as that\n of man, maen, and men does in those of Brittany, Wales, Cornwall,\n &c.; thus Mansmai signifies in Khasia the Stone of Oath; Manloo,\n the Stone of Salt; Manflong, the Grassy Stone; and just as in Wales\n Pen m\u00e6n maur signifies the Hill of the Big Stone; and in Britanny a\n Menhir is a standing stone, and a Dolmen a table stone,\" &c.[190]\n\n [189] Let the significance of the following coincidence be\n considered in connection with the evidence at p. 244,\n Boulanger, \"Ces f\u00eates (Atheniasmes, 'Anthisteries') avoient\n pour objet une comm\u00e9moration (of the Deluge) et l'on en\n _attribuoit la fondation \u00e0 Deucalion_; elles \u00e9toient _aussi_\n consacr\u00e9es \u00e0 _Bacchus_, ce qui les a fait nomm\u00e9s les\n _anciennes_ ou les _grandes Bacchanales_.\"--Comp. ch. xi. p.\n 244, also _supra_, 213.\n\n [190] It is the fashion to deride Bryant's etymology, and no doubt\n he did not write in the light of modern science; but I find\n (\"Mythology,\" iii. 534) that he had already given this\n information. \"_Main_, from whence _moenia_, signified in the\n primitive language a stone, or stones, and also a building.\"\n\nHere it is seen that the word for stone in these respective places\nis the same with our word \"man;\" it is not specifically said that\nthe word would carry this sense also in the places indicated, but I\ninfer it from the analogy which runs through _homo_, _homme_, and\nby a connection of ideas through the Greek [Greek: \u00f4mos] to the\nSanscrit--thus \"\u00e2ma-ad\" ([Greek: \u00f4mos-ed\u00f4]), are names applied \"in\nthe Sanscrit\" to \"barbarians\" who are cannibals. (Max M\u00fcller, ii. p.\n44.) And I am not sure that Mr Max M\u00fcller does not say so directly, in\nreference to the word \"Brahman,\" for although the word originally is\nsaid to mean _power_ (i. 363), yet \"another word with the accent on\nthe last syllable, is _Brahm\u00e1n_, the _man_ who prays.\"--_Max M\u00fcller_,\ni. 72.[191]\n\nAlso Kenrick (\"Essay on Prim\u00e6val History,\" p. 59), \"Thus the Hindus\nattribute the origin of their institutions and race to Manu, whose\nname is equivalent to _man_. The Germans made Tuisto (Teutsch) and his\nson Mannus to be the origin and founder of their nation.\" Also Sir\nW. Jones' \"Asiat. Res.\" i. 230; Rawlinson's \"Bamp. Lect.\" lect. ii.\n67:--\"From _Manu_ the earth was re-peopled, and from him _man_kind\nreceived their name _Manudsha_.\"\n\nGainet (i. 170) says:--\"The stones changed then into men by Deucalion\nand Pyrrha, are they not their children according to nature? In Syriac\nthe word 'Eben' signifies equally a child and a stone. In spite of\nthese confusions their accounts of the Deluge are striking as well on\naccount of their resemblance, as on account of their universality, as\nthe reader will soon be able to convince himself.\"--_Vide Gainet_, i.\n167.[192]\n\n [191] Mr Max M\u00fcller, in his \"Lectures on the Science of Language,\"\n first series, says of \"Man\":--\"The Latin word 'homo,' the\n French 'l'homme' ... is derived from the same root, which we\n have in 'humus,' soil, 'humilis,' humble. Homo, therefore,\n would express the idea of being made of the dust of the\n earth.... There is a third name for man.... 'Ma,' in the\n Sanscrit, means to measure.... 'Man,' a derivative root, means\n to think. From this we have the Sanscrit 'Manu,' originally\n thinker, then man. In the later Sanscrit we find derivations\n such as 'M\u00e2nava, M\u00e2nasha, Manushya,' all expressing man. In\n Gothic we find both '_man_,' and 'Maunisk,' the modern German\n 'maun,' and 'mensch.' There were many more names for man, as\n there were many names for all things in ancient language.\" As\n an instance of the correspondence of Old Egyptian and Welsh,\n Bunsen's \"Philosophy of Univ. Hist.,\" i. 169, gives \"Egyptian,\n 'man' = rockstone; Welsh, 'maen;' Irish, 'main' (coll. Latin,\n 'moenia;' Hebrew, 'e-ben').\" And (p. 78) Bunsen says--\"The\n divine Mannus, the ancestor of the Germans, _is absolutely\n identical_ with Manus, who, according to ancient Indian\n mythology, is the God who created man anew after the Deluge,\n _just as Deucalion did_.\"\n\n [192] The _Saturday Review_, Nov. 14, 1868 (reviewing \"The Indian\n Tribes of Guiana,\" by the Rev. W. Brett), says of the Indian\n traditions:--\"The 'old people's stories' of the creation and\n the deluge are highly characteristic.... Under the rule of\n Sigu, son of Maikonaima, the tree of life was planted, in\n whose stem were pent up the whole of the waters which were to\n be let forth by measure to stock every river and lake with\n fish. Twarrika, the mischievous monkey, forced open the magic\n cover which kept down the waters, and the next minute was\n swept away with _all things living_ by the bursting flood.\n _The re-peopling_ of the world, as described by the Tamanacs\n of the Orinoco _recalls the legend of Deucalion_. One man and\n one woman took refuge on the mountain Tama_nacu_. _They then\n threw over their heads_ the fruits of the Mauritia (or Ita)\n palm, from the _kernel_ of which sprang men and women who once\n more peopled the earth.\"\n\nBut if the whole human race were re-propagated by Deucalion and Pyrrha,\nhow are we to locate the _anterior_ legend of Ogyges, occurring among\nthe same people? It is barely possible that the memory of a long\nantecedent and partial deluge may have remained in the memories of the\nsurvivors of the subsequent and universal calamity, but the much more\nreasonable conjecture seems to be that it was by a different channel\nthe reminiscence of the same event. It must be remembered that it was\nthe Ogygian deluge which was said to have been partial and to have\ninundated Attica. The deluge of Deucalion by all accounts, except by\nPindar, was considered to have been universal, and corresponds in\nits details with Mosaic accounts, _e.g._ it was universal, covering\nthe tops of the highest mountains; it was caused by the depravity of\nmankind; the single pair who were saved, were saved in a ship or an\nark, and floated many days on the waters. In the end, they settled on\nthe top of a mountain, went to consult the oracle (as Noah is said\nto have sacrificed and to have had communications with God), and\nre-peopled the earth. The version of Lucian gives particulars which\nbrings the tradition to almost exact correspondence. Deucalion and his\nwife were saved (on account of their rectitude and piety) together with\nhis sons and their wives. He was accompanied into the ark by the pigs,\nhorses, lions, and serpents, who came to him in pairs. If the account\nof Lucian is somewhat recent, on the other hand it is the account of a\nprofessed scoffer, and moreover, shows what I do not remember to have\nseen noted from this point of view that the tradition was common to\nSyria as well as Greece.\n\nThis brings us to the contrary, but, as it appears to me, much less\nformidable objection--bearing in mind that the tradition of the Deluge\nis common to Mexico, India, China, the islands of the Pacific, &c.\n&c.--viz. that the tradition came to Greece from Asia.\n\nThis is Mr Kenrick's objection[193] (_vide_ Preface to Grote's\n\"History of Greece,\" 2d ed.) The most direct, and, as it appears to\nme, sufficient answer, seems to be that it was necessarily so; since,\n_ex hypothesi_, the population itself came to Greece from Asia. Mr\nKenrick says, \"It is doubtful whether the tradition of Deucalion's\nflood is older than the time when the intercourse with Greece began\nto be frequent,\" _i.e._ about the fifth century B.C. (p.\n31.) But as the Septuagint, according to Mr Kenrick himself, could\nnot have influenced Greece till the third century, this tradition can\nonly have been the primeval tradition. Mr Kenrick is a fair opponent,\nand I must do him the justice to add that he repudiates the Voltairean\nsuggestion that this tradition originated in a Hebrew invention. If\nthen the inhabitants of Greece, who came originally from Asia, had not\nthe tradition, or had it imperfectly, when they arrived, it can only\nhave been because they had lost it; but as admittedly they recovered\nit at a later period, the presumption, even on this showing, is, at\nleast for those who can realise how difficult it would be to make a\npure fiction, as distinguished from a corrupt tradition, run current,\nmore especially among different nationalities and during a lengthened\nperiod,--that when circumstances brought them again into contact with\nAsia, they added fresh incidents, only because they found the tradition\nfresher there than among themselves. _Voila tout!_ for Mr Kenrick's\nwhole argument depends entirely upon this--that \"as we reach the time\nwhen the Greeks enjoyed more extensive and leisurely communication with\nAsia, through the conquests of Alexander ... we find new circumstances\nintroduced into the story which assimilates it more closely to the\nAsiatic tradition.\"\n\n [193] \"Essay on Prim\u00e6val History.\"\n\nIt has been allowed (_vide supra_) that the tradition of Deucalion\nis as old as the fifth century B.C., and, not to speak of the deluge\nof Ogyges, connected with what was earliest in Grecian history,\nthe following passage from Kenrick seems to me in evidence of long\nantecedent traditions among the Greeks themselves, which they must have\nbrought with them originally from Asia.[194]\n\n [194] \"According to the calculations of Varro, the deluge of Ogyges\n occurred 400 years before Inachus, _i.e._ 1600 years before\n the first Olympiad, which would bring it to 2376 years before\n the Christian era; now, according to the Hebrew text, the\n Deluge of Noah took place 2349 B.C., which makes only\n a difference of 27 years. It is true that many other authors\n have reconciled these epochs.\" Hesiod and Homer are silent\n on the subject of both Deucalion and Ogyges.... \"It results\n from these considerations that the traditions of the ancient\n nations of the world confirm the narrative of Genesis, _not\n only_ as to the existence, but even as to the _epoch_, of this\n catastrophe as fixed by Moses. Mersius (_apud_ Gronovium,\n iv. 1023) cites more than twenty ancient authors who speak\n of Ogyges as appertaining in their eyes to what was _most\n primitive_ in Greece. He is son of Neptune. He is the first\n founder of the kingdom of Thebes. Servius represents him _as\n coming immediately after Saturn and the golden age_ [which\n directly connects Noah with Saturn, and the golden age with\n Noah]. Hesychius says of Ogyges that he represented all that\n was most ancient in Greece. That, indeed, passed into a\n proverb; they said, 'old as Ogyges,' as if they said, 'old as\n Adam'\" (Gainet, i. 229).\n\nMr Kenrick says (p. 31):--\n\n \"The account of Deucalion, given by Apollodorus (i. 7, 2), bears\n evident marks of being compounded of two fables originally\n distinct, in one of which, and probably the older, the descent\n of the Hellenes was traced through Deucalion to Prometheus and\n Pandora, without mention of a deluge. In the other, the destruction\n of the brazen race by a flood, the re-peopling the earth by the\n casting of stones, is related in the common way. That these two\n narratives cannot originally have belonged to the same myths is\n evident from their incongruity; for as mankind were created by\n Prometheus, the father of Deucalion, there was no time for them\n to have passed through those stages of degeneracy by which they\n reached the depravity of the brazen age.\"\n\nHere are evidently two early traditions, ostensibly Greek, distinct,\nit is true, yet perfectly compatible. The one the tradition of Grecian\ndescent through Noah to Adam and Eve, the other the tradition of\nthe Deluge. But after what we have already seen (_vide supra_, pp.\n157, 158) of reduplications and inversions, can a serious argument\nbe based upon the expression that Deucalion (Noah) was the son of\nPrometheus (Adam)?[195] Is it not a most natural and inevitable\n_fa\u00e7on-de-parler_ to connect the descendant directly and immediately\nwith his remote ancestor, _e.g._ \"Fils de St Louis--fils de Louis\nCapet--montez au ciel!\"\n\n [195] In the same way we find \"Mentuhotep,\" or \"Sesortasen I.\"\n named, \"when all other ancestors are omitted, as the sole\n connecting link between Amosis (xviii. dynasty) and Menes.\"\n _Vide_ Palmer's \"Egyptian Chronicles,\" i. 385.\n\n So, too, are Fohi (whom I believe to be Adam) and Shin-nong\n (Noah) connected and linked together in Chinese chronology.\n \"I. Fohi the great Brilliant (Tai-hao), cultivation of\n _astronomy_ and religion as well as _writing_. He reigned\n 110 years. Then came fifteen reigns. II. Shin-nong (divine\n _husbandman_). Institution of _agriculture_ [compare _ante_,\n ch. x.] The knowledge of simples applied as the art of\n medicine.\"--Bunsen's \"Egypt,\" iii. 383, chap. on Chinese\n Chronology. _Vide ante_, 61; chap. on Tradition, p. 129;\n Prometheus.\n\nI do not of course attempt, within this narrow compass, to grasp Mr\nKenrick's entire view. I am merely dealing with the special argument;\nbut it is curious to note how the line of reasoning adopted by Mr\nKenrick, whilst it sustains the Greek traditions, as traditions (though\nnot Greek), unconsciously neutralises the arguments which would dispose\nof the testimonies derived from them, by saying that they were not\ntraditions of a general, but of a local and a partial deluge.\n\nThese latter arguments appear to have had weight with one against whom\nI hardly venture to run counter, Frederick Schlegel (\"Phil. of Hist.\"\np. 79)--\"The irruption of the Black Sea into the Thracian Bosphorus is\nregarded by very competent judges in such matters as an event perfectly\nhistorical, or at least, from its proximity to the historical times, as\nnot comparatively of so primitive a date.\" Compare with passage from\nMr Kenrick.[196] Schlegel adds:--\"All these great physical changes\nare not necessarily and exclusively to be ascribed to the last general\nDeluge. The presumed irruption of the Mediterranean into the ocean, as\nwell as many other mere partial revolutions in the earth and sea, may\nhave occurred much later, and quite apart from this great event\" (p.\n79). But it may also have occurred much _earlier_, as is clear from\nthe following passage from Schlegel, to which I wish to direct the\nattention of geologists, and in which Schlegel speaks according to the\noriginal insight of his own mind, and not in deference to the opinions\nof others:--\n\n \"These words ('the earth was without form and void, and darkness\n was upon the face of the deep; but the Spirit of God moved upon\n the face of the waters,' Gen. x.), which announce the presage of a\n new morn of Creation, not only represent a darker and wilder state\n of the globe, but very clearly show the element of water to be\n still in predominant force. Even the division of the elements, of\n the waters above the firmament, and of the waters below it, on the\n second day of creation, the permanent limitation of the sea for the\n formation and visible appearance of the dry land, necessarily imply\n a mighty revolution in the earth, and afford additional proof that\n the Mosaic history speaks not only of one but of many catastrophes\n of nature, _a circumstance that has not been near enough attended\n to in the geological interpretation and illustration of the\n Bible_.\"--_Schlegel_, p. 82.\n\n [196] Kenrick (p. 37) says:--\"The fact of traces of the action of\n water at a higher level in ancient times on these shores\n is unquestionable; under the name of _raised beaches_\n such phenomena are familiar to geologists on many coasts;\n but that the tradition (in Samothrace) was produced by\n _speculation_ on its _cause_, not by an obscure recollection\n of its _occurrence_, is also clear; for it has been shown by\n physical proofs that a discharge of the waters of the Euxine\n (Black Sea) would not cause such a deluge as _the tradition\n supposed_\" (Cuvier, Disc. sur les Revolutions du Globe, ed.\n 1826).\n\n If these speculations were made at the commencement of\n Grecian history, and the speculations had reference to\n evidence of diluvian disruption along the highway by which\n they passed into Greece, should we not expect that theories\n of the violent rather than the gentler and gradual action of\n water would dominate in their geological tradition? Colonel\n George Greenwood, in \"Rain and Rivers,\" p. 2, says on the\n contrary--(\"with reference to the theory that valleys are\n formed by 'rain and rivers'\")--\"There is, perhaps, no creed\n of man which, like this, can be traced up to the most remote\n antiquity, and traced down from the most remote antiquity to\n the present day. Lyell has himself quoted Pythagoras for it,\n through the medium of Ovid:--\n\n 'Eluvie mons est deductus in \u00e6quor\n Quodquo fuit campus _vallem decursus aquarum_\n Fecit.'\n\n But Pythagoras only enunciates the doctrine of Eastern\n antiquity; that is, of the Egyptians, the Chald\u00e6ans, and\n the Hindoos. But since Pythagoras introduced this doctrine\n in the West, if it has ever slumbered, it has perpetually\n _re_-originated. Lyell shows that among the Greeks it was\n taught by Aristotle; among the Romans by Strabo; among the\n Saracens by Avicenna; in Italy by Moro, Geneselli, and\n Targioni; and in England by Ray, Hutton, and Playfair.\"--_Rain\n and Rivers_, by Col. George Greenwood. Longmans, 1866. 2d edit.\n\nThe point that is material to this discussion is to decide whether or\nnot those disruptions in Thrace are historical and subsequent to the\nDeluge. Now, here Mr Kenrick's main theory, that \"speculation is the\nsource of tradition,\" comes in with fatal effect to dispose of the\narguments I am combating, and yet in no way at this point militates\nagainst the view I am urging, that these supposed inundations were\nlocalisations of the tradition of the general Deluge which the Pelasgi\nbrought with them from Asia.\n\nMr Kenrick says (p. 36):--\n\n \"It was a [Greek: logos], a popular legend, among the Greeks,\n that Thessaly had once been a lake, and that Neptune had opened a\n passage for the waters through the vale of Tempe (Herod. 7, 129).\n The occupation of the banks of the rivers of this district by the\n Pelasgi tribes, which must have been _subsequent_ to the opening\n of the gorge, is the _earliest_ fact in Greek history, and the\n 'logos' itself no doubt originated in a very simple speculation.\n The sight of a narrow gorge, the sole outlet of the waters of a\n whole district, naturally suggests the idea of its having once been\n closed, and, as the necessary consequence, the inundation of the\n whole region which it now serves to drain.\"\n\nNow, if this reasoning is just, it seems to establish two things pretty\nconclusively: First, That the current legend among the Greeks was _not_\nthe tradition of a local deluge; but, if not a reminiscence, was at any\nrate the observation of the evidences of a deluge previous to their\narrival. Moreover, the deluge of their tradition exceeding the actual\nfacts is in evidence of their recollection of an event adequate to such\neffects. Second, That the tradition, if it arose out of a speculation,\nmust have arisen out of a speculation made in the earliest commencement\nof Greek history.\n\nIt is difficult to reconcile the latter conclusion with Mr Kenrick's\nview that the tradition was imported from Asia in the fifth century\nB.C.\n\nIt is impossible to reconcile the former with the acceptation of a\nlocal and historical inundation in the time of the Ogyges and Deucalion\nof popular history.\n\nThis digression on the legend of Deucalion has led me away from what is\nproperly the subject-matter of this inquiry; and I therefore propose\nnow to summarise the results of the last two chapters. To pursue the\ntradition of Noah in all its ramifications would extend the inquiry\nbeyond the scope which is necessary for the purposes of my argument.\nIt will have been seen, I think, that my object has not been merely\nantiquarian research. I have sought to bring into prominence the\nreminiscences of Noah, which recall him at any rate as the depository\nof the traditions, if not the expositor of the science of mankind, as\nthe channel, if not the fountain-head, of law, which thus became the\nlaw of nations--as the intermediary through whom the communications of\nthe Most High passed to mankind, and under whose authority mankind held\ntogether during some three hundred years.[197]\n\n [197] Gen. vi. 18; viii. 15; vi. 13; ix. 8; viii. 20; ix. 20; and\n Ecclesiasticus xliv. 1, 3, 4, 19, \"The covenants of the world\n were made with Him.\"\n\nLet me collect more directly and more fully the epithets in this sense\nwhich are dispersed in the above traditions.\n\nWe have seen that Calmet properly identifies Saturn with Noah; that\naccording to Virgil and Plutarch \"under Saturn was the golden age;\"\nSaturn of whom Hesiod says:--\"Him of mazy counsel, Saturn;\" that in\nthe tradition, as we see it in Virgil, he is described as bringing his\nscattered people into social life, and the noticeable phrase is used\n_legesque dedit_;[198] that in Bacchus, directly connected with Saturn\nthrough the _Saturnalia_, we also see much in his characteristics in\ncommon with Saturn, all which equally identifies him with Noah; and\nBacchus, as we are told by Cicero, was the author of the \"laws called\nSubazian.\"[199] In Janus, too, we find great resemblances to Saturn,\nand in the very respects which would identify him with Noah. Under\nJanus as under Saturn was the golden age, and it is added that in the\ntime of Janus, \"all families were full of religion and holiness,\" and\nalthough his rule is described as singularly peaceful, he is called\nQuirinus and Martialis, as presiding over war. The closing and opening\nof his temple, too, had a conspicuous and direct connection with peace\nand war.\n\n [198] I feel justified in bringing in attestation also the following\n verses of the \"Oracula Sybillina,\" for, as I have already\n said, even if they be forgeries of the second century A.D.,\n they at any rate represent the tradition at that date (i. v.\n 270):--\n\n \"No\u00eb fidelis amans \u00e6qui servata periclis\n Egredere audenter, simul et cum conjuge nati\n Tresque nurus: et vos terr\u00e6 loca vasta replete,\n Crescite multiplice numero, _sacrataque jura\n Tradite_ natorum natis....\n Hinc nova progenies hinc _\u00e6tas aurea_ prima\n Exorta est hominum....\n ... ast illo se tempore regia primum\n Imperia ostendent terris quum _foedere facto_\n Tres justi reges, divisis partibus \u00e6quis,\n _Sceptra_ diu populis imponent _sanctaque tradent\n Jura_ viris.\"...\n\n Compare also the following verses (Orac. Sybil, i. 145) with\n the Vedic tradition (_infra_, p. 238) of the promise made\n to Satiavrata, and the Babylonian tradition respecting Hoa\n (_infra_):\n\n \"... Collige, No\u00eb, tuas vires ...\n ... Si scieris me\n Divin\u00e6 te nulla rei secreta latebunt.\"\n\n [199] I only instance this as evidence that laws of some sort were\n attributed to Bacchus, whom the traditions also speak of as\n King of Asia: to judge of these laws by what we know of the\n Subazian mysteries, would be as if we were to form our opinion\n of the Mandan ceremonies (_vide infra_, ch. xi.) by the last\n day's orgies only. In this matter we may say with Cicero, _De\n Legibus_, ii. 17--\"Omnia tum perditorum civium scelere ...\n religionum jura polluta sunt.\"\n\nIf we turn back to the mythological prototypes in Assyria we find him\nas Hoa in connection with \"the mystic animal, half-man half-fish, which\ncame up from the Persian Gulf to teach astronomy and letters to the\nfirst settlers on the Euphrates and Tigris,\" himself \"known to the\nfirst settlers;\" he is called \"the intelligent guide, or, according\nto another interpretation, the intelligent fish,\" \"the teacher of\nmankind,\" \"the lord of understanding;\" \"one of his emblems is the\nwedge or arrow-head, the essential emblem of cuneiform writing, which\nseems to be assigned to him as the inventor, or at least the patron of\nthe Chald\u00e6an alphabet.\" In the Vedic tradition as Satiavrata (_vide_\nRawlinson's \"Bampton Lect.,\" lect. ii. 67), having been saved \"from\nthe destroying waves\" in \"a large vessel\" sent from heaven for his\nuse--which he entered accompanied \"by pairs of all brute animals\"--he\nis thus addressed, \"Then shalt thou know my true greatness, rightly\nnamed the Supreme Godhead; by my favour all thy questions _shall be\nanswered_ and thy mind abundantly instructed;\" and it is added that\n\"after the deluge had abated,\" Satiavrata was \"instructed in all\n_human_ and _divine_ knowledge.\" In fine, if we recognise him as Hoa,\nwe shall find his benefactions to mankind thus summed up in Berosus.\n(_Vide_ the original in Rawlinson's \"Ancient Monarchies,\" i. 154.)[200]\n\n [200] Layard (\"Nineveh and Babylon,\" p. 343) says, \"We can scarcely\n hesitate to identify this mythic form (at Kosyundik) with the\n Oannes or sacred man-fish, who, according to the traditions\n preserved by Berosus, issued from the _Erethr\u00e6an_ sea,\n instructed the _Chald\u00e6ans_ in all wisdom, in the sciences\n and the fine arts, and was _afterwards_ worshipped as a\n god in the temples of Babylonia.... Five such monsters\n rose from the Persian Gulf at fabulous intervals of time\n (Cory's \"Fragments,\" p. 30). It has been conjectured that\n this myth denotes the conquest of Chald\u00e6a at some remote and\n pre-historic period by a comparatively civilised nation coming\n in ships to the mouth of the Euphrates.... The _Dagon_ of the\n Philistines and of the inhabitants of the Phoenician coast\n was worshipped, according to the united opinion of the Hebrew\n commentators on the Bible, under _the same form_.\" The five\n apparitions at long intervals may have been the confusion of\n the previous revelations to the patriarchs with those made to\n Noah--or they may be reduplications (_vide supra_, p. 157).\n\n \"He is said to have transmitted to mankind the knowledge of grammar\n and mathematics, and of all the arts, of the polity of cities, the\n construction and dedication of temples, _the introduction of laws_\n ([Greek: kai nom\u00f4n eis\u00eag\u00easeis]); to have taught them geometry, and\n to have shown them _by example_ the modes of _sowing the seed_\n and gathering the _fruits of the earth_,\" [the \"vir agricola\" of\n Genesis], and along with them to have tradited all the secrets\n which tend to humanise life. And no one else at that time was found\n more super-eminent than he.\"--_Vide_ Rawlinson, i. 155.\n\nWe have seen that he was known to \"the first settlers on the Euphrates\nand Tigris.\" The Abb\u00e9 de Tressan says, Berosus begins his history with\nthese words:--\"_In the first year_ appeared this extraordinary man\"\n(Oannes). Now, with \"the early settlers\" on the Euphrates and Tigris\nthe commencement of all things would have been naturally dated from the\nDeluge.\n\nIt appears to me worth while, in conclusion, to place more succinctly\nbefore the reader the _identical_ terms in which the ancients (various\nauthors) spoke of the first founders of states or their earliest\nprogenitor--compelling the conclusion that allusion was made to one and\nthe same individual and epoch.\n\nBryant (\"Myth.\" ii. 253) says that Noah was represented as Thoth,\nHermes, Menes, Osiris, Zeuth, Atlas, Phoroneus, and Prometheus, &c. &c.\n\"There are none wherein his history is delineated more plainly, than in\nthose of Saturn and Janus.\" These I will now omit, as we have just seen\nthem to be identical--and so too Bacchus, who equally with them plants\nthe vine, teaches them to sow, and gives them laws.\n\n _Phoroneus_, \"an ancient poet quoted by Clemens Alex. (i. 380)\n calls him the first of mortals, [Greek: phyroneus pat\u00ear thn\u00eat\u00f4n\n anthr\u00f4p\u00f4n].\" The first deluge took place under Phoroneus: \"He\n was also the first who _built_ an altar. He first collected men\n together and formed them into petty communities.\"--Pausanias, lib.\n 2, 145. He first gave laws and distributed justice.--Syncellus,\n 67, 125. They ascribed to him the distribution of mankind, \"idem\n nationes distribuit\" (Hyginus' Fab. 143), \"which is a circumstance\n very remarkable.\"\n\n _Poseidon's_ epithets connected with the ark are very striking\n (Bryant, ii. 269, _Deucalion, vide ante_, p. 232); but he is also\n said (Apollon. Rhod. lib. 3, v. 1085) to have been \"the first man\n through whom religious rites were renewed, cities built, and civil\n polity established in the world.\"\n\n _Cecrops_ (_vide ante_, p. 220), the identical terms are used.\n\n _Myrmidon_, \"a person of great justice.\" \"He is said to have\n collected people together, humanised mankind, enacted laws, and\n first established civil polity.\"--Scholia in Pindar, Ode 3, v. 21.\n\n _Cadmus, vide ante_, p. 221.\n\n _Pelasgus_ also is described as equally a benefactor to mankind,\n and instructed them in many arts.--Pausanias, 8, 599. He is said to\n have built the first temple to the deity \"\u00e6dem Jovi Olympis primum\n fecit Pelasgus.\"--Hyginus' Fab. 225, 346. Bryant says, \"I have\n taken notice that as Noah was said to have been [Greek: hanthr\u00f4pos\n g\u00eas],\" a man of the earth--this characteristic is observable in\n every history of the primitive persons; and they are represented\n as '[Greek: nomioi],' '[Greek: agrioi]', and '[Greek: g\u00eageneis].'\n Pelasgus accordingly had this title (\u00c6schy. \"Supplicants,\" v. 250),\n and it is particularly mentioned of him that he _was the first_\n husbandman. Pelasgus first found out all that is necessary for the\n cultivation of the ground.\"--Schol. in Eurip. \"Orestes,\" v. 930.\n\n _Osiris._--The account of Osiris in Diodorus Siculus is exactly\n similar. He travels into all countries like Bacchus. He builds\n cities; and although represented as at the head of an army, is\n described with the muses and sciences in his retinue. In every\n region he instructed the people in planting, sowing, and other\n useful acts.--Tibullus, i. E. 8, v. 29. He particularly introduced\n the vine, and when that was not adapted to the soil, the use of\n ferment and wine of barley. He first built temples, and was a\n lawgiver and king (Diod. Sic.).--Bryant, ii. 60.\n\n _Chin-nong_ (_vide_ also Bunsen, _supra_, p. 63) \"was a\n husbandman, and taught the Chinese agriculture, &c., discovered the\n virtues of many plants. He was represented with the _head of an\n ox_, and sometimes only with two horns.\"--Comp. Bryant, iii. 584.\n\n _Manco Capac._--Peru, _vide infra_, ch. xiii.; very curious.\n\n Strabo, 3, 204, says of the Turditani in Spain (Iberia), \"They are\n well acquainted with grammar, and have many written records of high\n antiquity. They have also large collections of poetry (comp. ch.\n vii.), and _even their laws_ are described in verse, which they\n say is of six thousand years standing.\"\n\n _Deucalion_, according to Lucian, was saved from the Deluge on\n account of his wisdom and piety--\"[Greek: eubouli\u00eas te kai euebi\u00eas\n heineka].\" [[Greek: euboulia]--literally, \"good counsel.\"]\n\n _Mercury_ gave Egypt its laws--\"Atque Egyptiis leges et literas\n tradidisse.\"--Cicero, \"De Natura Deorum,\" iii. 22.\n\n _Apollo._--Cicero says the fourth Apollo gave laws to the\n _Arcadians_ (comp. _infra_, p. 331): \"Quem Arcades [Greek:\n Nomion] appellant, quod ab eo se leges ferunt accepisse,\" id. iii.\n 23; _vide_ also Plato, \"Leges,\" i. 1.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XI.\n\n _DILUVIAN TRADITIONS IN AFRICA AND AMERICA._\n\n\nBoulanger (1722-59), a freethinker, and the friend and correspondent\nof Voltaire, was so dominated by his belief in the universal Deluge\nas a fact, that he made its consequences the foundation of all his\ntheories. Writing in the midst of a scepticism very much resembling\nthat of the present day, he says, \"What! you believe in the Deluge?\"\nSuch will be the exclamation of a certain school of opinion, and this\nschool a very large one. Nevertheless, this profound writer, by the\nexigencies of his theory, was irresistibly brought to the recognition\nof the fact. \"We must take,\" he continues, \"a fact in the traditions\nof mankind, the truth of which shall be universally recognised. What\nis it? I do not see any, of which the evidence is more generally\nattested, than those which have transmitted to us that famous physical\nrevolution which, they tell us, has altered the face of our globe,\nand which has occasioned a total renovation of human society: in a\nword, the Deluge appears to me the true starting-point (_la veritable\nepoque_) in the history of nations. Not only is the tradition which\nhas transmitted this fact the most ancient of all, but it is moreover\nclear and intelligible; it presents a fact which can be justified and\nconfirmed.\" He proceeds, and the drift and animus of the writer will\nbe sufficiently apparent in the passage--\"It is then by the Deluge\nthat the history of the existing nations and societies has commenced.\nIf there have been false and pernicious religions in the world it is\nto the Deluge that I trace them back as to their source; if doctrines\ninimical to society have been broached, I see their principles in the\nconsequences of the Deluge; if there have existed vicious legislations\nand innumerable bad governments, it will be upon the Deluge that I\nlay the charge.\" It is, then, only in attestation of the fact that\nI adduce this author; and in his proof he has accumulated a large\nmass of indirect evidence, which a certain school of opinion find it\nconvenient altogether to ignore in reference to this subject. In this\nclass are the various institutions among different nations to preserve\nthe memory of the Deluge, as for instance, the \"Hydrophories ou la f\u00eate\ndu Deluge \u00e0 Athenes,\" and at \u00c6gina, the feast of the goddess of Syria\nat Hierapolis, both having strange resemblances with the Jewish feasts\nof \"Nisue ha M\u00e2im, or the effusion of waters,\" and the tabernacles, in\ntheir traditional aspects, _i.e._ in their observances _not_ commanded\nby Moses; the \"effusion des eaux a Ithome ... et de Siloe;\" the feast\nof the Deluge (of Inachus) at Argos; a feast, the effusion of water,\nin Persia, anterior to its Mahometanism; similar festivals in Pegu,\nChina, and Japan; in the mysteries of Eleusis; in the \"peloria,\"\n\"anthisteria,\" and \"_Saturnalia_;\" and finally in the pilgrimages to\nrivers in India[201] and other parts of the world; \"of the multitude\nof traditions preserved in the diluvian festivals and commemorative\nusages of the gulphs, apertures, and abysses which have at one time\nor another vomited forth or absorbed waters\" (i. 84); again, the\npilgrimages to the summits of mountains in India, China, Tartary, the\nCaucasus,[202] Peru, &c. \"It is easy to see,\" he adds (p. 320), \"that\nthis veneration is based upon a corrupted tradition, which has taught\nthese people that their fathers formerly took refuge on the top of this\nmountain at the time of the Deluge, and subsequently descended from it\nto inhabit the plains.\"\n\n [201] Dionysius Periegesis says the women of the British Amnit\u00e6\n celebrated the rites of Dionysos:--\n\n \"As the Bistonians on Apsinthus banks\n Shout to the clamorous Eiraphiates;\n Or as the Indians on dark-rolling Ganges\n Hold revels to Dionysos the noisy,\n So do the British women shout Evo\u00eb.\"\n (v. 375.) (_Qy_. Eno\u00eb.)\n _Vide_ \"The Bhilsa Topes,\" by Major A. Cunningham, p. 6.\n\n [202] I would specially draw attention to the instances of temples\n constructed upon the model of ships, concerning which _vide_\n Bryant's \"Mythology,\" ii. 221, 226, 227, 240; and compare with\n Plate XVIII. in Montfau\u00e7on, ii.\n\nI shall have occasion to refer again more in detail to some of these\ncustoms[203] when drawing attention to the resemblances which I shall\npresently point out; but I wish previously to give, more _in extenso_,\nhis description of the Hydrophoria at Athens:--\n\n \"This name denoted the custom which the Athenians had on the day\n of this feast of carrying water in ewers and vases with great\n ceremony; in memory of the Deluge, they proceeded each year to\n pour this water into an opening or gulf, which was found near the\n temple of Jupiter Olympus, and on this occasion they recalled the\n sad memory of their ancestors having been submerged. This ceremony\n is simple and very suitable to its subject; it was well calculated\n to perpetuate the memory of the catastrophe caused by the waters of\n the Deluge. Superstition added some other customs.... They threw\n into the same gulf cakes of corn and honey; it was an offering\n to appease the infernal deities.... The Greeks placed it in the\n rank of their unlucky days (also 'un jour triste et lugubre');\n and thus they remarked that Sylla had taken their city of Athens\n the very day that they had made this commemoration of the Deluge.\n Superstition observes everything, not to correct itself, but to\n confirm itself more and more in its errors. It was, according to\n the fable, by the opening of this gulf that the waters which had\n covered Attica had disappeared; it was also said that Deucalion\n had raised near to this place an altar which he had dedicated to\n Jove the Preserver. 'Tradition also attributed to Deucalion the\n temple of Jupiter Olympus,' in which these mournful ceremonies were\n performed. 'This temple was celebrated and respected by the pagan\n nations as far as we can trace history back.' It was reconstructed\n on a scale of magnificence by Pisistratus; every town and prince\n in Greece contributed to its adornment; it was completed by the\n Emperor Adrian in 126 of our era. The antiquity of this monument,\n the respect which all nations have shown it, and the character of\n the traditions which they have of its origin, ought to establish\n for the festival of the Hydrophoria a great antiquity. The feasts,\n in general, are more ancient than the temples.\"--_Boulanger_, i.\n 38-40.\n\n [203] Compare Bryant.\n\nI will now ask the reader, if he has not read (and seen the\nillustrations in) Mr Catlin's \"O-kee-pa,\"[204] to compare the following\nextract with the preceding:--\n\n \"The O-kee-pa, an annual ceremony to the strict observance of which\n those ignorant and superstitious people attributed not only their\n enjoyment in life but their very existence; for traditions, their\n only history, instructed them in the belief that the singular forms\n of this ceremony produced the buffaloes for their supply of food,\n and that the omission of this annual ceremony, _with its sacrifices\n to the waters_, would bring upon them a repetition of _the\n calamity_ which their traditions say once befell them, destroying\n _the whole human race_ excepting one man, who landed from his canoe\n on a high mountain in the west.[205] This tradition, however, was\n not peculiar to the Mandan tribe, for among one hundred and twenty\n different tribes that I have visited in North, South, and Central\n America, not a tribe exists that has not related to me distinct\n or vague traditions of such a calamity in which one or three or\n _eight_ persons were saved above the waters on the top of a high\n mountain. Some of them, at the base of the Rocky Mountains, and\n in the plains of Venezuela and the Pampa del Sacramento in South\n America, _make annual pilgrimages_ to the _fancied summits_ where\n the antediluvian species were saved in canoes or otherwise, and\n under the mysterious regulations of their medicine (mystery) men\n tender their prayers and sacrifices to the Great Spirit to ensure\n their exemption from a similar catastrophe.\"--P. 2.\n\n [204] \"O-kee-pa, a Religious Ceremony, and other Customs of the\n Mandans,\" Tr\u00fcbner & Co. London, 1867. Mr Catlin's statements\n are attested by the certificates of three educated and\n intelligent men who witnessed the ceremonies with him, and is\n further corroborated by a letter addressed to Mr Catlin by\n Prince Maximilian of Neuwied, the celebrated traveller among\n the North American Indians, who had previously referred to\n them (he spent a winter among the Mandans).\n\n [205] I read in the _Times_, March 6, 1871, that \"The American\n papers state that workmen in Iowa, excavating for the\n projected Dubuque and Minnesota railroad, in the limestone\n at the foot of a bluff, discovered recently _some caves and\n rock chambers_, and, on raising a foot slab, a vault filled\n with human skeletons of unusual size, the largest being seven\n feet eight inches high. A figured sun on the walls is taken\n as indicating that the skeletons belonged to a people who\n worshipped that luminary [compare _supra_, p. 152] _and the\n representation of a man with a dove stepping out of a boat_,\n as an allusion to a tradition of the Deluge. The fingers of\n the largest skeleton clasped a pearl ornament, and traces of\n cloth were found crumbled at the feet of the remains. Many\n copper implements were found, and it is thought that the Lake\n Superior mines may have been worked at an early period. The\n remains were to be removed to the Iowa Institute of Arts and\n Sciences at Dubuque.\"\n\nYet, strange to say, this is _no_ proof to Mr Catlin of the universal\nDeluge recorded in Scripture. \"If,\" he says, \"it were shown that\ninspired history of the Deluge and of the Creation restricted those\nevents to one continent alone, then it might be that the American\nraces came from the Eastern continent, bringing these traditions\nwith them, for until that is proved, the American traditions of the\nDeluge are no evidence whatever of an eastern origin. If it were\nso, and the aborigines of America brought their traditions of the\nDeluge from the East, why did they not bring inspired history of the\nCreation?\"[206]--P. 3. (_Vide_ pp. 134, 135.)\n\n [206] Compare account of Mandan tradition of the Creation, from\n \"Hist. des Ceremonies Religieuses,\" _supra_, p. 191.\n\nThe \"O-kee-pa,\" Mr Catlin says, \"was a strictly religious ceremony,\n... with the solemnity of religious worship, with abstinence, with\nsacrifices, with prayer; whilst there were three other distinct and\nostensible objects for which it was held,--1. As an annual celebration\nof the '_subsiding of the waters_' of the Deluge. 2. For the purpose\nof dancing what they call the Bull-dance, to the strict performance\nof which they attributed the coming of buffaloes. 3. For purpose of\nconducting the young men through _an ordeal of privation and bodily\ntorture_, which, while it was supposed to harden their muscles and\nprepare them for extreme endurance, enabled their chiefs ... to decide\nupon their comparative bodily strength, endurance,\" &c.--P. 9.\n\nThe torture no doubt subserved this subsidiary purpose, but it appears\nto me that the original intention and idea was torture for the purpose\nof expiation, as in the ceremonies in ancient Greece.[207] Sundry\nincidents narrated by Catlin seem to establish this. They prepare\nthemselves by fasting (p. 25); after having sunk under the infliction\nof these horrible tortures (and from every point of view they are truly\nhorrible), \"no one was allowed to offer them aid when they lay in this\ncondition. They were here enjoying their inestimable privilege of\nvoluntarily intrusting their lives to the keeping of the Great Spirit,\nand chose to remain there until the Great Spirit gave them strength to\nget up and walk away\" (p. 28); and when so far recovered, \"in each\ninstance\" they presented the little finger of the left hand, and some\nalso the forefinger of the same hand and the little finger of the right\nhand (all tending to make them _pro tanto_ inefficient warriors) \"as\nan offering to the Great Spirit, as a sacrifice for having listened to\ntheir prayers, and protected their lives in what they had just gone\nthrough\" (p. 28).\n\n [207] _Supra_, p. 35. These tortures have their exact counterpart\n in India, _e.g._ the ceremony of the _Pota_ (compare\n Sanscrit, \"pota\" = boat), thus described by Hunter (\"Rural\n Bengal,\" 1868, p. 463):--\"Pota (hook-swinging), now stopped\n by Government, but still practised (1865) among the Northern\n Santals [who have the distinct tradition of the Deluge and\n dispersion referred to, _supra_] in _April\n or May_. Lasted about one month. Young men used to swing with\n hooks through their back [as seen in Catlin's illustrations],\n as in the Charak Puja of the Hindus. The swingers used _to\n fast_ the day preceding and the day following the operation,\n and to sleep the intermediate night on thorns.\"\n\n \"On pleuroit et l'on s'attristoit dans les f\u00eates _les plus\n gayes et plus dissolues_; les cultes d'Isis et d'Osiris, ainsi\n que ceux _de Bacchus_, de C\u00e9res, d'Adonis, d'Atys, &c., \u00e9toient\n _accompagn\u00e9s de mac\u00e9rations et de larmes_.\"--_Boulanger_, iii.\n 355.\n\nFor the description of the _bull_-dance,[208] and for the subsequent\nhistory and final extinction of the Mandans, I must refer my readers to\nMr Catlin's valuable testimony to the truth of Scripture, and important\ncontributions to ethnological science.\n\n [208] Bryant (\"Myth.\" ii. 432) says, \"There were many arkite\"\n (_i.e._ commemorative of ark) \"ceremonies in different\n parts of the world, which were generally styled _Taurica_\n sacra\" (from taurus = _bull_). These mysteries were of old\n attended with acts of _great cruelty_. Of these \"I have given\n instances, taken from different parts of the world; from\n Egypt, Syria, Cyprus, Crete, and Sicily.\"\n\nI shall now proceed to show analogies in what will be admitted to\nbe most unlikely ground--in the King of Dahome's celebrated \"So-sin\ncustoms,\" described by Captain Richard Burton.\n\nBefore, however, proceeding further, I must point out the following\nfeatures in the ceremonies or customs as common to Grecian and antique\npagan; to the Mandan (Indian of North America), and to the tropical\nAfrican.[209] In the first place they are cyclical; they are all of a\nmournful character; all are interrupted at intervals by processions,\ndances, and songs of a traditional character; they all close in scenes\nof rejoicing or rather in Bacchanalian (yet still traditionally\n[_vide_ page 247, note Boulanger] Bacchanalian) scenes of riot\nand debauchery. The duration of the festivals varies from three and\nfour to five days; the days have fantastic names, which, although\ndifferent, still in their very peculiarity, and also in the drift and\nmeaning of the names so far as it can be gathered, are suggestive of\na common origin, _e.g_. the first day of the Anthesteria, at Athens\nwas called \"[Greek: Pithoigia, apo tou pithous oigein],\" \"because\nthey tapped their casks.\" The fourth day of the King of Dahome's\ncustoms is named \"So (horse) nan-wen (will break) _kan_ (rope) 'gbe\n(to-day).\"--Burton, ii. 8. One part of the Mandan ceremony is called\n\"Mee-ne-ro-ka-Ha-sha,\" or \"the _settling down of the waters_,\" which\nname again closely corresponds to the ceremonies at Athens and at\nHierapolis in Syria (_ante_), where water was poured into the opening\nwhere the waters of the Deluge were supposed to have disappeared. The\nfifth day of the Dahome customs is named \"Minai afunfun khi Uhun-jro\nmen Dadda Gezo\"=\"we go to the small mat tent under which the king\nsits.\"--Burton, ii. 27. This approximates to the scene described by\nCatlin (p. 20) at the close of the bull-dance (fourth day), when \"the\nmaster of ceremonies (corresponding to the king at Dahome) cried out\nfor all the dancers, musicians,\" and \"the representatives of _animals_\nand _birds_,\" \"to gather again around him.\" He is described as coming\nout of the mystery lodge and collecting them round \"the big canoe.\"\n\n [209] Let the following points of resemblance be noted also\n in the \"Panathen\u00e6a.\" The lesser, and it is supposed the\n annual festival, was celebrated on the 20th of Thargelion,\n corresponding to the 5th May (compare Catlin). Every citizen\n contributed olive branches and an ox (_vide_ Catlin) at the\n greater festival. \"In the ceremonies without the city there\n was an engine built _in the form of a ship_, on purpose for\n this solemnity;\" upon this the sacred garment of Minerva\n \"was hung in the manner of a _sail_,\" \"the whole conveyed\n to the temple of _Ceres Elusinia_.\" \"This procession was\n led by _old men_, together, as some say, with old women\n carrying _olive branches_ in their hands.\" \"After them came\n the men of full age with shields and spears, being attended\n by the [Greek: Metoikoi], or sojourners, who carried _little\n boats_ as a token of their being foreigners, and were called\n on that account _boat-bearers_; then followed the women\n attended by the sojourner's wives, who were named [Greek:\n hydriaphoroi], from _bearing water pots_.\"--Compare Burton,\n Catlin. Then followed select virgins, covered with millet,\n \"called _basket-bearers_,\" the baskets containing necessaries\n for the celebration. \"These virgins were attended by the\n sojourner's daughters, who carried _umbrellas_ (_vide_ Pongol\n Festival, appendix), _little seats_, whence they were\n called _seat-carriers_.\"--Compare Burton (_vide_ Potter's\n \"Antiquities,\" i. 419.)\n\n Compare also the following in the \"Dionysia\" or festivals\n in honour of Bacchus (_ante_, p. 215) with Catlin. \"They\n carried thyrsi, _drums_, pipes, flutes, and _rattles_, and\n crowned themselves with garlands of _trees_ sacred to Bacchus,\n ivy, vine, &c. Some imitated Silenus, Pan, and the Satyrs,\n exposing themselves in _comical dresses_ and antic motions;\"\n and in this manner ran about the hills \"invoking Bacchus.\"\n \"At Athens this frantic rout was followed by persons carrying\n certain sacred vessels, the first of which was _filled with\n water_.\"\n\n Bryant (\"Mythology,\" ii. 219) speaking of Egypt (\"the\n priests of Ammon who at _particular seasons_ used to carry\n in procession a boat,\" concerning which refer to page 254),\n says--\"Part of the ceremony in most of the ancient mysteries\n consisted in carrying about a kind of ship or boat, which\n custom upon due examination will be found to relate to nothing\n else but Noah and the Deluge.\" He adds that the name of \"the\n navicular shrines was _Baris_, which is very remarkable; for\n it is the very name of the mountain, according to Nicolaus\n Damascenus, on which the ark of Noah rested, the same as\n Ararat in Armenia.\" Herodotus speaks of \"_Baris_\" as the\n Egyptian name of a ship, l. 2, 96; Eurip. \"Iphig. in Aulis,\"\n v. 297; \u00c6schylus, Pers\u00e6, 151; Lycophron, v. 747, refer to\n names of ships in connection with Noah. _Sup._, p. 196.\n Query--is our word barge a corruption of baris? or perhaps of\n _baris_ in connection with \"_argus_,\" also a term for the ark.\n (With reference to this etymology _vide_ my remark, p. 116,\n and d'Anselme, p. 196, and Bryant, ii. 251.)\n\nBut the closest connection is in the nature and order of the ceremonies\non the fourth day at Dahome and among the Mandans. Among the latter,\ninterrupting the bull-dance on that day, there is an apparition of \"the\nevil spirit,\"[210] graphically described by Mr Catlin (p. 22), and at\nDahome (Burton, ii. 18), there intervenes between the fourth and fifth\ndays' ceremonies what is called \"the evil night\" (there are two \"evil\nnights\") which is the night of the horrible massacre. But on this night\nalso, at the close of the fourth day's ceremonies among the Mandans,\nthe infliction of tortures (very horrible, but mild in comparison\nwith the African butchery) commence. Now, I have already ventured the\nopinion that these tortures were originally of an expiatory character,\nand this gains confirmation by the assurance made to Captain R.\nBurton that the victims on \"the evil night\" were only \"criminals\"\nand prisoners of war, the people of Dahome, on all occasions (_vide\ninfra_), preferring a vicarious mode of expiation. Captain R. Burton\n(ii. 19) says of these massacres:--\"The king takes no pleasure in the\ntortures and death or in the sight of blood, as will presently appear.\nThe 2000 killed in one day, _the canoe_[211] paddled in a pool of gore,\nand other grisly nursery tales, must be derived from Whydah, where the\nslave-traders invented them, probably to deter Englishmen from visiting\nthe king. It is useless to go over the ground of human sacrifice from\nthe days of the wild Hindu's Naramadha to the burnings of the Druids,\nand to the awful massacres of Peru and Mexico. In Europe the extinction\nof the custom _began_ from the time of the polite Augustus,\" _i.e._\ncommenced with the advent of our Lord. [_Vide_ a reference to MS. of\nSir J. Acton in Mr Gladstone's address to the University of Edinburgh,\n1865, from which it would appear that the final extinction was not\nuntil the triumph of Christianity.]\n\n [210] Compare the \"Bhain-sasur\" or _buffalo_-demon at Usayagiri,\n carrying a trident. _Vide_ \"The Bhilsa Tope,\" Major Alex.\n Cunningham, 1854.\n\n [211] It is as well to note, however, that the Dahomans have\n recently altered their customs. The one Captain Burton\n witnessed (ii. 34) was a \"mixed custom,\" and elsewhere\n allusion is made to \"the new\" ceremony.\n\nWithout carrying rashness to the excess of disputing the interpretation\nof Dahoman words with Captain Burton, I may yet demur to accepting\nhis explanation of the term \"So-sin\" (the \"So-sin customs\") _absolute\net simpliciter_. He says (i. 315), \"The Sogan ('So' = horse, 'gan'\ncaptain) opens the customs by taking all the chargers from their owners\nand by tying them up, whence the word _So-sin_. The animals must be\nredeemed in a few days with a bag of cowries.\"[212] This is certainly\na very likely definition, and although secondary, is no doubt the\nexplanation current among the present generation of Dahomans. All\nI shall venture to do is to supplement it. But may not the old and\nprimitive idea still lurk in the name? At i. 242, I perceive Captain\nBurton says \"so\" and \"sin\" mean _water_,[213] and the compound word\n\"amma-sin\" means \"medicine\" = \"leaf-water,\" and again at 244 the same\nword \"Sin\" is twice used to signify liquid. If so, in the very name of\nthe feast we find the word _water_, which links it into connection with\n\"the Mandan custom\" and the festivals of ancient Greece.\n\n [212] Analogies may perhaps be discovered in the representations of\n the procession escorting a relic casket on the architraves\n of the western gate at Sanchi. (_Vide_ \"The Bhilsa Tope,\" by\n Major Alex. Cunningham, p. 227.)\n\n \"Street of a city on the left, houses on each side filled\n with spectators,... a few horsemen heading a procession,\n ... immediately outside the gate are four persons bearing\n either trophies or some peculiar instruments of office. Then\n follows a _led horse_, ... a soldier with a bell-shaped\n shield, two fifers, three _drummers_, and two men blowing\n _conches_. Next comes the king on an elephant, carrying the\n holy relic casket on his head and supporting it with his right\n hand. Then follows two peculiarly dressed men on horseback,\n perhaps prisoners. They wear a kind of cap (now only known\n in Barmawar, on the upper course of the Ravi) and boots or\n leggings. The procession is closed by two horsemen (one either\n the minister or a member of the royal family) and by an\n elephant with two riders.\"\n\n It may have had connection with the _As_warnedha or horse\n sacrifice (Cunningham, p. 363.) Boulanger (i. 109) says,\n \"That after the winter solstice the ancient inhabitants of\n India descended with their king to the banks of the Indus;\n they there sacrificed _horses_ and _black bulls_, signs of a\n funeral ceremony; they then threw a bushel measure into the\n water without their assigning any reason for it.\" Compare the\n throwing the cakes into the gulf at Athens, and the hatchets\n into the water at the Mandan custom. Could it be that at the\n Dahoman ceremony the horses were redeemed because the wretched\n victims were substituted, carrying out the idea of vicarious\n sacrifice and expiation?\n\n Sir John Lubbock (\"Origin of Civilization,\" p. 199) says,\n speaking of _water_ worship, \"The kelpie or spirit of the\n _waters assumed_ various forms, those of a man, woman,\n _horse_, or _bull_ being the most common.\" Compare _supra_,\n pp. 196, 202, 204, Manou, Bacchus.\n\n Homer (Hom. Il., Heynii, xxi. 130, Lord Derby, 145), says--\n\n \"Shall aught avail ye, though to him (the river Scamander)\n In sacrifice, the blood of countless _bulls_ you pay,\n And living _horses_ in his waters sink;\"\n\n and (210) Asteropoeus is called \"river-born,\" because\n the son of Pelegon, who \"to broadly flowing Axius owed his\n birth.\" Remembering the belief of certain tribes of Indians\n (supra, p. 137) that they were \"created under the water,\"\n which I have construed to mean, that they were created on\n the other side of the Deluge, so we may take in a similar\n sense the traditions of these Homeric heroes that they were\n \"river-born;\" and does the expression, son of Pelegon (compare\n \"son of Prometheus,\" _supra_, p. 232), imply more than\n that he was the descendant of Phaleg, or, if not in the line\n of descent, the descendant of progenitors who had retained the\n tradition that Phaleg was so called, \"because in his days the\n earth was divided\"?--Gen. ch. x. 25. Compare ancient Welsh\n ballad (Davies' \"Mythology of British Druids,\" p. 100)--\n\n \"Truly I was in the ship\n With Dylan (Deucalion), son of the sea....\n When ... the floods came forth\n From heaven to the great deep.\"\n\n [213] The name for _river_ in the Chitral or Little Kashghar\n vocabulary (Vigne, \"Travels in Kashmir\") is river = _sin_;\n also in the Dangon, on the Indus, voc. (_id._) river = _sin_;\n in the Affghan (Kalproth) the sea = _sin_d. _Sind_hu is the\n Sanscrit name for river (Max M\u00fcller, \"Science of Lang.,\" 1st\n series, 215); and has also its equivalent in ancient Persian.\n In Danish, river or lake = _so_; in Icelandic, sjor (sjo);\n in Bultistan, touh; German, see; English, sea; in Kashmir,\n sar = marse; Icelandic, saus. Compare Rivers Saar, Soane,\n Seine, Irish Suir; perhaps also Esk and Usk (Vigne, \"Trav. in\n Kashmir\"). Horse = shtah, in Bultistan. Has not _so_ analogy\n with eau, augr (Chittral), _water_? _Sara_ = water in Sanscrit\n (Max M\u00fcller, \"Chips,\" ii. 47); Sanscrit, vari, more generic\n term for water; Latin, mare; Gothic, marie; Slavonic, more;\n Irish and Scotch, muir (_id._) Compare Chinese \"ma\" = horse;\n Mongol, \"mon\" = horse; German, machre; English, _mare_.\n Conclusion, either there is the same word for horse and water\n in certain languages, which may have occurred in the way of\n secondary derivation from these \"mysteries,\" or if _so_ means\n water, then \"So-sin\" may only be a reduplication, as in the\n names of some of our rivers--_e.g._ Dwfr-Dwy = water, of Deva\n = Dee-river (_Arch\u00e6ol. Journal_, xvii. 98). Bryant (\"Myth.\"\n ii. 408) says \"The [Greek: hippos], hippus (horse), alluded\n to in the early mythology was certainly a _float_ or _ship_,\n the same as the ceto.\" There is, moreover, the analogy in the\n Latin of _aqua_ and _equus_. Another Sanscrit word for water,\n \"ap\" (Max M\u00fcller, Sc. of L., 103) has analogy with the Greek\n [Greek: hippos] = horse. It appears (Sc. of L., 2nd series,\n p. 36), that the Tahitians have substituted the word \"pape\"\n for \"vai\" = water; but both words \"pape,\" to _ap_, \"vai,\" to\n _vari_, seem to have analogies to Sanscrit as above. Plato\n (\"Cratylus,\" c. 36, Sc. of L., 1st series, p. 116) mentions\n that the name for water was the same in Phrygian and Greek. At\n p. 235, 1st series, Mr Max M\u00fcller says that Persian Har\u00f4ya is\n the same as Sanscrit Saroya; which latter \"is derived from a\n root 'sar' or 'sri,' to go, to run; from which 'saras,' water,\n 'sarit,' river, and 'Sarayu,' the proper name of the river\n near Oude.\"\n\n Here at any rate in the Sanskrit \"sar,\" to run, we may, if\n the above conjecture is rejected, start the words \"horse\" and\n \"water\" from a common root.\n\nThe word, \"So\" = horse, will therefore still remain, and may perhaps\nstand in the same relation to the \"water\" celebration, that the \"bull\"\ndoes to the Mandan celebration of the Deluge. Captain Burton, for\ninstance, tells us (ii. 15), a \"So\" was brought up to us (on the fourth\nday of the So-sin custom, and on the fourth day of the Mandan custom\n\"the bull-dance\" was performed sixteen times round \"the big canoe\");\nbut I will place the two descriptions side by side.\n\n CAPTAIN BURTON, ii. 15.\n\n \"A 'So' was brought up to us,\n a _bull-face mask_ of natural size,\n painted black, with glaring eyes\n and _peep-holes_, the horns were\n hung with _red_ and _white_ rag\n _strips_, and beneath was a dress\n of bamboo fibre covering the feet,\n and ruddy at the ends. It\n danced with head on one side\n and swayed itself about, to the\n great amusement of the people.\"\n _Vide_ also p. 93, \"Four tall men\n singularly dressed, and with bullocks'\n tails,\" &c.\n\n MR CATLIN, p. 16.\n\n \"The chief actors in these\n strange scenes (bull-dance) were\n eight men, with the entire skins\n of buffaloes thrown over them,\n enabling them closely to imitate\n the appearance and motions of\n those animals, as the bodies were\n kept in as horizontal a position,\n the horns and tails of the animals\n remaining on the skins, and the\n skins of the animals' heads served\n as _masks_ through the eyes of\n which the _dancers were looking_.\"\n The legs of the dancers were\n painted _red_ and _white_\" (plate 6.)\n\nIf we might (on the strength of so many words of primary necessity\nbeing in common) connect \"So\" = horse, with the Saxon \"soc\" or\nplough (as in the soc and service tenure), we could then see a way\nin which the same word might apply indifferently to ox or horse; and\nwe would, moreover, see through the common relation to Noah how the\nwater ceremony came to be associated with the worship of Ceres in the\nmysteries of Eleusis. _Vide_ Boulanger, i. 70-107.[214]\n\n [214] Compare (Klaproth, \"Mem. Asiat.\" ii. 12)--Eng. _ox_; Mongol,\n char; Hebrew, chor; French, charrue (plough.) Klaproth, ii.\n 405, \"Les cheveux en Thou Khin (whom he identifies with the\n Turks) portaient le nom de _Sogo_ ou _so_ko; cest le m\u00eame\n nom que le Turc s\u00e2tch ou sadg.\" Can it have affinity with\n Chinese _sa_ (Chinese szu = boeuf sauvage); German, s\u00e4en;\n Swedish, _s\u00e1_; French, semer; English = to _sou_; Peruvian,\n sara = maize; also French, _cou_dre, to sow with English\n corn; Sanscrit, go; High German, chus; Sclavonic, _go_ws\n (Max M\u00fcller, \"Chips,\" ii. 27); and Kashmir and Dongan,\n gau; Icelandic, ku? In Affghan a bull = _sak_hendar and\n _souk_handar. In the extinct Tartar Coman (_vide_ Klaproth) ox\n = _ogus_ or _seger_ = Turkish, okus; Sanscrit, oukcha; German,\n ochse. Plough = Sanscrit, sinam; Irish, serak; Persian, siar.\n Horse = _as_p, Persian; _ess_, Sclavonic = English _ass_; and\n in Chittral on Indus (_vide_ horse or bull used in ceremonies\n on banks of Indus, _infra_) horse = _astor_. (Has not _tor_\n here affinity with _taur_eau.) Corn = _As_lek (Kirghish)\n and Ashlyk (?) Turkish. Max M\u00fcller (Science of Language, p.\n 231), says--\"Aspa was the Persian name for horse, and in the\n Scythian names, Aspabota, Aspakara, and Asparatha, we can\n hardly fail to recognise the same element.\" Also, p. 242, \"The\n comparison of ploughing and sowing is of frequent occurrence\n in ancient language.\" Eng., plough; Sclav., ploug = Sanscrit,\n plava, ship = Gk. [Greek: ploion], ship. \"In English dialects,\n plough is used as a waggon or conveyance. In the Vale of\n Blackmore, a waggon is called a plough, or plow, and _Zull_\n (A.-S., syl) is used for aratrum.\"--Barnes, \"Dorset Dialect,\"\n p. 369, ap. Max M\u00fcller.\n\nThe above enumeration does not exhaust the points of resemblance.\nCompare the following:--\n\n BURTON, ii. 23.\n\n \"Conspicuous objects on the left of the pavilion\n were two Ajalela or fetish pots made by the\n present king (according to the customs.) _Vide_\n note 16. Both are lamp black, shaped like\n amphor\u00e6 (amphor\u00e6, for holding wine) about 4 feet\n high, and planted on tripods. The larger was\n solid, the smaller callendered with many small\n holes, and both were decorated with brass and\n silver crescents, stars, and similar ornaments.\n The second, when filled _with water and\n medicine_ allows none to escape, so great is its\n fetish power; an army guarded by it can never be\n defeated, and it will lead the way to Absokuta.\"\n Compare Pongol ceremony, p. 275.\n\n CATLIN, p. 8.\n\n \"In an open area in the centre of the village\n stands the ark or 'big canoe,' around which\n a great proportion of the ceremonies were\n performed. This rude symbol, of 8 or 10 feet in\n height, was constructed of planks and hoops,\n having somewhat the appearance of a large\n hogshead standing on its end, and containing some\n mysterious things, which none but the _medicine_\n (mystery) men were allowed to examine.\"\n\nThis must be considered in connection with the following.\n\n BURTON.\n\n In the opening procession of the third day's\n customs, Captain Burton tells us (ii. 2), \"First\n came a procession of eighteen Tansi-no or fetish\n women, who have charge of the last monarch's\n grave.... They were preceded by bundles of\n matting, eight _large stools_, calabashes,\n pipes, _baskets_ of _water_, grog, and meat\n with segments of _gourd_ above and below,\n tobacco bags, and other commissariat articles;\n and they were followed by a band of horns and\n _rattles_.\"[215]\n\n [215] Compare the procession in the Panathen\u00e6a\n and Dionysia, _supra_, p. 248.\n\n In another procession (ii. 47), \"The party was\n brought up by slave girls carrying baskets and\n calabashes. (Query, of water?) These, preceded\n by six bellowing horns, stalked in slowly, and\n with measured gait the _eight_ Tansi-no, who\n serve and pray for the ghosts of dead kings.\n (Query, eight dead kings?) In front went _their_\n ensign, a copper measuring rod 15 feet long\n and tapering to a very fine end; behind it\n were two chauris and seven mysterious pots and\n calabashes wrapped in _white_ and _red_ checks,\"\n and presently \"three brass, four copper, and six\n iron pots, curiosities on account of their great\n size.... _Eight_ images, of which three were\n apparently _ship's figureheads_ whitewashed,\n and the rest very hideous efforts of native\n art.\"[216]\n\n [216] \"Eight men representing eight buffalo\n bulls,\" in Mandan celebration, \"took their\n positions on the four sides of the ark or\n 'big canoe.'\"--Catlin, p. 17. \"The _chief\n actors_ in these strange scenes were\n _eight_ men with skins of buffaloes,\" &c.\n p. 16. Four images were suspended on poles\n above the mystery lodge, p. 8.\n\n CATLIN.\n\n In Captain Burton's account of the articles\n paraded in the procession, the pipes (to which\n great mystery is attached), the _horns_ and\n _rattles (vide pl.)_, and _the baskets of water_\n are common to the Mandan ceremony. May not the\n eight stools be representative of the eight\n diluvian survivors. _Vide supra_, 197, Cabiri?\n Let us, however, confine our attention to the\n \"baskets of water.\" Compare with the following\n account in Catlin.\n\n \"In the medicine (mystery) lodge ... there were\n also four articles of _veneration_ and importance\n lying on the ground, which were _sacks_\n containing each some three or four gallons of\n _water_. These seemed to be objects of great\n superstitious regard, and had been made with\n much labour and ingenuity, being constructed of\n the skins of the _buffaloes'_ neck, and sewed\n together in the forms of large _tortoises_ lying\n on their backs (comp. p. 138; also p. 269),\n each having a sort of tail made of _raven's_\n quills and a stick like a drumstick lying on\n it, with which, as will be seen in a subsequent\n part of the ceremony, the musicians beat upon\n the _sacks_ as instruments of music for their\n _strange dances_. By the sides of these sacks,\n which they called Ech-tee-ka (drums), there\n were two other articles of equal importance\n which they called Ech-na-da (rattles) made of\n undressed skins shaped into the form of _gourd_\n shells,\" &c. (Note the segments of _gourd_\n accompanying the _water_ baskets in the Dahome\n procession, _supra_.) Catlin adds--\"The sacks of\n water had the appearance of great antiquity, and\n the Mandans pretended that the water had been\n contained in them ever since the Deluge.\"--pp.\n 15, 16.[217]\n\n [217] In the _Japanese_ (_vide_ p. 269)\n version of the legend of the _bull_\n breaking the mundane egg (_vide_ p.\n 396), a _gourd_ or pumpkin is also broken\n which contained the first man.--_Vide_\n Bryant's \"Mythology,\" iii. 579. \"I have\n mentioned that _the ark_ was looked\n upon as the mother of mankind, and\n styled Da-Mater, and it was on this\n account figured under the semblance of\n a _pomegranate_,\" \"as it abounds with\n seed\"--Bryant, ii. 380. _Vide_ also\n plate (Bryant, ii. 410), where Juno\n (_vide_, p. 395) holds a _dove_ in one\n hand and a _pomegranate_ in the other.\n\n BURTON, ii. 35.\n\n It must be remembered that at Dahome, royalty as\n there represented has absorbed and monopolized\n the most important parts of the ceremonial:\n it is natural, therefore, to expect that the\n conspicuous figures in the original (or in\n the Mandan), which conflicted or would not\n consort with royalty, would be thrown into the\n background. Accordingly I am only able to get\n a glimpse of the conspicuous figures opposite\n in the following passage:--\"The jesters were\n followed by a dozen _pursuivants_ armed with\n gong-gongs, who advanced bending towards\n the throne, and shouted the 'strong names'\n or titles. Conspicuous amongst them was an\n _oldster_ in a crimson sleeveless tunic and\n yellow shorts: his head was red with dust, he\n carried a large _bill-hook_,[218] and he went\n about attended by _four_ drums and one cymbal.\"\n\n [218] Compare also _sup._, p. 210, with\n Saturn. \"Ipsius autem canities,\" &c., and\n \"cum falce messis insigne.\"\n\n It will be remembered (if my readers have read\n Mr Catlin, p. 11, 12) that the first thing \"the\n aged white man\" does on entering the mystery\n lodge is to call on the chiefs \"to furnish him\n with _four_ men,\" and the next is to \"receive at\n the door of every Mandan's wigwam _some edged\n tool_ to be given to the water as a sacrifice,\n as it was with _such tools_ that the \"big canoe\"\n was built.[219]\n\n [219] Compare again these two figures, one\n figuring in the Dahoman procession, the\n other in the Mandan bull dance.\n\n\n CATLIN, p. 10.\n\n The opening scene in the Mandan customs,\n effectively described by Mr Catlin, begins\n with \"a solitary human figure descending the\n prairie hills and approaching the village,\" \"in\n appearance a very _aged_ man,\" \"a centenarian\n white man,\" dressed in a robe of four white\n wolves' skins.\" He was met by the head chief and\n the council of chiefs, and addressed by them\n as \"Nu-mohk-muck-a-nah\" (the _first_ and only\n man.) \"He then harangued them for a few minutes,\n reminding them that every human being on the\n surface of the earth had been destroyed by the\n water excepting himself, who had landed on a high\n mountain in the west in his canoe, where he still\n resided, and from whence he had come to open the\n medicine (mystery) lodge, that the Mandans might\n celebrate the _subsiding of the waters_, and make\n the proper sacrifices to the water, lest the same\n calamity should again happen to them.\"\n\n\n BURTON, ii. 38.\n\n \"The ministers ... they were conducted by a\n 'Lali' or half-head, with right side of his\n pericranium clean shaven, and the left in a\n casing of silver that looked like a cast or a\n half melon.\"\n\n * * * * *\n\n Burton says (ii. 87), \"One of the Dahoman\n monarch's peculiarities is that he is double,\n not merely binonymous, nor dual, like the\n spiritual Mickado and temporal Tycoon of Japan,\n but two in one. Gelele, for instance, is king of\n the city and addo-kpon of the 'bush'; _i.e._ of\n the farmer folk and the country as opposed to\n the city. This country ruler has his _official_\n mother, the Dank-li-ke.... Thus Dahome has two\n points of interest to the ethnologist--the\n distinct precedence of women and the double\n king.\"--_Vide_ also p. 80.\n\n CATLIN, p. 30.\n\n Compare with the two athletic young men (_vide_\n Plate XIII.) assigned to each of the young men\n who underwent the torture--\"their bodies painted\n _one half red_ and the other blue, and carrying a\n bunch of willow-boughs in one hand.\"\n\n Here two or three questions suggest themselves.\n If this ceremony is primitive, will not dual\n royalty give a clue to the duality we find so\n commonly in mythology, assuming the basis of\n mythology to be historical? 2d, Is there no clue\n in the name, _official_ name, of Dank-li-ke? What\n does the reader guess the meaning to be? (p. 58.)\n Mr Burton tells us it means, \"Dank (the rainbow),\n li (stand), and ke (the world).\" Is it a forced\n paraphrase to construe this to mean--The rainbow\n is the sign that the world shall stand?\n\nUpon the point of the precedence of woman, to which the Dahoman\nceremony testifies, but to which it gives no clue, I shall, as it is\nso very important in more bearings than one, give at some length the\nfollowing scene from Catlin:--\n\n \"When 'the evil spirit' enters the camp during the ceremony,\n he proceeds to make various attacks, which are defeated by the\n intervention of the master of the ceremonies. In several attempts\n of this kind the evil spirit was thus defeated, after which he\n came wandering back amongst the dancers, apparently much fatigued\n and disappointed.... In this distressing dilemma he was approached\n by an old matron, who came up slyly behind him, with both hands\n full of yellow dirt, which (by reaching around him) she suddenly\n dashed in his face, covering him from head to foot, and changing\n his colour, as the dirt adhered to the undried bear's grease on his\n skin; ... at length _another_ snatched his _wand_ from his hand and\n broke it across her knee ... his power was thus gone ... bolting\n through the crowd, he made his way to the prairies.\"--P. 24.\n\nWe shall not be surprised to learn, then, that when the \"Feast of\nthe Buffaloes\" (distinct from the bull-dance) commences (p. 33),\nseveral old men perambulated the village in various directions, in\nthe character of criers, with rattles in their hands, proclaiming\nthat \"the _whole government of the Mandans_ was then in the hands of\none woman--she who had disarmed the evil spirit ... that the chiefs\nthat night were old women; that they had nothing to say; that no one\nwas allowed to be out of their wigwams excepting the favoured ones\nwhom 'the governing woman' had invited,\" &c. Will not this give a\nclue to the precedence in Dahome, _probandis probatis_, and is not\nthe precedence in Dahome thus interpreted, and the interlude above\ndescribed evidence of the tradition, that the _woman_ should break the\nhead of the _serpent_? (Gen. iii. 15). It is of great significance,\nand, if so many points of comparison had not occurred, ought to have\nbeen stated at the outset, that at Dahome \"the Sin-kwain (\"sin,\"\nwater--\"kwain,\" sprinkling), or water-sprinkling custom follows closely\nupon the \"So-sin or Horse-tie rites.\"--_Vide_ Burton, ii. 167.\n\nNow, if the reader will turn to Boulanger, i. 90, 91, he will find this\nidentical custom in Persia, Pegu, China, and Japan. But I relinquish\nthe details, as I fear I shall have exhausted the patience of the few\nreaders I shall have carried with me to this point; and because the\nKing of Dahome has a custom perhaps still more demonstrably cognate to\nnot only the ancient Grecian ceremonies on the shores of the ocean and\non the banks of rivers, but with widely diffused tradition. I shall\nhere place four writers in juxtaposition, and with this testimony I\nshall conclude:--\n\nBOULANGER.\n\n The ancient inhabitants of Italy repaired once a year to the Lake\n Cutilia, where they made sacrifices and celebrated secret mysteries\n or ceremonies (Dion. Halicarnassus, i. 2).\n\n The pontiffs in ancient Rome also went annually to the banks of the\n Tiber, \"l\u00e0 ils faisoient des sacrifices _expiatoires_ \u00e0 Saturne, ce\n Dieu chronique,\" &c. (Dion. Hal. i. 8.)\n\n In the kingdom of Saka in Africa their greatest solemnity was\n celebrated on the banks of the rivers; the king himself presides at\n it (Hist. Gener. des Voy., iii. 639).\n\n The same custom has been already (_supra_, p. 252) noticed on the\n Indus.\n\n In all these cases human sacrifices were offered, or\n substitutes.--Boulanger, i. pp. 110-11. Compare _supra_, p. 243,\n lines from Dionysius Periegesis.\n\nBURTON.\n\n At Whydat the youngest brother of their triad is Hu, the ocean or\n sea. [Compare with Assyrian Hoa, _supra_, p. 194, and Chinese\n Yu, p. 68.] \"The Hu-no, or ocean priest, is now considered the\n highest of all.... At times the king sends as an ocean sacrifice\n from Agborne a man carried in a hammock, with the dress, the stool,\n and the umbrella of a Caboceer; a canoe takes him out to sea, where\n he is thrown to the sharks. The custom for this element is made at\n Whydat, in a place near the greater market, and called Hu-kpa-man.\n It is a _round_ hut, with thatch and chalked walls: outside is a\n heap of bones, whilst _skulls_, carapaces of the _tortoise_, and\n similar materials, cumber the _interior_. The priest is a fetish\n woman, who _offers water_ and kola nuts to, and expects rum from,\n white visitors.\"--ii. p. 141.\n\n Compare also _supra_, in Preface, extract from Davies' \"Celtic\n Researches\" on the Celtic god Hu.\n\nCATLIN.\n\n The water ceremonies in Catlin's account have already been\n sufficiently adverted to. He thus describes the medicine or mystery\n lodge in which they took place. Exteriorly, with the exception of\n the four images, it differed only in dimensions from the other\n wigwams, which are thus described? \"They were covered with earth.\n They were all of one form; the frames or shells constructed of\n timbers, and covered with a thatching of willow boughs, and over\n and on that with a foot or two in thickness of a concrete of tough\n clay and gravel, which became so hard as to admit the whole group\n of inmates to recline on _their tops_. They varied in size from\n thirty to sixty feet, and _were perfectly round_.\" For extract\n describing _interior_, _vide supra_, p. 257, noting (_vide_ Plate\n iii. in Catlin) the four human and four ox _skulls_; \"the sacks of\n water in the form of large _tortoises_ lying on their backs.\"\n\n _N.B._--With reference to the tortoise, _vide ante_ p. 257.\n\n Compare the \"Buddhist Topes\" in Major Cunningham's \"Bhilsa Tope,\"\n _vide_ p. 243.\n\nHUNTER.\n\n Hunter (\"Annals of Rural Bengal,\" p. 153) says of the Santals:\n \"The only stream of any consequence in their present country--the\n Damouda--is regarded with a veneration altogether disproportionate\n to its size. Thither the superstitious Santal repairs to consult\n the prophets and diviners, and once a year the tribes make a\n pilgrimage to its banks in commemoration of their forefathers....\n However remote the jungle in which the Santal may die, his nearest\n kinsman carries a little relic of the deceased to the river, and\n places it in the current to be conveyed to the far-off eastern land\n from which his ancestors came.\"\n\n In connection with the above, it must be remembered (_vide_\n Appendix G, p. 480, \"Santal Traditions\") that they have, although\n confused with the Creation, an unmistakable tradition of the\n Deluge, the intoxication of Noah, and the dispersion.\n\nIf, then, I have shown that the custom, for the preservation of which\nfrom oblivion, so far as the Mandans (now extinct) are concerned, we\nare indebted to Mr Catlin, and which so plainly tells its own tale,\nis common to Europe, Asia, and Africa, as well as America, I shall\nhave established it as a tradition, not of a local American, but of\nan universal Deluge; and if the tradition of the universal Deluge is\nproved, then, according to Mr Catlin's narrative itself, there is\ntradition of the Creation also (_vide_ pp. 7, 13, 42).[220]\n\n [220] I allude to the opening of the ceremony by the centenarian\n _white_ man, \"the first and only man.\" Mr Catlin is of opinion\n that this incident was introduced and superadded by some\n missionaries, though he adds it would be still more strange\n if the (Jesuit) missionaries had instructed them \"in the\n other modes.\" This, however, is understating the case. It is\n conceivable that missionaries should have come among them, but\n in this case we should have expected some trace of Christian\n practices and dogmas; it is difficult to conjecture what\n set of missionaries could have indoctrinated them with the\n recondite pagan mysteries of Eleusis and Hierapolis.\n\nI have replied more fully, in chap. vii., to Mr Catlin's\nobjection--that though they have a tradition of a deluge, it is not the\ntradition of the Deluge, because they have not also the tradition of\nthe Creation.\n\nMr Catlin argues upon the view that the American race \"were created\nupon the ground on which they were found\" (\"Last Rambles,\" p. 321,\n1868); and (p. 319) adds, \"I can find nothing in history, sacred or\nprofane, against this.\"\n\nHe takes his stand (in \"O-kee-pa\") upon this--that there is nothing in\nthe Mandan tradition which can be brought in proof of their migration\nfrom another continent. In reply I shall adduce their very name.\n\nThe American continent may have been peopled by way of Behring's\nStraits, or from Europe in the East by way of Greenland, or by the\nconnection of the Pacific Islands from the opposite coasts of Japan,\nChina, and the Corea, or from the Polynesian groups in the south.\nThe population may have poured in by all these routes. It is said\n(Prescott, \"Conquest of Mexico,\" ii. 473)[221] that MSS. exist at\nCopenhagen proving that the American coast was visited by the Northmen\nin the eleventh century. The Polynesian route we may leave out of\nconsideration, as it will not probably have been the one by which the\nMandans came. As to the route by Behring's Straits, Mr Catlin admits\n\"it is a possibility, and therefore they say it is probable\" (p. 217,\n\"Last Rambles\"). But if, as there appears to me reason to think, they\ncame from the opposite coast of the Corea, it might as reasonably be\nconjectured that the migration took the route of Behring's Straits,\nor by way of the Sandwich Islands. The possibility of the former is\nconceded. I will confine my attention, therefore, to the latter, which\nMr Catlin pronounces absolutely impossible. In the first place, the\ndistance between the Sandwich Islands and America is not greater than\nbetween Otaheite and New Zealand.[222] Now it is admitted that New\nZealand was peopled from Otaheite. Moreover (_vide_ Sir J. Lubbock,\n\"Pre-historic Times,\" p. 390), the inhabitants of the Sandwich Islands,\nat two thousand miles distance, belong to the same race as those of\nTahiti (Otaheite) and New Zealand, and resemble them \"in religion,\nlanguages, canoes, houses, weapons, food, habits, &c.\"[223] The canoes\nof the Pacific islanders generally (_vide_ Captain Cook _passim_)\nwere of considerable size, and of very perfect workmanship. But also\nPrescott (\"Conquest of Mexico,\" ii. 473, quoting Beechey's \"Voyage to\nPacific,\" 1831, p. 2 Appendix, Humboldt's \"Examen. Critique de l'Hist.\nde la Geog.\" and Nuov. Cont. ii. 55) says, \"It would be easy for the\ninhabitant of Eastern Tartary or Japan to steer his canoe from islet\nto islet quite across to the American shore, without ever being on the\nocean more than two days at a time.\"[224]\n\n [221] _Vide_ also Giebel, \"Tagesfragen,\" p. 91; _apud_ Reusch, p.\n 500.\n\n [222] _Vide_ \"Cook's Voyages,\" i. 199; Prescott, ii. 476.\n\n [223] \"There have been recent instances of Japanese vessels having\n been thrown by shipwreck upon the coasts of the Sandwich\n Islands, and even on the mouth of the Columbia.\"--Reusch, \"La\n Bible et la Nature,\" p. 499.\n\n \"Since the north-west coast of America and the north-east of\n Asia have been explored, little difficulty remains on this\n subject.... Small boats can safely pass the narrow strait.\n Ten degrees farther south, the _Aleutian_ and Fox islands\n form a continuous chain between Kamschatka and the peninsula\n of Alaska in such a manner as to leave the passage across a\n matter of no difficulty.\"--Warburton's \"Conquest of Canada,\"\n i. 194.\n\n Ellis (\"Polynesian Researches,\" ii. 46) says: \"There are also\n _many_ points of _resemblance_ in language, manners, and\n customs between the South Sea Islanders and the inhabitants of\n Madagascar in the west; the inhabitants of the _Aleutian_ and\n _Kurile_ islands in the north, which stretch along the mouth\n of Behring's Straits, and forms the chain which connects the\n old and new worlds,\" &c.\n\n [224] \"The Sandwich Islands, with a population of 500,000, are more\n than two thousand miles from the coast of South America. How\n did the population of those islands get there? Certainly\n not in canoes over ocean waves of two thousand miles. But I\n am told 'the Sandwich islanders are Polynesians;' not a bit\n of it; they are two thousand miles north of the Polynesian\n group, with the same impossibility of canoe navigation, and\n are as different in _physiological traits_ of character and\n _language_ from the Polynesian, as they are different from the\n American races.--\"Last Rambles\" (Catlin), p. 317. 1868.\n\n Captain King, \"Transactions on returning to Sandwich Islands,\"\n &c., continuation of Cook's voyages, Pinkerton (xi. 730) says\n on the contrary: \"The inhabitants of the Sandwich Islands\n are undoubtedly of the same race with those of New Zealand,\n the Society and Friendly Islands, Easter Islands, and the\n Marquesas. This fact, which, extraordinary as it is, might be\n thought sufficiently proved by the _striking_ similarity of\n their _manners_ and _customs_, and the general resemblance of\n their _persons_ is established beyond all controversy by the\n _absolute identity_ of their language.\"\n\n Shortland says that the New Zealanders, \"when speaking of any\n old practice, regarding the origin of which you may inquire,\n have the expression constantly in their mouths, 'E hara i te\n mea poka hou mai; no Hawaika mai ano.'--It is not a modern\n invention; but a practice brought from Hawaiki, Sandwich\n Islands).\"--Shortland's \"Traditions of the New Zealanders,\" p.\n 61.\n\nWe may agree, then, that the Mandans might have come by this route.\nIs there anything which makes it probable that they came? Well, yes;\nin the first place their name. Mr Catlin tells us (\"O-kee-pa,\" p. 5),\n\"The Mandans (Nu-mak-k\u00e1-kee, _pheasants_, as they call themselves) have\nbeen known from the time of the first visits made to them, to the day\nof their destruction, as one of the most friendly and hospitable tribes\non the United States frontier.\" It transpires, therefore, that they are\ncalled _pheasants_. Is the pheasant a native of America?--on the other\nhand, is it not common on the opposite Asiatic continent, and on the\nislands adjacent to it from New Guinea to the Corea? I have never heard\nof the pheasant in the American continent;[225] but in reading the\naccounts of the missionaries of the Corea (the only foreigners who have\npenetrated into the country), I read, \"that clouds of _pheasants_ and\nbirds of all kinds perch at night in the branches of the trees\" (\"Life\nof Henri Dorie,\" translated by Lady Herbert; Burns & Oates, p. 77); and\nif the reader will turn to p. 79 in the same Life, and will compare\nthe description of the Coreans, which he will find there, with the\ndescription and portraits of the Mandans in Mr Catlin's \"O-kee-pa,\" pp.\n4, 5, he will, I think, recognise a sufficient resemblance to warrant\nand sustain the presumption created by their name.[226]\n\n [225] As far as I can ascertain, the pheasant is not a native of\n America. Yarrell speaks of it as Asiatic, and that it has\n been domesticated \"in all parts of the _old_ continent.\"\n So also Gould. Of the American writers, _neither_ Wilson,\n Audubon, Bonaparte, Nuttall, Richardson, or Jameson include\n the pheasant. Mr Catlin, however, says, p. 44: \"From the\n translation of their name, already mentioned (Nu-mah-k\u00e1-kee,\n pheasants), an important inference may be drawn in support of\n the probability of their having formerly lived much farther\n to the south, as that bird does not exist on the prairies of\n the Upper Missouri, and is not to be met with short of the\n hoary forests of Ohio and Indiana, eighteen hundred miles\n south of the last residence of the Mandans. In their familiar\n name of Mandan, which is not an Indian word, there are equally\n singular and important features. In the first place, that they\n knew nothing of the name or how they got it; and next, that\n the word Mandan in the Welsh language [Mr C.'s theory is that\n they are the survivors of Prince Madoc's expedition from Wales\n in the fourteenth century] means red dye, of which further\n mention will be made.\" On the legend of the Welsh expedition,\n _vide_ Warburton's \"Conquest of Canada,\" ii., Appendix iv.\n\n [226] \"The Indians resemble the people of north-eastern Asia in form\n and feature more than any other of the human race; their\n population is most dense along the districts nearest to Asia;\n and among the Mexicans, whose records of the past deserve\n credence, there is a constant tradition that their Aztec\n and Toltec chiefs came from the north-west.\"--Warburton's\n \"Conquest of Canada,\" i. 195.\n\n Brace (\"Manual of Ethnology,\" p. 115) says, after noting\n that whereas the prominence in the head \"is anterior in the\n Chinese rather than lateral, as in the American Indians and\n the Tangusic tribes,\" adds, \"The peculiar distinguishing\n characteristics are the smallness of the eyes and the\n obliquity of the eyelids. The nose is usually small and\n depressed, though sometimes, in favourable physical\n conditions, natives are found with a slightly aquiline nose,\n _giving the face a close resemblance to that of the American\n Indians or New Zealanders_.\"\n\n Refer to argument at p. 70, with reference to the Mozca\n Indians.\n\nTo the peculiarity of name, and resemblance of feature, I shall now\nproceed to add the evidence of some traces of their peculiar customs,\nor at least of some trace of the tradition out of which they arose.\n\nI am not at present in possession of evidence to show this in the\nCorea itself (almost totally unknown and unexplored), but in the\nisland of Formosa the same mode of burial is observed, only that\namong the Formosans other customs are added, which remind one of the\ncommemorative customs of the Mandans.\n\n CATLIN, p. 8.\n\n \"Their (Mandan) dead, partially embalmed, are\n tightly wrapped in buffalo hides softened with\n glue and water, and placed on slight scaffolds,\n above the reach of animals or human hands, each\n body having its separate scaffold.\"\n\n The Mandan dance was round \"_the big canoe_,\"\n and a part of their ceremony on the roof of\n their wigwams.\n\n Among the Opischeschaht _Indians_ (_vide Field_,\n Oct. 2, 1869) there was a dance which they\n called \"the roof dance.\" \"While the dance and\n song were going on below, leaped up and down\n between the roof-board, pushed aside for that\n purpose, making a noise like thunder.... After\n the dance was finished an old Seshaaht came\n forward, and remarked, that as it was a dance\n peculiar to his tribe it could not be omitted,\"\n though \"very injurious to the roof.\"\n\n OGILBY'S JAPAN, p. 52.\n\n \"The manner of disposing of their (Formosans')\n dead and funeral obsequies is thus: When any\n one dies, the corpse being laid out, after\n twenty-four hours they elevate it upon a\n convenient scaffold or stage, four feet high,\n matted with reeds and rushes, near which they\n make a fire, so that the corpse may dry by\n degrees.... They drink intoxicating liquors. One\n beats on a drum made _like a chest_, but _longer_\n and _broader_, and turning _the bottom upwards_;\n the women get up, and two by two, back to back,\n move their legs and arms in a dancing time and\n measure, which pace, or taboring tread, sends\n a kind of murmuring or doleful sound from the\n _hollow tree_.\"\n\n _N.B._--Their boats were constructed by hollowing\n out a tree (_vide_ Catlin's \"Last Rambles,\" p.\n 99).[227]\n\n [227] Compare what Ogilby (p. 36) says: \"Near Firando (Japan) at an\n _inlet of the sea_ stands an idol, _being nothing but a chest\n of wood_, about three feet high, _standing like an altar_ [the\n big canoe was placed on end among the Mandans], whither women,\n when they suppose they have conceived, go in pilgrimage,\n offering on their knees rice or other presents.\" At p. 136, at\n Jado, it is said, \"somewhat farther stands a temple _dedicated\n to all sorts of animals with a very high double roof_.\"\n (Query, Noah's ark?)\n\n In the _Illustrated London News_, January 13, 1872, its\n correspondent from Yokohama gives a short account of\n the Japanese religious festivals, in which among other\n coincidences I note the following: \"The most absurd,\" he says,\n \"is one in which the foul fiend is simultaneously expelled\n from every house by dint of pelting him with boiled peas. The\n devil is chased out of the town with a dance of derision, by\n young fellows in grotesque costumes, for the public mirth.\"\n Compare with the scene in the Mandan ceremonies, described by\n Catlin, _vide supra_, p. 260.\n\nNow, compare with the above, and also with the extracts from Burton and\nCatlin, at p. 254, remembering the prominence of the ox or bull (the\nox and bull dance) in the Mandan customs, and the connection of the\nbull with Nin or Ninip, p. 200, 203, and other mythological figures\nof which I believe Noah to have been the antitype. The following\ndescription of the most curious traditional representation in Japan\n(Ogilby, p. 279):--\n\n \"Moreover, besides the ox temple in Meaco, there is also to be seen\n the stately chapel dedicated to the Creator of all things (the\n ox in the above-mentioned temple is represented as breaking the\n mundane egg, _vide supra_, p. 257), who is represented in a very\n strange manner. In the middle of the temple is a great pot _full\n of water_ surrounded with a wall, seven feet high from the ground,\n in the middle of which appears an _exceeding great tortoise_,\n whose shell, feet, and head stands in the water; out of its back\n rises the body of a great tree, on the top of which sits a strange\n and horrible figure\" ... [then follows a good deal which has its\n explanation, but must be curtailed] ... \"the image hath four arms\"\n ... in one \"the hand grasps a cruse, _from whence water issues\n continually_; the other hand _holds a sceptre_.... The tree whereon\n he sits is of brass, ... about the middle of this tree an exceeding\n great serpent hath wreathed itself _twice_, whose head and body is\n on the right side held fast by two horrible shapes, the remaining\n part thereof to the tail, two kings and one of Japan sages stretch\n forth\" [evidently representing the contending influences (as in\n Mandan dance), one of the kings having the duplicated Janus head,\n _supra_, p. 220.][228]\n\n [228] Compare p. 448 in \"Flint Chips,\" (E. T. Stevens). \"The Omahas\n possess a _sacred shell_, which is regarded as an object of\n great sanctity by the whole nation. It has been transmitted\n from generation to generation, and its origin is unknown. A\n skin _lodge is appropriated to it_, and in this lodge a man,\n appointed as a guard to the shell, constantly resides. It\n is placed upon a stand, and is _never suffered to touch the\n earth_. It is concealed from sight by a _number of mats_ made\n of strips of skin plaited. The whole forms a large package,\n from which _tobacco_\" (comp. Stevens' \"Flint Chips,\" p. 315,\n and Catlin, _supra_) \"and the _roots of trees_\" (comp. supra,\n p. 155), \"and other objects are suspended,\" &c. &c.\n\nAt pp. 477-78 there is perhaps a still more definite tradition of\nthe Deluge (confused as usual with traditions of the Creation) in\nconnection with the idol Topan. \"Not far from Mettogamma (said the\ninterpreter) lies an exceeding _high mountain ... the top of which_\nstand several temples which may be seen a great distance off at sea.\nIn these temples the Bonzies worshipped that great God which formerly\ncreated the sun, moon, and stars, but also fifteen lesser deities which\nsome ages since conversed upon the earth (compare pp. 63, 97.) Then\nfollows their account of the Creation. \"Mankind not only increased\nin number but also in wickedness, differing more and more from their\nheavenly extract, growing still worse and worse, mocking at thunder,\n_rainbows_, and fire; nay, they blasphemed the great God himself\n(whom when the interpreter named, he bowed his head to the ground),\nwhereupon He called His inferior deities about Him, telling them that\nHe resolved to destroy and ruin all things ... and make a _round_\nglobe, in which the four elements should be all resolved _into their\nformer mass_; and chiefly He commanded the idol Topan to make thunder\nballs to shoot through the air and fire all the kingdoms with lightning\n... so that none were saved except _one man and his family_, that had\nentertained and duly worshipped the gods.\" Of the god Topan it had been\npreviously said \"that some years since he saw the temple of the idol\nTopan, whose image stood on a copper altar, cast like clouds, himself\narmed as a warrior, a coronet helmet on his head, his hand grasping a\nmighty club, and seeming to fly through the sky and moving his club to\noccasion thunder. When it thundered, a Bonzi, whose head was adorned\nwith consecrated leaves [Query, the olive or willow?] which no thunder\ncould harm,\" offered _several fishes_.\" (Comp. 197, 203.) _Vide_ also\np. 94, representation of the fish-god in the person of their \"god\nCanon\" [where we read of their \"gods Canon and Camis or Chamis;\" if we\nwere to substitute Canaan and Cham, _quid vetat_?][229]\n\n [229] _Vide_ Japanese tradition of the Deluge (Bertrand, \"Dict.\n des Relig.,\" Gainet, i. 208; also _id._), it is said that\n the Japanese commemorate this event in their third annual\n festival, which takes place on the fifth day of the fifth\n month. Compare with Mandan's, _supra_.\n\nTo complete the circle of evidence, as regards the general tradition,\nI must add the following extracts from Captain Cook's voyages, i.\n110 (London, 1846):--\"In the island of Huahieine, thirty-one leagues\nfrom Otaheite N.-W.,\" Captain Cook came upon an erection, of which\nhe says--\"The general resemblance between this repository and the\nark of the Lord among the Jews is remarkable; but it is still more\nremarkable that upon inquiring of a boy what it was called, he said\n'Ewharre no Eatua,' it is the house of God. He could, however, give\nno account of its signification or use.\" At p. 111, \"Saw (at Uliatea)\nseveral Ewharre-no-Eatua or houses of God, to which carriage poles were\nattached as at Huahieine.... From thence we went to a long house not\nfar distant, where among rolls of cloth and several other things we saw\nthe _model of a canoe_, about three feet long, to which were tied eight\nhuman jawbones\" [eight the number saved in the ark. Compare p. 197 with\nKabiri. Compare with Ogilby (Japan, 177), where the god Canon (Canaan)\nis represented with seven heads on _his_ breast, eight with himself, he\nhaving been substituted for Noah as the head of the race.] Captain Cook\nadds, however, \"We had already learnt that these, like scalps among the\nIndians of North America, were trophies of war,\" and suggests that the\ncanoe \"may be a symbol of invasion.\" That I must leave to the reader\nto decide, but the heads might be \"trophies of conquest,\" and at the\nsame time memorial heads,--the memorial heads having necessarily been\nreplaced many times since the custom was first instituted.[230]\n\n [230] Captain Cook, speaking of their dances (p. 115), says,\n \"Between the dances of the women the men performed a kind of\n dramatic interlude, in which there was _dialogue_ as well as\n dancing; but we were not sufficiently acquainted with their\n language to understand the subject. Some gentlemen saw a much\n more regular entertainment of the dramatic kind, which was\n divided into _four acts_.\"\n\n _Vide_ Abbe Gainet, \"La Bible sans la Bible,\" i. 213, quotes\n l'Abbe Domenech, who speaks of \"the dance of the Deluge among\n many nations of the north and west of America.\" Gainet also\n says that there were two distinct traditions of the Deluge in\n the east and west groups of the Society Islands (Otaheite).\n\n L'Abbe Gainet (i. 211) gives an account of the _Mandans_ from\n \"Ceremon\u00edes Religieuses,\" i. 7, which it will be interesting\n to compare with Catlin, as it was written a century previous\n to his visit. \"The Mandans pretend that the Deluge was\n formerly raised up against them by the white men to destroy\n their ancestors.... Then the _first man_, whom they regard\n as one of their divinities, inspired mankind with the idea\n of constructing upon an eminence a _town_ and fortress in\n wood, and promised them that the water should not pass that\n point. They followed his advice and constructed the ark on\n the banks of the Heart river. It was of a very large size,\n so that a part of their nation found safety there whilst the\n rest perished. In memory of this memorable event they place in\n each of their villages a small model of this _edifice_ [which\n may account for the erect position of 'the big canoe'], this\n model still exists. The waters abated after that, and to this\n day they celebrate, in memory of this ark, the f\u00eate of the\n '_Okippe_,' which lasts _four days_.\"\n\nThis leads me to the final question, When was this custom instituted?\nUp to this I have not considered whether the custom was good or bad,\ndemoniac or only corrupted; and as to the time of its institution I\nhave merely assumed from the fact of its universality that it was\nprimeval.\n\nBefore expressing my opinion, I must fortify myself with an extract\nfrom the Rev. W. Smith's very able work on the Pentateuch.[231]\n\n [231] Longmans, 1868, i. 290.\n\n \"Strange, too, though it may appear, there is much in the outward\n ceremonial of the Levitical worship that indicates an Egyptian\n type. The fact need startle no one. For it is derogatory neither\n to the holiness of the Almighty nor to the inspiration of his\n delegate, that Moses should have borrowed from others rites which\n were good in themselves, and which became idolatrous only then,\n when employed in the worship of false gods. The most of external\n forms are in themselves indifferent and receive their determinate\n value from the feeling that prompts them, and the object to which\n they are directed: when given to God they are divine worship--when\n given to idols, they are idolatry. Nor is inspiration jeopardised\n because the material details may have come from a human source.\n Care and study and observation are not dispensed with in the mind\n that receives the divine communications; and Moses was instructed\n in all the wisdom and learning of the Egyptians for the very\n purpose of enabling him to use it to the best advantage ... as\n the Church consecrated to a higher purpose the temples and the\n rites and festivals found among the pagan populations at their\n conversion. We need not then be scandalised if we find the _ark\n of Jehovah_ to be the counterpart of the shrine of Amun. The\n resemblance strikes us at once on a glance at the woodcut token\n from Lepsius' Denkm\u00e4ler, Ab. iii., Bl. 109.\"\n\nLet the reader refer to the engravings in Rev. W. Smith's Pentateuch,\n291, 292. Dr Smith does not discuss the point further, only he says (p.\n294), \"In Egypt it is _the canopied boat_ in which the Deity is steered\non the heavenly ocean; in Israel it is the covered chest, the form best\nadapted for holding the stone tables of the law.\"\n\nBut if \"the canopied boat\" should have corresponded among the Egyptians\nto \"the big canoe\" among the Mandans, and the other similar memorials\nwe have come upon, what more appropriate symbol could Moses have\nincorporated? Was not the ark of the covenant, in which the law was\npreserved in the widespread inundation of corruption, the counterpart\nof the ark in which mankind, in the persons of Noah and his family,\nwere saved? and in carrying on and embodying the tradition, we may\nsee a motive why there may have been an intentional alteration of the\nsymbol--viz. in order to wean his people from the corruption into\nwhich the whole Egyptian ceremonial had sunk?[232] And why should\nit not have been so? Is there not a probability and fitness in the\nconjecture of some such commemorative sacrifices and memorials among\nmankind when they lived together before the dispersion in the times\nimmediately following the Deluge?\n\n [232] Cardinal Wiseman in his letters to John Poynder, Esq. (\"Essays\n on Various Subjects,\" i. 257), says, \"Dr Spencer, a learned\n divine of the Established Church, published two folio volumes\n replete with extraordinary erudition, entitled 'De Legibus\n Hebr\u00e6orum ritualibus et eorum ratione,' which has gone through\n many editions both here and on the Continent. Now, the entire\n drift and purport of this work is manifestly twofold--first,\n to prove that the great design of God, in giving rites and\n ceremonies to the Jews, was to prevent their falling into\n idolatry; secondly, to demonstrate that almost every practice,\n rite, ceremony, and act so given was directly borrowed from\n the Egyptian heathens; ... that whether we speak of the more\n solemn and especial injunctions, or of the minutest details\n of the ceremonial law, of circumcision and of sacrifice in\n all its varieties, and with all its distinctive ceremonies\n of purification and lustrations and new moons; of the ark of\n the covenant and the cherubim; of the temple and its oracles;\n of the Urim and Thummim, and the emissary goat; of them all\n Spencer has endeavoured to prove, and that to the satisfaction\n of many learned men, that they pre-existed among the Egyptians\n and other neighbouring nations.\"\n\n I have not met with Dr Spencer's work. I may mention, however,\n the pomegranates in the Levitical robe as an instance. _Vide_\n references in this chapter and appendix.\n\n APPENDIX TO CHAPTER XI.\n\n THE PONGOL FESTIVAL.\n\n \"The Pongol Festival in Southern India,\" by\n Charles E. Govat. \"Journal of the Royal Asiatic\n Society of Great Britain and Ireland,\" new\n series, vol. v., part i. (1870.)\n\n \"I had seen the Pongol, the touching domestic\n festival it is now my chief object to describe.\n It had proved by its simple pathos that the\n Hindus were akin to the noblest nations of\n the world, and that in their antiquity they\n were worthy of the honour that has come to\n them of being the best and the least altered\n representatives of the 'Juventus Mundi,' which\n all nations count to have been the golden age.\"\n He contrasts it with the worship in the great\n temple at Siringham near Trichinopoly, in which\n there \"was ample justification for every epithet\n employed by Ward, Dubois, or Wilberforce.\"\n \"Yet the Pongol declared with equal force in\n favour of domestic love and chastity, of simple\n thanksgiving and rural contentment.... There is\n much reason to suppose that the Pongol is one\n of the most complete and interesting of these\n remnants of primitive life. That it is primitive\n is shown by the fact that the old Vedic deities\n are alone worshipped. Indra is the presiding\n deity. Agni is the main object of worship. A\n further proof of this point is given by the\n efforts that have constantly been made by the\n Brahmans to corrupt the ritual, and introduce\n Pauranic deities. Krishna is always declared\n by the Brahmans to be the Pongol god, but the\n _tradition itself_ bears witness that the feast\n is older than the god. The tale is that when the\n great wave of Krishna worship passed over the\n Peninsula, the people were so enamoured of him\n that they ceased to perform the Pongol rites\n to Indra. This made the latter deity _so angry\n that he poured down a flood upon the earth_. The\n affrighted people ran to Krishna, who seized\n the great mountain Govardhanas, wrenched it\n from its place, and held it aloft on the tip of\n his little finger, like some huge umbrella. The\n people then ran beneath with their flocks and\n were saved.... The occasion of the festival is\n also primitive, for the Pongol is another feast\n of ingathering, the centre of Hebrew festivals,\n as this is of those of Southern India.... The\n Pongol is remarkable, as will be seen, for the\n strange combination of pastoral, hunting, and\n agricultural life. There are 'harvest homes' in\n almost every nation, but I do not know of any\n other example of the combination. The _great_\n days of the feast are two--one of these devoted\n to the new crops, the other to the cattle alone\n ... while the feast winds up with a grand hunt,\n first of the cattle themselves and next of a\n hare.\" Compare ch. vii.; compare Patagonian.\n\n \"Long before the commencement of the feast an\n unwonted activity pervades native society. The\n Pongol is _the_ social festival of the year,\n and must be celebrated with due honour, else\n an ineffaceable stain will rest on the family\n name. It is the Christmas and Whitsuntide of\n England made into one.... So soon as the _rains\n have finished_, and this may be expected by\n about the first week in December, the carpenter,\n the builder, and the artists are in full work\n repairing the houses.... The sides of the road\n in the bazaar are heaped with 'chatties' of\n all sizes and shapes. Presents are bought for\n children. Distant relatives have no fields of\n their own from which to get their rice, so a\n sack of the new grain from the ancestral acres\n goes off to each. To this is added a pot of\n ghee, a set of brass pots, or perhaps a jewel;\n that the Pongol may not lack wherewith to make\n it joyful.\" Creditors and debtors are often\n brought then to a compromise, or the process is\n postponed \"till after Pongol.\"\n\n \"All must be ready by the early part of January,\n when, according to the Hindu astrologers, the\n sun enters the tropic of Capricorn. The feast\n hangs upon this, and it will be seen that the\n most interesting event of the celebration must\n exactly coincide with the passage of the sun.\n The festival commences on the previous day,\n and lasts for seven days, of which the second\n marks the sun's passage, and is called Mah\u00e2 (or\n great) Pongol, ... the next day is Bh\u00f4gi Pongol,\n or Pongol of rejoicing, equally well known by\n the name of Indra, ... bonfires and torches are\n illuminated (compare Boulanger, lib. i. ch.\n ii.) The feast is now begun, and all turn from\n the fire, as it is extinguished by the rising\n sun, to the _bath_, with which every religious\n rite must commence. No image is used during\n the whole course of the celebration, except\n that of Ganesa.... Indra is represented on\n ordinary occasions as _a white man_ sitting on\n an elephant. In his left hand is a bow (compare\n ch. xv.), and in his right a thunderbolt,\n while his body is studded with a thousand eyes.\n [Query, a reference to the peacock? Compare ch.\n xv.] Agni has also his special image, that\n of a stout man, red and hairy as Esau, riding\n on a goat [compare Bacchus, p. 214]. S\u00fbrya\n is also a red man, sitting on a water lily.\n He has four arms and three eyes. But none of\n these (deities) are known at Pongol any more\n than they were at the time when the hymns of\n the Rig Veda were composed.... The gifts are\n laid out on trays,--a vase of sugar, or perhaps\n an idol, _peacock_ or elephant, round which\n will be grouped smaller works in sugar for the\n children.... One thing may not be forgotten,\n that is a lime [compare 'gourd,' p. 256]. This\n must be _as large_ as money can buy, and then\n be carefully encased in gold leaf till it looks\n like one of the golden apples of antiquity. The\n next day is Mah\u00e2 (or great) Pongol. It is often\n called S\u00fbrya Pongol. At noon the sun will cross\n the equator, and bring the culminating glory of\n the feast. So great a day must commence with\n appropriate ceremonial, and _in this instance\n it is bathing_. In country places the women run\n early in the morning to the _nearest tank_ and\n _plunge bodily in without undressing_.\" [This\n is alluded to by Mr Gover as \"an innovation so\n uncomfortable and possibly dangerous;\" but no\n evidence is adduced of its being an innovation,\n and its being the custom of the \"country parts\"\n would incline us to the contrary belief.]\n The men also bathe very carefully, as if the\n occasion _were very solemn_. Reference is made\n to the Rig Veda, i. 23, 15-24 (Wilson, i. 57);\n but in these verses occur the words, \"waters\n take away whatever sin has been found in me.\"\n\n \"Dripping wet, the women proceed, without\n changing their clothes, to prepare the feast,\n ... new chatties, or earthen vessels had been\n purchased for the occasion; one of them is now\n taken and is filled with rice, milk, sugar,\n dholghee or clarified butter, grain, and other\n substances, calculated to produce a tasty\n dish.... The ingathering must be celebrated\n with things that have just been garnered.\n Usually Hindoos will not eat new rice, as it\n is indigestible\" (refer to Leviticus xxiii.\n 10-14). Another incident is that--\"The head of\n the house approaches the image (of Ganesa), and\n performs p\u00fbja. Then follows a procession of\n the young married couples to propitiate their\n mothers-in-law.... So a present, the best the\n house can provide, is carefully put together on\n a tray. It may be fruit, or brass pots, or ghee,\n or whatever else may be thought most acceptable.\n Then a small procession is formed. In front\n go three or four men, beating on tom-toms and\n blowing pipes. Then follows the gift, held\n aloft. Over it, if the family be respectable,\n is held an umbrella, carried by a servant who\n walks behind the bearer of the gift.... The\n nearest relative steps forward and asks that\n the daughter and her husband may come to the\n 'boiling,' to fill up the family circle. Then\n follows the boiling of the pot; 'as the milk\n boils, so will the coming year be.' The Pongol\n is one long series of visits, entertainments,\n and social joys.\" (Comp. Mandan Festival,\n _supra_.)\n\n \"The third day of the feast is M\u00e2ttu Pongol, or\n the Pongol _of the cattle_. It commences with\n a general _wash_. They betake themselves to\n the nearest _sacred_ tank, driving or dragging\n with them the whole bovine possessions of\n the village. They are then driven home, and\n adornment commences; the horns are carefully\n painted _red_, _blue_, _green_, _or yellow_,--if\n the owner be rich, gold leaf is employed,--heavy\n garlands of flowers placed on the horns.\n Meanwhile the women have prepared another new\n chatty, filling it with water, steeping within\n saffron, cotton seeds, and mangora leaves. The\n master of the ceremonial, usually the head of\n the house, comes for it, and places himself at\n the head of a procession of all the men--the\n women may not see the rite we now describe. In\n solemn silence they march round each animal four\n times, while the first man sprinkles the bitter\n water upon it and the ground as often as they\n pass the four cardinal points of the compass....\n This done, the women and children are again\n admitted. The patient cattle are led out one by\n one to receive their final adornment.... Then,\n at a given signal, every rope is untied, every\n tom-tom, pipe, and guitar is banged or blown to\n the extreme of its endurance, and in an instant\n the herd, hitherto so patient, is careering down\n the street in an extremity of terror.... Any one\n may possess himself of whatever is carried by\n the cattle. No little skill and a vast amount of\n courage are shown by the 'timid' Hindoos in this\n dangerous and exciting pell-mell. The next day\n is Kanen Pongol, or Pongol of the calves.\n\n \"On the evening of this day we find the only\n token of corruption in the ceremonial.\" ... Then\n follows a dance, just as is described by Catlin\n as _closing_ the Mandan ceremonial, in which\n very similar scenes occur.\n\n Before adverting to the points of contrast\n between the Pongol and the Mandan and Dahoman\n ceremonies, I will give an extract from a\n book recently published, giving an account of\n a country hitherto unexplored--viz. Northern\n Patagonia. Traces I think will be recognised of\n the same primitive custom, though with evidences\n of corruption.\n\n \"Three Years Slavery among the Patagonians,\" by\n Guinnard (Bentley, 1871), p. 269.[233]\n\n [233] Much doubt has been expressed as to the\n veracity of M. Guinnard's narrative, but\n the scenes and customs referred to are\n not likely to have been invented; and on\n the supposition of a fictitious narrative\n (although I see nothing incredible) they\n will probably have been imported from true\n narratives of other tribes. In either case\n they supply additional evidence.\n\n \"At certain periods of the year the Indians keep\n religious festivals. The first takes place in the\n summer, and is consecrated to Vita-ou\u00e8netrou (the\n god of goodness) for the purpose of thanking him\n for all his past favours, and of begging him to\n continue them in the future. It is generally the\n grand cacique who fixes the date and duration\n of the festival.... The preparations are made\n with all the religious pomp of which they are\n capable; the Indians grease their hair and paint\n their faces with greater care than usual.... At\n the commencement of the ceremony the women move\n their tents provisionally to the centre of the\n spot chosen by the cacique. The men do not arrive\n until these preparations are finished, they ride\n three times round the place at full gallop,\n shouting their war cry and shaking their lances.\n Then, their rides ended, they range themselves\n in single file, and tilt their lances with such\n perfect regularity as to make it a striking\n sight. The women _afterwards take the places of\n their husbands_\" (compare Catlin, _sup._, p.\n 260), \"who, after dismounting and tying up their\n horses, form a second rank behind them.\"\n\n \"The dance then commences without change of\n place, except from right to left. The women sing\n in a plaintive tone [laughter being expressly\n forbidden during the whole continuance of the\n ceremonies], accompanying themselves by striking\n a _wooden drum_.\" Compare Catlin, _sup._, 257.\n It is also said (Guinnard, p. 198), \"The drum is\n composed of a sort of wooden bowl, more or less\n large, over which a wild-cat skin is stretched,\n or a piece of the paunch of a _horse_. _This\n instrument_ ... is much used by them, _especially\n in their religious festivals_ and character\n dances.\" The drum is \"decorated with colours and\n designs similar to those on their faces. The men\n pirouette, limping upon the opposite leg to that\n of the women.\" Compare Catlin, 254, 260. \"At a\n signal given by the cacique presiding over the\n festival, cries of alarm are raised, the men\n spring into their saddles, abruptly _interrupting\n the dance_ to take part in a fantastic cavalcade\n round the site of the festival, all waving their\n weapons, and raising the sinister cry they utter\n in their pillages.\"\n\n \"In the intervals of these exciting diversions\n everybody _goes visiting_ in the hope of tasting\n a little rotted _milk_ kept in a horse-hide.\"\n Compare Pongol Festival, p. 280.\n\n \"At a very early hour on the fourth day, to close\n the ceremony, a young _horse_, an _ox_, and two\n sheep, given by the richest men amongst them, are\n sacrificed to their god. The head turned towards\n the east, and the heart still palpitating is hung\n upon a lance and inclined towards the rising sun.\"\n\n \"The second festival takes place in the autumn;\n it is celebrated in honour of Houacouvou\n (_director of_ the evil spirits). The object\n of it is to conjure him to preserve them from\n all enchantment. As in the first festival, the\n Indians dress themselves in their best, and\n assemble by tribes only, headed by their cacique.\n An assemblage of _all the cattle_ takes place\n _en masse_. The men form a double circle around,\n galloping unceasingly in opposite directions, so\n that none of these unruly animals may escape.\n They invoke Houacouvou aloud, throwing down, drop\n by drop, fermented _milk_ out of _bull's horns_,\n handed to them _by their wives_, while they are\n riding round the cattle. After repeating this\n ceremony three or _four_ times, they sprinkle\n the horses and oxen with whatever remains of the\n milk, with the view, they say, of preserving\n them from all maladies; this done, each man\n _separates his own cattle_, and _drives it to\n some distance_, then returns for the purpose of\n assembling round the cacique, who, in a long and\n fervid address, advises them never to forget\n Houacouvou in their prayers, and to lose no\n time in preparing themselves to please him, by\n carrying desolation amongst the Christians, and\n increasing the number of their own flocks and\n herds.\"\n\n This festival, therefore, in its original\n conception would not appear to be a worship of\n the evil spirit, but of him who curbs him; the\n same idea of the subordination of the evil spirit\n will be seen in Catlin's account of the Mandans.\n\n There is nothing certainly in this account which\n directly connects these Patagonian ceremonies\n with the diluvian commemorations, unless,\n perhaps, the sacred drum; but there is much in\n common with the Pongol and the Mandan which we\n have seen to have been commemorative.\n\n The prominence of sun worship will not have\n escaped observation; but this discovery cannot\n militate against my position, for I have already\n shown (p. 160) that such admixture was\n probable, and also indicated how it was likely\n to have come about. Any hostile argument which\n would seek to deprive those ceremonies of their\n significance must be directed to the extrusion of\n the diluvian symbols.\n\n Further trace of these diluvian ceremonies\n might be traced in the Buddhist systems; but\n it would open out too large a question for\n discussion here.\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XII.\n\n _SIR JOHN LUBBOCK ON TRADITION._\n\n\n DE MAISTRE'S VIEW.[234]\n\n \"We have little knowledge of the times which preceded the\n Deluge.... A single consideration interests us, and it must\n never be lost sight of, and that is, that chastisements are ever\n proportioned to crimes, and crimes always proportioned to the\n knowledge of the criminal; in such sort that the Deluge supposes\n unheard-of crimes, and that these crimes suppose a knowledge\n infinitely transcending that which we possess.... This knowledge,\n freed from the evil which had rendered it so noxious, survived in\n the first family the destruction of the human race. We are blinded\n as to the nature and advance of science by a gross sophism which\n has fascinated every eye; it is to judge of times when men saw\n effects in their causes by those in which men painfully ascend from\n effects to causes, in which they are only concerned with effects,\n in which they say it is useless to occupy themselves with causes,\n and in which they do not know what constitutes a cause. They never\n cease repeating--'Think of the time that has been required to know\n such and such a thing.' What inconceivable blindness! A moment only\n was required. If man would know the cause of a single phenomenon of\n nature, he would probably comprehend all the rest. We are unwilling\n to see that truths, the most difficult to discover, are very easy\n to understand.... 'These things,' as Plato says, 'are perfectly\n and easily learned if any one teaches them, [Greek: ei didaskoi\n tis]; but,' he adds, 'no one will teach them us, unless, indeed,\n God shows him the road, [Greek: all oud an didaxeien ei m\u00ea Theos\n yph\u00eagoito].' 'I doubt not,' said Hippocrates, 'that the arts were\n in the first instance favours ([Greek: the\u00f4n charitas]) granted to\n men by the gods.'... Listen to sage antiquity in its account of the\n first men: it will tell you that they were marvellous men, and that\n beings of a superior order deigned to favour them with the most\n precious communications. On this point there is no disagreement,\n ... reason, revelation, all human tradition make up a demonstration\n which the mouth only can contradict. Not only, then, did mankind\n commence with science, but with a science different from ours, and\n superior to ours.... No one knows to what epoch remounts, I do not\n say the early commencements of society, but the great institutions,\n the profound knowledge, and the most magnificent monuments of\n human industry and human power.... Asia, having been the theatre\n of the greatest marvels, it is not astonishing that its people\n should have preserved a leaning to the marvellous stronger than\n what is natural to man in general, and than each one recognises in\n himself individually. Hence it comes that they have always shown\n so little taste and talent for our science of _conclusions_. One\n would say rather that they recalled something of primitive science\n and of the era of intuition. Would the enchained eagle ask for a\n balloon to raise himself into the air? No, he would demand only\n that his fetters should be broken. And who knows if these people\n are not destined yet to contemplate sights which will be refused\n to the cavilling genius of Europe? However this may be, observe,\n I pray you, that it is impossible to think of modern art without\n seeing it constantly environed with all the contrivances of the\n intellect and all the methods of art.... On the contrary. So far as\n it is possible to discover the science of primitive times at such\n an enormous distance, we see it always free and isolated, flying\n rather than marching, and presenting in all its characteristics\n something of the \u00e6rial and supernatural.[235]... But then comes\n the corollary.... If all men descend from the three couples who\n repeopled the universe, and if the human race commenced with\n knowledge, the savage cannot be more, as I have said to you, than\n a branch detached from the social tree.... Now, what matter does\n it make at what epoch such and such a branch was separated from\n the tree? It suffices that it is detached: no doubt as to its\n degradation; and I venture to say no doubt as to the cause of\n degradation, which can only have been some crime. A chief of a\n nation having altered the principle of morality in his household\n by one of those prevarications which, so far as we can judge, are\n no longer possible in the actual state of things, because happily\n our knowledge is no longer such as to allow us to become culpable\n in this degree; this chief of a nation, I say, transmits the curse\n to his posterity; and every constant force being accelerating\n in its nature, this degradation, weighing incessantly upon his\n descendants, has ended in making them what we call _savages_. Two\n causes extremely different have thrown a deceptive cloud over the\n lamentable state of savages: the one of ancient date, the other\n belonging to our century.... One cannot for an instant regard\n the savage without reading the curse written, I do not say only\n in his soul, but even in the exterior form of his body. He is an\n infant, robust, yet deformed and ferocious, in whom the flame of\n intelligence no longer throws more than a lurid and intermittent\n glare.... I cannot abandon this subject without suggesting an\n important observation: The barbarian who is intermediate between\n the civilised man and the savage, has been and may be again\n civilised by some sort of religion; but the savage, properly so\n called, has never been so except by Christianity. It is a prodigy\n of the first order, a species of redemption, exclusively reserved\n to the true priesthood.[236]... For the rest, we must not confound\n the _savage_ with the _barbarian_.\n\n [234] I need not remind my reader that these speculations of De\n Maistre anticipated by many years the analogous, though at the\n same time independent, conclusions of Archbishop Whately, in\n his lecture \"On the Origin of Civilisation,\" published in 1854.\n\n [235] \"We ought then to recognise that the state of civilisation and\n of science is, in a certain sense, the natural and primitive\n state of man. Thus, all oriental traditions commenced with\n a state of perfection and light, and, I repeat it, of\n supernatural light; and Greece--lying Greece, which 'has dared\n everything in history'--renders homage to this truth, in\n placing its Golden Age at the beginning of things. It is no\n less remarkable that it does not attribute to the following\n ages, even to the iron age, the state of savagery, so that all\n that it has told us of those primitive men living on acorns,\n &c., puts it _in contradiction with itself_, and can only have\n reference to particular cases, _i.e._ to some races degraded,\n and then reclaimed to a state of nature, which is a state of\n civilisation.\"--_De Maistre's \"Soir\u00e9es de St Petersbourg\"_ i.\n _Deux: Entretien_, p. 98.\n\n [236] I consider that this remark has been fully substantiated in\n Marshall's \"Christian Missions.\"\n\n \"No language could possibly have been invented, either by a single\n man, who could not have extorted obedience, or by many who would\n not have made themselves understood to each other.... But I would\n wish, before concluding this subject, to recommend to your notice\n an observation which has always struck me. Whence comes it that in\n the primitive language of every ancient people, we find words which\n necessarily suppose a knowledge foreign to these people? Whence,\n for instance, have the Greeks, three thousand years ago at least,\n found the epithet 'physizoos' (giving or possessing life), which\n Homer sometimes gives to the earth?.... Where have they taken the\n still more singular epithet of 'philomate' (liking or thirsting for\n blood), given to this same earth in a tragedy? (Euripides, Phoen.\n v. 179). \u00c6schylus had alluded before 'to the earth drinking the\n blood of the two rival brothers, the one slain by the other.'[237]\n Humboldt ('Monum. des Peuples Indig\u00e8nes de l'Amerique,' Paris,\n 1816) has said: 'Many idioms which at present belong only to\n barbarous nations seem to be the remains of rich and flexible\n languages, which indicate a high culture.... But tell me, I pray\n you, how it entered the heads of the ancient Latins, at a time when\n they were only acquainted with the arts of war and of tillage, to\n express by the same word the idea of prayer and of punishment? Who\n taught them to call fever the \"purifier,\" or the \"expiator\"?'[238]\n Would not one say that there was here a judgment, a veritable\n knowledge of the cause, by virtue of which the people affirmed the\n name so justly? But do you believe that these sorts of judgments\n could possibly have belonged to a time when they scarcely knew\n how to write, when the Dictator dug his garden, and in which they\n composed verses which Varro and Cicero no longer understood?... The\n Greeks had preserved some obscure traditions in this regard--[Mr\n Gladstone has shown them to be neither few nor obscure],--and who\n knows if Homer does not attest the same truth, perhaps without\n knowing it, when he speaks of certain men and certain things 'which\n the gods called after one manner, and men after another?'\"--_Count\n Joseph de Maistre, \"Soir\u00e9es de St Petersbourg,\"_ i. _Deux:\n Entretien._[239]\n\n [237] Compare with Gainet, i. 92, 93.\n\n [238] \"Now it is clear that the train of thought which leads from\n purification to penance, or from purification to punishment,\n reveals a moral and even a religious sentiment in the\n conception and naming of poena, and it shows us that in\n the very infancy of criminal justice punishment was looked\n upon (Mr Max M\u00fcller is speaking with reference to what I may\n call briefly the Sanscrit epoch) not simply a retribution or\n revenge, but as a correction, as a removal of guilt. We do not\n feel the presence of these early thoughts when we speak of\n corporal punishment or castigation; yet _castigation_ too was\n originally chastening, from '_castus_,' pure; and 'incestum'\n was impurity or sin, which, according to Roman law, the\n priests had to make good, or to punish by a 'supplicium,' or\n supplication or prostration before the gods.\"\n\n [239] Compare with Max M\u00fcller, \"Chips,\" ii. 256.\n\nAgainst this view of De Maistre, which I consider to be indirectly\nsustained by the testimony of all antiquity, stands the theory of\nSir John Lubbock. There is the constant historical tradition and\ntestimony of the human race on one side, and there is the history of\n\"Pre-historic Times\" on the other. Nevertheless, I venture to say, that\nthe author of \"Pre-historic Times\" only takes up with man at the point\nwhere De Maistre leaves him.\n\nOf course I do not seek to detach Sir John Lubbock from the evidence he\nhas collected; neither do I forget that he is the representative of an\nopinion and a school; at any rate, that there is an opinion of which he\nis the most conspicuous exponent.\n\nSo far as my limited acquaintance with the special subjects with which\nSir John Lubbock deals extends (and with these I am only indirectly\nconcerned), he appears perfectly straightforward and candid; and,\nmoreover, I must acknowledge my obligations to him, for he has\nwritten with remarkable breadth and ability; and it is with the aid\nof the interesting matter which he has accumulated,[240] expressly in\ndisparagement of tradition, that I venture to undertake to reinstate it\nin honour.\n\n [240] _Vide_ chapter on Savage Life in \"Pre-historic Times.\"\n\nNeither do I wish to ignore that Sir John Lubbock's main argument is\nthe geological argument derived from the discovery of the fossils and\nimplements in the drift. But on this point I beg to be allowed to say a\nword in protest.\n\nAs a geologist Sir John Lubbock may be entitled to rely mainly upon the\ngeological evidence of a pal\u00e6olithic age;[241] but as an ethnologist\ndealing with history and writing on the subject of tradition, his\nargument, however incontrovertible he may deem it, sinks to the second\nrank; and secondary I shall take the liberty of considering it. On the\nsame grounds, though I think with more reason, that Sir J. Lubbock\nseeks to be relieved from \"the embarrassing interference of tradition\"\n(\"Pre-historic Times,\" p. 336), I protest, when tradition is the\nsubject-matter of the discussion, against a geological argument being\nbrought to take the ground from under our feet!\n\n [241] It may perhaps be doubtful to what extent Sir J. Lubbock\n maintains his theory of a Stone Age; although Sir John\n formally excludes China and Japan from the argument, he\n nevertheless appears to me to assume the existence of\n universal transitional periods through which the human race\n necessarily passed. \"It would appear that pre-historic\n arch\u00e6ology may be divided into four great epochs. Firstly,\n that of the Drift: when man shared the possession of Europe\n with the mammoth, &c. This we may call the 'pal\u00e6olithic\n period.' Secondly, the later or polished Stone Age; a period,\n &c. Thirdly, the Bronze Age, &c. Fourthly, the Iron Age.\" Sir\n John adds, certainly--\"In order to prevent misapprehension,\n it may be well to state at once, that for the present I only\n apply this classification to Europe, though in all probability\n it might be extended also to the neighbouring parts of Asia\n and Africa. As regards other civilised countries, China\n and Japan for instance, we as yet know nothing of their\n pre-historic arch\u00e6ology. [I should rather say, as we as\n yet have no reason to suppose that they have ever lost the\n knowledge of metals.] It is evident also that some nations,\n such as the Fuegians, Andamaners, &c., are _even now_ only\n in an age of stone. But even in this limited sense, the\n above classification has not met with general acceptance;\n there _are still some_ arch\u00e6ologists who believe that the\n arms and implements--stone, bronze, and iron--were used\n contemporaneously.\"--_Pre-historic Times_, pp. 2, 3. I think\n that the concluding sentence makes it quite clear that Sir\n John assumes the existence of universal progressive periods\n as above. In any case it may be proved in this way. Sir John\n argues upon the hypothesis of the unity of the human race; and\n I also think that he will not refuse the unbroken testimony\n to the fact of the civilisation of Europe from Asia. Either,\n then, the _first_ colonisation took place when Asia was in the\n state of the \"Drift,\" or in the \"later polished Stone Age,\" or\n else the migration left Asia with the knowledge of bronze or\n iron. On the latter supposition the argument I contend for is\n conceded, and original civilisation and subsequent degeneracy\n is established. To escape this alternative the universality of\n a Stone Age in Asia as well as in Europe, must be proved or\n assumed. This assumption I maintain is essential to Sir John's\n argument.\n\nIn the first place, I beg to urge that if Sir J. Lubbuck's argument be\nwell founded, Professor Rawlinson's reconstruction of Assyrian history\ncannot be true. Now I assume that the one order of facts is as well\nestablished as the other.\n\nIf Professor Rawlinson takes back Assyrian history and corroborates\nhistory and tradition by the evidence of recent excavations to\nB.C. 2234, identifies the Erech of Scripture with the Huruk\nof the cuneiform tablets and the modern Urka; similarly identifies the\nother three cities of Nimrod; and, finally, identifies Nimrod himself\nas Bil-Nipru; and if, further, bronze implements are found (Rawlinson,\ni. 101, 123, 211), along with flint doubtless (but this was common\nthroughout the bronze age, as Sir John himself admits), at an early\nperiod;--and bronze, though comparatively rare, yet exists among the\nvery early Assyrian remains--there seems no good reason to suppose that\nthe knowledge of metals, which we know (Gen. iv. 22) to have existed\nbefore the Deluge, and which the construction of the ark presupposes,\nwas ever lost.\n\nA stone age, exclusive of metals, common to the whole world and to\nall mankind, is therefore an untenable hypothesis according to the\ntestimony of history. If it existed anywhere it must have been only\npartially, locally, and contemporaneously with this traditional\nknowledge of metals, which seems to be historically proved.[242] I\nmay at least be permitted to believe in the accuracy of Professor\nRawlinson's conclusions, and to regard them as the verdict of\nhistory: and if the historical arguments so pronounce, why should the\ngeological or pal\u00e6ontological argument override it? Is not history\nsupreme on its own ground--and if Scripture is always found in perfect\nconsistency with history, is it not as much as in strictness we should\nhave a right to expect? \"Tradidit mundum disputationi eorum\" (Eccles.\niii. 11).\n\n [242] Wilson (\"Arch\u00e6ologia of Scotland,\" 360) says, \"But after all\n it is to Asia we are forced to return for the _true source\n of nearly all our primitive arts_, nor will the canons of\n arch\u00e6ology be established on a safe foundation till the\n antiquities of that older continent have been explored and\n classified.\" Not only bronze but iron has been found in the\n East in use at an early period (_vide_ Layard, \"Nineveh and\n Babylon,\" 178-9, 194). At Nimroud, Dr Percy (_id._ 670) says\n the iron was used to economise the bronze; if so it must have\n been cheaper, and therefore probably more abundant; and he\n is of opinion that \"iron was more extensively used by the\n ancients than seems to be generally admitted.\" Philology seems\n also to establish an early common knowledge, and subsequent\n tradition of the use of metals. Mr Max M\u00fcller (ii. 45) says,\n \"That the value and usefulness of some of the metals was known\n before the separation of the Aryan race can be proved only\n by a few words; for the names of most of the metals differ\n in different countries. Yet there can be no doubt that iron\n was known, and its value appreciated, whether for defence\n or attack. Whatever its old Aryan name may have been, it is\n clear that Sanscrit 'ayas,' Latin 'ahes,' in 'ahencus' and\n even the contracted form '\u00e6s, \u00e6ris'; the Gothic 'ais,' the\n old German 'er,' and the English iron, are names cast in the\n same mould, and only slightly corroded even now by the rust of\n so many centuries.\" The Swedish Gothic race had no tradition\n but of weapons of iron. (Professor Nillson's \"Stone Age,\" p.\n 192.) I find in Captain Cook's Voyages that in Otaheite their\n word for iron is \"eure-eure.\" Germans (_apud_ Tacitus) called\n their iron lances \"framea,\" which has great resemblance to\n _ferrum_. (_Vide_ Wilson, 195.) The following passage from\n Wilson's \"Arch\u00e6ologia\" seems to prove this common terminology\n still more extensively--\"The Saxon 'gold' differs not more\n essentially from the Greek '[Greek: chrysos]' than from the\n Latin 'aurum'; iron from '[Greek: sideros]' or 'ferrum';\n _but_ when we come to examine the Celtic names of the metals\n it is otherwise. The Celtic terms are: Gold: Gael, 'or,'\n golden, 'orail'; Welsh, 'aur'; Latin, ' aurum.' Silver: Gael,\n 'airgiod,' made of silver, 'airgiodach'; Welsh, 'ariant';\n Latin, 'argentum'--derived in the Celtic from 'arg,' white, or\n milk, like the Greek '[Greek: argos],' whence they also formed\n their '[Greek: argyros].' Now, is it improbable that the Latin\n 'ferrum' and the English 'iron' spring indirectly from the\n same Celtic root? Gael, '_iarunn_'; Welsh, '_haiarn_'; Saxon,\n iron; Danish, 'iern'; Spanish, 'hierro,' which last furnishes\n no remote approximation to 'ferrum.' Nor with the older metals\n is it greatly different, as bronze, Gael, 'umha' or '_prais_';\n Welsh, 'pres,' whence our English 'brass,' a name bearing no\n very indistinct resemblance to the Roman '\u00e6s.' Lead in like\n manner has its peculiar Gaelic name 'luaidha,' like the Saxon\n 'l\u00e6d' (lead), while the Welsh 'plwm' closely approximates to\n the Latin 'plumbum.' It may undoubtedly be argued that the\n Latin is the root instead of the offshoot of these Celtic\n names, but the entire arch\u00e6ological proofs are opposed to this\n idea,\" p. 350.\n\n Sir J. Lubbock, \"Pre-historic Times\" (p. 372) says, \"The tools\n of the Tahitians when first discovered were made of stone,\n bone, shell, or wood. Of metal they had no idea. When they\n first obtained nails they mistook them for the young shoots of\n some very hard wood, and hoping that life might not be quite\n extinct, planted a number of them carefully in their gardens.\"\n\n Captain Wallis, however, speaking of the islands within the\n Polynesian group, remarks \"as an extraordinary circumstance\n that although no sort of metal was seen on any of the lately\n discovered islands, yet the nations were no sooner possessed\n of a piece of _iron_, than they began to _sharpen it_, but did\n not treat copper or brass in the same manner.\"--\"Voyages of\n English Navigators round the World,\" iii. 108.\n\n Would not these different appreciations of iron and brass be\n accounted for if we suppose iron to be the _last_ metal they\n had been traditionally acquainted with? iron being the more\n common and inexpensive metal.\n\nNow, secondly, as it happens that bronze is only a combination of\ncopper and tin in certain proportions, and as neither existed on the\nspot (in the Mesopotamian valley), it is a curious question how they\ncould have hit upon the discovery through actual experiment. Tin,\nfor instance, is only found in Cornwall, Banca (between Sumatra and\nBorneo), Spain, Saxony, and Siberia. Now, how did it enter the heads of\neven these wise Chald\u00e6ans to go to these distant countries in search\nof this metal unless they knew beforehand through tradition, that if\nprocured along with copper it would produce the useful amalgam they\nsought? True, it might have been brought to them through commerce,\nbut in that case there must have been some other race more advanced\nin civilisation than themselves. If the Phoenicians, much the same\nargument will recur. If some race in the countries where tin was\nprocured, where is it now? If it exists it must be represented by\nsome race at present or historically known to have been in a state of\nbarbarism. This, however, at this stage of the argument, would be too\nprecipitate an admission of degeneracy!\n\nNow, in a certain modified sense, I should be quite prepared to\nadmit a stone age. Nothing more probable than that in the dispersion\ncertain families would have taken only what came readiest to hand.\nThose who made long marches, and came to countries where minerals\nwere scarce, would have been in the way of losing the knowledge of\nmetals altogether, except in so far as they preserved the tradition\nof them; and this would much depend upon how far they preserved other\ntraditions.[243] Some instance should be given us--and as there are\nsavages who are still using nothing but flint, there is still the\nchance--of some set of savages who have spontaneously hit upon the\nplan of fusing different metals, or even of smelting metals which\nwere under their eye? Certainly not our supposed flint ancestors,\nwho, as Professor Nillson and Sir J. Lubbock agree, must have got\ntheir knowledge of bronze from Asia: Sir J. Lubbock inclining to an\nIndo-European, Professor Nillson to a Phoenician \"origin of the\nbronze age civilisation.\" (\"Pre-historic Times,\" p. 49.) All this\nperfectly coincides with the view I have indicated, that the contrast\narose through the divergence of the lines of the dispersion, leading\nthe tribes to varied fortunes, some losing and others retaining the\ntradition; and those who retained it eventually communicating it to\nthose who had lapsed. But then there are those unfortunate Bashkirs,\nwho, Professor Nillson tells us, are still in their stone age, and who\nhave remained Bashkirs since Herodotus described them as such 2300\nyears ago. As they have resisted the contact of civilisation so long,\none can only watch with careful curiosity the transitionary process by\nwhich they will pass by internal development from their stone to their\nbronze age.[244]\n\n [243] \"Mr Vaux of the British Museum has added the following\n interesting note on the metallurgy of the ancients. 1st, The\n earliest form of metal work appears to have been employed\n in the ornamentation of sacred vessels for temples, &c....\n Occasionally the floor or foundation of some temples was of\n brass: thus [Greek: chalkeos oudos] (Soph. OEd. Col.),\n perhaps like the room at Delphi called [Greek: la\u00efnos oudos],\n itself also a treasury.\"--Layard, \"Nineveh and Babylon,\" p.\n 673.\n\n Boulanger, \"L'antiquit\u00e9 d\u00e9voil\u00e9e par ses usage,\" (iii. 359),\n says, \"Ce sont les myst\u00e8res qui out tir\u00e9 les hommes de la vie\n sauvage pour les ramener \u00e0 la vie sociale et polic\u00e9e. Ces\n myst\u00e8res \u00e9toient un compos\u00e9 de c\u00e9r\u00e9monies religieuses ...\n _leur origine remonte_ au temps des h\u00e9ros et des demi-dieux.\"\n\n [244] \"Of all the different phases of civilisation, those which a\n nation _must pass_ before it attains the highest grade of\n development, the first rude state is the most enduring and the\n most difficult to get over.\"--Professor Nillson's \"Stone Age,\"\n 191.\n\n \"The evidence of the transition from a stone to a bronze\n age among the Egyptians _appears merely to be_ the use of\n a stone knife found in their catacombs, and used for the\n _sacred_ incision into the dead, although they used bronze and\n iron knives for ordinary purposes, and whereas the _stone_\n knife was used by the early _Hebrews_ in circumcision,\n and by the priests of Montezuma as instruments of human\n sacrifice.\"--Wilson's \"Arch\u00e6ologia,\" p. 29.\n\nI must now revert to what I at present wish to limit the discussion,\nviz. Sir J. Lubbock's views on the subject of tradition.\n\nSir John says that history can throw no light upon the question of\nthe stone and bronze age, \"because the use of metals has in all cases\npreceded that of writing.\" I should like to know whether Sir John is\nprepared to adhere to this \"dictum\" under all circumstances, inasmuch\nas, if he does, he must allow me to trace the use of metals in Assyria\neven beyond the date at which Professor Rawlinson seems actually to\nhave found evidence of their use; for (pp. 80, 198) \"in the ruins\nof Warka, the ancient Huruk or Erech\" (the city of Nimrod) we find\ninscriptions on bricks of the date of the reign of Urukh or Orchamus,\nwho, according to classical tradition, was the seventh in succession\nfrom Bel or Nimrod; which tradition, says Rawlinson (p. 189), \"accords\nvery curiously with the information derived from the inscriptions.\"\nThere is nothing to indicate that the bricks here discovered were\nthe first bricks ever _inscribed_; on the contrary, wherever we find\nbricks and metals there will be a _prima facie_ presumption as to their\nprevious use.[245] Only upon Sir John Lubbock's \"dictum,\" finding\nevidence of writing at this date, we must necessarily conclude that\nthe use of metals preceded it. This would bring us well up the seven\nreigns, and into close contact with the time of Nimrod.\n\n [245] It amounts to this, that we are requested first of all to\n discard and absolutely exclude all that we do know through\n direct historical evidence of our origin, and to determine it\n merely by scientific induction.\n\n Sir J. Lubbock says in his introduction to Professor Nillson's\n \"Stone Age\" (which is a summary of the whole question), \"I\n have purposely avoided all reference to history, all use of\n historical data, because I have been _particularly anxious\n to show_ that in arch\u00e6ology we can arrive at definite and\n satisfactory conclusions, on independent grounds, without any\n assistance from history; consequently regarding times before\n writing was invented, and therefore before written history had\n commenced\" (p. xlii.) Compare with _supra_, ch. vii.\n\n \"Nor,\" says Sir J. Lubbock (p. 335), \"will tradition supply the\n place of history. At best it is untrustworthy and shortlived. Thus\n in 1770 the New Zealanders had no recollection of Tasman's visit.\n Yet this took place in 1643, less than one hundred and thirty\n years before, and must have been to them an event of the greatest\n possible importance and interest.... I do not mean to say that\n tradition would never preserve for a long period the memory of any\n remarkable event. The above-mentioned facts (De Soto's expedition\n is also referred to) prove only that it will not always do so; but\n it is unnecessary for us to discuss this question, as there is in\n Europe no tradition of the Stone Age, and when arrow-heads are\n found the ignorant peasantry refer them to the elves or fairies;\n stone axes are regarded as thunderbolts, and are used not only in\n Europe but also in various other parts of the world for magical\n purposes\" (p. 336).\n\n _\"Relieved\" then_ \"from _the embarrassing interference of\n tradition_, the arch\u00e6ologist can only follow the methods which have\n been so successfully pursued in geology\" (p. 336).[246]\n\nThis is partly a limitation of the question to oral tradition, and\npartly an anticipated denial of what I shall now venture to assert,\nnamely, that we can only look for the savages' traditions of things\nknown to them before they were savages, religious impressions which\nhave not been effaced from their minds, legends connected with\ntheir race, facts which have determined their destiny. The very\ncharacteristic of the savage is that he lives only for the present;\nthat he has little memory for the past, and no forecast for the future;\nthat his mind is stricken with a hopeless sterility and fixedness, so\nthat he only seems to remember things that are bred in the bone, and\nthe tradition of which he cannot divest himself.[247]\n\n [246] \"It must not be forgot to the honour of the Babylonians that\n they are acknowledged, by all antiquity, to have been the\n first who made use of writing in their public and judicial\n acts, but at what period it is not known.\"--Goguet, \"Origin of\n Laws,\" i. 45.\n\n Diodorus, however, says of the Egyptians (_vide_ p. 48),\n \"_Menes_ without doubt has been esteemed the first legislator\n of Egypt, _because_ he was the first who put his _laws\n in writing_. For before him Vulcan, Helius, and Osiris\n (_vide ante_, p. 189) had given laws to\n Egypt.\"--Diod. l. 1, 17-18.\n\n But also it must be recollected that the copper mines of Egypt\n were worked from the earliest period.\n\n [247] But there are savages and savages; or rather there are savages\n who are strictly such, and savages who have still the germ of\n life and who are more properly distinguished as barbarians.\n _Vide ante_, p. 285, De Maistre's definition of the\n barbarian.\n\nAnd so the ignorant peasantry when these flints were first dug up,\nalthough they had \"no tradition,\" rushed instinctively upon these\nhatchets and considered them magical, apparently on no better grounds\nthan that they had belonged to a former race of men whom they\nassociated with elves and fairies. Was not this their way of saying\nwith Cicero, \"Antiquitas proxime accedit ad deos.\"[248]\n\n [248] I find curious testimony to the belief in M. Maupertius'\n (Pinkerton, i. 252-4) account of an expedition of thirty\n leagues which he was induced to make into the interior of\n Lapland, by the accounts which he had received of a monument\n which the Laplanders \"looked upon as the wonder of their\n country, and in which they conceived was _contained the\n knowledge of everything_ of which they were ignorant.\" In\n the end a monument was found bearing on it the appearance of\n great antiquity, and an inscription which M. Celsius, his\n companion (\"very well acquainted with the Runic\"), could\n not read. M. Maupertius indeed says, \"If the tradition of\n the country be consulted, all the Laplanders assure us that\n they are characters of great antiquity, containing valuable\n secrets; but what can one believe in regard to antiquity from\n those people who do not even know their own age, and who\n for the greater part are ignorant who were their mothers.\"\n Without supposing that the mysterious stone actually concealed\n any valuable and recondite knowledge, I am still struck\n by this attestation to the belief that antiquity shrouded\n such secrets; and if, which does not altogether accord with\n other accounts, the Lapps are as ignorant as they are here\n represented, then it would seem to be true that when mankind\n lose the knowledge of everything else, they still retain\n the tradition of their loss and the knowledge of their\n degradation. Concerning the superstitious veneration for stone\n arrow-heads very generally diffused, _vide_ Mr E. T. Stevens'\n \"Flint Chips\" (Salisbury, 1870, p. 89.)\n\nAnd so far from tradition supplying us with no clue to solve the\nproblem of the stone age, does it not in this way suggest a very\ndecided though an antagonistic view to that of Sir John Lubbock.\nThe superstitious regard of the peasantry for these newly found\nrelics--which I presume came under Sir John's own observation when\nexploring the northern coast-finds--is really very curious, because it\nshows that their ideas and feelings in these matters were, after the\nlapse of at any rate a thousand years, identical with those of their\nancestors. In evidence of which I adduce the following passage from\nProfessor Nillson, having reference to the legend of the \"guse arrows\"\nor \"Orvar Odd's saga\":--\n\n \"This ancient romance shows very clearly that at the time when\n it was composed, neither arrows, nor other weapons of stone were\n in common use as weapons, but _that even then_ the opinion was\n _generally current_ that these stone weapons, which owed their\n existence to the dwarf race skilled in sorcery, were endowed with a\n magic power against witches and witchcraft which no other weapons\n possessed.\"--Professor Nillson, \"Stone Age,\" p. 199.\n\nBut this suggests the further reflection, whether this stone age among\ncertain tribes was not as much in rejection as in ignorance of metals.\nProfessor Nillson (p. 97, 98) shows that flint was used for _sacred_\nsacrificial purposes by the Jews, Egyptians, Phoenicians, and Latins,\nlong after they were acquainted with weapons of metal. Among these\nthe traditional idea about flint, whatever it was, was kept in due\nsubordination; but among tribes that had sunk into savagery it is\nconceivable that it may have become a superstition, and dominated.\n\nI am not sure that we do not underrate the capacity for tradition among\nsavages where it has once taken hold; still, if it had been a question\nof mere savages, at the first glance I should have been disposed to\nagree with Sir John Lubbock. But let us take the case of Tasman, which\nSir John puts forward as a sort of crucial case, and which may be\naccepted as such, seeing that the New Zealanders may fairly claim to be\nregarded as \"barbarians.\"[249]\n\n [249] _Vide_ Sir George Grey's \"Polynesian Mythology,\" p. xiii.;\n F. A. Weld's (Governor of Western Australia) \"Notes on New\n Zealand,\" pp. 15, 60.\n\nIn the first place, I find the following in a note to \"Cook's Voyages\"\n(Smith, 1846):--\"Mr Polack, in his 'Narrative of Travels and Adventures\nduring a residence in New Zealand between the years 1831-37,' collected\nall the particulars relating to Cook's brush with the natives, 1769, on\nthe spot.\"\n\nNext, let us see what Cook says on the subject of Tasman (\"Cook's\nVoyages,\" i. 164)--\n\n \"But the Indians still continued _near the ship_, rowing round many\n times [hardly the most favourable conditions under which to recover\n a tradition], conversing with Tupia [the Otaheitan interpreter]\n chiefly concerning the traditions they had among them with respect\n to the antiquities of their country. To this subject they were led\n by the inquiries which Tupia had been directed to make, whether\n they had ever seen such a vessel as ours, or had ever heard that\n any such had been on their coast. These inquiries were all answered\n in the negative, _so that_ tradition has preserved among them no\n memorial of Tasman, though by an observation made this day we find\n we are _only fifteen_ miles south of Murderers' Bay!\"\n\nEvidently the shrewd and gallant investigator himself was not satisfied\nwith the cross-examination, for we find at p. 170--\n\n \"When we were under sail one old man, Topaa [a native], came on\n board to take leave of us; and as we were still desirous of making\n further inquiries whether any memory of Tasman had been preserved\n among their people, Tupia was directed to ask him whether he had\n ever heard that such a vessel as ours had before visited the\n country. To this he replied in the negative; but said that _his\n ancestors had told him_ there had once come to this place a _small_\n vessel from a distant country called Ulimaroa, in which were _four_\n men, who upon coming on shore were _all killed_. Upon being asked\n where this distant land lay he pointed to the northward.\"\n\nBut what does Tasman himself say?--\n\n \"On the 17th December these savages began to grow a little bolder\n and more familiar, insomuch that at last they ventured on board\n the _Heemskirk_, in order to trade with those in the vessel. As\n soon as I perceived it, being apprehensive that they might attempt\n to surprise that ship, _I sent my shallop_, with seven men, to\n put the people in the _Heemskirk_ on their guard, and to direct\n them not to place any confidence in these people. My seven men,\n being _without arms_, were attacked by these savages, who _killed\n three_ of the seven, and _forced_ the other _four_ to swim for\n their lives; _which_ occasioned my giving that place the name of\n the Bay of Murderers.[250] Our ship's company _would undoubtedly_\n have taken a severe revenge if the rough weather had not prevented\n them.\"--_Tasman's Voyage of Discovery, Pinkerton_, xi.\n\n [250] This was a recognition on Tasman's part that there was a\n violation of the law of nations, which he evidently considered\n ought to have been recognised by these people. For killing\n unarmed men he does not stigmatise them as savages, but\n as murderers, which name has clung to the spot and to the\n transaction to this day.\n\nNow, I submit that this old man Topaa's recollection of the tradition\nof an event which occurred one hundred and thirty years before his\ntime, was much more perfect than Captain Cook's, Sir Joseph Banks', Dr\nSolander's, and Sir J. Lubbock's recollection of the same event from\ngeographical records.\n\nEmboldened by this instance of the fallibility of scientific men, I\nnow proceed to question the truth of the two following propositions of\nSir J. Lubbock, after which I shall ask to be allowed to enunciate a\nproposition of my own.\n\nFirst, Sir J. Lubbock says: \"It has been asserted over and over again\nthat there is no race of man so degraded as to be entirely without a\nreligion--without some idea of the Deity. So far from this being true,\nthe very reverse is the case\" (p. 467).[251]\n\n [251] I am aware that what I have opposed to Sir J. Lubbock is only\n the contrary and not the contradictory of his proposition.\n I find, however, that a very competent authority, Wilson,\n \"Arch\u00e6ology and Pre-historic Annals of Scotland,\" p. 42, says:\n \"No people, however rude or debased be their state, have yet\n been met with so degraded to the level of the brutes as to\n entertain no notion of a Supreme Being, or no anticipation\n of a future state.\" \"All polytheism is based on monotheism;\n idolatry implies religious feeling.\"--_Bunsen's Egypt_, iv.\n 69. But in truth it was not a priest or a missionary who\n first enunciated the contradictory of Sir John Lubbock's\n proposition--it was Cicero. \"Itaque ex tot generibus nullum\n est animal, pr\u00e6ter hominem, quod habeat notitiam aliquam dei:\n ipsisque in hominibus nulla gens est, neque _tam immansueta_,\n neque _tam fera_, qu\u00e6 non _etiam si ignoret qualem habere deum\n deceat_, tamen _habendum sciat_.\" De Legibus; i. 8.\n\nSecond, \"It is a common opinion that savages are, as a general rule,\nonly the miserable remnants of nations once more civilised; but\nalthough there are some well-established cases of national decay, there\nis no scientific evidence which would justify us in asserting that this\nis generally the case\" (p. 337).\n\nIn opposition to the first proposition, I maintain that there is no\nrace of men so degraded as to be without some vestige of religion.\n\nAnd in opposition to the second, I assert that if they have a vestige\nof religion, and nothing else, they have still that which will convict\nthem of degeneracy.\n\nFirst, To say that a savage has no idea of the Deity, is to say merely\nthat he is a savage; and it appears to me that this extinction of all\nknowledge of the Deity among a people, precisely marks the point where\nthe barbarian lapses into the savage.\n\nTaking the range of the authorities quoted by Sir J. Lubbock,[252]\nI find a great concurrence of testimony to the fact that there is\nsome vestige of religion. One only--whose authority on any other\npoint incidental to African travel I should regard as of the highest\nvalue--Captain Richard Burton, asserts without qualification, and in\nlanguage sufficiently explicit, that \"some of the tribes of the lake\ndistrict of Central Africa admit neither God, nor angel, nor devil.\"\nOthers assert the same negatively--they did not come upon any signs of\nreligion, any external observances, any trace of ceremonial worship.\nFor instance, it is said that the Tasmanians had no word for a Creator\n(p. 468, Lubbock), which need not excite surprise, as it is also said\nof them that they were incapable of forming any abstract ideas at all\n(p. 355, Lubbock). Again, in many of those cases where it is more or\nless roundly asserted that there is no vestige of religion, we find it\nplainly intimated that there is a belief in the devil, _e.g._ Lubbock,\np. 469.\n\n [252] I should not have considered it necessary to have entered so\n elaborately into this argument, if I had previously read the\n chapter on Animism in Mr Tylor's \"Primitive Culture.\" The\n instances, however, which follow will stand as supplementary.\n\n \"The Tonpinambas of Brazil had _no religion_, though if the name is\n applied '\u00e0 des notions fantastiques d'\u00eatres surnaturals et puissans\n on ne sauroit nier qu'ils n'eussent une croyance religieuse et\n _m\u00eame une sorte_ de culte exterieur.'\"--_Freycinet_, i. 153.\n\nNow, although the devil may, and in many instances no doubt has,[253]\nmade a special revelation of himself to his votaries, the ordinary\nchannel of information concerning him is through tradition, and through\nthe tradition of the fall of man.\n\n [253] Sir J. Lubbock says (p. 370) of the Feegee islanders: \"They\n did not worship idols, but many of the priests seem to have\n really thought that they had been in actual communication with\n the Atona; and some of the early missionaries were inclined\n to believe that Satan may have been permitted to practise a\n deception upon them, in order to strengthen his power. However\n extraordinary this may appear, the same was the case in\n Tahiti.\"\n\nBut I ask further of those who dispute this, If savages are found with\nthis fear of the supernatural world, after they have lost the idea of\nGod, how do they get it? If not from tradition, then from reflection?\nBut savages do not reason (Lubbock, p. 465). Moreover, at p. 470, Sir\nJ. Lubbock says, what really brings us very nearly to agreement, \"How,\nfor instance, can a people who are unable to count their own fingers,\npossibly raise their minds so far as to admit even the rudiments of\na religion?\" This is said with reference to a previous allegation,\n\"That those who assert that even the lowest savages believe in a\nDeity, affirm that which is entirely contrary to the evidence\" (p.\n470). But there is a great concurrence of evidence that \"even the\nlowest savages\" believe in the devil. Belief in the devil involves a\nrealisation more or less obscure of the fallen angel, of the Spirit\nof Evil--and this for the savage who \"cannot count his fingers\" is\nas great an intellectual effort as would be, merely considered as an\nintellectual effort, a belief in the Deity. On any theory of growth or\ndevelopment how could he (\"the lowest savage\") have got the idea?\n\nSeveral writers who are quoted, whilst they deny the existence of any\nnotion of religion among a particular people, mention facts which are\nincompatible with that statement. I may also say, parenthetically, that\nto detect or elicit the sentiment of religion in others, one must have\nsomething of the sentiment in ourselves; _e.g._ there is the instance\nof Kolben (Lubbock, p. 469), \"who, _in spite_ of the assertions of the\nnatives themselves, _felt quite sure_ that certain dances _must be_ of\na religious character, let the Hottentots say what they will.\" Now I\nmust say there is great _\u00e0 priori_ probability in the truth of Kolben's\nconviction, although he was probably led to it merely by the insight of\nhis own mind. Let it be taken in connection with the following evidence\nin Washington Irving's \"Life of Columbus,\" iii. 122-124:--\n\n \"The _dances_ to which the natives seemed so immoderately addicted,\n and which had been _at first_ considered by the Spaniards mere\n idle pastimes, were _found_ to be often _ceremonials of a serious\n and mystic character_.\" Again--\"Peter Martyn observes that they\n performed these dances to the chant of certain metres and ballads\n _handed down from_ generation to generation, in which were\n rehearsed the deeds of their ancestors. Some of these ballads were\n of a _sacred_ character, containing their _traditional_ notions of\n theology, and the superstitions and fables which comprised their\n religious creeds.\"\n\nPritchard, \"Researches into Phys. Hist. of Man\" (i. p. 205), quoting\nOldendorp, and speaking of the African negroes, says:--\"At the annual\nharvest feast, which _nearly all_ the nations of Guinea solemnise,\nthank-offerings are brought to the Deity. These festivals are days of\nrejoicing, which the negroes pass with feasting and dancing.\" _Vide_\nalso \"Hist. of Indian Tribes of North America, 120 portraits from the\nInd. Gal. in Depart. of War at Washington, by T. M'Kenney (late Ind.\nDep. Wash.) and J. Hall of Cincinnati\" (Philadelphia, 1837).\n\n \"Dancing is among the most prominent of the aboriginal\n _ceremonies_; there is no tribe in which it is not practised. The\n Indians have their _war_ dance and their _peace_ dance, their dance\n of _mourning for the dead_, their _begging_ dance, their pipe\n dance, their green-corn dance, and their Wabana (an offering to\n the devil). Each of these is distinguished by some peculiarity ...\n though to a stranger they appear much alike, except the last....\n It is a ceremony and not a recreation, and is conducted with a\n seriousness belonging to an important public duty.\"\n\nAt p. 437 (Lubbock) it is said, \"Admiral Fitzroy never witnessed\nor heard of any act of a decidedly religious character among the\nFuegians.\" Still, as Sir John admits, \"some of the natives suppose\nthat there is a great black man in the woods who knows everything, and\ncannot be escaped.\" If this is not the devil, it looks very like him.\nAgain, p. 469, Mr Mathews says, speaking of the Fuegians, \"he sometimes\nheard a great howling or lamentation about _sunrise_ in the morning;\nand upon asking Jemmy Button what occasioned the outcry, he could\nobtain no satisfactory answer; the boy only saying, 'people very sad,\ncry very much.'\" Upon which Sir John remarks, \"This appears so natural\nand sufficient an explanation, that why the outcry should be 'supposed\nto be devotional' I must confess myself unable to see\" (469).\n\nNow, if this was not their traditional notion and mode of prayer,\ndegraded according to the measure of their degeneracy, the degeneracy\nis at least proved in another way, for, being still reasonable beings,\nthey had, according to the account, congregated together to send up\na lamentation, which, if it was not prayer, could be likened only to\nthe moonlight howling of wolves. This mode of prayer resembles what\nFather Loyer and the missionary Oldendorp (Pritchard, i. 197) tells\nus of the negroes. Father Loyer \"declares that they have a belief in\na universally powerful Being, and to him they address prayers. Every\nmorning after _they rise_ they go to the river side to wash, and\nthrowing a handful of water on their head, or pouring sand with it\nto express their humility, they join their hands and then open them,\nwhisper softly the word 'exsuvais.'\" Oldendorp says (p. 202): \"The\nnegroes profess their dependence on the Deity, ... they pray _at the\nrising_ and setting of the sun,[254] on eating and drinking, and when\nthey go to war.\" Compare also Helps' \"Spanish Conquest in America,\" i.\n285:--\n\n \"The worship of the Peruvians was not the mere worship of the\n sun alone as of the most beautiful and powerful thing which they\n beheld; but they had _also_ a worship of a far more elevated and\n refined nature, addressed to Pachacamac, the soul of the universe,\n _whom_ they hardly dared to name; and when they were obliged to\n name this Being, they did so inclining the head and the whole body,\n now _lifting_ up the eyes to heaven, now lowering them to the\n ground, and _giving kisses in the air_. To Pachacamac they made\n no temple and offered no sacrifices, but they adored him in their\n hearts.\"[255]\n\n [254] After all, is there not something in their mode of prayer\n which recalls the language of Psalm cxl., \"Dirigatur oratio\n mea sicut incensum in conspectu tuo: _elevatio manuum mearum\n sacrificium vespertinum_.\"\n\n If the reader will refer to Bunsen's \"Egypt,\" &c. vol. i.\n p. 497, he will find \"a man with uplifted arms\" as the\n ideographic sign (19) for \"to praise, glorification,\" which\n is in evidence not only that it was the natural but the\n traditional mode.\n\n [255] Garcilasso de la Vega's authority is so unimpeachable, and at\n the same time his testimony is so unmistakable on this point,\n that it will be as well to give his own words, as he was well\n acquainted with the Peruvian traditions, through his mother,\n who was one of the Yncas. He adds: \"When the Indians were\n asked who Pachacamac was, they replied that he it was who gave\n life to the universe, and supported it; but that they knew him\n not, for they had never _seen_ him, and that for this reason\n they did not build temples to him, nor offer him sacrifices;\n but that they worshipped him in their hearts (mentally),\n and considered him to be an _unknown God_.... From this it\n is clear, that these Indians considered him to be the maker\n of all things.\" Hakluyt ed. of Garcil. de la Vega's \"Royal\n Commentaries of the Yncas,\" ed. C. Markham, 1869, i. 107. He\n further remarks that, whereas they hesitated to pronounce the\n name of Pachacamac, \"they spoke of the sun on every occasion.\"\n\n Compare the accounts we have of the Guanches. M. Pegot Ogier,\n \"The Fortunate Isles\" (Canaries), 1871, says (p. 283), that\n a comparison of the Chronicles of the Conquest shows that,\n \"far from being idolaters, the Guanches worshipped one God,\n the Creator and Preserver of the world,\" and that (p. 282),\n \"in their worship, they _raised their hands_ to heaven, and\n sacrificed on the mountains by pouring milk on the ground\n from a _height_; their milk was carried in a sacred vase\n called _ganigo_.\" The name of their god, \"Achoron Achaman\"\n = \"He who upholds the heaven and earth,\" and \"Achuhuyahan\n Achuhucanac\" = \"He who sustains every one,\" has resemblances\n with \"Pachacamac\" = \"Pacha,\" the earth; and \"camac\" participle\n of \"camani,\" \"I create.\"--(C. Markham, Hakluyt ed. of Garcil.\n de la Vega, i. 101.)\n\nAt p. 468 Sir John somewhat too roundly asserts that \"Dr Hooker tells\nus that the Lepchas of Northern India have _no religion_.\"\n\nTurning to Dr Hooker's \"Himalayan Journal,\" I find (i. 135), \"The\nLepchas profess no religion, _though_ acknowledging the existence of\ngood and bad spirits.... Both Lepchas and Limboos _had, before the_\nintroduction of Lama Boodhism from Tibet, many features in common with\nthe natives of Arracan, especially in _their creed_, _sacrifices_,\nfaith in omens, worship of many spirits, absence of idols, and of the\ndoctrine of metempsychosis\" (p. 140). We have already seen (_supra_, p.\n224) that they had a very distinct tradition of the Deluge; indeed\nthere is much in the account of them which reminds us of the primitive\nmonotheism.\n\nSo, too, Sir John asserts, p. 469, \"Once more Dr Hooker states that\nthe Khasias, an Indian tribe, _had no religion_. Col. Yule, on the\ncontrary, says that they have, but he admits that breaking hens' eggs\nis the principal part of their religious practice.\"\n\nIt is true that Dr Hooker says (ii. 276), \"The Khasias are\nsuperstitious, but have no religion;\" he adds, however, \"_like the\nLepchas, they believe in a Supreme Being_, and in deities of the\ngrove, cave, and stream.\" It seems, however, that the only outward\nmanifestation of their religion is in \"breaking hens' eggs\"! What\ncan be more ludicrous! yet here, too, would seem to be a vestige of\nprimitive tradition. We know (_vide_ Wilkinson, \"Ancient Egyptians,\"\nsecond series) how primitive truth was concealed under material\nsymbols. Gainet (i. 127) also says, \"Even upon the hypothesis that\nthese fragments of the Egyptian cosmogony were lost, one of the\nhieroglyphics which this people has left us would suffice to convince\nus of their belief in a Creator. It is the image of the god Kneph,\nwhom they represent with _an egg_ in his mouth; _this egg_ being the\nnatural image of the world taking its birth from this divinity.\" Again,\np. 115, \"In the mysteries of Bacchus[256] the dogma of the Creation\nwas proposed under the emblem of that celebrated _egg_, of which the\npoets have so often spoken, which contained the germ of all things.\"\n\"_The egg_,\" says Plutarch, \"is consecrated to the sacred ceremonies of\nBacchus, as a representation of the Author of nature who produces and\ncomprehends all things in himself.\" There is a passage in Athenagoras\nto the same effect.\n\n [256] Compare with pp. 156, 214.\n\nSuperstitions were also connected with cocks and hens in Khasia.\nWhether these again were connected with the symbolical representation\nof the egg can only be conjectured. It may possibly be that the\nrepresentation had a common origin with the cock of Apollo and the\ncock of \u00c6sculapius, if, indeed, these were not also originally derived\nfrom the same primal conception. This would be only to renew the old\nclassical dispute as to whether the hen proceeded from the egg, or the\negg from the hen, which I take to be only the form in which the great\nquestion of the First Cause was debated by the Gentile world after\ntheir ideas of a Creator had become indistinct, and with reference to\nthis ancient symbol. However that may be, I wish to point out that\nthis ceremonial use of the cock may be traced in Europe, Asia, and\nAfrica: _e.g. Asia_--\"The Lepchas scatter eggs and pebbles over the\ngraves of their friends.... Among the Limboos, the priests of a higher\norder than the Lepcha, Bijoras officiate at marriages, when a _cock_\nis put into the bride-groom's hands, and a _hen_ into those of the\nbride. The Phedangbo then cuts off the birds' heads, when the blood\nis caught in a plantain leaf, and runs into pools, from which omens\nare drawn\" (Dr Hooker, \"Himalayan Journal,\" i. 238). _Africa_--_vide_\nPritchard, \"Phys. Hist. of Man,\" i. 203, 204, 208: \"Even the dead are\nnot buried without sacrifices. A white hen is slain by the priest\nbefore the corpse comes to the grave, and the bier whereon the body\nlies is sprinkled with its blood. This custom was introduced by the\nnation of Kagraut.\" _Europe_--If any one will turn to the _Illustrated\nLondon News_ of Nov. 14, 1868, he will find an account and illustration\nof a local ceremony peculiar to the village of Gorbio in the Maritime\nAlps, in which the priest, on a particular day in the year, is solemnly\npresented with four cocks hung upon a halberd--together with an apple\nby the bachelors and spinsters of the village--from which it would seem\nto have had originally some connection, as we have seen above, with a\nmarriage ceremony. Wilson (\"Arch\u00e6ologia\") remarks that the custom of\n\"Easter, or, in the north, Paste eggs (Pasch), was very prevalent in\nthe north.\"[257]\n\n [257] Compare the following passage in the Bishop of Chalons' \"Le\n Monde et l'Homme Primitif\" (with reference to Gen. i.--the\n Creation). At p. 11 the Bishop says, \"That when the Book\n of the Law of Manou and the Mahabarata relate that God,\n who contains within Himself his own principle in the first\n instance, the water, and gave it fecundity, and that the\n produce of this fecundity became _an egg_, ... can we see in\n this anything else than the fantastic translation of this\n phrase of Scripture, 'L'esprit de Dieu _couvait_ la surface\n des eaux--Rouha Elohim meharephet hal pene hamma\u00efm.'\" _Vide_\n also p. 11 (as to universality of tradition) and p. 34 as to\n text also. J. G. Vance (\"Arch\u00e6ol.\" xix.) says, upon the\n mundane egg \"the whole system of ancient religion was based\"\n (J. B. Waring, \"Stone Monuments of Remote Ages,\" p. 5, 1870).\n\nIt strikes me that it would be difficult to assign a Christian\norigin for the custom. It must then have been a custom which the\nChurch diverted or sanctioned in giving it an innocent or Christian\napplication; in which case, in so far as it is pagan, it may possibly\nbe traced to a common origin with the practices in Khasia among the\nLepchas.\n\nIt would extend the inquiry too far to follow Sir J. Lubbock through\nall the cases adduced by him. I will conclude, therefore, with his\naccount of the Andaman islander--who, with the Australians, Esquimaux,\nand Fuegians, dispute the point of being considered the lowest of\nmankind. It is said of the Andamans, \"that they have no idea of\na Supreme Being, no religion, or any belief in a future state of\nexistence\" (p. 346). It is, however, casually mentioned that, \"after\ndeath, the corpse is buried in a sitting posture.\" Now this mode of\nburial is common to them with Esquimaux (p. 409), the Australians (p.\n353), the Maories (p. 369), and the natives of the Feegee Islands\n(p. 361), among whom we seem to get a clue to this strange mode of\nburial; \"the fact is, _they_ (the Feegee islanders) not only believe\nin a future state, but are persuaded that as they leave this life, so\nwill they rise again.\" Sir J. Lubbock, in his \"Introduction to Prof.\nNillson\" (xxxiii.), says that this was the common mode of burial in\nthe Stone Age; and Prescott (\"Hist. of Mexico,\" ii. 485) says, \"Who\ncan doubt the existence of an affinity, or at least an intercourse,\nbetween tribes, who had _the same strange habit of burying the dead in\na sitting position_, as was practised to some extent by most if _not\nall_ of the aborigines from Canada to Patagonia?\"[258] But not only may\nit be presumed that they had an affinity and intercourse, but a common\nreligious idea. It may be doubted then whether even the naked Andaman\nis so entirely destitute of all religious impressions as he is supposed\nto be.\n\n [258] I find, in _Arch\u00e6ological Journal_, No. 89, 1866, p. 27,\n that corpses in a sitting posture were found under the long\n cromlechs in South Jutland.\n\nI have already urged that if any vestiges of religion remain they must\nbe considered as evidence of tradition and proof of degeneracy. I think\nthe following reflection will tend to clench this argument.\n\nAlthough it is obscure and disputed to what extent certain savages\ndo retain glimmerings of religion, it is certain and admitted that\nsome savages have religion and a religious ceremonial. Now, as Sir J.\nLubbock says, \"How, for instance, can a people who are unable to count\nupon their fingers possibly raise their minds so far as to admit even\nthe rudiments of religion.\" It is clear, then, that the lowest grade\nof mankind did not invent it, how then did the higher grade get it,\n\"assuming always the unity of the human race\"?\n\nFinally, if man commenced with the knowledge of the devil, how did\nthey proceed on to the idea of God? \"The first idea of a God is almost\nalways as an evil spirit\" (Lubbock, p. 468). How then did they advance\nto the knowledge of the God of purity and love, or even of \"the Great\nSpirit\" of the Indians?[259]\n\n [259] _Vide_ Dr Newman's \"Grammar of Assent,\" p. 386, _et seq._\n\nLet us at least know whether it is supposed that this was the order\nof knowledge ordained by Divine Providence, or whether it is believed\nthat man in this manner developed the idea of God out of his own\nconsciousness, his primitive, or perhaps innate, idea being, the\nconception of evil and of the evil spirit.[260] Sir John says (p.\n487), \"There are no just grounds for expecting man to be ever endued\nwith a sixth sense.\" But why not? If by his own mental vigour he can\nout of the primitive idea of evil generate the idea of good--what may\nwe not expect?\n\n [260] _Per contra_, I invite Sir J. Lubbock's attention to the\n following passage from Mr Gladstone's \"Homer\" (ii. 44), \"As\n _the derivative idea_ of sin depended upon that of _goodness_,\n and as the shadow ceases to be visible when the object\n shadowed has become more dim, we might well expect that the\n contraction and obscuration of the true idea of goodness\n would bring about a more than proportionate loss of knowledge\n concerning the true nature of evil. The impersonation of evil\n could only be upheld in a lively or effectual manner as the\n opposite of the impersonation of good; and when the moral\n standard of Godhead had so greatly degenerated, as we find\n to be the case even in the works of Homer, the negation of\n that standard could not but cease to be either interesting\n or intelligible. Accordingly we find that the _process of\n disintegration_, followed by that of arbitrary reassortment\n and combination of elements, had proceeded to a more advanced\n stage _with respect to the tradition of the evil one_ than in\n the other cases.\"\n\nYet, if any one will compare the evidence which Sir John has collected,\nhe will come, I think, to the conclusion, that the invention and\nadaptability of the savage is very slight indeed. He will find (p.\n350) that the inhabitants of Botany Bay had fish-hooks, but no nets;\nthose of Western Australia, nets but not hooks; that those who had the\nthrowing-stick and boomerang, were ignorant both of slings and bows\nand arrows; that those who had retained the knowledge of the bow did\nnot pass on to the use of the bola; that the northern tribes visited by\nKane were skilful in the capture of birds with nets, yet were entirely\nignorant of fishing (452); that the nearest approach to the South\nAmerican bola is among the Esquimaux (450); that the throwing-stick is\ncommon only to the widely distant Esquimaux, Australians, and some of\nthe Brazilian tribes (_id._); that the \"sumpitan\" or blowpipe of the\nMalays occurs only in the valley of the Amazons. Does not this point\nto a traditional knowledge of these things? Nevertheless, this mass of\nevidence seems to have produced the very opposite conviction with Sir\nJ. Lubbock.\n\n\"On the whole, then, from a review of all these and other similar\nfacts which _might have been_ mentioned, it seems to me most probable\nthat many of the simpler weapons, implements, &c., have been invented\nindependently by various savage tribes, although there are no doubt\nalso cases in which they have been borrowed by one tribe from another\"\n(p. 451). Instances in which they have been borrowed from each other\nare not infrequent, but then neither are they inconsistent with the\ntheory of tradition; but the instances of invention _are limited to\none_. (See for instance p. 394.) At p. 394 we find--\"Although they (the\nEsquimaux) had no knowledge of pottery, Captain Cook saw at Unalashka\nvessels \"of flat stone, with sides of clay, not unlike a standing pye.\"\nWe here obtain an idea of the manner in which the knowledge of pottery\n_may have been_ developed. After using clay to raise the sides of\ntheir stone vessels, it _would_ naturally occur to them, that the same\nsubstance would serve for the bottom also, and thus the use of stone\n_might be_ replaced by a more convenient material.\"\n\nRecollecting how roast pig came to be discovered, it cannot be said\nto be impossible that pottery may thus have been invented; but in\nthis instance it might equally have been the rough substitute for the\npottery of their recollection. Besides, the proof is wanting that they\never did pass on to the invention of pottery. It may, for anything we\nknow to the contrary, be in this inchoate state amongst them still.\n\nNow, until further evidence is forthcoming, I shall take the liberty of\nmaintaining that savages seem to show no inventive faculty or power of\nrecovery in themselves.[261] Whatever they possess seems to be limited\nto what they have retained of primitive civilisation, and what they\nhave retained of civilisation seems exactly in proportion to what they\nhave retained of primitive religion.\n\n [261] Sir J. Lubbock (\"Pre-historic Times,\" p. 337) says, \"The\n largest erection in Tahiti was constructed by the generation\n living at the time of Captain Cook's visit, and the practice\n of cannibalism had been recently abandoned.\" For these\n statements he refers to Forster, \"Observations made during\n a Voyage round the World,\" p. 327, a work I have not at\n hand, and also Ellis, \"Polynesian Researches,\" ii. p. 29. I\n have made the reference to the latter, but I do not find a\n syllable about cannibalism; and as to the other point Ellis\n says, \"In the bottom of every valley, even to the recesses\n in the mountains ... stone pavements of their dwellings and\n courtyards, foundations of houses and ruins of family temples,\n _are numerous_.... _All these relics_ are of the _same kind_\n as those observed among the nations at the time of _their\n discovery_, evidently proving that they belong to the same\n race, though to a more populous era of their history.\" I\n draw attention to this inadvertence, as the above instances\n (two) are the most important of the four which Sir J. Lubbock\n adduces in support of his view. _Vide_ Appendix.\n\nIn supporting this proposition I shall hardly have occasion to go\nbeyond the four corners of Sir J. Lubbock's \"Pre-historic Times.\"\n\nIt is indeed a moot point with the travellers and ethnologists who have\ngiven their attention to the subject, which race of savages is \"the\nlowest in the scale of civilisation.\" In this competitive examination\na concurrence of opinion seems to decide in favour of the Fuegian, who\nat any rate is miserable enough, living, when better food fails him, on\nraw and putrid flesh, eked out with cannibalism; and whose clothing (in\nCentral Fuego) consists \"in a scrap of otter skin, about as large as a\npocket handkerchief, laced across the breast with strings, and shifted\naccording to the wind\" (Darwin, _apud_ Lubbock). Their religion, as we\nhave just seen, consists in a vague apprehension of the black man who\nlives up in the woods--and their prayer is something slightly elevated\nabove the howl of the wolf. Their civilisation, therefore, like their\nreligion, may be considered to be at a \"minimum.\" The Australians\nhave been called \"the miserablest people in the world\" (p. 445). They\nare said to have \"no religion or any kind of prayer, but most of them\nbelieve in evil spirits, and all have a dread of witchcraft\" (p. 353).\nHere again we see their civilisation degraded _pari-passu_ with their\nreligious belief--so, too, with the Andaman (_vide supra_) and the\nTasmanian (p. 355).\n\nWhen, however, we come to the inhabitants of the Feegee Islands,\nnot greatly different from the people surrounding them, their\ncharacteristics, manners, and customs being partly Nigrito and partly\nPolynesian, although in the matter of cannibalism they are simply\nhorrible, and eat their kind, not on any high notion that they are\nappropriating the spirit and glory of him whom they devour (_vide_\nLubbock, 371), but from a repulsive preference; yet they have a\ndistinct notion of religion, with temples, and ceremonies, and we are\ntold they look down upon the Samoans because they had no religion.\nWell, we find the Feegeeans in a state of material civilisation exactly\ncorresponding--they live in well built houses, 20 to 30 feet long and\n15 feet high, in fortified towns, with earthen ramparts, surmounted by\na reed fence, &c. \"Their temples were pyramidal in form, and were often\nerected on terraced mounds like those of Central America\" (p. 357).\nThey had efficient weapons, agricultural implements, well-constructed\ncanoes, and (p. 372) pottery.[262]\n\n [262] The Duke of Argyll, balancing the conclusions of Archbishop\n Whately and Sir J. Lubbock (\"Primeval Man,\" p. 139), says,\n \"Whately defies the supporter of Development to produce a\n single case of savages having raised themselves. Sir J.\n Lubbock replies by defying his opponent to show that it has\n not been done and done often. He urges, and urges as it seems\n to me with truth, that the great difficulty of teaching many\n savages the arts of civilised life, is no proof whatever\n that the various degrees of advance towards the knowledge\n of those arts which are actually found among semi-barbarous\n nations may not have been of strictly indigenous growth. _Thus\n it appears that one tribe of red Indians called Mandans_\n practised the art of _fortifying_ their towns. _Surrounding\n tribes_, although they saw the advantage derived from this\n art, yet _never practised_ it, and _never learned it_.\" So\n far as to the fact. The Duke of Argyll continues the argument\n on the side of Sir J. Lubbock. But what I wish to indicate is\n that this crucial instance of the Mandans may be triumphantly\n adduced in support of my proposition. Why, these are the _very\n Mandans_ among whom Catlin and the Prince Maxmilian of Neuwied\n discovered the curious commemorative ceremony of the Deluge!\n _Vide_ ch. xi.\n\nWhen, however, we come to the Tahitians we find a very high state\nof civilisation. Of their religion it is said--\"That though they\nworshipped numerous deities,\" and sometimes sacrificed to them, \"yet\nthey were not idolators.\" \"Captain Cook found their religion, like\nthat of most other countries, involved in mystery and perplexed with\napparent inconsistencies.\" They had a priesthood (p. 387). \"They\nbelieved in the immortality of the soul, and in two situations of\ndifferent degrees of happiness somewhat analogous to our heaven and\nhell, though not regarded as places of reward and punishment; but the\none intended 'for the chief and superior classes,' 'the other for\nthe people of inferior rank.'\" This is substantially Captain Cook's\naccount of the Tahitians, and allowing it to be exact, although\nI have a suspicion that a missionary would have put it somewhat\ndifferently,[263] it shows a comparative state of religion very much\nelevated above anything we have yet seen. They had besides curious\ncustoms, such as that of eating apart. \"They ate alone,\" they said,\n\"because it was right, but why it was right they were unable to\nexplain\"--a custom which is common to them with the Bachapins (p.\n384), (who, _by the way_, are also among the races classified as \"of\nno religion\"). Although the inhabitants of Tahiti present to us a much\nhigher standard of religion and morality than we have yet met with,\n_also_ \"they, on the whole, may be taken as representing _the highest\nstage_ in civilisation to which man has in any country raised himself,\nbefore the discovery or introduction of metallic implements\" (Lubbock,\np. 372).\n\n [263] Since writing the above, I have referred to Wallis and\n Bougainville. Wallis could not discover \"that these people\n had any kind of religious worship among them.\" Bougainville\n says \"that their principal deity is called 'Ein-t-era,'\n _i.e._ 'king of _light_' or 'of the sun'; besides whom they\n acknowledge a number of inferior divinities, some of whom\n produce evil and others good; that the general name for these\n _ministering_ spirits is Eatona; and that the natives suppose\n _two_ of these divinities attend _each affair of consequence\n in human life_, determining its fate either advantageously or\n otherwise. To one circumstance our author speaks in decisive\n terms. He says, when the moon exhibits a certain aspect which\n bears the name of 'Malama Tamai' (the moon is in a state of\n war), the natives offer up human sacrifices.... When any one\n sneezes, his companions cry out 'Eva-rona-t-eatona,' _i.e._\n 'May the good genius awaken thee,' or 'May not the evil genius\n lull thee asleep.'\"\n\n Captain King (\"Journal of Transactions on returning to the\n Sandwich Islands,\" &c., Pinkerton, xi. 737) says of the\n Sandwich Islanders, \"The religion of these people resembles\n in most of its principal features _that of the Society and\n Friendly Islands_. Their morais, their whattas, their idols,\n their sacrifices, and their sacred songs, _all of which_ they\n have in common with each other, are _convincing proofs_ that\n their religious notions are derived _from the same source_.\"\n\nIt is impossible within these limits to investigate every case. I\nhave taken the more salient cases, as instanced by Sir J. Lubbock,\nand contrasted them. I now wish to present the contrast in somewhat\nlivelier form, and I do not see that I can do better than to present\nto the reader two scenes precisely similar, as to substance, yet under\ndifferent conditions, in different parts of the world. The first shall\nbe a description of \"a whale ashore,\" by Sir J. Lubbock, among the\nAustralians; and the second, a description of the same scene by Catlin\n(\"Last Rambles, &c., among the Indians of Vancouver's Island\").\n\nI must preface that Sir J. Lubbock says that the Australians \"have\nno religion nor any idea of prayer, but most of them believe in evil\nspirits, and all have great dread of witchcraft\" (p. 353).\n\nThe following is the scene to which I refer:--\n\n \"They are not, so far as I am aware, able to kill whales for\n themselves, but when one is washed on shore it is a real godsend\n to them. Fires are immediately lit to give notice of the joyful\n event.... For days they remain by the carcase, rubbed from head to\n foot with the stinking blubber, gorged to repletion with putrid\n meat, out of temper from indigestion, and therefore engaged in\n constant frays, suffering from a continuous disorder from high\n feeding, and altogether a disgusting spectacle.\"--_Capt. Grey, apud\n Lubbock_, p. 347.\n\nThis is one picture; now for the other. It may be said that it is\nonly the different idiosyncrasies of the writers transferred to their\npages--that one is the narrative of _Jean qui pleure_, &c., or of the\n_m\u00e9dicin tant pis_, &c.; but I do not think so.\n\nMr Catlin premises by telling us that the scene occurred when on a\nvisit with the chief of the Klah-o-gnats, of whom he says that he\nknew at first sight by his actions that he was \"a chief, and by the\nexpression of his face that he was a good man,\" and whom his companion\ndescribed as \"a very fine old fellow; that man is a gentleman; I'd\ntrust myself anywhere with that man.\" Of their religion, the chief\nhimself told Catlin that on that western coast of Vancouver's Island\n\"they all believed in a Great Spirit, who created them and all things,\nand that they all have times and places when and where they pray to\nthat Spirit, that he may not be angry with them.\"\n\nOne day came the startling announcement that a whale was ashore.\n\n \"The sight was imposing when we came near to it, but not until we\n came around it on the shore side had I any idea of the scene I was\n to witness. Some hundreds, if not thousands of Indians, of all\n ages and sexes, and in all colours, were gathered around it, and\n others constantly arriving. Some were lying, others standing and\n sitting in groups; some were asleep and others eating and drinking,\n and others were singing and dancing.\" The monster was secured by\n twenty or thirty harpoons, to which ropes were attached. \"These\n were watched, and at every lift of a wave moving the monster nearer\n the shore, they were tightened on the harpoons, and at low tide the\n carcass is left on dry land, a great distance from the water....\n The dissection of this monstrous creature, and its distribution\n amongst the thousands who would yet be a day or two in getting\n together, the interpreter informed us, would not be commenced until\n all the claimants arrived.\"\n\nSeveral immense baskets had been brought in which to carry away the\nblubber. The possession of these baskets made all the difference in the\nscene which followed. To some this will be a sufficient explanation.\nHow, then, did the others come to know nothing of baskets? Truly\nthere are people who cannot be made to see the effect of \"character\nupon clover.\" I rely, however, upon the broad lines of the contrast.\nThe absence in this latter scene of the disgusting sights above so\ngraphically described--their quick use of the harpoons--and the general\norder and equity of the distribution. \"A whale ashore,\" Mr Catlin says\n(\"Last Rambles,\" p. 105), \"is surely a gift from heaven for these poor\npeople, and they receive it and use it as such.\"\n\nWhilst quoting from Catlin, I must be allowed to refer my readers to\nthe very striking proof (p. 248) he incidentally affords of the theory\nof degeneracy in his comparative illustration of the heads of the alto\nand bas Peruvian, and of the Crow and modern Flathead:--\n\n \"The Crow of the Rocky Mountains and the alto-Peruvian of _the\n Andes_, being the two great original fountains of American man,\n to whom all the tribes point as their origin, and on whom, of\n course, all the tribes have looked as the _beau ideals_ of the\n Indian race. The Flathead (letter _c_), aiming at the Crow skull\n (like the copyists of most fashions), has carried the copy into a\n caricature; and the Bas-Peruvian (_d_), aiming at the _elevated\n frontal_ of the mountain regions, has squeezed his up with\n circular bandages to equally monstrous proportions.\" Also _vide_\n Prescott's \"Mexico,\" ii. 493, 6th ed., 1850. \"Anatomists also have\n discerned in crania disinterred from the mounds, and in those\n of the inhabitants of the high plains of _the Cordilleras_ an\n _obvious difference_ from those of the more barbarous tribes. This\n is seen especially in the _ampler forehead_, intimating a decided\n intellectual superiority.... Such is the conclusion of Dr Warren,\n whose excellent collection has afforded him ample means for study\n and comparison.\"\n\nBefore quitting this subject I must revive a question which I think Sir\nJohn Lubbock will admit, if he turns to the evidence dispersed in his\npages, is at present involved in some obscurity. It is simply this,\n\"How did the savage come by the knowledge of fire?\" Sir John Lubbock\nsuggests (p. 473) \"that in making flint instruments sparks would be\nproduced; in polishing them it would not fail to be observed that they\nbecame hot, and in this way it is easy to see how the two methods of\nobtaining fire may have originated.... In obtaining fire _two totally\ndifferent_ methods are followed; _some_ savages, as for instance the\nFuegians, using percussion, while others, as the South-Sea Islanders,\nrub one piece of wood against another.... Opinions are divided\nwhether we have any trustworthy record of a people without the means\nof obtaining fire\" (p. 453). To this point I shall recur. I will now\ngive Sir John's quotation from Mr Dove: \"Although fire was well known\nto them (the Tasmanians), some tribes at least appear to have been\nignorant whence it was originally obtained, or how, if extinguished,\nit could be relighted. In all their wanderings,\" says Mr Dove, \"they\nwere particularly careful to bear in their hands the materials for\nkindling a fire. Their memory supplies them _with no instances_ of a\nperiod in which they were obliged to draw upon their _inventive powers_\nfor the means of resuscitating an element so essential to their health\nand comfort as flame. How it came originally into their possession is\nunknown. _Whether_ it may be viewed as the _gift of nature_ or the\nproduct of art and sagacity, they _cannot recollect a period when it\nwas a desideratum_\" (\"Tasmanian Journal of Natural Science,\" i. 250,\n_apud_ Lubbock, p. 355).[264]\n\n [264] The \"Popul Vul\" (pp. 223-227, Paris, 1861, _vide_ Baring\n Gould, \"Origin and Development of Religious Belief,\" p. 383)\n gives an instance--or embodies a reminiscence--of a people who\n had lost the tradition of fire.\n\n \"Then arrived the tribes perishing with cold, ... and all the\n tribes were gathered, shivering and quaking with cold, when\n they came before the leaders of the Iniches.... Great was\n their misery. 'Will you not compassionate us,' they asked;\n 'we ask only a little fire. Were we not all one, and with one\n country, when we were first created? Have pity on us.' 'What\n will you give us that we should compassionate you,' was the\n answer made to them.... It was answered, 'We will inquire\n of Tohil'\" (their fire-god); and then follows the horrible\n condition of human sacrifices to be offered to their fire-god\n Tohil, with reference to which Mr B. Gould quotes it. _Vide\n supra_, p. 81, tradition among the Sioux Indians, of fire\n having been sent to them from heaven after the Deluge.\n\n In Colden's \"Five Indian Nations,\" p. 167, I find an Indian\n chief says: \"Now before the Christians arrived, the general\n council of the Five Nations was held at Onondaga, where\n there has from _the Beginning_ a _continual fire_ been kept\n burning; it is made of two great logs, _whose fire never\n extinguishes_.\"\n\nNow, if it is a tenable opinion--and at least these are the statements\nof Father Gobien, and of Alvaro de Saavedra, and of Commodore Wilkes,\nto whose testimony I shall revert, that there are some tribes who are\nunacquainted with fire--that there are some who have and some who have\nnot the art of rekindling fire, then arises the question whether those\nwho have it not have lost the art, or whether those who now possess\nit invented it. If they did not invent it, they must have held it\nas a tradition, until, reaching a lower point of degradation still,\nthey lost it. Mr Dove's testimony to this effect is very strong. What\nan emblem that never-extinguished torch of primitive tradition! We\nfind the same tradition among the American Indians. \"The Chippeways\nand Natchez tribes are said to have an institution for keeping up a\nperpetual fire, certain persons being set aside and devoted to this\noccupation\" (Lubbock, p. 421). Freycinet certainly declares that Per\u00e9\nGobien's statement, that the inhabitants of the Ladrone were totally\nunacquainted with fire until Magellan burnt one of their villages,\nto be \"entirely without foundation.\" \"The language,\" he says, \"of\nthe inhabitants contains words for fire, burning, charcoal, oven,\ngrilling, boiling, &c.\" Again, as against Commodore Wilkes' assertion\nas an eye-witness, that he saw no appearance of fire in the island of\nFakaafo, and that the natives were very much alarmed when they saw\nsparks struck from flint and steel, we are told that \"Hale gives a list\nof Faakaafo words in which we find _asi_ for fire\" (Lubbock, p. 454).\nHowever, Sir John does not attribute to this argument the same force\nthat Mr Tylor does, as _asi_ is evidently the same word as the New\nZealand _ahi_, which denotes light and heat as well as fire.[265] If,\nthen, we have positive evidence that they have not the thing (Wilkes),\nand also evidence that they have the word (_vide_ note), does not this\nprove that it is a tradition which they have lost? and is there not the\npresumption that they have lost it through degeneracy?\n\n [265] I find, in Falkner's \"Description of Patagonia,\" &c., 1774\n (Falkner resided near 40\u00b0 7' in those parts), \"that in the\n vocabulary of the Moluches, although the word for 'fire' is\n 'k'tal,' the word for 'hot' is '_asee_,' 'cold' 'chosea.'\"\n\n But Sir J. Lubbock admits \"asi\" is the same word as \"ahi,\" and\n if \"ahi\" denotes light and heat, _it also_ signifies fire.\n\n Should we not expect, at least ought it to cause surprise,\n that the word for \"fire,\" where poverty of language may be\n presumed, should stand also for light and heat? In the Andaman\n vocabulary (Earl's \"Papuans\") \"ahay\" is their word for the\n sun--in which the two senses seem to combine. In Shortland's\n \"Comp. Table of Polynesian Dialects\" (\"Traditions of the New\n Zealanders\"), I find _ahi_ means fire, and not light.\n\n ---------+------------+------------+-------------+-----------------\n |New Zealand.| Raratonga. | Navigator's | Sandwich Islands\n | | | (Savaii). | (Hawaii).\n +------------+------------+-------------+-----------------\n _Fire_ = | Ahi.[C] | Ai. | Afi. | Ahi.\n ---------+------------+------------+-------------+-----------------\n\n [C] And as would appear from Shortland (_id._ pp. 55, 56, \"_ao_,\"\n a seemingly cognate though not identical word with \"ahi,\"\n is the New Zealand word for light. But in Bougainville's\n \"Vocabulary of Faiti (Otaheite) Island,\" I find again \"ea\u00ef,\"\n _i.e._ their word for _fire_, whereas their word for light,\n not darkness, is \"Eourama\u00ef\" and \"Po\" = day light), whilst they\n have a distinct word for \"hot\" = \"Ivera\"--\"Era\" being the sun.\n Compare Sanscrit \"aghni\" = ignis, fire.--_Vide_ Card. Wiseman,\n \"Science and Revealed Religion,\" p. 40, 5th ed.\n\n\n APPENDIX TO CHAPTER XII.\n\n Compare the following account of the New Zealanders:--\n\n \"Shut out from the rest of the world, without any to set them\n a pattern of what was right or to reprove what was wrong,\n is it surprising that morally they should have degenerated,\n even from the standard of their forefathers? They were not\n always addicted to war, neither were they always cannibals;\n _the remembrance of the origin_ of these horrid customs is\n _still preserved amongst them_. If the progressive development\n theory were true, aboriginal races should have progressively\n advanced; every successive generation should have added some\n improvement to the one which preceded it; but experience\n proves the contrary. A remarkable instance of this may be\n adduced in the fact, that the New Zealanders have retrograded,\n even since the days of Captain Cook; they then possessed large\n double canoes, decked, with houses on them similar to those of\n Tahiti and Hawaii, in which, traditionally, their ancestors\n arrived; it is now more than half a century since the last was\n seen. Tradition also states that they had finer garments in\n former days and of different kinds; that, like their reputed\n ancestors, they made cloth from the bark of trees--the name\n is preserved, but the manufacture has ceased. There are\n remains also in their language which would lead us to suppose\n that, like the inhabitants of Tonga, they once possessed a\n kingly form of government, and though they have now no term\n to express that high office, still they have words which are\n evidently derived from the very one denoting a king in Tonga.\n Their traditions, which are preserved, also establish the\n same fact, and perhaps one of the strongest proofs is their\n language; its fulness, its richness, and close affinity not\n only in words but in grammar to the Sanscrit, carries the mind\n back to a time when literature could not have been unknown.\"\n From \"Te Ika a Maui,\" or \"New Zealand and its Inhabitants,\"\n by the Rev. Richard Taylor, M.A., F.G.S., a Missionary in New\n Zealand for more than thirty years, pp. 5, 6.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XIII.\n\n _NOAH AND THE GOLDEN AGE._\n\n\nTaking as the basis of this theory that the law of nations forms part\nof a tradition, that the stream of this tradition has never ceased to\nflow, and that the diffusion of its waters has ever been the source and\ncondition of fecundity; and further, that this tradition in its main\ncurrent has run in the channels which Dr Newman (_infra_, p. 338)\nhas indicated--for although there are other reservoirs, they have\nbecome stagnant, and exist like the fresh-water lake, the Bahr-i-Nedjig\n(_vide_ Rawlinson's \"Ancient Monarchies,\" i. 18), whose waters are\n\"fresh and sweet\" so long as they communicate with the Euphrates, but\nwhen they are cut off become \"unpalatable,\" so that those \"who dwell in\nthe vicinity are no longer able to drink of it\"--taking these various\nfacts as the basis, we come inevitably to the question--Whence this\ntradition arose, and upon what authority and sanction it rests?\n\nIn answer to this I do not hesitate to affirm that presumptively it\ngoes back to the commencement of human history, and more demonstrably\nto that commencement--which for historical and practical purposes is\nsufficient--the era of Noah.\n\nI propose now to inquire how near this theory can be brought to the\nfacts.\n\nA fairer opportunity could hardly have been afforded for ascertaining\nthe force and fulness of primitive tradition than the discovery of\nthe American continent; yet this opportunity was totally disregarded\nby the Spanish conquerors,[266]--rough men, and for the most part\nthe offscourings of Spain,--and its evidences were but sparsely and\nnegligently collected by the explorers of a different character who\nfollowed at a later date.\n\n [266] The works of Garcilasso de la Vega, Valera, P. de Cieza, and\n De Sahagun must be excepted. As an instance of the neglect\n which we have reason to regret, the former gives an account\n of one only (the Raymi) of the four annual festivals of the\n Peruvians.--Hakluyt Soc. ed. ii. 155. He gives the name,\n however, of another--namely, the _Si_tua.\n\nSomething, however, of primitive tradition has been thus preserved\n(_vide_ Help's \"Spanish Conquest of America,\" i. 278, 286, 290;\nPrescott, \"Mexico,\" i. 54). Indeed, the approximation to the biblical\nnarrative is so close that the suspicion would be quite reasonable that\nmissionaries of whom we have no record had found their way to these\npeople before the continent became known to us; or that the people\nthemselves were of Jewish descent; or that they had left the Asiatic\nmainland subsequently to the preaching of St Thomas the apostle. Manco\nCapac (_vide infra_), according to this conjecture, may have been one\nof these missionaries; or it may even be that in the venerable image\nwhich the description calls up we see in vision the apostle himself.\n\nWhen, however, the description is compared with the traditions I have\ncollated of a patriarchal character--still more remote and venerable,\n\"Him of mazy counsel--Saturn\" (Hesiod), I shall ask the reader to\ndecide whether the more improbable conjecture, measured according to\ntime and distance, has not the greater weight of evidence.\n\nI proceed to place in juxtaposition a recapitulation of the classical\nand oriental traditions, and the quotations from Helps above referred\nto.\n\n \"One peculiar circumstance, as Humboldt remarks,\n is very much to be noted in the ancient records\n and traditions of the Indian nations. In no less\n than three remarkable instances has superior\n civilisation been attributed to the sudden\n presence amongst them of persons differing from\n themselves in appearance and descent.\"\n\n [As to the argument to be derived from colour\n and appearance, _vide supra_, p. 79.]\n\n \"Bochica, a white man with a beard, appeared\n to the Mozca Indians in the plains of Bogota,\n _taught them how to build and to sow_, formed\n them _into communities_, gave an outlet _to the\n waters of the great lake_ [compare _supra_,\n p. 70, Chronology], and having settled the\n government, civil and ecclesiastical, retired\n into a monastic state of penitence for two\n thousand years.[267]\n\n [267] Probably a tradition of the penitence of\n Adam.\n\n \"In like manner Manco Capac, accompanied by\n his sister Mama Ocllo, descended amongst the\n Peruvians, gave them _a code of admirable laws_,\n reduced them into communities, and then ascended\n to his father the Sun.\"[268] (A confusion with\n the tradition of Enoch, parallel to the like\n confusion in the person of Xisuthrus,[269]\n unmistakably identified with Noah in the\n Babylonian tradition.)\n\n [268] Here, the admixture of sun-worship, as\n identifying the mythology at any rate\n with the Hamitic and \"Cuthite,\" directly\n militates in favour of my view against\n the conjecture that Manco Capac was a\n missionary.\n\n [269] _Vide_ also the like confused tradition\n of Nimrod (Assyria) and Menes (Egypt),\n Bunsen, p. 192.\n\n \"Amongst the Mexicans there suddenly appeared\n Quetzalcohuatl, the green-feathered (_i.e._\n elegant) snake\" (compare with Chald\u00e6an fish-god,\n p. 199), \"a white and bearded man of broad\n brow, dressed in strange dress, a _legislator_\n who recommended severe penances, lacerating his\n own body with the prickles of the agave and\n the thorns of the cactus, but who dissuaded\n his followers from human sacrifices. While he\n remained in Anahuana it was a Saturnian reign;\n but this _great legislator_, after moving on\n to the plains of Cholulas, and governing the\n Cholulans with wisdom, passed away to a distant\n country\" [if this looks more like the movement\n among them of some apostolic missionary, it is\n also in keeping with the journey of Bacchus,\n \"travelling through all nations,\" &c.], \"and was\n never heard of more.\" It is said briefly of him,\n that \"he _ordained sacrifices_ of flowers and\n fruit, and stopped his ears, when he was spoken\n to of war.\"[270] Such a saint is needed in all\n times, even in the present advanced state of\n civilisation in the old world.\"[271]--_Help's\n \"Spanish Conquest of America,\"_ i. 286.\n\n [270] If an identity has been established\n between Quetzalcohuatl and Manco Capac\n (_vide_ Prescott \"Conquest of Peru,\" i.\n 9), it will appear that this legislator,\n who shut his ears when he was spoken to of\n war, did nevertheless leave them admirable\n maxims (compare with Indian (Aryan)\n maxims, p. 400) and laws of war, _e.g._\n Prescott, \"Peru,\" p. 69. Compare extract\n from Davies--_vide supra_, preface.\n\n \"The Peruvian soldier was forbidden to\n commit any _trespass on the property_ of\n the inhabitants whose territory lay in\n the line of march. From the moment _war\n was proclaimed_,\" &c., \"in every stage\n of the war he was open to _propositions\n for peace_, and although he sought to\n reduce his enemies by carrying off their\n harvests and destressing them by famine,\n the Peruvian monarch allowed his troops to\n commit no unnecessary outrage on person\n or property.\" It is not to the point that\n these rules were not always observed.\n\n [271] Compare _supra_, p. 201, note to Manou\n (Bacchus).\n\n I have shown (p. 211) that Calmet (and other\n authorities of the same date might be adduced)\n identifies Saturn with Noah. Among other proofs\n he points to the tradition of Saturn devouring\n his children (with the exception of three), as a\n distorted tradition of the destruction of mankind\n according to the prediction of Noah, upon the\n canon of interpretation, \"that men are said often\n to do what they do not prevent, or even what they\n predict.\" I have also shown that this conjecture\n receives attestation from a fragment of\n Sanchoniathon's (Phoenician),important whether\n regarded as a more ancient parallel tradition, or\n as the same tradition nearer the fountain-head.\n\n Without recapitulating the other points of\n resemblance (_vide_ ch. x.), let us compare\n what is said of Saturn with what is said of\n Bochica, Manco Capac, &c.\n\n \"Under Saturn,\" says Plutarch, \"was the golden\n age.\" \"Saturn is represented with a scythe, as\n the _inventor of_ agriculture.\" Virgil (\u00c6n. viii.\n 315) describes Saturn as bringing the dispersed\n people from the mountains and _giving them laws_.\n I have also drawn attention to the _Saturnalia_\n as connecting _Bacchus_ with _Saturn_. Now Cicero\n tells us that one Bacchus was king of _Asia_, and\n author of _laws called Subazian_; and Bacchus\n is also said to _have travelled_ through _all\n nations doing good_, in all places, and teaching\n many things profitable to the life of man.\n\n Noah has also been identified with Janus, and\n under Janus as under Saturn was the golden age;\n and it is, moreover, said (_vide_ p. 218),\n \"that in the time of Janus all families were\n full of religion and holiness.\" He is said\n to have been _the first that built temples_\n and _instituted sacred rites_, and was\n therefore always mentioned at the beginning of\n sacrifices. [This, in common with what is said\n of Quetzalcohuatl is again possibly a combined\n tradition of Enoch and Noah.]\n\nLet both these traditions be compared with Berosus' account of Hoa, or\nthe fish-god (_vide_ Rawlinson, \"Anct. Mon.\" i. p. 155, and _supra_, p.\n238).\n\n \"He is said to have transmitted to mankind the knowledge of grammar\n and mathematics, and of all arts (or of any kind of art), and of\n the _polity of cities_, the _construction_ and _dedication of\n temples_, the _introduction of laws_, to have taught them geometry,\n and _to have shown them by example_, the _mode of sowing the seed_\n and gathering the _fruits of the earth_; and along with them to\n have tradated _all the secrets which tend to harmonise life_. And\n no one else in that time was found so experienced as he.\"[272]\n\n [272] Compare with Gen. vi. 18, viii. 15, \"And God spoke to Noe,\n saying\"; also vi. 13, ix. 8; and Gen. viii. 20--\"And Noe built\n an altar unto the Lord, and taking of all cattle\"; and ix.\n 20--\"And Noe, a husbandman, began to till the ground, and\n planted a vineyard.\" Also Ecclesiasticus xliv. 1, 3, 4, 19,\n \"The covenants of the world were made with him.\" Compare also\n with the \"Oracula Sybillina,\" _supra_, p. 237.\n\nIn the traditions, however, which connect Noah with the Saturnian\nreign,[273] it appears to me that threefold confusion has to be\ndisentangled.\n\n [273] It may be well here to recall to recollection the well-known\n lines of Virgil--\n\n \"Ultima Cum\u00e6i venit jam carminis \u00e6tas:\n Magnus ab integro seclorum nascitur ordo,\n Jam redit et Virgo, redeunt Saturnia regna\n Jam nova progenies coelo dimittitur alto.\"\n _Eclogues_ IV.\n\nI. There is a tradition of a golden and of a silver age frequently\ntransfused.\n\nII. When thus transfused there is often along with the tradition of a\ngolden or silver age trace of a subordinate and incongruous tradition\nof a state of nature as a state of barbarism--both at the early\ncommencement of things.\n\nIII. There is a double tradition of the succession of ages, the one\nante-, the other post-diluvian.\n\n * * * * *\n\nI. The tradition of the golden age is primarily the tradition of\nParadise, to which succeeded in gradation of degeneracy a silver,\nbrass, and iron age. Of this line of tradition we have seen distinct\ntrace in Sanchoniathon (_supra_, p. 127).\n\nBut there is also, as we have just seen, a tradition of another golden\nage connected with Saturn, Janus, &c., and of this perhaps we have the\nmost direct testimony in the Chinese tradition.\n\n \"The Chinese traditions,\" says Professor Rawlinson (Bampton\n Lectures, ii., quoting \"Hor\u00e6 Mos.\" iv. 147) \"are said to be less\n clear and decisive (than the Babylonian). They speak of a 'first\n heaven' and age of innocence when 'the whole creation enjoyed a\n state of happiness; when everything was beautiful, everything was\n good; all things were perfect in their kind. Whereunto succeeded\n a _second heaven, introduced by a great convulsion_, in which the\n pillars of heaven were broken, the earth shook to its foundations,\n the heavens sank lower towards the north, the sun, moon, and\n stars changed their motions, the earth fell to pieces, and _the\n waters enclosed within its bosom burst forth with violence and\n overflowed_,'\" &c.\n\nHere, then, is a tradition of a second heaven, or a Saturnian reign,\nfollowing a convulsion which will perhaps be conceded to be a tradition\nof the _universal_ Deluge (_vide_ p. 223), and which links the\ntradition of the Saturnian reign with the patriarch Noah?[274]\n\n [274] Boulanger (\"L'Antiquit\u00e9 Devoil\u00e9e,\" i. 10), recognises,\n although it perplexes him, the tradition which places the\n gold and silver age after the Deluge--\"\u00e0 la suite de cet\n \u00e9venement, les traditions de l'age d'or, et du regne des Dieux\n paroissent encore plus bizarres;\" also _id._ iii. 338; also\n 308. Also 328, \"Ce n'est donc point un \u00e9tat politique qu'il\n faut chercher dans l'age d'or, ce fut un \u00e9tat tout religieux.\n Chaque famille p\u00e9n\u00e9tr\u00e9e des jugemens d'en haut, vecut quelque\n temps sous la conduite des p\u00e8res qui rassembloient leurs\n enfans.\" It is thus that Seneca depicts the golden age. _Vide_\n p. 231.\n\nI ask now to be allowed to look at the same tradition from a different\npoint of view.\n\nI have elsewhere shown (p. 27) that according to the operation of\nnatural causes everything in the primitive ages would have led to\ndispersion, but however probable or even certain these conjectures may\nbe, we know as a fact that they did not operate (Gen. xi. 1, 3, 8) for\nsome three hundred years or more, probably until after the death of\nNoah. Does not this look as if mankind were kept together for a period,\nin order that they might become settled in their ideas and confirmed\nin their maxims, under the influence and direction of the second\nfather of mankind, whose direct communications with the Most High had\nbeen manifest, and whose authority necessarily commanded universal\nrespect--\"Him of mazy counsel, Saturn?\" (Hesiod, \"Theog.\")[275]\n\n [275] It might be a sufficient answer to say that they did not\n operate because a miraculous intervention ordained it\n otherwise; but if we seek the explanation in natural causes\n they will be found such as will exactly confirm the theory.\n The causes which lead to dispersion are the necessities of\n the pastoral life. If there, then, was no dispersion, the\n conclusion is that during the three or four centuries after\n the Deluge mankind were mainly engaged in husbandry--\"and\n Noe, a husbandman, _began_ to till the ground.\" But husbandry\n is the first and essential condition of civilisation. We\n have seen that Mr Mill, Mr Hepworth Dixon, &c., believe\n that mankind _slowly_ arrived at this stage through the\n intermediate stages of shepherd and hunter. On the contrary\n it would appear that they _started_ in this career. Again,\n given the conditions which Genesis describes--families living\n in patriarchal subjection to a chief who had the knowledge\n of husbandry--cultivation would be the natural consequence;\n for the one and only hindrance to cultivation, supposing\n the knowledge, is insecurity. \"Most critical of all are the\n causes which conduce to agriculture, agriculture at once\n the most fruitful and the most dangerous expedients for\n life. He who tills the soil exposes his valuable stores to\n the malice or enmity of the whole world. Any marauder,\"\n &c. (\"Miscell.\" by Francis W. Newman, 1869). But as the\n conditions described in Genesis exclude the probability of\n such interruption--agriculture would have been the preferable\n resource of life--and so it would have continued until\n circumstances led to the extension of the pastoral mode. So\n far, then, as we are brought to regard the different modes\n of life as progressive or successive (I believe that even at\n this early stage they were contemporaneous), the order of\n the succession according to the theory now in vogue must be\n reversed; and we must regard mankind as first a community of\n husbandmen, gradually extending themselves as shepherds, to\n be finally still more dispersed in some of their branches as\n hunters.\n\nIf this theory appears far-fetched and fanciful, let it be recollected,\non the other hand, that there has long subsisted a tradition among\nmankind of a code of nature as connected with a state of nature, which\nhas to be accounted for (_vide_ chap. ii.)\n\nAnd when we consider how the impulsion which a nation receives at the\ncommencement of its history continues--how much, for instance, at the\ndistance of a thousand years we resemble our Saxon ancestors of the\neighth century, and even our ancestors of the German forest in identity\nof character, sentiment, and institution--we must not make the lapse\nof centuries an impassable barrier to a belief in the traditions of\nmankind in the early periods of history.\n\nLet us also, in regarding the golden or silver age, glance beyond it\nto that iron age which ultimately followed it, in which the world,\nbecoming crowded and also corrupted, many families and tribes collected\ntogether for warfare, and in which one nation swallowed another until\nall came to be absorbed, at least on the Asiatic continent, into one or\ntwo great empires, which again contended for supreme dominion. An age\nof universal war, of many sorrows, of great perturbations, but one in\nwhich the process of dispersion was stayed, and mankind settled down\nwithin certain definite lines of demarcation, which in great part have\ncontinued to this day.\n\nNo wonder, then, that men turned to each other in these dark days,\nand talked with regret of the simple agricultural and pastoral age\nwhich had passed, and which came variously to be called, in their\nrecollection, the second heaven, the Arcadian era, the Saturnia\nregna,[276] the golden age. Neither is it surprising that the idea\nof a state of nature misconceived as to the facts, and of a law of\nnature dimly remembered and distorted by human perversity, has so often\nobtained among mankind in modern times and also in antiquity. This is a\npoint which I shall discuss with reference to the historical evidence\nin another chapter.\n\n [276] \"And truly there is a sap in nations as well as in trees,\n a vigorous inward power, ever tending upwards, drawing its\n freshest energies from the simplest institutions, and the\n purest virtues and the healthiest moral action.... And if of\n nations we may so speak, what shall we say of the entire human\n race, when all its energies were, in a manner, pent up in its\n early and few progenitors; when the children of Noah, removed\n but a few generations from the recollections and lessons of\n Eden, and possessing the accumulated wisdom of long-lived\n patriarchs, were marvellously fitted to receive those strange\n and novel impressions, which a world, just burst forth in all\n its newness, was calculated to make?\"--Card. Wiseman, \"Science\n and Revealed Religion,\" Lect. ii.\n\n It is to this period that I am inclined to refer the belief\n in an age of high chivalry and virtue, with subsequent\n degeneracy, widely diffused in the legends of King Arthur. I\n will surrender my opinion whenever the historical information\n respecting that monarch shall have been more exactly\n determined.\n\n * * * * *\n\nII. The conception of the state of nature (chap. ii.) as a basis of\ntheory and belief arose in the main out of the speculations of lawyers\nand philosophers; yet it is curious that we frequently come upon a\nconcurrent yet always subordinate tradition of equality associated\nwith the tradition of a golden age which, if the age of Noah, we\nknow _aliunde_ to have been a state of hierarchical subordination\nto a patriarchal chief; and, along with a reminiscence of a time of\npeaceful prosperity at the commencement of things, the tradition of the\nprimitive age as one of great barbarism and privation, man living on\nacorns, &c.\n\nThat these testimonies of tradition are incongruous and confused,\nI am bound to admit; but then, looked at from the point of view of\ntradition, they seem to me to have their explanation. If this happens\nto be deemed somewhat fanciful, I contend that the test in all these\ncases must be--(1.) Does the key fit the lock? (2.) Is there any other\nkey producible?[277] I venture, then, to suggest (p. 211) that the\nnotion of the primitive equality may be traced through the Bacchanalian\ntraditions; and the tradition of a primitive age of great privation I\nbelieve to be the recollection of that brief but probably sharp period\nof suffering during which mankind clung to the mountains in distrust\nof the Divine injunction and promise, until brought into the plains by\nNoah.[278] (_Vide_ p. 137.)\n\n [277] \"The evidence, therefore, of the meaning of this part of\n the Homeric system is like that which is obtained, when,\n upon applying a new key to some lock that we have been\n unable to open, we find it fits the wards and puts back the\n bolt.\"--Gladstone, \"Homer and the Homeric Age,\" ii. 30.\n\n [278] Plato's testimony to this tradition is remarkable (Plato\n de Legibus, lib. i.) Boulanger extracts the passage with\n reference to the golden age (iii. 296). (_Vide_ also Grote's\n Plato, iii. 337.) Plato says--\"That it is a tradition that\n there was formerly a great destruction of mankind caused\n by inundations and other general calamities [are not these\n calamities those to which Horace alludes, I. Ode iii.,\n\n \"Semotique prius tarda necessitas\n Lethi corripuit gradum,\"\n\n from which only a few escaped?] those who were spared led a\n pastoral life _on the mountains_. We may suppose,\" he adds,\n \"that these men possessed the knowledge of some useful arts,\n of some usages to which they had previously conformed.\" Plato\n indeed goes on to tell how this knowledge must have been\n lost, and one reason he gives is, \"mankind remained _many_\n centuries on the _summits_ of the highest mountains--fear\n and remembrance of the past did not permit them to _descend\n into the plains_.\" Strabo (_apud_ Boulanger, iii. 301) also\n discusses this question. He says that mankind descended into\n the plains at different periods according to their courage\n and sociability (lib. xiii.) Varro (De re Rustica, lib. xiii.\n cap. i.) says they were a long time before they descended.\"\n Now, in these passages from Plato, Strabo, and Varro, there\n is distinct testimony to the fact of mankind remaining on the\n mountains after the Deluge, and their subsequent inferences\n are drawn from the fact that they supposed them to have\n remained there a long time. Is not this merely that they have\n recorded one tradition to the exclusion of another--viz., that\n mankind were brought into the plains by Saturn, in accordance\n with the indications in Genesis ix. 20, \"and Noe, a husbandman\n began to till the ground.\" Compare _supra_, p. 137, and\n p. 212; Bryant, \"Mythology,\" iii. p. 22, following [St]\n Epiphanius, says the descendants of Noah remained 659 years in\n the vicinity of Ararat--_i.e._ five generations.\n\nMoreover, the characteristics of this subsequent period, when mankind\nwere living together in groups of families under the mild sway of the\npatriarch, when \"all families were good\" (p. 218), and when\n\n ... \"With abundant goods midst quiet lands,\n All willing shared the gatherings of their hands.\"\n\nwas just that semi-state of nature which it only required the\nBacchanalian tradition on the one side to transform into the fiction of\nthe state of savage and absolute equality, or the touch of poetry to\nconvert into the golden reminiscence on the other.\n\nIn this way, in the person of the patriarch Noah, the fiction of a\nstate of nature was brought into contact with the tradition of a law of\nnature and a law of nations, regarded as the law of mankind \"when men\nwere nearest the gods.\"\n\n * * * * *\n\nIII. I have already noticed (p. 127) the double tradition of the\nsuccession of ages, the tradition from the fragment of Sanchoniathon,\nupon which Mr M'Lennan relies, being ante-, that of Hesiod partly ante-\nand partly post-diluvian. The following lines of Hesiod, for instance,\nbearing allusion to the confusion of tongues and the shortening of\nlife, being plainly post-diluvian:--\n\n \"When Gods alike and mortals rose to birth,\n The immortals formed a _golden race_ on earth\n Of _many-languaged men_; they lived of old,\n When Saturn reigned in Heaven; an age of gold.\n\n \"The Sire of Heaven and earth created then\n A race the third, of _many-languaged men_,\n Unlike the silver they; of brazen mould,\n Strong with the ashen spear, and fierce and bold.\"[279]\n\n [279] With reference to the stone age, _vide_ p. 288.\n\nAnd again, of the iron race which followed them, he says--\n\n \"Jove on this race of many-languaged men\n Speeds the swift ruin which but slow began;\n For scarcely spring they to the light of day\n E'er age untimely strews their temples grey.\"\n\nI must here, too, point out how curiously the testimonies of tradition\nand science coincide.[280] _Both_ are agreed as to the transition\nfrom a brass (bronze) to an iron age; but in one it is referred to\nas evidence of degeneracy--in the other, the transition is adduced\nin proof of progress. But the fact is established by the evidence\nof tradition, as certainly as by the conclusions of science, and is\nreferred to accordingly by Sir John Lubbock (\"Pre-historic Times,\" p.\n6).\n\n [280] Concerning the evident tradition of the dispersion in Hesiod,\n \"Theog.\" v. 836, _vide_ Bryant's \"Mythology,\" iii. 51, _et\n seq._\n\nThe lines of Lucretius are certainly remarkable--\n\n \"Arma antiqua, manus ungues dentesque fuerunt,\n Et lapides, et item sylvarum fragmina rami\n Posterius ferri vis est, \u00e6risque reperta,\n Sed prior \u00e6ris erat, quam ferri cognitus usus.\n Quo facilis magis est natura et copia major\n \u00c6re solum terr\u00e6 tractabunt, \u00e6reque belli\n Miscebant fluctus.\"--_De Rerum Natura_, lib. 5.\n\nBut here I cannot help thinking the tradition has reference rather to\nthe use than to the knowledge of metals. We have seen, for instance,\nthat the cultivation of the ground commenced with Noah--the fact\nbeing attested both by Scripture and tradition. Now, in the above\npassage, although the primitive weapons are referred to, as of stones,\nyet it is said \"\u00e6reque solum terr\u00e6 tractabunt,\" an averment which\nno doubt has reference to the brazen age; yet nothing forbids the\nconstruction, which on other grounds seems the more natural that the\nland was from the first so cultivated,[281] and that in strictness the\ncommencement of the brazen age was identical with the commencement of\ncultivation, although in the mind of the poet it had reference to the\nintroduction of bronze weapons and implements of war. Moreover, the\n_sylvarum fragmina rami_ may point to the period immediately preceding\ncultivation, when the human race clung to the mountains. The testimony\nof Scripture to the point seems plain. Not only does the construction\nof the ark appear to imply the use of metals, but the reference to\nTubalcain, \"who was a hammerer and artificer in every work of brass and\niron\" (Gen. iv. 22), seems to put the antediluvian knowledge of metals\nbeyond question.\n\n [281] This appears to me to be borne out by the Sanscrit root \"_ar_,\n to plough,\" being seemingly cognate with \"\u00e6s, _\u00e6r_is,\" and\n with the produce corn = \"_aris_ta,\" aroum, aratrum, Greek\n [Greek: arsm\u00eaa], &c.\n\n Sanscrit, \"ar, to plough,\" _vide_ note 1 in Brace's\n \"Ethnology.\" _Vide_ also Max M\u00fcller, \"Science of Language,\"\n _id._ _Vide_ also Max M\u00fcller, \"Chips,\" ii. p. 45.\n\n \"The name of the plough (in Egypt) was [Greek: ZHbix],\n _ploughed land_, appears to _have been_ [Greek: art], a\n word still traced in the Arabic 'hart,' which has the same\n import; and the Greek [Greek: ar\u00eatron] and Roman _aratrum_\n appears to indicate, like the [Greek: aroura], an Egyptian\n origin.\"--_Wilkinson's Ancient Egyptians_, i. 45.\n\n If \"ar,\" as in \"[Greek: aristos],\" should be proposed as the\n primitive root, it must be after rejection of the evidence of\n secondary derivation; but does not our common parlance still\n run to the comparison of virtues with metals, \"good as gold,\"\n \"hard as iron,\" \"true as steel.\" Why then at a later period\n should not brass have become the expression for _best_ in the\n brazen or warlike age, when courage was the virtue principally\n regarded? If this is accepted, \"[Greek: Ar\u00eas],\" or Mars, so\n far from being the root, would be a tertiary derivation--the\n embodiment and deification of what was regarded as best in the\n brazen age. Gladstone (\"Homer,\" ii. p. 225), shows that Mars\n was a deity of late invention, and not one of the traditionary\n deities. Rawlinson, _vide supra_, p. 164, identifying Ares\n with Nimrod.\n\n Bunsen (\"Egypt,\" iii. 466), says in a note, \"Arya\" in Indian\n means lord. Its original meaning was equivalent to \"upper\n noble.\" The popular name \"Arja\" is derived from it, and means\n \"descended from a noble.\" I will only add that \"Ari\" in\n Egyptian means \"honourable\" (in Nofruari). But \"ar\" might mean\n to plough; for the Aryans were originally and essentially an\n agricultural, and therefore a peasant race. Agriculture at the\n time we are contemplating would have been the most honourable\n employment (_supra_, p. 329), it would not have been \"an\n agricultural and therefore peasant\" employment till insecurity\n brought about the state of dependence and vassalage. The\n Aryans would have been noble as being of the Japhetic race.\n\nIn the first commencement after the Deluge, unless miraculously\nsupplied, there would have been no grain or bread food until time had\nbeen allowed for its production. During this interval acorns, &c., may\nhave been the only food. Perhaps it was so ordained to incite to the\nnew permission to eat flesh meat. On the other hand, I ask, in those\nages when men were supposed to live exclusively on acorns, was not\nflesh meat eaten,--were there no hunters? Had man no control over the\ndomestic animals?\n\nThat in a peaceful period, and the intercommunication of families\nprevious to the dispersion implies a state of peace (ch. xiii.), in a\nperiod in which, if we follow the other traditions, \"all families were\ngood,\" and were under the rule of an old man, \"who held his hands to\nhis ears when they spoke to him of war,\" it is not surprising to learn\neither that they had no weapons, or that they were of the simplest\ndescription. It is characteristic of an age which piques itself upon\nthe perfection of its artillery, and whose greatest triumphs and\ninventions have been in the science of destruction, to look back upon\na totally different age which happened only to have stone weapons, as\nnecessarily an age of barbarism. But from our point of view it must be\nregarded not as an age of barbarism, but of prosperity,--not as a state\nof equality, but of the subordination of the members of the family to\neach chief, and of families relatively to each other; an age of much\nmental vigour and spiritual intuition, and, so far from being a period\nof misery, it left reminiscences of happiness such as lingered long in\nthe memory of mankind.\n\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XIV.\n\n _SIR H. MAINE ON THE LAW OF NATIONS._\n\n\n Dr Newman in his inaugural discourse as Rector of the Dublin\n University (\"On the Place held by the Faculty of Arts in the\n University Course\"), which I think never received the attention it\n deserved, has with a few masterly touches sketched the history of\n Western civilisation, which in its main lines may be considered\n to run into, and be found identical with, the tradition I am now\n regarding--with this difference, that Dr Newman regards Western\n civilisation in its progressive, whereas we are concerned with its\n traditive aspects. Dr Newman says: \"I take things as I find them\n on the surface of history, and am but classing phenomena (I have\n nothing to do with ethnology). Looking, then, at the countries\n which surround the Mediterranean seas as a whole, I see them from\n time immemorial the seat of an association of intellect and mind\n such as to deserve to be called the intellect and mind of human\n kind. Starting and advancing from certain centres, till their\n respective influences intersect and conflict, and then at length\n intermingle and combine, a common thought has been generated,\n and a common civilisation defined and established. Egypt is one\n starting-point, Syria another, Greece a third, Italy a fourth (of\n which, as time goes on, the Roman empire is the maturity, and\n the most intelligible expression), North Africa a fifth, ... and\n this association or social commonwealth, with whatever reverses,\n changes, and momentary dissolutions, continues down to this day....\n I call it, then, pre-eminently and emphatically Human Society,\n and its Intellect the Human Mind, and its decisions the sense of\n mankind and its humanised and cultivated states--civilisation\n in the abstract; and the territory on which it lies the _orbis\n terrarum_, or the world. For unless the illustration be fanciful,\n the object which I am contemplating is like the impression of a\n seal upon the wax; which rounds off and gives form to the greater\n portion of the soft material, and presents something definite to\n the eye, and pre-occupies the space against any second figure, so\n that we overlook and leave out of our thoughts the jagged outline\n or unmeaning lumps outside of it, intent upon the harmonious circle\n which fills the imagination within it.\" (\"There are indeed great\n outlying portions of mankind, ... still they are outlying portions\n and nothing else, fragmentary, &c., protesting and revolting\n against the grand central formation of which I am speaking, but\n not uniting with each other into a second whole.\") The same _orbis\n terrarum_, which has been the seat of civilisation, has been\n the seat of the Christian polity. \"The natural and the divine\n associations are not indeed exactly coincident, nor ever have\n been.\" \"Christianity has fallen partly outside civilisation and\n civilisation partly outside Christianity; but on the whole the two\n have occupied one and the same _orbis terrarum_.... The centre of\n the tradition is transferred from Greece to Rome.... At length the\n temple of Jerusalem is rooted up by the armies of Titus, and the\n effete schools of Athens are stifled by the edict of Justinian....\n The grace stored in Jerusalem, and the gifts which radiate from\n Athens, are made over and concentrated in Rome. This is true as\n a matter of history. Rome has inherited both sacred and profane\n learning; she has perpetuated and dispensed the traditions of Moses\n and David in the supernatural order, and of Homer and Aristotle\n in the natural. To separate these distinct teachings, human and\n divine, is to retrograde; it is to rebuild the Jewish temple and\n to plant anew the groves of Academus; ... and though these were\n times when the old traditions seemed to be on the point of failing,\n somehow it has happened that they have never failed.... Even in\n the lowest state of learning the tradition was kept up;\" ... and\n this experience of the past we may apply to the present, \"for as\n there was a movement against the classics in the Middle Ages, so\n has there been now.... Civilisation has its common principles, and\n views, and teaching, and especially its books, which have more or\n less been given from the earliest times, and are in fact in equal\n esteem and respect, in equal use, now, as they were when they were\n received in the beginning. In a word, the classics and the subjects\n of thought and study to which they give rise, or to use the term\n most to our present purpose, the arts have ever on the whole been\n the instruments which the civilised _orbis terrarum_ has adopted;\n just as inspired works, and the lives of saints, and the articles\n of faith and the Catechism have been the instrument of education\n in the case of Christianity. And this consideration you see,\n gentlemen (to drop down at once upon the subject of discussion\n which has brought us together), invests the opening of the schools\n in arts[282] with a solemnity and moment of a peculiar kind, for\n we are but engaged in reiterating an old tradition, and carrying\n on those august methods of enlarging the mind, and cultivating\n the intellect and ripening the feelings, in which the process of\n civilisation has ever consisted.\"--_Dr Newman on Civilisation._\n\n [282] _I.e._, \"The teaching and government of the University\n remained in the Faculty of Arts,\" and not in the faculty\n of theology or law or modern philosophy. I have for my\n own purposes of condensation been obliged to take certain\n unpardonable liberties of transposition in the above abstract,\n for which I can only plead my necessity. I should not in any\n case have so exceeded in quotation, were this very masterly\n address at all accessible, but, as far as I know, it is only\n to be found in the _Catholic University Gazette_, November 16,\n 1854.\n\n In order to show the full significance of these extracts\n from Dr Newman, and also their bearing on points still to be\n discussed, I will append the following suggestive passage\n from Sir H. Maine's \"Ancient Law,\" p. 22:--\"It is only with\n the progressive societies that we are concerned, and nothing\n is more remarkable than their extreme fewness. In spite of\n overwhelming evidence, it is most difficult for a citizen of\n Western Europe to bring thoroughly home to himself the truth\n that the civilisation which surrounds him is a rare exception\n in the history of the world. The tone of thought common\n among us, all our hopes, fears, and speculations, would be\n materially affected, if we had vividly before us the relation\n of the progressive races to the totality of human life. It is\n indisputable that much the greatest part of mankind has never\n shown a particular desire that its civil institutions should\n be improved since the moment when external completeness was\n first given to them by their embodiment in some permanent\n record.... There has been a material civilisation, but instead\n of the civilisation expanding the law, the law has limited the\n civilisation.\"\n\n I must also express my belief that if Mr Lowe had read the\n lecture of Dr Newman, he would have very much modified\n the views he enunciated in his lecture on \"Primary and\n University Education,\" at the Philosophical Institution at\n Edinburgh.--_Times_, November 4, 1867.\n\nBefore examining Sir H. Maine's view on the Law of Nature and the Law\nof Nations, it will perhaps facilitate the inquiry if I gather up,\nout of the evidence which has accumulated in the previous chapters,\nsuch conclusions as will show how we stand in regard to Sir H. Maine's\ngeneral theory.\n\nI. Accepting Sir H. Maine's dictum that \"the family and not the\nindividual was the unit of ancient society;\" and, in a certain sense,\nthe further position, that it is difficult \"to know where to stop,\nto say of what races of men it is _not_ allowable to lay down that\nthe society in which they are united was originally organised on the\npatriarchal model,\"[283] I venture to maintain against Sir H. Maine the\ncontinuance of family life in a quasi state of nature, before either\nthe development or creation of the State.\n\n [283] \"Ancient Law,\" p. 123.\n\nII. But in maintaining that there was a period in human history\nanterior to the formation of governments, I am far from asserting--on\nthe contrary, I distinctly repudiate the notion--that there was ever an\nante-social state. Society is complete within the family circle;[284]\nand society in any wider organisation is only the requirement and\nconsequence of imperfection and corruption within the family, or of\ncollision between families. Undoubtedly, there were instances in which\nthe State grew up imperceptibly out of the extension of the family\ninto the patriarchal system;[285] but these instances will probably\nhave occurred among the families who remained stationary, whether by\nright of seniority, or by virtue of superior power, at the central\npoint from which the Dispersion commenced. So long, however, as family\ngovernment sufficed, there would have been nothing but the family; but\nwhen mankind increased, and actual relationship died out, disputes must\nhave multiplied and become complicated--not only between individuals\nbut between families; hence the necessity of State government--hence\nthe necessity of an appeal on the part of individuals from the family\nto some supreme authority. This would be the first mode in which\ngovernments would have arisen among those who came under the action\nof the Dispersion. But even here--assuming the family groups to have\ndescended from the same progenitor--we see first the family, first\nproperty, then the State. The second mode would be where several\nfamilies, differing in language and race, came together and formed\nStates.[286] Although they would have come together on unequal and\nvarying conditions, yet they would necessarily have come together\non some conditions, and for the mutual protection of their rights,\ntheir property, and their personal security. In all such cases there\nwould have been something of a recognition and adjustment of rights,\nsomething of the nature of a compact more or less explicit, but much\nmore formal and explicit in this mode than in the former. In any case,\nthe end and intention of the formation of States and governments would\nhave been the security of rights, as Cicero tells us:--\"Hanc enim ob\ncausam maxime _ut sua tuerentur_ respublic\u00e6 civitatesque constitut\u00e6\nsunt. Nam etsi, duce natur\u00e6, congregabantur homines, _tamen spe\ncustodi\u00e6 rerum suarum_ urbium pr\u00e6sidia qu\u00e6rebant.\" But does not Sir H.\nMaine himself supply similar testimony? Referring to the notions of\n\"primitive antiquity,\" he says:--\n\n \"How little the notion of injury to the community had to do with\n the earliest interferences of the State, through its tribunals,\n is shown by the curious circumstance, that in the original\n administration of justice the proceedings were a close imitation\n of the series of acts which were likely to be gone _through in\n private life_ by persons who were disputing, but who afterwards\n suffered their quarrel to be appeased. The magistrate carefully\n simulated the demeanour of a _private arbitrator, casually called\n in_.\"--Chap. x. 374; _vide_ also pp. 375, 376.\n\n [284] It by no means follows that God does not will, and did not\n foreordain society in its wider organisation, according to the\n conditions and circumstances out of which it arose.\n\n [285] Sir H. Maine says (p. 124):--\"The points which lie on the\n surface of history are these: the eldest male parent--the\n eldest ascendant--is absolutely supreme in his household. His\n dominion extends to life and death, and is as unqualified\n over their children and their _houses_ as over his slaves.\n The flocks and herds of the children are the flocks and herds\n of the father.\" [This is not borne out by what we read of\n Abraham and Lot, Esau and Jacob--_e.g._, \"But Lot also, who\n was with Abraham, _had_ flocks of sheep, and herds and tents.\n Neither was the land able to bear them, that they might\n dwell together\" (Gen. xiii.) \"And the possessions of the\n parent, which he holds in a representative rather than a\n proprietary character, are equally divided at his death among\n his descendants in the first degree, the eldest son sometimes\n receiving a double share, under the name of birthright, but\n more generally endowed with no hereditary advantage beyond an\n honorary precedence.\" The separation then commenced with the\n division of the inheritance; and whether it was ever an equal\n division, and not proportioned to the respective ages of the\n sons, or determined by other motives, or again, a division of\n different kinds of property, may be open to question; but at\n any rate a division took place, and a separation of families\n was consequent upon it. The division was not only the sign\n and token, but the efficient cause of the separation; and so\n not only the dispersion of families, but separate ownerships\n commenced with the descendants in the first degree.\n\n [286] Compare Plato, \"Leges;\" Grote's \"Plato,\" iii. 337.\n\nIII. We come to the conclusion that the collation of the sentiments and\nmaxims, as preserved in tradition by the families who had coalesced\ninto States, would have formed the basis of the morality and of the\njurisprudence of the States so constituted; and that in every case\nof oppression appeal would have been made to their pre-existing and\nnatural rights.\n\nIV. That whilst certain traditions--the tradition of religion, for\ninstance--would have been perhaps more faithfully preserved in the\npatriarchal governments of the East, and we find evidence of this in\nthe monotheism of the Persians; on the other hand, if there was a\ntradition of a law common to all nations, it would be more likely to\nbe preserved in States formed by the amalgamation of many distinct\nfamilies and races.[287]\n\n [287] \"In that old heathenism of the Roman world, into which it\n was the will of God that the Christian religion should be\n introduced by the apostles, there were then diverse and often\n conflicting elements. There was a good element, which came\n from God; there was a thoroughly bad element, which came from\n Satan; and there was a corrupt element, which was the fruit of\n the workings of unregenerate human nature upon society, and\n upon the objects of sense and intelligence with which man is\n placed in relation. The good element we see embodied in great\n part of the laws and institutions of the ancient world, as\n also in much of the literature, the poetry, the philosophy of\n Greece and Rome, which literature consequently--after having\n been purified, and as it were baptized--has always been used\n by the Christian Church in the education of her children. This\n element, I say, was originally the gift of God, the Author of\n nature, to man, the offspring of reason and conscience, the\n tradition of a society of which God was Himself the founder.\n It enshrined whatever fragments of primeval truth as to God,\n the world, and man himself, still lingered, in whatever shape,\n among the far-wandering children of Adam. St Paul alludes to\n this element (Acts xvii. 22); ... and his words altogether\n seem to imply that God watched over it, supported it and\n fostered it, as far as men were worthy of it, and that it\n might even have been expanded into a perfect system of natural\n religion and of reasonable virtue, had men been grateful\n enough to earn larger measures of grace from God, who left not\n Himself without witness in His daily providence, and was not\n far from 'any one of His children.'\"--\"_Four Sermons_,\" by the\n Rev. Henry J. Coleridge, S. J. Burns & Oates. 1869. P. 52.\n (48.)\n\nV. That such was the origin and history of the Greeks and Romans--the\ntwo nations which formed the nucleus of the _orbis terrarum_ within\nwhich, as Dr Newman tells us (_supra_, p. 339), is found the centre\nof Christianity and the seat of civilisation.\n\nVI. That, whether the Roman law goes back in tradition, or, as Sir H.\nMaine will say, in fiction only--the fact remains, that it does so\ntrace itself back to remote antiquity, and that the Roman law subsists\nto this day as the foundation of most of the codes of Europe, and\nhas extended its ramifications to all; and that outside the circle\nof its influence other nations equally retrace their codes to remote\nantiquity, and, as a rule, to revelations made to their earliest\nfounder. That nothing is more striking in ancient times than the manner\nin which their codes, which are the embodiment of laws previously in\ntradition, were held as a sacred deposit. This was the reason why the\nlaws of the Medes and the Persians might not be altered; and that,\naccording to the laws of the Visigoths, no judge would decide in any\nsuit unless he found in their code a law applicable to the case; and\nperhaps we may find trace of it in the phrases familiar to us--_nolumus\nleges Angli\u00e6 mutari_, _stare super vias antiquas_, and so, too, in the\n_ita scriptum est_, which, as Sir H. Maine says (p. 31), silenced all\nobjections in the Middle Ages.\n\nVII. That the fact of a tradition of \"a law common to all nations\" and\nof \"a lost code of nature,\" is in accordance with the historical and\nscriptural evidence which would render such a tradition probable.\n\n * * * * *\n\nSir H. Maine, with whose argument I now propose to deal, is, as far as\nI am aware, the most conspicuous opponent of the common belief in the\n\"Law of Nations;\" and yet it appears to me that we shall find testimony\nto the tradition even in the very terms in which he repudiates it. I\nmust at least consider this a recognition on his part of the strength\nand inveteracy of the opposite view. In the following extracts I shall\nsuppose my readers fresh from the perusal of Sir H. Maine.\n\nSir H. Maine says (\"Ancient Law,\" pp. 7, 8), that the further \"we\npenetrate into the primitive history of thought, the further we find\nourselves from the conception of law of any sort.\" And again, \"It is\ncertain that in the infancy of mankind, no sort of legislation, not\neven a distinct author of law, is contemplated or conceived of.\" Now if\nSir H. Maine had said nothing more, I should have felt bound to take\nthis assertion upon his authority; but Sir H. Maine adds:--\"Law has\nscarcely reached the footing of custom; it is rather a habit. It is, to\nuse a French phrase, 'in the air,'\" [Is not Sir H. Maine here hunting\nfor a phrase which shall not imply that it is in tradition?] \"The only\nauthoritative statement of right and wrong is a judicial sentence after\nthe facts, _not one presupposing a law which has been violated_, but\none which is breathed for the first time by a higher power into the\njudge's mind at the moment of adjudication.\"\n\nThis passage may be adduced in evidence of the tradition of Noah and\nhis heavenly-inspired judgments, but apparently it is in contradiction\nto the view of a law of nature, since it supposes the judge to decide\nthrough direct inspiration, or in the way of _stet pro ratione\nvoluntas_, and not with reference to a \"law which has been violated.\"\nNow, Sir H. Maine comes to his conclusion upon the ground of the\n\"Themistes\" of the Homeric poems. \"The earliest notions connected with\nthe conception ... of a law or rule of life are those contained in the\nHomeric words 'Themis' and 'Themistes'\" (p. 4). \"The literature of\nthe heroic ages discloses to us law in the germ under the 'Themistes,'\nand a little more developed in the conception of 'Dike'\" (p. 9). If\nthis were so, law according to the conception of \"Themistes\" and law\naccording to the conception of \"Dike\" were never contemporaneous, but\nnecessarily successive, or rather progressive; but at page 8 we read,\n\"The Homeric word for a custom in the embryo is _sometimes_ 'Themis'\nin the singular, more often 'Dike,' the meaning of which visibly\nfluctuates between 'a judgment' and a 'custom' or 'usage.' '[Greek:\nNomos],' a law ... does not occur in Homer.\"[288]\n\n [288] The word '[Greek: nomos]' is found in the Hymn to Apollo, v.\n 20, attributed to Homer [the term [Greek: themistes] also, v.\n 391]--and in Hesiod, Op. et Dies, v. 276.--Goguet, ii. 78.\n In the Hymn to Apollo it is only applied to song. The Greeks\n had the same word, however--viz. [Greek: nomoi], as for laws,\n songs, and pastures--that is to say, the term law, [Greek:\n nomos], is applied to the instrument of its transmission, and\n to what would then have been its most ordinary subject matter.\n This seems to me in evidence of its primitive use.\n\n Take, moreover, the following passage in the First Book of the\n Iliad, v. 233:--\n\n [Greek: 'All' ek toi ere\u00f4, kai epi megan horkon omoumai\n nai ma tode sk\u00eaptron, to men oupote phylla kai ozous\n physei, epeid\u00ea pr\u00f4ta tom\u00ean en oressi leloipen,\n oud' anath\u00eal\u00easei; peri gar rha he chalkos elepse\n phylla te kai phloion; nyn aute min hyies Achai\u00f4n\n en palam\u00eas phoreousi, dikaspoloi, hoite Themistas\n pros Dios heiryatai; ho de toi megas essetai horkos.]\n --_Heyne's Homer_, i. v. 233-239.\n\n \"But this I say, and with an oath confirm,\n By this my royal staff, which never more\n Shall put forth leaf nor spray since first it left\n Upon the mountain side its parent stem,\n Nor blossom more; since all around, the axe\n Hath lopped both leaf and bark, and now 'tis borne,\n _Emblem of justice_, by the sons of Greece,\n _Who guard the sacred ministry of law\n Before the face of Jove!_ a mighty oath.\n The time shall come when all the sons of Greece\n Shall mourn Achilles' loss,\" &c.\n --_Lord Derby's Translation_, 275-285.\n\n Here we have the term \"dike\" not merely in embryo, but in\n the compound word \"dikaspoloi,\" administrators of justice,\n implying something akin to judges, and a condition of things\n in which law was reduced to a state in which there was\n something to guard and administer. Not only so, but the staff,\n the \"emblem of justice,\" is borne by them when they _guard_\n the \"Themistes\" before the gods.\n\n It will not only be curious to discover, but the discovery\n of vestiges in modern times of the old traditional modes and\n ceremonial will throw light upon the administration of justice\n in ancient times. I dare say many other instances may be\n indicated. I will adduce the following:--If my readers will\n turn to the _Pall Mall Gazette_ (July 12, 1870), they will\n find an account of \"The Manx Thing,\" or \"the ancient custom\n of the Ruler, his Council, and the Commons meeting together\n in the open air to proclaim the law to the people standing\n around.\" \"The Lieutenant-Governor is the representative of\n the King, and takes an oath to deal truly and uprightly\n between our sovereign lady the Queen and her people,\" \"and\n as indifferently betwixt party and party _as this staff now\n standeth_.\" \"He is assisted by two demesters or supreme\n judges, who must deem the law truly, as they will answer to\n the Lord of the Isle.\" Here, as in Homer, there is reference\n to an emblem and a ceremonial repugnant to the notion that\n (_infra_) \"every man under the patriarchal despotism was\n practically controlled by a regimen not of law but of caprice.\"\n\n Mr Adams describes the following scene in one of the islands\n in the archipelago off the mainland of Korea--\"The chief, who\n really has something very noble and majestic about him, as\n is generally the case with men in high authority among the\n natives of these islands.... The demeanour of those of his\n countrymen who surrounded him was as free and independent as\n his own was reserved and dignified.... In his hand he held\n _his badge of office, a wand of ebony with a green silken cord\n entwined about it like the serpent of \u00c6sculapius_.\"--\"Travels\n of a Naturalist in Japan and Manchuria,\" by Arthur Adams,\n F.L.S. 1870. Compare also with _infra_, p. 390.\n\nWell, allow that there need not be as yet the metaphysical conception\nof law, or law as a positive enactment, embracing indifferently a\nvariety of cases. Eliminate the word \"law.\" Instead of the phrase \"law\nof nature\" substitute \"natural justice,\" and \"the sense of right and\nwrong;\" and it suffices that we detect \"usage,\" \"custom,\" right; for\neven if it were conceded that right is a post-Homeric rendering of\n[Greek: dik\u00ea], yet \"custom\" and \"usage\" in their definition would have\nbeen in recognition of pre-existing right. This becomes more clear if\nwe consider the alternative opinion. Sir H. Maine says that \"under\nthe patriarchal despotism,\" \"every man was practically controlled\nin all his actions by a regimen not of law but of caprice\" (p. 8).\nThe judgments, then, of the patriarchal times were mere \"caprice,\"\nand rights were defined without reference to any sense of justice.\nFrom \"Themistes\" of caprice they would proceed to legislation upon\n\"caprice,\" and, ultimately, to codes which would represent nothing\nbut a digest of the precedents of \"caprice.\" It is difficult, then,\nto understand in what way and at what point the sense of justice, the\nconception of \"dike,\" originated, and most of all, if this is true, it\nis difficult to account for the \"Themistes\" being regarded as akin\nto inspiration, as well as for the veneration with which, we have the\nauthority of Sir H. Maine (_vide infra_) for saying, that Archaic law\nwas held, and, moreover, for the persistent tendency to revert to the\npast.[289]\n\n [289] I feel very much supported in my argument by the following\n passage from Mr Gladstone's \"Homer\" (ii. 420): \"Mr Grote says\n that 'the primitive import' of the words [Greek: hagathos],\n [Greek: esthlos], and [Greek: kakos], relates to power and not\n to worth; and that the ethical meaning of these is a later\n growth, which 'hardly appears until the discussions raised by\n Socrates, and prosecuted by his disciples.' I ask permission\n to protest against whatever savours of the idea that any\n Socrates whatever was the patentee of that sentiment of right\n and wrong which is the most precious part of the patrimony of\n mankind. The movement of Greek morality with the lapse of time\n was chiefly downward and not upward.... But as to the words\n [Greek: hagathos] and [Greek: kakos], the case is far more\n clear; and here I ask, Can it be shown that Homer ever applies\n the word [Greek: hagathos] to that which is morally bad? or\n the word [Greek: kakos] to that which is morally good? If it\n can, _cadit qu\u00e6stio_; if it cannot, then we have advanced a\n considerable way in proving the ethical signification.... In\n the word [Greek: dikaios], however, we have an instance of the\n epithet never employed except in order to signify a moral or\n a religious idea. Like the word _righteous_ among ourselves,\n it is derived from a source which would make it immediately\n designate duty as between man and man, and also as it arises\n out of civil relations. But it is applied in Homer to both the\n great branches of duty. And surely there cannot be a stronger\n proof of the existence of definite moral ideas among a people,\n than the very fact that they employ a word founded on the\n observance of relative rights to describe also the religious\n character. It is when religion and morality are torn asunder,\n that the existence of moral ideas is endangered.\"\n\nIf, however, we follow Sir H. Maine in his illustration taken from\nEnglish law, we shall find ourselves reinstated in our original\nconvictions. Sir H. Maine says (p. 8), \"An Englishman should be\nbetter able than a foreigner to appreciate the historical fact that\nthe 'Themistes' preceded any conception of law;\" but at page 32, he\nsays, \"Probably it will be found that _originally_ it was the received\ndoctrine that somewhere _in nubibus_ [Q. \"in the air\"], or in _gremio\nmagistratuum_ there _existed_ a complete, coherent, symmetrical body\nof English law, of an amplitude sufficient to furnish principles which\nwould apply to any conceivable combination of circumstances.\" If, then,\nwe take the analogy of the English law, we come also to the identical\nconclusion for which I contend--viz. that the \"Themistes,\" whether they\npartook of the character of commands or of judgments, _were_ still in\nrecognition of a \"law which was violated.\"\n\nIf the \"Themistes\" had no reference to a law which was violated; if\nthey were mere caprice, I have already asked, whence arose the regard\nfor ancient law among the nations of antiquity? and I may add, how came\nit about that their ideas of justice were inseparably connected with\nthe notions of morality? Does Sir H. Maine deny either of these facts?\nOn the contrary, he affirms them:--\n\n \"Quite enough, too, remains of these collections ['ancient codes']\n both in the East and in the West, to show that they mingled\n up religious, civil, and merely moral ordinances _without any\n regard_ to differences in their essential character; and this is\n consistent with all we know of ancient thought from other sources,\n the _severance_ of law from morality, and of religion from law,\n belonging very distinctly to the later stages of mental progress\"\n (p. 16).\n\n And at p. 121, \"Much of the old law which has descended to us, was\n preserved merely _because it was old_. Those who practised and\n obeyed it did not pretend to understand it; and in some cases they\n even ridiculed and despised it. _They offered no account of it\n except that it had come down to them from their ancestors._\"\n\nDoes Sir H. Maine dispute the persistency of tradition in general?\nNo. At p. 117, _vide supra_, I have quoted a passage in which he\nexplicitly maintains it.\n\nI must observe further, that in the very passages in which he\nrepudiates the notion of a \"law of nature,\" two things irresistibly\ntranspire--(1.) That there was a persistent tradition in ancient\nsociety of a law of nature; (2.) That this tradition was invariably\nassociated with the golden age, _e.g._:--\n\n \"After nature had become a household word in the mouths of\n the Romans, the belief gradually prevailed among the Roman\n lawyers,[290] that the old _jus gentium_ was in fact _the lost\n code of nature_, and that the pr\u00e6tors, in framing an edictal\n jurisprudence on the principles of the _jus gentium_, were\n gradually restoring a type from which law had only departed _to\n deteriorate_\" (p. 56). \"But then, while the _jus gentium_ had\n little or no antecedent credit at Rome, the theory of a law of\n nature came in surrounded with all the prestige of philosophical\n authority, and invested with the _charms of association with an\n elder and more blissful condition of the race_\" (p. 60). \"The law\n of nature confused the past and the present. Logically it implied\n a state of nature which had once been regulated by natural law;\n yet the juris-consults do not speak clearly or confidently of\n the existence of such a state, which indeed is little noticed by\n the ancients _except_ when it finds a poetical _expression in\n the fancy of a golden age_\" (p. 73). \"Yet it was not on account\n of their simplicity and harmony that these finer elements were\n primarily respected, but on the score of their _descent from the\n aboriginal reign of nature_\" (p. 74). \"Yet it is a remarkable proof\n of the essentially _historical_ character of the conception that,\n after all the efforts which have been made to evolve the code of\n nature from the necessary characteristics of the natural state\n [_i.e. \u00e0 priori_] so much of the result is just what it would have\n been if men had been satisfied to adopt the dicta of the Roman\n lawyers without questioning or reviewing them. Setting aside the\n conventional or treaty law of nations, it is surprising how large a\n part of the system is made up of pure Roman law\" (p. 97). [Because\n the Roman law was in the main stream of the tradition.][291]\n\n [290] Either, then, the Roman lawyers fell back upon the old\n traditions, or else the lawyers introduced the superstition of\n the law of nature, and then became victims to the superstition\n they had invented. In any case, the \"belief\" in \"the lost\n code of nature gradually prevailed.\" I am presently going to\n discuss with Sir H. Maine how far in the latter case such a\n belief is likely to have prevailed.\n\n [291] _Vide_ also Sir H. Maine, p. 77: \"It is important, too, to\n observe that this model system, unlike many of those which\n have mocked men's hopes in later days, was _not entirely the\n product of imagination_. It was never thought of as founded\n on quite untested principles. The notion was that it underlay\n existing law, and must be looked for through it. Its functions\n were, _in short, remedial_, not _revolutionary_ or anarchical.\n And this unfortunately is the exact point at which the modern\n view of a law of nature has often ceased to resemble the\n ancient.\"\n\nI now come to what I may call the exposition of Sir H. Maine's argument\nproper, and, although I feel the full difficulty of doing this, in the\ncase of so subtle and able a writer, I shall endeavour to condense into\nas short a space as possible whatever is material to Sir H. Maine's\nposition. Sir H. Maine says (p. 46):--\n\n \"I shall attempt to discover the origin of these famous phrases,\n Law of Nations, Law of Nature, Equity, and to determine how the\n conceptions which they indicate are related to one another. The\n most superficial student of Roman history must be struck by the\n extraordinary degree in which the fortunes of the Republic were\n affected by the presence of foreigners under different names on\n her soil. The causes of this immigration are discernible enough\n at a later period, for we can readily understand why men of all\n races should flock to the Mistress of the World; but the same\n phenomenon of a _large population of foreigners_ and denizens meets\n us in the _very earliest_ records of the Roman State--no doubt\n the instability of society in ancient Italy.... It is probable,\n however, that this explanation is imperfect, and it could only\n be completed by taking into account those active commercial\n relations, which though they are little reflected in the military\n traditions of the Republic, Rome appears certainly to have had\n with Carthage and with the interior of Italy in pre-historic\n times.... In the _early Roman Republic_ the principle of the\n absolute exclusion of foreigners pervaded the civil law no less\n than the constitution. The alien or denizen could have no share\n in any institution supposed to be coeval with the State. He\n could not have the benefit of the Quiritarian Law, &c.... Still\n neither the interest nor the security of Rome permitted him to\n be quite outlawed.... Moreover, at no period of Roman history\n was foreign trade entirely neglected. It was therefore probably\n half as a measure of policy and half in furtherance of commerce\n that jurisdiction was first assumed in disputes to which the\n parties were either foreigners or a native and a foreigner. The\n assumption of such a jurisdiction brought with it the immediate\n necessity of discovering some principles on which the questions to\n be adjudicated upon could be settled.... They refused, as I have\n said before, to decide the new cases by pure Roman civil law.\n They refused, no doubt, because it seemed to involve some kind of\n degradation, to apply the law of the particular State from which\n the foreign litigant came. The expedient to which they resorted\n was that of selecting the rules of law common to Rome, and to the\n different Italian communities in which the immigrants were born.\n In other words, they set themselves to form a system answering\n to the primitive and literal meaning of _jus gentium, i.e._ law\n common to all nations. _Jus gentium_ was, in fact, the sum of\n the common ingredients in the customs of the old Italian tribes,\n for they were _all the nations_ whom the Romans had the means of\n observing, and who sent successive swarms of immigrants to the\n Roman soil.... The _jus gentium_ was, accordingly, a collection of\n rules and principles determined by observation _to be common_ to\n the institutions which prevailed among the various Italian tribes.\n The circumstances of the origin of the _jus gentium_ was probably\n a sufficient safeguard against the _mistake of supposing_ that the\n Roman lawyers had any special respect for it. It was the fruit in\n part of their disdain of all foreign law, and in part of their\n disinclination to give the foreigner the advantage of their own\n indigenous _jus civile_. It is true that we, at the present day,\n should probably take a very different view of the _jus gentium_....\n We should have a sort of respect for rules and principles so\n universal.... But the results to which modern ideas conduct the\n observer, are, as nearly as possible, the reverse of those which\n were instinctively brought home to the primitive Roman. What we\n respect or admire, he disliked or regarded with jealous dread. The\n points of jurisprudence which he looked upon with affection were\n exactly those which a modern theorist leaves out of consideration\n as accidental and transitory--the solemn gestures ... the endless\n formalities, &c.... The _jus gentium_ was merely a system forced\n on his attention by a political necessity. He loved it as little\n as he loved the foreigners from whose institutions it was derived,\n and for whose benefit it was intended. A complete revolution in his\n ideas was required before it could challenge his respect.... This\n crisis arrived when the Greek theory of a law of nature was applied\n to the practical Roman administration of the law common to all\n nations.\"--_Sir H. Maine's Ancient Law_, 46-52.\n\nSir H. Maine's theory may be summarised as an attempt to identify\nthe \"Law of Nations\" with the history of Roman law, leaving out of\nsight the tradition of it which may be traced in other nations.\nNow, although there is nothing, as Napoleon used to say, which one\nnation hates more than another nation--and this certainly holds true\nof the Roman people--yet it is scarcely possible to point to any\nwhich, from the circumstances of its origin, would have been less\npredisposed to look in the abstract with disdain upon the laws and\ncustoms of surrounding nations, however much they may have hated them\nas concrete nationalities; and least of all would they have had this\nfeeling for the institutions of the Latins, a people whom, from their\npeculiar connection with themselves, they would principally have had\nas residents among them. Sir H. Maine seems unable to shake off the\nprepossession, which the analysis of Roman law, to the exclusion of\nother evidence, would tend to lead him, viz. that the Romans were a\nhomogeneous people, and we have just heard him speak of their \"own\nindigenous _jus civile_.\" This indigenous _jus civile_ was compounded,\nas was their nationality, of many miscellaneous elements. Whatever\ntruth may be attached to the legends as to the foundation of Rome,\nand they are various, it cannot well be disputed that there was a\nstrong trace of Sabine[292] and Etruscan,[293] in addition to the\noriginal miscellaneous Roman, or, if not miscellaneous, pure Latin\nelement; to which, in any case, in the subsequent reigns a large Latin\nimmigration must be added, when Rome, through the conquest of Alba\nLonga, became the head of the Latin league, and the infusion of a Greek\nin addition to an Etruscan element in the dynasty of the Tarquins. The\nLatin league has its significance over and above its bearing upon the\npresent argument; and to this I shall presently revert. But to go no\nfurther, does not the existence of the Latin league[294] sufficiently\naccount for the large influx of strangers into Rome, on account of\nwhich Sir H. Maine sees the necessity for an extension of the Roman\njurisprudence? But, if this be so, his theory must fall to the ground;\nfor, if the Roman element was distinctive at all, and was a pure\nLatin population, miscellaneously collected by Romulus, and not a\nmiscellaneous population of various tribes--it was Latin _qu\u00e2_ Roman.\nHow then, supposing the Roman element to have become predominant, did\nit come to contemn the Latin element and the law of the Latins? That it\nexcluded them is another thing, or that they were kept in a subordinate\nposition, and not admitted to the full privileges of naturalisation,\nis quite conceivable on other grounds; but that there should have\nexisted a feeling of contempt for the laws and customs of the people\namong whom, if their legends were true (and at any rate we have nothing\nelse to go upon), was found the cradle of their race, is hard to\nunderstand, yet this assumption is essential to Sir H. Maine's position.\n\n [292] I shall consider that Dr Dyer has fairly reinstated a large\n portion of early Roman history until I see his arguments\n refuted. Without endorsing his opinion I may quote what Dr\n Dyer says (\"Hist. of the City of Rome,\" p. 27) in evidence\n of the admixture of the Sabine element:-- \"The importance of\n the Sabine element at Rome has not perhaps been sufficiently\n considered. The late M. Ampere has discussed the subject\n with great learning and ability in his interesting work,\n 'L'Histoire Romaine \u00e0 Rome.' He remarks that not only did the\n Romans borrow from the Sabines almost all their religious\n and much of their political and social organisation, their\n customs, ceremonies, arms, &c., but also that the far greater\n part of the primitive population of Rome was Sabine, that most\n of the men who played a part in Roman history were of Sabine\n extraction, and that what is called the Latin tongue contains\n a strong infusion of Sabine elements.\"\n\n [293] Evidences of the Etruscan element are so marked, that Nieb\u00fchr,\n in his first edition, asserted the Etruscan origin of the\n city. He subsequently, however, came to the conclusion that\n \"there was so much in the Roman state that was peculiar to\n Rome and Latium, as to be incompatible with the supposition of\n Rome being an Etruscan colony.\"--_Appendix to Travers Twiss'\n Epitome of Nieb\u00fchr._\n\n [294] A federal union existed between the Roman people and the\n Latins in the reign of Servius Tullius (Nieb\u00fchr, i. ch. xxv.)\n \"The old Latin towns had retained their ancient rights, and\n the colonies, that together with them formed the Latin nation,\n had all received the _full freedom_ of Rome, and had become\n _municipia_ a full century before the Consul Junius Norbanus\n introduced the franchise of the Latin freedmen.... The towns\n on the north of the Po, inhabited by a mixed population of\n Italians and Celts speaking Latin,... were termed the 'Lesser\n Latium.'... A law which regarded Latin citizens as foreigners,\n and applied to them the principle that the child follows the\n condition of the baser parent, _can only have_ related to this\n inferior Latium.\" (Nieb\u00fchr, ii. ch. vi.)\n\nAgain, the Roman family and tribal system, with their principle of\nagnatic relationship, was in all probability part of their organisation\nfor war: it was the secret of their strength. Grant that they shrank\nfrom applying the principles of their domestic law, which in their\napplication would have involved in time an organisation in conformity\nwith it, we can at once see why they withheld the principles of\ntheir jurisprudence without withholding it in mere scorn of an alien\nnationality.\n\nWe rather see influences which would have predisposed them to look with\nreverence on the laws and customs of a people among whom they must\nhave known that they had sprung, even if there had been no tradition\nof a law common to all nations \"of the lost code of nature,\" a notion\nwhich the edicts of the pr\u00e6tors of the later period would hardly have\ngenerated if it had had no foundation in tradition.\n\nIf you change the _venue_ to Etruria, the same arguments will apply.\nIn proof, I quote the following passage from a competent, if somewhat\nantiquated (1837) authority--(Pastoret, \"Hist. de la Legislation,\" xi.\n355)--more especially as it mentions a circumstance to which I do not\nremember that Sir H. Maine adverts, and which would make it a matter\nof some difficulty for the pr\u00e6tors to introduce laws and principles of\ntheir own making: \"Peu amis de la guerre, Ancus Martius voulut du moins\najouter \u00e0 l'art de la faire quelques formalit\u00e9s _pour la declarer;\nelles \u00e9toint d'usage avant lui_ chez des _peuples voisins_; ce sont les\nlois f\u00e9ciales, lois que nous avons d\u00e9j\u00e0 fait conno\u00eetre (c. iii. 286).\nL'adoption des lois \u00e9trusques par les Romains re\u00e7oit une force nouvelle\nd'un fait conserv\u00e9 par D\u00e9nys et Halicarnasse (Liv. ii. \u00a7 27); c'est que\n_apr\u00e8s_ l'abolition de la monarchie on exposa dans la place publique de\nRome _\u00e0 la vue de tous les citoyens_ toutes _les lois et cout\u00fbmes_ de\nla patrie, avec les lois \u00e9trangeres nouvellement _introduites, afin_\nque le droit publie ne change\u00e2t pas en m\u00eame temps que les pouvoirs du\nmagistrat.\"\n\nSir H. Maine says, at p. 151, \"The pr\u00e6tors early laid hold on\n_cognation_ as the _natural_ form of kinship, and spared no pains\nin purifying their system from the older conception [_i.e._ older\naccording to Roman law]. Their ideas have descended to us, but still\ntraces of agnation are to be seen in many of the modern rules of\nsuccession after death.\"\n\nThe reader will find (from p. 146 to 160)[295] in Sir H. Maine the\ndistinction between cognation and agnation very completely and lucidly\nstated. I may say roughly, however, that cognation is the form of\nrelationship which we acknowledge and which is familiar to us,\ndescending in graduated degrees, including males and females alike,\nfrom common ancestors. Agnatic relationship is rigidly confined to\nthe male lines, excluding the connections and descendants of females,\nupon the maxim, _Mulier est finis famili\u00e6_, though including unmarried\nfemales on the side of the father.\n\n [295] _Vide_ also De Fresquet, \"Droit Romain,\" ii. 25-29.\n\nNow, I venture to think that the argument which may be drawn from the\npassage which I have quoted ought not lightly to be dismissed as a mere\n_argumentum ad hominem_.\n\nSir H. Maine says that the pr\u00e6tors early laid hold on cognation as the\n_natural_ form of kinship. Either, then, they did this really detecting\nthis principle as inhering in the natural law which was in tradition,\nor as detecting it as the \"law common to all the nations known to the\nRomans.\" In the latter case, it shows that, whereas cognation was\ncommon among the surrounding nations, agnation obtained among the\nRomans. The latter was therefore their peculiar institution, which\nsustains the argument which I have just put. If, on the contrary, they\ndetected cognation underlying the institutions of all nations, and as\npart of their traditional law of nature, we cannot wish for a better\nand clearer instance of the natural law cropping up. And it is an\ninstance, too, of the advantage at which those argue who have on their\nside the authority of Scripture, indicating the landmarks. Knowing\nthat mankind sprang from a single pair, we can see that cognation must\nhave been the law from the commencement: for it stands to reason that\ncommencing with common ancestors the normal and natural mode would be\nto include all the relations according to degrees of descent, until\nthere was some object in excluding them. With some political necessity\nor expediency for the limitation to males and the exclusion of females\nwould agnation have commenced. If we require a case in point we\nhave it in the relationship of Laban to Jacob. According to agnatic\nrelationship they were second cousins, but according to cognatic\nrelationship Laban was his maternal uncle, and such accordingly he is\ncalled in the sacred text (Gen. xxviii. 2). But in the seventh century\nbefore Christ, in the thickness of Paganism, men would scarcely have\ncome to this conclusion, since they had apparently lost, as far as we\nknow, the knowledge of their origin; although, as we have already seen,\nthey retained dimly the tradition of many things of which they had\nforgotten the specific history. From the information we derive from Sir\nH. Maine, the memory of cognation, as the earliest and most natural\nscheme of kinship, must somehow have subsisted in tradition. It was not\ncertainly in their power to verify the truth of the tradition as we can\nby a reference to revelation, and yet it would seem as if, having come\nto this conclusion, that it was almost within the grasp of human reason\nto have inferred from it the origin from a single pair, and thus to\nhave recovered the knowledge they had lost from the tradition they had\npreserved.[296]\n\n [296] \"The above table shows that before the separation of the\n Aryan race, every one of the degrees of affinity had received\n expression and sanction in language, for, although some spaces\n had to be left empty, the coincidences, such as they are, are\n sufficient to warrant one general conclusion.\"--_Vide_ table,\n Max M\u00fcller's Essays, ii. p. 31.\n\n Of course, I am speaking only of the actual affinity, not of\n laws of succession founded upon it. These must be controlled\n by other considerations, and by other natural rights, as,\n for instance, the right of testation or by reasons of State\n requiring hereditary succession and a Salic law, or by reasons\n of family compelling the agnatic rule as the only mode of\n preserving the ancestral domain to the family--a necessity\n which applies as stringently to small freeholds as to broad\n manors.\n\n In illustration, I quote the following passage from the\n Rev. W. Smith's \"Pentateuch\" (above referred to, ch. xiii.,\n \"Indirect internal evidence of Mosaic authorship,\" vol. i.\n 307)--\"As the journey (Exodus) proceeds so laws originate\n from the accidents of the way.... The laws regulating the\n succession to property furnish an example of the same kind.\n In Numbers xxvi. 32-36 it is ordained in accordance with\n patriarchal usage, that the family inheritance descend by the\n male line. But a case immediately turns up where there happens\n to be no male issue. Zelophahad had left no sons, but only\n daughters, and what was to become of the property? How was the\n succession to be regulated? To meet the case, Jehovah orders\n Moses to proclaim the law of Numbers xxvii. 8-11, in virtue of\n which daughters, in failure of sons, are to succeed. Shortly\n after, a new difficulty arises. As heiresses, the daughters\n of Zelophahad were now to have property of their own. But if\n they married out of their tribe, was the property to go with\n them? (Num. xxxvi. 1-9.) Such a condition would at once have\n upset the fundamental laws of inheritance. Hence, to avoid the\n evil, they are enjoined to marry within their own tribe; and a\n general law to the same effect is promulgated\" (xxxvi. 8, 9).\n\nA few points in Sir H. Maine's argument (_supra,_ p. 352) remain\nto be noticed. I must take exception, for instance, to his averment\n\"that what we respect and admire,\" viz. \"principles so universal,\"\nthe Roman \"regarded with jealous dread.\" \"The parts of jurisprudence\nwhich he looked upon with affection, and the solemn gestures, &c.,\nwere the parts which a modern theorist leaves out of consideration,\"\nfor he seems to have recognised their justice, and allowed them to\noperate so effectually that his whole system of jurisprudence, which\nwas originally based on agnatic kinship, came round to the principle\nof cognation.[297] In the process, and through the action so skilfully\nevolved and unfolded in Sir H. Maine's pages, two principles, equally\nto our mind, were brought into gradual recollection, viz. the comity\nof nations and equality before the law. The \"solemn gestures,\" \"the\nnicely-adjusted questions and answers of the verbal contract,\" \"the\nendless formalities,\" are at least in evidence of the tradition.\n\n [297] \"We should know almost nothing about it (agnation) if we\n had only the compilations of Justinian to consult; but the\n discovery of the MS. of Gaius discloses it to us at a most\n interesting epoch, just when it had fallen into complete\n discredit, and was verging on extinction.\"--_Ancient Law_, p.\n 153.\n\nAnd this suggests a reflection upon the basis of Sir H. Maine's\nargument, viz. that the Romans could only draw their induction from\n\"the customs of the old Italian tribes, as these were all the nations\nwhom the Romans had the means of observing.\" Now, if we attach the\nweight which is due to Dr Newman's remarkable view (_vide supra_) as to\nthe course and confines of civilisation, we shall be, I think, struck\nwith the fact that the two nationalities of Greece and Rome, which were\ndestined to form its heart and centre, had as their common substratum\na very peculiar people, whose characteristics exactly adapted them to\nretain traditions, and to carry out the scriptural saying about the\npeople, \"And they shall maintain the state of the world\"--a people who\nwere the first occupiers of the soil of Greece and Italy, and who, if\nnot directly and historically, can through philology be traced back\nto the most primitive times;[298] a people tenacious of customs and\ntraditions,[299] who were the guardians of the worship and tradition\nof the Dodon\u00e6an Jupiter,[300] and in possession of his shrine when\nthe worship of Jupiter was only the thinly-disguised corruption of\nthe worship of the true God;[301] a people to whom, according to Mr\nGladstone, the Greek religion owed its sacerdotal and ceremonial\ndevelopment,[302] and who also inclines to the opinion, which has a\nmore especial significance, and bearing on the present argument, that\nthe Amphictyonic Council was a Pelasgian institution.\n\n [298] Gladstone's Homer, i. 305-372.\n\n [299] _Id._ i. 106-108.\n\n [300] \"The Greek mythology was derived from the Pelasgians, and the\n oracle of Dodona belonged to them.\"--_Nieb\u00fchr, Hist._ i. 28.\n\n \"The Pelasgians were a different nation from the Hellenes:\n their language was peculiar, and not Greek.... The Pelasgians,\n as well as the Hellenes, were members of the Amphictyonic\n association, the main tie of which was religion, in which\n both nations agreed.\"--_Nieb\u00fchr, Hist._ i. (_Travers Twiss'\n Epitome_, ch. iii.)\n\n \"The royal laws became odious or obsolete, the mysterious\n deposit was silently preserved by the priests and the nobles,\n and at the end of sixty years the citizens of Rome still\n complained that they were ruled by the arbitrary sentence of\n the magistrate; yet the positive institutions of the kings\n had blended themselves with the public and private manners of\n the city; some fragments of that venerable jurisprudence were\n compiled by the diligence of antiquarians, and above twenty\n texts still speak the rudeness of the Pelasgic idiom of the\n Latins.\"--_Gibbon's Decline and Fall_, vol. viii. ch. xiv.\n\n [301] Gladstone, ii. 173, &c.; Strabo.\n\n [302] _Id._ i. 294.\n\nNow, let us consider this special significance of the Amphictyonic\nCouncil. On the one hand, it is attributed to Amphictyon, the son of\nDeucalion; on the other hand (as I shall presently show), we see the\nalmost identical institution in Italy in contact with Roman law. What,\nthen, was the Amphictyonic Council? Those who have written upon it\nappear to me to have endeavoured to regard it too much as a federation.\nHence a double error. On the one side it was found that, instead of\nbeing a federation of all Greece, at most it was only a federation of\ntwelve cities; it was further found that it had no external action,\nand that on occasions, as, _e.g._ the Persian war, in which the whole\nnation of Greece acted as one people, it made no appearance.[303] A\nfeeling of disappointment necessarily supervened, and it was asked,\nif not a federation, what was it? On the other hand, although not a\nfederation for the purposes of government or war, it would be an equal\nerror to deny that it was a federation for certain purposes, more\nor less invisible to the eye, and which for such purposes retained\nsufficient vitality to assemble deputies twice a year, and during\nseveral centuries, for it is certain that it subsisted to the close\nof Grecian history, when, indeed, we are astonished to find that when\nfaith in everything else had died out, belief in the Amphictyons again\nflickers into life. It is true that we know little, but the little\nthat has transpired implies so much more. Were it not for a casual\npassage in a speech of \u00c6schines, we should hardly have known more than\nof their existence. As it is, we are thrown back upon conjecture,\nand upon what we can recover indirectly from tradition. Now, if we\nsuppose the Amphictyonic Council to have tradited down, and to have\nbeen a federation for the purposes of traditing down from primitive\ntimes, even in their rudimentary form, the rules and principles of the\nlaws of nations, much that is strange and mysterious in its history\nwill disappear.[304] It will at once account for its duration and\nprestige, in spite of its inactivity and merely passive existence,\neven supposing that it is reduced in our estimation to a sort of\nconvocation, powerless for action, and merely keeping alive a tradition\nof the past. From this point of view, the fact of its merely being a\nfederation of twelve States, which is generally adduced to reduce it\nto unimportance, taken in connection with another fact which I shall\npresently substantiate, really militates in favour of my argument. It\nshows that instead of being the one typical institution of the sort,\nit is only the one which stands out most prominently in history, and\nmerely handed down a tradition which was common to many others. I have\nalready alluded to the Latin league, through which, apparently, the\nRomans recovered their tradition of the law common to all nations.\nIf all these isolated federations retained their tradition of a law\ncommon to all nations--although practically limited to the members of\ntheir own confederation--is it not at once in evidence of the action\nof the Dispersion and at the same time of a tradition anterior to the\ndisruption? Without pretending to have gone over the ground necessary\nto present an exhaustive catalogue of such federations, I may present\nthe following facts in evidence and illustration.\n\n [303] _Vide_, Pastoret, \"Hist. de la Legislation,\" v. 21.\n\n [304] \"The oath taken by the deputies bound the Amphictyons not to\n destroy any of the Amphictyonic cities, or to debar them from\n the use of their fountains in peace or war; to make war on any\n who should transgress in these particulars ... or who should\n plunder the property of the god (the Delphine Apollo).... This\n is the oldest form of the Amphictyonic oath which has been\n recorded, and is expressly called by \u00c6skines the ancient oath\n of the Amphictyons.\"--_Cyclop. of Arts and Sciences._\n\nOutside the Amphictyonic union there were other federations, even\nwithin the confines of Greece itself:--\n\n \"Qui avoient le m\u00eame caract\u00e8re, et peut-\u00e9tre un caract\u00e8re plus\n intime d'association entre des etats voisins, pour honorer\n ensemble des dieux, ou pour se pr\u00eater, dans certains cas, un appui\n necessaire. Il s'en reunissoit une non loin de Trezime ou Argolide,\n une autre \u00e0 Corinthe, une autre \u00e0 Onchiste en Beotie; on en trouve\n de semblables encore dans plusieurs \u00eeles de la Grece, et dans les\n colonies de l'Asie Mineure.[305] Ces associations, au reste, ne\n seconderent pas moins la civilisation generale que n'auroit pu le\n faire un Amphictyonat universel.\"--_Pastoret, Hist. de la Legis._,\n v. 27.\n\n [305] The Ionian federation, composed also of twelve cities, was\n almost identical. \"L'association s'etoit form\u00e9e d'abord entre\n les douze cit\u00e9s, en y comprenant les deux \u00eeles voisines de\n Samos et de Chio.... On s'assembloit dans un lieu sacr\u00e9 du\n Mont Mycale, que les Ionians avoient dedi\u00e9s en commun _\u00e0\n Neptune_.\"--_Pastoret_, ix. 170. There was also a confederacy\n of seven states, which met in the _temple of Neptune_, in\n the island of Calauria, \"and which is even called by Strabo,\n viii. 374, an Amphictyonic Council.\"--_Cyclop. of Arts and\n Sciences_, art. Amphic. Council.\n\nWe find the same federations when we come to Italy:--\n\n \"Among the other works of Servius Tullius was a temple of\n Diana, which he erected on the Aventine, apparently near the\n present church of Sta. Prisca. This temple, in imitation of the\n Amphictyonic confederacy, was to be the common sanctuary and place\n of meeting for the cities belonging to the Latin league, of which\n Rome had become the chief through the conquest of Alba Longa; and\n her supremacy was tacitly acknowledged by the temple being erected\n with money contributed by the Latin cities. It is said to have been\n an imitation of the Artemisium, or temple of Diana at Ephesus.\n (Liv. i. 45; Dionys. iv. 26; Varro, L. L. v. \u00a7 43; Val. Max., vii.\n 3, \u00a7 1.) The brazen column containing the terms of the league, and\n the names of the cities belonging to it, was preserved in the time\n of Dionysius.\"--Dyer's _Hist. of City of Rome_, p. 51.\n\nCompare this with Nieb\u00fchr, Hist. ii. chap. ii. (Travers Twiss'\n\"Epitome.\")\n\n \"So long as Latium had a dictator, none but he could offer\n sacrifice on the Alban mount, and preside at the Latin holidays,\n as the Alban dictator had done before. He sacrificed on behalf of\n the Romans likewise, as they did in the temple of Diana on the\n Aventine for themselves and the Latins.... The opinion that the\n last Tarquinius or his father constituted the festival is quite\n erroneous, as its antiquity is proved to have been far higher. It\n is true that Tarquinius converted it into a Roman festival, and\n probably, too, by throwing it open to a larger body, transformed\n the national worship of the Latins into the means of hallowing\n and cementing the union between the states. The three allied\n republics had each its own place of meeting--at Rome, at the\n spring of Ferentina, and at Anagnia, where the concilium of the\n Hernican tribes was held in the circus; that the sittings of the\n diets were connected with the Latin festival, seems to be evinced\n by the usage, that the consuls never took the field till after it\n was solemnised; and by its variableness, which implies that it was\n regulated by special proclamation. Like the Greek festivals it\n ensured a _sacred truce_.\"\n\nIn these extracts we come upon a federation resembling the Amphictyonic\nleague, whose union is also cemented at a religious festival, the\norigin of which must be sought for in remote antiquity, and which\nfestival has a direct connection with questions of peace and war. We\nalso catch glimpses of similar federation among the Hernici and Marsi.\n\nNow, let us go to quite an opposite point; and, if we find the same\nstratification cropping up, may we not conjecture it to have been once\nthe same throughout.\n\n \"When the Europeans made their first settlements in America,\n six such nations had formed a league, had their Amphictyons or\n states-general, and by the firmness of their union, and the ability\n of their councils, had obtained an ascendant from the mouth of\n the St Lawrence to that of the Mississippi. They appeared to\n understand the objects of the confederacy as well as those of\n separate nations; they studied a balance of power.... They had\n their alliances and treaties, which, like the nations of Europe,\n they maintained or they broke upon reasons of state, and remained\n at peace from a sense of necessity or expediency, and went to war\n upon any emergency of provocation or jealousy.\"[306]\n\n [306] Adam Fergusson, \"Essay on Civil Society,\" 130. Whatever the\n conduct of the Iroquois or Five Nations (sometimes counted as\n six) may have been towards surrounding nations, the fidelity\n with which they held to their compacts among themselves is\n fully acknowledged.\n\n Colden (\"History of the Five Indian Nations\") says, \"This\n union has continued so long that the Christians know nothing\n of the original of it.... Each of these nations is an absolute\n republick by itself, and every castle in each nation makes an\n independent republick and is governed by its own 'Sachems' or\n old men.... They have certain customs which they observe in\n their publick transactions with other nations, and in their\n private affairs among themselves; which it is scandalous for\n any one among them not to observe, and these always draw after\n them either publick or private resentment whenever they are\n broke.\"\n\n In Plato's Republic, \"It is laid down that the Greeks are\n natural enemies of the barbarians, but are natural friends and\n _allies of one another, so that all hostilities between Greek\n states_ are to be avoided--are to be conducted on principles\n of mildness and forbearance, and to be considered as civil\n discord rather than foreign war.\" \"The ten kings of the\n Atlantic island were never to make war on each other--there\n was a sort of Congress between them.\" Critias, chap. 15. Sir\n G. C. Lewis, \"Method,\" &c., ii. 234. This, taken in connection\n with what we know of the Amphictyonic Council, reads more like\n tradition than fiction.\n\nIn Mexico also there was \"that remarkable league, which indeed has no\nparallel in history (?) It was agreed between the States of Mexico,\nTezcuco, and the neighbouring little kingdom of Tlascopan, that\nthey should mutually support each other in their wars, offensive\nand defensive, and that in the distribution of the spoil one-fifth\nshould be assigned to Tlascopan, and the remainder be divided--in what\nproportions is uncertain--between the two other powers.... What is\nmore extraordinary than the treaty itself, however, is the fidelity\nwith which it was maintained.\"--_Prescott's Mexico_, i. p. 17. And in\nthe republic of Tlascala, it is said (_id._ i. 378) \"after the lapse\nof years, the institutions of the nation underwent an important change\n[they had previously separated into three divisions, of which Tlascala\nwas the largest]. The monarchy was divided, first into two, afterwards\ninto four separate states, bound together by a sort of federal compact,\nprobably not very nicely defined. Each state, however, had its lord\nor superior chief, independent in his own territories, and possessed\nof co-ordinate authority with the others in all matters concerning\nthe whole republic. The affairs of government, especially _all those\nrelating to peace and war_, were _settled_ in a _senate_ or _council_,\nconsisting of the four lords, with their inferior nobles.\" The\nTlascalans subsequently incorporated the Othonius, or Otomius (p. 378).\n\nHere, as in the Greek and Latin Leagues, the primary objects of\nthe law of nations seem to have been secured within the limits of\ntheir confederation, or of what they would have deemed the pale of\ncivilization. The requirements of their horrible worship (_i.e._ the\nnecessity of procuring human victims for their sacrifices) seems,\nhowever, to have overridden every other consideration, and to have\nimpelled them to frequent wars with the nations outside the pale. In\nthe case of the Tlascalans, the traditional lines seem more clearly\ndefined. I have already hinted, in a note, with reference to the\nGreek and Latin Leagues that the Atlantis of Plato was, as indeed it\nprofesses to be, an embodiment of tradition, and not, as it is commonly\nregarded, as a figment of the imagination; but this strikes me still\nmore forcibly when the League of the Ten Kings in the Atlantis is\ncompared with the League of the Tlascalans.\n\nPlato says: \"The particulars respecting the governors were instituted\nfrom the beginning as follows. Each of the ten kings possessed absolute\nauthority, both over the men and the _greater part_ of the laws in\nhis own division and in his own city, punishing and putting to death\nwhomsoever he pleased. But the government and communion of these kings\nwith each other were conformable to the _mandates given by Neptune_;\nand this was likewise the case with their laws. These mandates were\ndelivered to them by their ancestors on a pillar of orichalcum,\nwhich was erected about the middle of the island, _in the temple of\nNeptune._ These kings, therefore, assembled together every fifth,\nand alternately, every sixth year, for the purpose of distributing\nan equal part both of the even and the odd; and when they assembled\nthey deliberated on the public affairs, inquired if any one had acted\nimproperly ... a sacrifice of _bulls_ was made in the temple of\nNeptune, at the foot of the pillar of orichalcum.... But on the pillar,\nbesides the laws, there was an oath, supplicating mighty imprecations\nagainst those who were disobedient.... There were also many _other\nlaws_ respecting _sacred_ concerns, and such as were peculiar to\nthe several kings; but _the greatest_ were the following: that they\nshould _never wage war against each other_, and that all of them\nshould give assistance if any one person in some one of their cities\nshould endeavour to extirpate the royal race. And as they consulted in\ncommon respecting war, and other actions, in the same manner as their\nancestors, they assigned the empire to the Atlantis family.\"--_Plato's\nWorks_, Sydenham and Taylor's tr., ii. 589.\n\nI think it will then be conceded, that whether or not there was a\ntradition \"of a law common to all nations,\" there were at any rate\nchannels provided, well adapted to conduct and disseminate it, and\nthat these channels everywhere converge upon the most primitive\ntimes. Before proceeding to ascertain whether anything has in fact\nbeen transmitted, I must draw attention more particularly to the\ncircumstance that the tradition of all law is everywhere closely\nconnected with the traditions of religion, has been handed down in\na similar manner; and, so far as it retains the purity of primitive\ntruth, under the same sanction. From this point of view the following\npassages from Cicero appears to me to be very significant:\n\n \"Hanc igitur video sapientissimorum fuisse sententiam legem\n neque hominum ingeniis excogitatum, neque scitum aliquod esse\n populorum, _sed \u00e6ternum quiddam_ quod universum mundum regerat\n imperandi, prohibendique sapienti\u00e2.... Qu\u00e6 non tum denique incipit\n lex esse, cum scriptum est, sed tum cum orta est; orta autem simul\n est cum mente divina.\" \"Jam ritus famili\u00e6 patrumque servari, id\n est _quoniam antiquitas proxima accedit ad Deos_, a Deis quasi\n _traditam_, religionem tueri.\"--_Cicero de Legibus_, ii. 4, 11.\n\n There is another curious passage which seems to prove that the\n oracles originally existed simply for the preservation of the\n primitive tradition; and, although mixed up with imposture, that\n they seem to have had the knowledge, or at least the instinct, that\n their prestige and power of influence was within the limits of the\n traditions which they had corrupted or preserved.[307]\n\n [307] The general assemblies of Greece were held at Delos, \"Comme\n M\u00e9tropole du Culte,\" Pastoret ix. 13. \"Ce qu'il y a d'assur\u00e9,\n c'est que le Pontife exer\u00e7oit sur plusieurs objets une\n v\u00e9ritable administration de la justice. La d\u00e9cision n'en\n appartenoit qu' \u00e0 lui. Les r\u00e8gles qu'il devoit suivre, le\n caract\u00e8re et l'\u00e9tendue de ses droits, \u00e9toient pareillement\n \u00e9tablis dans le recueil connu sous le nom de Jus Pontificum\n (Macrobe parle deux fois de ce Jus Pontificum, mais comme d'un\n ouvrage perdu. Saturn, vii. chap. xiii.) Un fils du pontife\n romain Publius Sc\u00e6vola est m\u00eame cit\u00e9 dans le livre des Lois\n comme pr\u00e9tendant qu'on ne pouvoit exercer un si haut minist\u00e8re\n sans savoir le _droit civil_. Quoi, tout entier? dit Cic\u00e9ron,\n qui le refute; et qui font au pontife le droit des mers, le\n droit des eaux, ou d'autres droits semblables?\"--Pastoret ix.\n 203. \"Torts, then, are copiously enlarged upon in primitive\n jurisprudence. It must be added that _Sins_ are known to it\n also. Of the Teutonic codes it is almost unnecessary to make\n this assertion.... But it is also true that non-Christian\n bodies of archaic law entail penal consequences on certain\n classes of acts and on certain classes of omissions, as being\n _violations of divine prescriptions and commands_. The law\n administered at Athens by the senate of the Areopagus was\n probably a _special religious code_; and at Rome, apparently\n from a _very early period_, the Pontifical jurisprudence\n punished adultery, sacrilege, and perhaps murder. There were,\n therefore, in the Athenian and in the Roman states laws\n punishing _sins_.\"--Sir H. Maine, pp. 371, 372.\n\n The expression unwritten laws ([Greek: agraphoi nomoi])\n first occurs in the funeral oration of Pericles (Thuc. ii.\n 37), when it appears to denote those laws of the state which\n are corroborated by the moral sanction. It next occurs....\n Xenophon, Mem. iv. 4, \u00a7 19, 25, ... the expression was\n doubtless adopted by Socrates from popular usage. Thus Plato\n speaks of [Greek: ta kaloumena hypo t\u00f4n poll\u00f4n agrapha nomima]\n (Leg. vii. 793). _Vide_ Sir G. C. Lewis, \"Method of Rea. in\n Pol.,\" ii. 27. [The \"laws called unwritten by the multitude\"\n must evidently imply laws known to the multitude but in\n tradition.]\n\n Cicero, \"De Natura Deorum,\" iii., says, \"Habes, Balba, quid\n Cotta, quid _pontifex_ sentiat. Fac nunc, ego intelligam,\n quid tu sentias: a te enim philosopho rationem accipere debes\n religionis; _majoribus autem nostris etiam nulla ratione\n reddita credere_.\" \"Lex est cui homines obtemperare convenit,\n cum ob alia multa, tum ab eo maxime quod lex omnis inventus\n quidem, ac _dei munus est_.\" \"Lex est sanctio sancta, jubens\n _honesta_, prohibens contraria.\"\n\n \"Deinceps in lege est, _ut de ritibus patriis_ coluntur optimi,\n de quo cum consulerent Athenienses Apollinem Pythium, quas\n potissimum religiones tenerent, oraculum editum est _eas qu\u00e6 essent\n in more majorum_. Quo cum iterum venissent, majorumque morem\n dixissent, s\u00e6pe esse mutatum, qu\u00e6sivissentque quem morem potissimum\n sequerentur, e variis respondit, optimum. Et perfecto ita est\n ut id habendum sit antiquissimum et a _Deo proximum_ quod sit\n optimum.\"[308]--_Cicero de Legibus,_ ii. 16.\n\n [308] This last sentence is only a gloss of Cicero's from the\n stoical point of view, since clearly the enunciation of the\n oracle would compel the conclusion, that what was most ancient\n and nearest the gods was the best, and not that the best, as\n abstractly conceived, was to be held the most ancient, &c.\n A moment's consideration will suffice to show that in this\n substitution is involved the whole extent of the difference\n between the principle of conservation and the principle of\n change.\n\n \"Demosth\u00e8ne qui avait en faire tant de mauvaises lois,\n pronon\u00e7ait que\" toutes les lois sont l'ouvrage et le pr\u00e9sent\n des dieux \"et c'\u00e9tait \u00e0 ce titre qu'il r\u00e9clamit pour\n elles l'ob\u00e9issance des hommes. Socrate professait la m\u00eame\n doctrine.\"--Ozanam, \"Les Germains avant le Christianisme,\" i.,\n 159. Again, \"Quand on \u00e9tudie les lois indiennes on y voit tout\n un grand peuple encha\u00een\u00e9 par la terreur des dieux. Le livre de\n la loi s'annonce comme une revelation.... Les prescriptions du\n droit sacr\u00e9 enveloppent pour ainsi dire toute la vie civile,\n et c'est l\u00e0 qu'on decouvre enfin la raison de tant de coutumes\n dont les Occidentaux avaient conserv\u00e9 la lettre, mais non\n l'esprit.\"--_Id._ p. 161. \"If the customs and institutions of\n barbarians have one characteristic more striking than another,\n it is their _extreme uniformity_\" (Maine's \"Ancient Law,\" p.\n 366). \"There are in nature certain fountains of justice whence\n all civil laws are derived but as streams; and like as waters\n do take tinctures and tastes from the soils through which\n they run, so do civil laws vary according to the regions and\n governments where they are planted, though they proceed from\n the same fountains.\" (Bacon, \"Advancement of Learning,\" B. ii.\n W. iii. 475, ap.; D. Rowland, \"On the Moral Commandments,\" p.\n 85.)\n\nBut this sentiment and tradition was not only common to the people of\nGreece and Rome, but to the yet uncivilised tribes of Germany.\n\n \"Or les dispositions, o\u00f9 la coutume barbare et la loi romaine\n s'accordent, sont encore celles qui semblent faire le fond des\n l\u00e9gislations gr\u00e8ques: non que les douze tables aient \u00e9t\u00e9 copi\u00e9es,\n comme on l'a cru, sur les lois de Solon, mais \u00e0 cause de l'\u00e9troite\n parent\u00e9 des peuples de la Gr\u00e8ce et du Latium. A travers l'obscurit\u00e9\n des si\u00e8cles h\u00e9ro\u00efques, on d\u00e9couvre un sacerdoce puissant qui a\n ses premiers \u00e9tablissements en Thrace, en Samothrace, \u00e0 Dodone,\n et qui perp\u00e9tuera son autorit\u00e9 par l'institution des myst\u00e8res. On\n voit aussi la resistance d'une race belliqueuse.\"--_Ozanam_, \"Les\n Germains avant le Christianisme,\"_ vol. i. chap. \"Les Lois.\"\n\n \"Au premier abord rien ne semble plus contraire aux moeurs\n barbares que la loi romaine, si subtile, si pr\u00e9cise, si bien\n ob\u00e9ie. Cependant si l'on en consid\u00e8re les origines, on n'y trouve\n pas d'autres principes que ceux dont la trace subsistait dans les\n vieilles coutumes de la Germanie. Le droit primitif du Rome, comme\n celui du Nord, est un droit sacr\u00e9.\"--_Ib._ p. 148.\n\n \"Il existait chez les Germains une autorit\u00e9 religieuse,\n _d\u00e9positaire de la tradition_, et qui y trouvait l'id\u00e9al et le\n principe de tout l'ordre civil. Cette autorit\u00e9 avait cr\u00e9\u00e9 la\n propri\u00e9t\u00e9 immobili\u00e8re en la rendant respectable par des rites et\n des symboles, ... elle l'engageait dans les liens de la famille\n l\u00e9gitime, consacr\u00e9e par la saintet\u00e9 du mariage, par le culte des\n anc\u00eatres, par la solidarit\u00e9 du sang: elle l'enveloppait dans le\n corps de la nation s\u00e9dentaire, ou elle avait \u00e9tabli une hierarchie\n de caste et de pouvoir, \u00e0 l'exemple de la hierarchie divine de la\n cr\u00e9ation\" (p. 147). \"Dans cette suite de sc\u00e8nes dont se compose\n pour ainsi dire le drame judiciaire, on reconna\u00eet un pouvoir\n religieux, qui cherche _\u00e0 sauver la paix, \u00e0 d\u00e9sarmer la guerre_ et\n qui s'y prend de trois fa\u00e7ons diff\u00e9rentes\" (p. 142).\n\nNow, if we are agreed that fitting channels for the diffusion of\nthe tradition existed; if, further, we find that all law seems to\ntrace itself back to a common source of supernatural revelation;\nif the resemblances in the traditions concerning the lawgivers of\nantiquity--and, with the exception of Lycurgus, the agreement in\nthe fundamentals of their codes--in the great lines of the family,\nproperty, and the external relations of life, seems to require the\nsupposition of some common fountain-head at which they all filled the\npitcher--we shall, I think, when we come to the question of public\nlaw, only require further some evidence of a tradition of maxims,\nrules, and precedents of procedure in war, founded on and appealing\nto natural right, and claiming the sanction of the gods, to establish\nthe existence of a law common to all nations different from that which\nwould have arisen from the judgment of the pr\u00e6tors, merely applying\nthe rules and maxims common to the Romans and the adjoining nations,\nin case of conflict where the law of the State was not allowed to be\napplied (_supra_, Maine).\n\nI shall, doubtless, be reminded that this was only part of Sir H.\nMaine's argument, and that it was this, taken in connection with the\ninfluence of the Stoics on Roman law, and the stoical conception of\nnature,[309] which created the fiction of a law of nature, and of a law\ncommon to all nations.\n\n [309] \"L'erreur a \u00e9t\u00e9 de croire qu'il n'est rien de plus facile \u00e0\n l'homme que de suivre la nature, tandis que c'est au contraire\n le chef-d'oeuvre de l'art que de la contenir dans les bornes\n que la nature lui prescrit: c'est o\u00f9 peuvent \u00e0 peine parvenir\n les legislateurs les plus sages. Que de pr\u00e9jug\u00e9s \u00e0 \u00e9teindre!\n que d'erreurs \u00e0 combattre! que d'habitudes \u00e0 vaincre! toutes\n choses qui dans tous les temps commandent imp\u00e9rieusement au\n genre humain.\"--_L'Antiquit\u00e9 d\u00e9voil\u00e9e par ses usages_, i. 1.\n ii. ch. iii. _par Boulanger_.\n\nLet it then be granted that the theories and maxims of the Stoics had\ntheir influence on Roman society and Roman law. It was only part of\nthe influence which stole over and everywhere impregnated the field of\nprimitive tradition. Sir H. Maine shows us how it at once seized upon\nthe element of law, which, be it in fiction only, was said to be common\nto all nations. Would it the less have seized upon it if, instead of\nbeing a fiction, it had been a reality?--_\u00e0 fortiori_, it would have\ndone so. Therefore Sir H. Maine leaves the question as to the belief\namong the ancients in a \"law common to all nations\" still open, or\nrather, so far as there is an argument, it is only with the previous\npart of his theory that it is necessary to deal; for all that Sir H.\nMaine's finely-drawn reasoning and subtle detection of the influence\nof Grecian stoicism on Roman law accounts for--so far as the present\nargument is concerned--is the greater attention and respect which was\nhenceforward paid to the fiction, supposing that it had not heretofore\nand always been paid to the fact, that there was a traditional law\ncommon to all nations.\n\nI have previously (p. 3) pointed out the distinction between the\nlaw of nations and international law, and I am under the impression\nthat I made the distinction before the publication of Sir H. Maine's\nwork--certainly before I had become acquainted with it. The manner\nin which Sir H. Maine makes the distinction does not appear to me to\nbe quite accurate. He says:--\"It is almost unnecessary to add that\nthe confusion between _jus gentium_, or law common to all nations,\nand international law, is entirely modern. The classical expression\nfor international law is _jus feciale_, or the law of negotiation and\ndiplomacy\" (p. 53). The Fecial College was very far from corresponding\nwith our Corps Diplomatique, neither was its law a law of negotiation\nand diplomacy; and the distinction between the law of nations and\ninternational law was made in modern times, _precisely because_ in\nantiquity treaty law was subordinate to, and identified with, the\ntraditional law. The Fecial College corresponded much more nearly to\nwhat our Heralds' College would be, supposing the Heralds' College\ninvested with the authority of our Admiralty Courts, and also made the\ntrustees of the foundation for the study of international law, which\nDr Whewell's bequest had the intention of instituting at Cambridge.\nWe should then have, as in ancient times, a body of men who would\nbe at once the depositaries, the interpreters, and the heralds of\na tradition, though, to complete the picture, we should have to\ninvest them with a sacred character, and in some way to give to their\ndecisions the sanction of religion. Dionysius of Halicarnassus tells\nus that they were priests chosen from the best families at Rome, and\nthat their special intention was to see that the Romans never made an\nunjust war. \"The seventh part of the Sacred Laws was devoted to the\ncollege of the Fecials, whom the Greeks call [Greek: eir\u00eanodikai].[310]\nThey are men selected from the most illustrious families, and are\ndedicated during their whole life to this priesthood.... It would\ntake long to enumerate all the various duties of the Fecials, which\nwere multifarious, ... but in the main they are these,--to take heed\nlest the Romans should ever undertake an unjust war with a city with\nwhich they were in league\" (Lib. ii.); it was their duty to demand\nreparation, and, failing, to declare war; in case of differences with\nallies, they acted as mediators, and they adjudicated in case of\ndisputes. It was for them to decide what constituted an injury to the\nperson of an ambassador, and whether or not the generals had acted\naccording to their oaths; to draw up the articles of treaties, truces,\nand the like; and to decide as to their nullity and validity, and to\ncommunicate accordingly with the Senate, which deliberated upon their\nreport.\n\n [310] [Greek: Eir\u00eanodikai]--\"Feciales quia _interpretes_ et\n _arbitri_ sunt pacis et belli.\"--_Lexicon_, Ben-Hederic,\n Ernesti.\n\n _Vide_ also Plutarch, \"Numa;\" Livy, lib. i. c. 34.\n\n Vattel, iii. c. iv., says:--\"It is _surprising_ to find among\n the Romans such justice, such moderation and prudence, _at a\n time too_ when apparently nothing but courage and ferocity was\n to be expected from them.\"\n\nWhat Cicero tells us is not less to the point:--\n\n \"There are certain peculiar laws of war also, which are of all\n things most strictly to be observed.... As we are bound to be\n merciful to those whom we have actually conquered, so should those\n also be received into favour who have laid down their arms.... Our\n good forefathers were most strictly just as to this particular, the\n custom of those times making him the patron of a conquered city or\n people who first received them into the faith and allegiance of\n the people of Rome. In short, _the whole right and all the duties\n of war_ are most rigorously set down in the _fecial laws_, out of\n which it is manifest that no war can be justly undertaken _unless\n satisfaction has been first demanded_, and _proclamation_ of it\n made _publicly beforehand_.\"--Cicero, _Offices_, i. xi.; again,\n also, _vide_ iii. xxxi.\n\nCompare these passages with Mr Gladstone's account of the Homeric age:--\n\n \"In that early age, despite the prevalence of piracy, even that\n idea of political justice and public right, which is the germ of\n the law of nations, was not unknown to the Greeks. It would appear\n that war could not be made without an appropriate cause, and that\n the offer of redress made it the duty of the injured to come to\n terms. Hence the offer of Paris in the third Iliad is at once\n readily accepted; and hence, even after the breach of the act,\n arises Agamemnon's fear, at the moment when he anticipates the\n death of Menelaus, that by that event the claim to the restoration\n of Helen will be practically disposed of, and the Greeks will\n have to return home without reparation for a wrong, of which\n the _corpus_, as it were, will have disappeared.\"--_Iliad_, iv.\n 160-62.[311]\n\n [311] Gladstone, \"Homer and the Homeric Age,\" iii. 4.\n\nIt is certainly not within the scope of this chapter to indicate the\nmultiform applications of the law of nations, which it would require a\nlegist's special knowledge (to which the writer can lay no claim) to\ndetermine with any exactness. My object has been merely to sustain\nthe traditional belief against those who deny it. I shall indeed, for\nthe purposes of illustration, go into detail on one point, viz. the\ndeclaration of war; but I may mention incidentally that the Fecial and\nAmphictyonic law presumably extended to many other points, such as\ntreaties, trophies,[312] truces,[313] hostages, and the like. Moreover,\nthe maritime law of Rhodes and the islands of the \u00c6gean, known to\nthe Romans long before it was embodied in their code (which was not\nprobably until they had extended maritime relations), presents, as\nPastoret (ix. 118) informs us, \"analogies et rapprochemens multipli\u00e9s\"\nwith modern maritime legislation from the time of the Romans to the\n\"ordonnance de la marine\" drawn up by order of Louis XIV.\n\n [312] \"To demolish a trophy was looked on as unlawful, and a\n kind of sacrilege, because they were all dedicated to some\n deity; nor was it _less a crime to pay crime_ to pay divine\n adoration before them, or to repair them when decayed, as may\n be _likewise_ observed of the Roman triumphal arches.... For\n the same reason, those Grecians who introduced the custom of\n erecting pillars for trophies incurred a severe censure from\n the ages they lived in.\"--_Potters \"Arch\u00e6ologia_,\" ii. c. 12.\n \"Before the Greeks engaged themselves in war it was usual\n to publish a declaration of the injuries they had received,\n and to demand satisfaction by ambassadors; which custom was\n observed even in _the most early ages_.... It is therefore no\n wonder what Polybius relates of the \u00c6tolians, that they were\n held for the common _outlaws_ and robbers of Greece, it being\n their manner to strike without warning, and make war without\n any previous or public declaration.\"--_Id._ ii. c. vii. p. 64.\n (Compare _infra_, ch. xv.)\n\n [313] \"Omnes portas concionabundus ipse imperator circumiit, et\n quibuscumque irritamentis poterat, iras militum accuebat, nunc\n fraudem hostium incusans, qui, pace petita, induciis datis,\n per ipsum induciarum tempus, _contra jus gentium_ ad castra\n oppugnando venisset.\"--_P. Livius_, 1. xc.\n\nIn an article on \"Belligerent Rights at Sea\" (in the _Home and Foreign\nReview_, July 1863), in which there will be found a nice discrimination\nof these questions, Mr E. Ryley says:--\n\n \"The very largest rule of belligerent rights limits the voluntary\n destruction of life and property by the necessity of the occasion\n and the object of the war. Bynkershock and Wolf insist that\n everything done against the enemy is lawful, and admit fraud,\n poison, and the murder, as we should call it, of non-combatants,\n as permissible expedients for attaining the object of the war. But\n these are the writers who lay the foundations of the law of nations\n in reason and custom, and ignore that perception and judgment of\n right and wrong which God has communicated to man. It is true that\n for the most part, and practically, we know the law of nations by\n reason and usage; but this law is founded not on that by which we\n know its decisions, but on justice; and reason must admit, and\n usage must adopt, whatever is clearly shown to be just and right,\n however this may be against precedent, and what has hitherto been\n held to be sound reason. There is no law without justice, nor any\n justice without conscience, nor any conscience without God. Grotius\n thus admirably expresses himself:--'Jus naturale est dictatum\n rect\u00e6 rationis, indicans actui aliqui, ex ejus convenienti\u00e2\n aut disconvenienti\u00e2 cum ipsa natur\u00e2 rationali, inesse moralem\n turpitudinem, aut necessitatem moralem, _ac consequenter ab auctore\n natur\u00e6, Deo, talem actum vetari aut pr\u00e6cipi_. Actus, de quibus tale\n extat dictatum, _debiti sunt aut illiciti per se, atque ideo a\n Deo necessario pr\u00e6cepti aut vetiti intelliguntur_.'[314] And this\n principle obtains greater force from the objections which have\n been made to it, and the efforts to establish another foundation\n for the law of nations. Thus the principle of utility is only a\n feeble attempt to give another name to the law of justice which\n God has implanted in His creatures; and to pretend to found a law\n on general usage and tacit consent is to mistake the evidence of\n justice for justice itself.\"\n\n [314] \"De Jure Belli ac Pacis,\" l. i. c. l. \u00a7 x. n n, 1 et 2.\n\nAt first sight the passage quoted from Mr Ryley's article would\nseem to militate against my position; in reality we merely take up\ndifferent weapons against Bynkershock and Wolf. If custom means merely\nprecedent, it may or may not be in accordance with \"that perception of\nright and wrong which God has communicated to man;\" but if there is a\ntradition of a law of nations, the fact creates so great a presumption\nin favour of its pronouncements, that what is of usage and custom\nwill be the criterion of what is right until the human intellect has\nshown that what has hitherto been held to be permissible was founded\nin a precedent of iniquity. On the other hand, we are agreed that the\nlaw of nations must be such as to stand the test of the \"perception\nand judgment of right and wrong.\" As this perception, however, has\nnever wholly died out among mankind, whatever is of general acceptance\ncarries with it an assurance that it has stood this test; and \"general\nusage and the tacit consent\" is so much \"the evidence of justice,\" that\nit has practically been taken, or mistaken by mankind \"for justice\nitself,\" and the law of nations has always been discussed on the basis\nof usage. This, I contend, would not have been the case if there had\nnot been behind usage the immemorial sanction and tradition, or if\nthe tacit consent had been only acquiescence in wrong. I am the more\nconfirmed in this view on perceiving that Mr Ryley, after stating his\nown opinion as to the right of blockade, finds his conclusions, when\nhe has discriminated such precedents as were of an exceptional and\nretaliatory character, to be in conformity with usage and the decision\nof legists.\n\nFrom this point of view those who contend for the basis of tradition\nand those who contend for the basis of natural justice mean the same\nthing. They both affirm that there are limitations to human passion\neven in war. They are both opposed to precedents based on force, and\nare equally hostile to \"the principle of utility,\" for if, as Mr Ryley\nputs it, \"the principle of utility\" is only \"another name for the law\nof justice which God has implanted in His creatures,\" the phrase is\nan understatement of the truth, liable to misconstruction, and tends\nto lower the standard of right; and if it means something different\nor distinct from this, it means that against which the tradition of\nmankind protests.\n\nI have already said that international law, as distinguished from\nthe law of nations, requires to be constantly discriminated by the\nintellect or the conscience of mankind, and more especially now that\ndiplomatists are no longer legists.\n\nThere was a certain indirect and collateral influence arising out of\nthe tradition of a law of nations from the fact that a body of men\nexisting as its interpreters, or at least as its depositaries, which\nit appears to me was destined to operate powerfully in the interests\nof peace. The existence of such a body of men perpetuated a public\nopinion in these matters, they fostered an _esprit de corps_ stronger\neven than the spirit of nationality which then reigned supreme and\ndominated society. When a violation of treaties or an unjust aggression\ntook place there was thus found a body of men who would stigmatise or\nat least recognise it as such. The sentiment thus sustained was not\nall-influential for the purposes of peace, but it was operative to\nthe extent of arresting the attention and perturbing the consciences\nof mankind. In like manner I venture to say that the diplomatic body,\nalthough the depositaries only of a bastard tradition, subserve\nthis purpose also after a fashion, and I much doubt whether many\nwell-intentioned men, in striving to compass its abolition would not,\nas matters stand, destroy the last breakwater which secures the peace\nof Europe.\n\nIn ancient times the comity of nations was virtually restricted to\ngroups of cities or nations of kindred descent, or which had become\nconfederate by reason of contiguity. This circumstance has been\nadduced by Sir G. C. Lewis to stop _in limine_ the theory of a law of\nnations;[315] as if it was necessarily in denial of a tradition of\nmorality common to all nations. Yet, I think that I shall be able to\nshow instances of its recognition as between the groups, but it is\nprecisely in its restricted application within the groups, and in the\nchannels thus provided, that I think we shall find common features, and\ndimly and obscurely, though certainly, catch glimpses of the tradition.\n\n [315] Sir G. C. Lewis (\"Method, &c., of Reasoning in Politics,\" ii.\n 35), quotes Mr Ward, \"History of Law of Nations\" (i. 127), to\n the effect \"That what is commonly called the law of nations,\n is not the law of _all_ nations, but only of such sets or\n classes of them as are united together by similar religions\n and systems of morality.\" Sir G. C. Lewis' view is that \"as\n there are no universal principles of civil jurisprudence\n which belongs to each community, so there are no universal\n principles of international law which are common to all\n communities.\"--_Id._\n\nIf I may complete my thought, these confederations were so many types\nand anticipations of that Amphictyonic Council, which, if things had\nnot persistently gone wrong in the world, might have been formed in\nmedi\u00e6val times by Christendom under the presidency of the Popes,[316]\nand which may yet be realised in the triumph of religion which seems\nto be signified in the motto _lumen in coelo_, as attaching to the\nsuccessor of the present Pope, whose pontificate has been so singularly\nprefigured in the indication _crux de cruce_.[317]\n\n [316] Since writing the above, I have read a series of papers (which\n commenced I think in August 1871) in the _Tablet_ under the\n title of \"Arbitration instead of War,\" and I perceive that the\n writer arrives by a different route at a similar conclusion.\n I should have had pleasure in incorporating the argument with\n this chapter, but I shall do better if I induce my readers to\n peruse and weigh it as it deserves.\n\n [317] I allude to the ancient prophecy of St Malachy. Its\n authenticity as the prophecy of St Malachy may be questioned;\n but the antiquity of the prediction, and its existence in\n print early in the sixteenth century is, I believe, fully\n established. The copy which lies before me will be found in\n Moreri's Dictionary of 1732, in the Pontificate of Innocent\n XIII. Twelve mottoes given _in prediction_ from that date,\n fits the motto \"_crux de cruce_,\" to the 12th successor of\n Innocent, viz. Pius IX. Ten other mottoes follow commencing\n with \"lumen in coelo.\"\n\nIn the _Times_, November 29, 1867, it was said, \"If this theory ['the\nstates of Christendom constituted as a species of commonwealth'] could\nbe rendered effectual, international law would be furnished at once\nwith its greatest need, a court to enforce its behests; but nothing is\nplainer than that for such arbitration _the arbitrators must be fetched\nfrom another planet_.\"\n\nBut, inasmuch as Abraham Lincoln practically remarked, you cannot have\n\"a cabinet of angels\" in this world, the thing is to discover the\narbitrator who is the furthest removed from sublunary influences. Now,\nhow strong soever may be our national mistrusts and prejudices, we\ncannot refuse to recognise that the Papacy ostensibly satisfies these\nconditions, and this irrespective of the belief of the preponderant\nsection of the Christian world that he is the infallible guide, and the\ndivinely appointed interpreter of the tradition of morals.\n\nIts representatives being always old men naturally inclined to\npeace,[318] the sovereign of a small state which a general war would\nimperil--professing maxims and therefore pledged to a programme of\npeace--(so that any deviation from it, as in the case of Julius II.,\nwould render glaring and abnormal acts which would have been unnoticed\nin an ordinary sovereign), a sovereign without a family (and whatever\nmay be said of nepotism, it must be conceded that a man who has only\ncollateral relatives is _less_ tempted to found a family than one\nwho has sons), a sovereign, in fine, representing the oldest line of\nsuccession in the world,[319] in the oldest city, in the centre of\ntradition, and like Noah in the traditional symbols (_ante_, p. 220),\nlinking the new world with the old.\n\n [318] \"The pontifical power is, from its essential constitution, the\n least subject to the caprices of politics. He who wields it\n is, moreover, always aged, unmarried, and a priest; all which\n circumstances exclude ninety-nine hundredths of all the errors\n and passions which disturb states.\"--_De Maistre, Du Pape_, B.\n II. chap. iv.\n\n [319] \"The history of that Church joins together the two great ages\n of human civilisation. No other institution is left standing\n which carries the mind back to the times when the smoke of\n sacrifice rose from the Pantheon, and when the cameleopards\n and tigers bounded in the Flavian amphitheatre. The proudest\n royal houses are but of yesterday when compared with the\n line of the supreme Pontiffs. That line we trace back in an\n unbroken series, from the Pope who crowned Napoleon in the\n nineteenth century, to the Pope who crowned Pepin in the\n eighth; and far beyond the time of Pepin the august dynasty\n extends, till it is lost in the twilight of fable.... The\n Catholic Church is still sending forth to the farthest ends of\n the world missionaries as zealous as those who landed in Kent\n with Augustine, _and still confronting hostile kings with the\n same spirit with which she confronted Attila.\"--Macaulay's\n Essays, \"Review of Ranke's Popes._\"\n\nThis, I find (I quote from a series of important papers on \"English\nstatesmen and the independence of Popes,\" _Tablet_, November 1870),\nwas fully recognised by our greatest minister, Mr Pitt. In 1794, \"Pitt\nsuggested, through Fran\u00e7ois de Conzi\u00e9, Bishop of Arras, that the Pope\nshould put himself at the head of a European league.\" \"On more than\none occasion,\" he wrote, \"I have seen the continental courts draw back\nbefore the divergences of opinion and of religion which separate us. I\nthink that a common bond ought to unite us all. _The Pope alone can be\nthis centre._... We are too much divided by personal interests or by\npolitical views. Rome alone can raise an impartial voice, and one free\nfrom all exterior preoccupations. Rome, then, ought to speak according\nto the measure of her duties, and not merely of her good wishes, which\nno one doubts.\"\n\nThere have been at different periods of the world various projects of\nuniversal pacification;[320] but it is worthy of remark that they have\nalmost all, from that of Henri IV. to the one recently broached by\nthe Professor of Modern History at Cambridge, taken the traditional\nlines of a confederation of states more or less circumscribed with an\namphictyonic council. This has its significance from the point of view\nI am indicating, but I do not see that it is satisfactorily accounted\nfor on any other view.[321]\n\n [320] Sir G. C. Lewis, \"Method, &c.,\" ii. 285, enumerates several.\n\n [321] In De Quincey's Works, xii. 140, there is a disquisition on\n Kant's scheme \"of a universal society founded on the empire of\n political justice,\" where it is competent that as the result\n of wars man must be inevitably brought \"to quit the barbarous\n condition of lawless power and to enter into a federal league\n of nations, in which even the weakest number looks for its\n rights and protection--not to its own power, or its own\n adjudication, but to this great confederation (_foedus\n amphictyonum_), to the united power, and the adjudication\n of the collective will,\" and is said to be \"the inevitable\n resource and mode of escape under that pressure of evil which\n nations reciprocally inflict,\" and which seems to contemplate\n a situation like the present. \"Finally war itself becomes\n gradually not only so artificial a process, so uncertain in\n its issue, but also is the after-pains of inextinguishable\n national debts (a contrivance of modern times) so anxious and\n burdensome; ... that at length those governments which have no\n immediate participation in the war, under a sense of their own\n danger, offer themselves as mediators, though as yet without\n any sanction of law, and thus prepare all things from afar for\n the formation of a great primary state-body or cosmopolitic\n Areopagus, such as is wholly _unprecedented_ in all preceding\n ages.\" I am fully aware of the divergence of this view from\n that which I have indicated, but I wish to point out that it\n is only \"unprecedented\" in so far as it is cosmopolitic and\n extends to all humanity; but so extending it ought not to\n include the traditional notions of an \"Areopagus\"--_foedus\n amphictyonum_--or confederation of states. It ought rather\n to talk of an interfusion of states, the only condition upon\n which the cosmopolitic Areopagus would be possible; yet it\n inevitably falls into the traditionary lines. Moreover, before\n mankind can attain to this _inter-fusion_ of states, one\n supreme difficulty, which seems always to be over-looked, must\n be overcome, we must bring mankind back to be \"of one lip and\n one speech.\" The scheme, on the other hand, of a federation\n cannot be pronounced impracticable until it has been tried;\n yet, although it lies latent in the idea of Christendom, and\n although it has had a sort of informal recognition in the\n theory and policy of the balance of power, there has never\n been any understanding from which we can gather what the\n results would be, if the bond of federation were ever cemented\n by any solemn pledge or sanction.\n\nIt would seem, then, that there has always existed in the world the\ntradition, and since the triumph of Christianity, the conditions by\nwhich, if it had so willed, it might have recovered the golden age of\npeace and happiness of which it has never entirely lost the tradition.\n\nUntil this consummation we must fall back upon the law of nations,[322]\nthough even here it must be borne in mind that Christianity has\nexercised an indirect influence, and has raised the standard of\nmorality for the world at large.[323] But when all is abated the law\nof nations remains the _lex legum_, deeply founded in the maxims,\nsentiments, and usages of mankind. These maxims in their tradition have\nbeen concurrently interpreted, adapted, and in a certain sense moulded\nby the intellect of legists, whose discriminations or conclusions have\nreceived the tacit approbation of mankind. Rarely has the production\nof any profane writer received such an unanimous ratification as the\ngreat work of Hugo Grotius, mainly, as we have seen (_ante_, p. 4),\nbased on tradition. Again, the agreement and correspondence among\nthe legists of different nationalities is substantial, and is only\nto be accounted for upon the supposition that each in his own groove\nfaithfully incorporated and elaborated a tradition; and if you say that\nthis was only an argument among the separate traditions of the Roman\nlaw, you only put back the argument one remove, as I have attempted to\ndemonstrate. If conversely you say that the law of nations as we find\nit is purely the work and elaboration of legists, and the conclusions\nof abstract reason, put it to this test, bring all the legists of the\nworld into a congress--such a congress is much needed just now--with\ninstructions to create a new code on abstract principles, and upon the\nbasis of the rejection of what is of custom and tradition, and see what\nthey will accomplish! Do not all our difficulties begin exactly where,\nowing to the complications of modern civilisation, tradition ceases?\nFor the rest we shall presently see what the Congress of Paris, in\n1856, was able to effect in this kind.\n\n [322] \"Historicus\" (Letter in the _Times_, February 12, 1868)\n writes--\"The system of international law professes to be a\n code of rules which ought to govern, and in fact in a great\n degree _does govern_, the conduct of independent nations in\n their dealings with one another.... How can one doubt that\n in fact such a rule exists and does operate? Let us test the\n matter by an example. When the news of the affair of the\n _Trent_ reached England, what was the first question that\n every one asked? Was it not this, 'Is this act conformable to\n the law of nations, or is it not?' Did not the English Cabinet\n summon all the most distinguished jurists to advise them\n what the law of nations was? Was not the decision absolutely\n dependent on their advice.... The code of the law of nations,\n based on all other laws, on morality, deduced by the reasoning\n of jurists from well established principles, illustrated by\n precedents, gathered from usage, confirmed by experience, has\n become from age to age more and more respected as the arbiter\n of the rights and duties of nations, ... and now, after this\n system has been elaborated with so much care, and has yielded\n results so beneficial to the human race, we are to be told\n that the only real question in differences between nations\n is, 'Whether, all things considered, it is or _is not worth\n while to go to war_?' not, be it observed, _right_ or _wrong_\n to go to war. This is exactly the doctrine set forth in the\n celebrated Thelian controversy recorded in Thucydides.\" W. Oke\n Manning, \"Commentaries on the Law of Nations\" (p. 17), says,\n \"Sir J. Mackintosh in his 'Hist. of the Progress of Ethical\n Philosophy' (prefixed to the 'Encyclop\u00e6dia Britannica,'\n p. 315), speaks of _Suarez_ as the writer who first saw\n that international law was composed not only of the simple\n principles of justice applied to intercourse between states,\n but of those _usages long observed_ in that intercourse by the\n European race which have since been more exactly distinguished\n as the consuetudinary law acknowledged by the Christian\n nations of Europe and America. But Suarez himself speaks of\n this distinction as already recognised by previous writers.\"\n\n [323] \"La religion Chr\u00e9tienne, qui ne semble avoir d'objet que\n la f\u00e9licit\u00e9 de l'autre vie, fait encore notre bonheur dans\n celle-ci.... Que d'un c\u00f4t\u00e9, l'on se mette devant les yeux les\n massacres continuels des rois et des chefs grecs et romains,\n ... et nous verrons que nous devons au Christianisme, et dans\n le gouvernement un certain droit politique, et dans la guerre\n un certain droit des gens, que la nature humaine ne saurait\n assez reconna\u00eetre.\"--_Montesquieu, \"Esprit des Lois_,\" i. xxiv.\n chap. 3.\n\n\n\n CHAPTER XV.\n\n _THE DECLARATION OF WAR._\n\n\nI think we have already distinct evidence that the Fecial Law was\nsomething more than our Treaty and Diplomatic Law. Let us examine it\nmore particularly in action. If the law of nations ever was appealed\nto, and, if over and above, there was a tradition of a Divine\nrevelation, or even of a prescriptive law founded on natural right,\nand having reference to war, which was ever invoked, it would have\nbeen in the first instance of aggression, supposing, as is implied in\nthe term, that it was without fair cause and without fair warning. The\ndeclaration of war, therefore, is manifestly the hinge upon which the\nwhole system of the law of nations turns.[324] Accordingly, the further\nwe go back the more solemn and formal do we find the declaration of war\nto be.\n\n [324] I must here do Mr Urquhart the justice to point out that he\n has been the principal advocate of this doctrine, that the\n declaration of war is the turning-point upon which everything\n depends, and more than any other man has laboured to enforce\n it. (_Vide_ \"Effects on the World of the Restoration of Canon\n Law,\" by D. Urquhart, 1869.) At p. 61, Mr Urquhart refers to\n the action taken by the Fecials. I have the misfortune to\n differ with Mr Urquhart on many points, but I have pleasure in\n bearing testimony as above.\n\n \"In every instance the declaration of war was accompanied by\n _religious formalities_. When the Senate believed that it had cause\n of complaint against a nation, it sent a Fecial to his frontier.\n There the pontiff, his head bound with a woollen veil,[325] exposed\n the griefs of the Romans and demanded satisfaction. If it was\n not granted, he went back to render an account of his mission to\n the Senate, ... and after a delay of thirty or thirty-three days\n they voted a declaration of war. Then the Fecial returned to the\n frontier, and, _casting a javelin_ into the enemy's country, he\n pronounced the following formula--'Quod populus Hermundulus,'\n &c.... Every war which had not been declared in this manner was\n considered as unjust, and certain to incur the displeasure of the\n gods. In the _course of time_ this solemn declaration was replaced\n by a vain formality.\"[326]\n\n [325] The Very Rev. Dr Rock (\"Textile Fabrics,\" p. xii.) says--\"The\n ancient British speciality was wool, and the postulants asking\n admission to the different castes, the sacerdotal, bardic,\n and the leeches or natural philosophers, were distinguished\n by _stripes_ of white [Cicero (De Legibus, ii. 18) says,\n \"Color autem albus pr\u00e6cipere decorus deo est quum in cateris\n tum maxima in textili\"], blue, and green severally on their\n mantles, although the bards themselves were distinguished by\n some one of the colours above-mentioned (_vide infra_). [The\n significance of this will be noted at p. 391.] I may further\n remark, parenthetically, that here is an instance of national\n civilisation being _pari passu_ with religious traditions.\n The British speciality was wool--_query_, because \"of the\n heavy stress laid upon the rule which taught that the official\n colour in their dress,\" &c. (_Id., vide ante_, chap. xii. p.\n 292.)\n\n St Paul says (Heb. ix. 19), \"For when every commandment of the\n Lord had been read by Moses to all the people, he took the\n blood of calves and goats, with water, and scarlet _wool_, and\n hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people\"\n (Goguet, \"Origin of Laws,\" ii. p. 9). The Spaniards in 1643\n made a treaty of peace with the Indians of Chili; they have\n preserved the memory of the forms used at the ratification.\n It is said that the Indians killed many sheep, and stained\n in their blood a _branch_ of the cane-tree, which the deputy\n of the Caciques put into the hands of the Spanish general in\n token of peace and alliance.\" Goguet also refers to Heb. ix.\n 19.\n\n [326] De Fresquet, \"_Droit Romain_,\" i. 48.\n\nMontfau\u00e7on (\"L'Antiquit\u00e9 Expliqu\u00e9e,\" ii. 1, p. iv., p. 35) says:--\n\n \"Lorsqu'ils alloient parlementer, ils avoient sur la t\u00eate un voile\n tissu de laine,[327] et ils \u00e9toient couronn\u00e9z de vervaine: leur\n office \u00e9toit d'imp\u00eacher que les Romains n'entreprissent point de\n guerre injuste: d'aller comme legats vers les nations qui violoient\n les traitez, etc.... ils prenoient aussi connaissance faits au\n legats de _part et d'autre_. Quand la paix ne se trouvoit pas\n faite selon les loix, ils la declaroient nulle. Si les commandans\n avoient fait quelque chose _contre la justice et contre le droit\n des gens_, ils reparoient leur faute et expioient leur crime, ...\n \u00e0 cause du violement des traites faits devant Numance, dit Ciceron\n par un d\u00e9cret du Senat le Patrapatratus livra, C. Mancinus aux\n Numantins.\"[328]\n\n [327] Compare with the description of Saturn, \"Saturnus, velato\n capite falcam gerens.\"--_Fulgent. Mythol._ i. c. 2.\n\n [328] In the above extract from Montfau\u00e7on it should have been\n added, that when the Romans sent one of their fecials to\n declare war he went in sacerdotal habit--\"Arrivant au confins\n de la ville, il _appelloit_ \u00e0 temoins Jupiter et les autres\n dieux comme il alloit demander r\u00e9paration de l'injure au\n nom des Romains, il faisoit des _impr\u00e9cations_ sur lui et\n sur la ville de Rome, s'il disoit rien contre la v\u00e9rit\u00e9,\n et continuoit son chemin ... s'il rencontroient quelque\n citoien quelque payisan (paysan) il _rep\u00e9toit toujours_ ses\n impr\u00e9cations,\" &c.\n\nWe must content ourselves, of course, with what evidence we may get\nof similar institutions elsewhere; but what strikes me as strange\nin the contrast of modern civilisation with barbarism, is, that\nwhereas our advances, whether in the sense of peace and war (whenever\nthey are formally made), are commonly understood, the corresponding\ndemonstrations on the side of barbarism are invariably misconstrued.\n\nWhen, for instance, Captain Cook approached the shores of Bolabola, he\ndescribes the following scene, which reads to me very like the account\nwe have just been reading of the Roman herald:--\n\n \"Soon after a _single man_ ran along the shore armed with _his\n lance_, and when he came abreast of the boat he began to dance,\n brandish his weapon, and call out in a very _shrill tone_, which\n Tupia [a native of an adjacent island who was on board] said was a\n _defiance from the people_.... As the boat rowed slowly along the\n shore back again, _another_ champion came down, shouting defiance,\n and brandishing his lance. His appearance was more formidable\n than that of the other, for he wore a large cap made of the tail\n feathers of the topia bird, and his body was covered _with stripes\n of different coloured cloth_, _yellow, red, and brown_.... Soon\n after a more grave and elderly man came down to the beach, and\n hailing the people in the boat, inquired who they were, and from\n whence they came.[329]... After a short conference they all began\n _to pray very loud_. Tupia made his responses, but continued to\n tell us they were not our friends\" (i. 119).\n\n [329] A somewhat similar scene is also indistinctly traced in the\n following:--\"Wood relates that on his visit to St Julian\n in 1670, in walking inland he 'met seven savages, who came\n running down the hill to us, making _several signs_ for us\n to go back again, with much warning and noise, yet did _not\n offer to_ draw their arrows. But one of them who was _an old\n man_ came nearer to us than the rest, and made also signs we\n should depart, to whom I threw a knife, a bottle of brandy,\n and a neckcloth, to pacify him; but seeing him persist in the\n _same signs as before_, and that the savageness of the people\n seemed incorrigible, we returned on board again.'\" Quoted by\n R. O. Cunningham, \"Natural History of the Straits of Magellan\n and West Coast of Patagonia,\" 1871, p. 143. A similar scene\n is described by Roggerwsen in his voyage, I think, to Easter\n Island.\n\n This, in connection with the scene at Bolabola, recalls the\n mode of procedure in the Odyssey, ix. 95 (Pope), when Ulysses\n reaches\n\n \"The land of Lotus and the flowering coast.\n We climbed the beach and springs of water found,\n Then spread our hasty banquet on the ground.\n Three men were sent deputed from the crew\n (A herald one) the dubious coast to view,\n And learn what habitants possessed the place.\n They went and found a hospitable race,\n Not prone to ill, nor strange to foreign guest:\n As our dire neighbours of Cyclopean birth.\"\n\nLet this be taken in connection with the following narrative:--[330]\n\n \"The large canoes came close round the ship, some of the Indians\n playing on a kind of flute, others singing, and the rest blowing\n on a sort of shells. Soon after, a large canoe advanced, in which\n was an awning, on the top of which sat _one_ of the natives holding\n some _yellow_ and _red_ feathers in his hand. The captain having\n consented to his coming alongside, he delivered the feathers,\n and while a present was preparing for him, he put back from the\n ship, and _threw the branch_ of a cocoa-tree in the air. This was\n doubtless the _signal_ for an onset, for there was an instant\n shout from all the canoes, which, approaching the ship, threw\n volleys of stones into every part of her.\"\n\n [330] _Vide_ Captain Wallis' Voyage, in \"Hist. Account of all the\n Voyages round the World,\" 1773, iii. p. 79.\n\nHere the question appears to me to be whether this act of throwing\nthe branch, so analogous to the throwing the javelin, which was the\nfinal act in the Roman declaration of war (and to which our throwing\ndown the glove or the gauntlet has analogy), was merely the signal\nto themselves, or whether it was not also the _notice_ of attack to\nthe enemy. Upon this will depend whether we are to consider it a\ntreacherous \"ruse\" (and the presentation of the feathers has that\naspect), or whether it was their traditional mode of declaration of\nwar, and construed to be a treacherous attack, because the gallant\nnavigator belonged to a nation more ignorant of the laws of nations\nthan the savages they encountered.\n\nFrom the very fact of their having enacted this comedy or ceremonial,\nit must be inferred either that they attached some superstitious\nimportance to its performance, and expected some good effects from it\nto themselves, or that they thought that it would be understood by\ntheir adversaries, in which case they must implicitly have believed it\nto be common to all nations.\n\nIn either case it is just possible that after the manner of savages,\nthey may have confused the symbols of peace and war, and ran into one\nwhat the Romans had carefully distinguished--the \"caduceatores\",[331]\nwho went to demand peace, and the \"fecials,\" who were sent to denounce\nwar.\n\n [331] Caduceatores--compare _supra_, p. 348. In connection with\n these latter, let us inquire more particularly as to their\n wand of office, the _caduceus_. \"In its _oldest_ form\" it \"was\n merely a _bough_ twined round with _white wool_; afterwards\n a white or gilded staff with imitations of _foliage_ and\n _ribands_ was substituted for the old rude symbol. These\n were probably not turned into snakes till a much later\n age, when that reptile had acquired a mystic character.\"\n M\u00fcller's explanation is that it was originally the _olive\n branch_ with the stemmata, which latter became developed into\n serpents.--_Encyc. of Arts and Sciences._ If, therefore,\n M\u00fcller's explanation is correct, the oldest form of the\n symbol of office of those who were the depositaries of laws\n of nations in the matter of peace and war, was a symbol which\n has a special history and significance in connection with\n the Deluge. Will this not tend to identify their institution\n with that epoch? It will, perhaps, be said that the branch\n of a tree is in any case a natural symbol of peace. But why\n a symbol or token at all? Why more than a simple gesture\n of salutation? unless the symbol embodied some idea which\n conveyed a pledge over and above? What, then, was this idea,\n unless the traditional idea? It may appear to us a natural\n emblem, but it is not so from association of ideas with\n the scriptural dove and olive branch? and yet consider how\n universal it is. Captain Cook's Voyages (i. p. 38; London,\n 1846) says, \"It is remarkable that the chief, like the people\n in the canoes, presented to us the same symbol of peace that\n is known to have been in use _among the ancient_ and mighty\n nations of the northern hemisphere, _the green branch of\n a tree_.\" This occurred both in New Zealand and Otaheite.\n Wallis (\"Voyages round the World,\" iii. 98) says that on an\n occasion when the Otaheitans wished to testify fidelity and\n friendliness, \"the Indians cut branches from the trees and\n laid them in a _ceremonious_ manner at the feet of the seamen;\n they painted themselves _red_ with the berries of a tree, and\n stained their garments _yellow_ with the bark of another.\" We\n have, as we have just seen, found this symbol in the caduceus,\n and it appears to me that the caduceus in its earlier form\n of a staff with foliage and ribands, is recognisable in the\n Gothic monuments as given in Stephens' \"Central America.\"\n _Vide_ also Cunningham's \"Bhilsa Topes.\" Washington Irving\n (\"Life of Columbus,\" iii. 214) speaks of the natives coming\n forward to meet them with _white flags_; and the same, if I\n remember rightly, is recorded in Cook's visit to the Sandwich\n Islanders. The _white flag_ is our own symbol; but what is the\n white flag but the development and refinement of the staff\n and white wool? Again, why are _stripes_, in a variety of\n combination of colour, the characteristic symbol of flags? The\n reader will find the answer on returning to the text, where he\n will also learn the significance of the red and yellow, in the\n above descriptions.\n\nThe red and yellow colours of the feathers in the above account may\nafford a clue, when it is remembered (_vide_ note), that they\ncoincide with the colour used by the Otaheitans to testify fidelity\nand friendliness; but, to appreciate this in its full significance,\nit will be necessary to show how commonly the traditional symbols of\npeace among the ancients had reference to the diluvian traditions, more\nespecially the Dove and the Rainbow.\n\nAssuming for the moment that Bryant is right in his derivation of the\nnames of Juno and Venus from J\u00f6nah (Hebrew), and [Greek: Oinas] (Greek)\n= Dove,[332] I ask attention to the following, in connection with the\nred and yellow feathers of the Polynesians, and the tail feathers of\nthe topia bird mentioned by Cook (_supra_, p. 388).[333] (Bryant, ii.\n345), \"As the peacock, in the full expansion of his plumes, displays\nall the beautiful colours of the Iris (the rainbow), it was probably\nfor that reason made the bird of Juno, instead of the dove, which was\nappropriated to Venus. The same history was variously depicted in\ndifferent places, and consequently as variously interpreted.\" (Compare\np. 279.)\n\n [332] II. p. 317.\n\n [333] _Vide_ also in Carver's \"North America\" (p. 296), an engraving\n of the Indian \"Calumet of Peace,\"--the stem is of a light wood\n curiously painted with hieroglyphics in various colours, and\n adorned with the _feathers_ of the _most beautiful_ birds.\n It is not in my power to convey an idea of the _various\n tints_ and pleasing ornaments of this much-esteemed Indian\n implement\"(p. 359).\n\nIf this is true, if the rainbow is the symbol of peace, and the peacock\nis the symbol of the rainbow, will it absolutely surprise us to find\nfeathers of various colours presented as tokens of peace? I am prepared\nfor the reply, that Bryant's etymology is now considered obsolete; but\nI shall fall back upon the argument which I have urged elsewhere, that\nin cases where tradition renders the transmission of certain words\nprobable, there is a presumption which overrides the ordinary canons of\nphilological criticism. Philologers very properly lay down, _e.g._ Mr\nMax M\u00fcller's \"Chapter of Accidents in Comparative Theology,\" _Contemp.\nRev._, April 1870, p. 8:--\n\n \"Comparative philology has taught us again and again that when\n we find a word exactly the same in Greek and Sanscrit, we may be\n certain that it cannot be the same word; and the same applies to\n comparative mythology ... for the simple reason that Sanscrit and\n Greek have deviated from each other, have both followed their own\n way, have both suffered their own phonetic corruptions, and hence,\n if they do possess the same word, they can only possess it either\n in its Greek or in its Sanscrit disguise.\"\n\nThis is of course only upon the assumption that the languages have gone\ntheir own way, have followed their own corruptions; but if it can be\nshown that certain words, &c. &c., were preserved in tradition, and\nso guarded as not to come under the laws of deviation which philology\ntraces out, or to come under them on different conditions, then, on\nthe contrary, it is exceedingly probable that we should find them\nidentical, or at least recognisable; in any case, this is a point\nwhich must be decided according to the evidences of tradition, and not\naccording to the laws of philology. This will be better understood from\na case in point. I append the evidence respecting the traditions of the\nDove and the Rainbow--which are just the incidents which are likely to\nhave impressed the imagination and memory of mankind.[334]\n\n [334] It will hardly be denied that the tradition of the rainbow as\n a sign and pledge to man existed among the ancients. _Vide_\n Bryant, ii. 348. [The goddess Iris, who was sent with the\n _messages_ of the gods, bore the same name as the rainbow\n Iris.]\n\n _E.g._ Homer--\n\n \"[Greek: Irissin eoikotes has te Kroni\u00f4n\n en nephehi st\u00earixe, teras merop\u00f4n anthr\u00f4p\u00f4n].--_Il._ xi. 27.\n\n \"Like to the bow which Jove amid the clouds\n Placed _as a token to desponding man_.\"\n\n\n Also--Il. xvii. 547.\n\n [Greek: h\u00eaute porphyre\u00ean irin thn\u00eatoisi tanhuss\u00ea\n Zeus ex ouranothen teras emmenai].\n\n \"Just as when Jove mid the high heavens displays\n His bow mysterious for a _lasting sign_.\"\n\n And the lines (Theog. v. 700) in Hesiod, in which Iris is\n called the daughter of Wonder, who is sent over the broad\n surface of the sea when strife and discord arose among the\n immortals, and who is also called \"the _great oath_ of the\n gods\"--[\"This is the token of the _covenant_ between you and\n me, for _perpetual generations_,\" Gen. ix. 12.]--who is told\n to bring from afar in her golden pitcher the many-named water.\n\n Iris is called the daughter of Thaumas (which so closely\n approximates to the Greek [Greek: Thauma] = wonder, Bryant\n says to the Egyptian \"Thaumus\"). Bryant further thinks that\n Iris and Eros were originally the same term, but that in time\n the latter was formed into the boyish deity Cupid = Eros.\n According to some, Iris was the mother of Eros by Zephyrus.\n [There were indeed three Eroses, which mark three different\n lines of tradition, _vide_ Gladstone on Iris (the rainbow),\n \"Homer and the Homeric Age,\" ii. 156.] Eros (Cupid), though\n a boy, was supposed to have been at the commencement of all\n things; and Lucian says, \"How came you with that childish\n face, when we know you to be as _old as Japetus_?\" The union\n of Cupid and Chaos (the Deluge is frequently alluded to as\n chaos, _vide_ Bryant) \"gave birth to men and all the animals.\"\n Hesiod makes Eros the first to appear after Chaos. \"At this\n season (Deluge) another era began; the earth was supposed\n to be renewed, and time to return to a second infancy. They\n therefore formed an emblem of a child with a rainbow, to\n denote this renovation of the world, and called him Eros, or\n Divine Love,\" ... \"yet esteemed the most ancient among the\n gods.\"--Bryant, ii. 349. (Cupid is represented with a bow,\n as is also Apollo and Diana, which was an allusion to the\n supposed resemblance of the bow and the rain_bow_.) Probably\n from his connection with Iris, he is represented as breaking\n the thunderbolts of Jupiter, and riding on _dolphins_ and\n subduing other monsters of the sea. Smith (\"Myth. Dict.\")\n says Iris is derived from [Greek: er\u00f4 eir\u00f4], \"so that Iris\n would mean the speaker or messenger,\" ... \"but it is not\n impossible that it may be connected with [Greek: eir\u00f4], 'I\n join,' whence [Greek: eir\u00ean\u00ea]; so that Iris, the goddess of\n the rainbow, would be the joiner, or conciliator, or the\n messenger of heaven, who restores peace in nature,\" It appears\n to me more likely that [Greek: eir\u00ean\u00ea] = _peace_ (derivation\n uncertain--Liddell and Scott) was derived directly from Iris,\n in accordance with the tradition, and that the Greek word for\n wool, [Greek: eiros], was cognate to [Greek: eir\u00ean\u00ea], from\n being an emblem of peace (_e.g._ the pontiff's caduceator,\n woollen veil). In the same way, if we do not actually find\n the rainbow as the token of the herald or caduceator, may we\n not discover it conversely in the circumstance that _Iris_ is\n represented as carrying in her hand a _herald's_ staff?\n\n It is curious that we actually find, what I may call the\n sister emblem, viz. the Dove, used by the ancients, though\n just as we find, if I am right in the conjecture, the rainbow\n among the Polynesians, used in a perverted way as an ensign\n of war. It was possibly in superstitious remembrance of the\n tradition which we find more directly among the ancient Aryans\n and the Peruvians (p. 326-400), that war ought only to be\n made with a disposition towards peace; and that they thought\n to place themselves under the sanction of heaven by carrying\n this emblem as their ensign of war. Such, however, was the\n fact. Bryant (ii. 302) says:--\"The dove became a favourite\n hieroglyphic among the Babylonians and Chaldees.... In respect\n to the Babylonians, it seems to have been taken by them for\n their national ensign, and to have been depicted on their\n military standard when they went to war. They seem likewise\n to have been styled I\u00f6nim, or the children of _the Dove_;\"\n and they are thus alluded to by the Prophet Jeremiah, ch.\n xxv. ver. 38 (_id._) Bryant says (ii. 285), \"The name of the\n Dove among the ancient Amonians (by which term he intends the\n descendants of Chus) was I\u00f6n and I\u00f6nah; sometimes expressed\n I\u00f6nas, from whence came the [Greek: Oinas] of the Greeks.\"\n\n I should rather put it that we find the word for the Dove\n common to the Hebrew and the Greek (I\u00f6nah, Hebrew; [Greek:\n Oivas], Greek), and, as Bryant seems to imply, among other\n nations also--_e.g._ the Babylonians--which is precisely what\n we should have expected. But if this identity is allowed, we\n must proceed with Bryant to see in Juno, Venus, and Diana,\n simply embodiments of the tradition of the Dove. Bryant says\n that \"Juno is the same as I\u00f6na,\" and although, as we have\n seen, the peacock is said to be her bird (with reference to\n the other symbol, the rainbow), and although Ovid (Bryant,\n 344) sends her to heaven accompanied by Iris (rainbow), yet in\n the plate (from Gruter) p. 410, she will be seen with a dove\n on her wand, and a pomegranate, as symbol of the ark (_vide_\n p. 380), in her hand. Bryant, moreover (344), considers Juno\n to be identical with Venus. There was a statue in Laconia\n called Venus-Junonia. Of Dione and Venus Bryant says (ii.\n 341):--\"I have mentioned that the name Diona was properly\n Ad, or Ada, I\u00f6na. Hence came the term Idione; which Idione\n was an object of idolatry as early as the days of Moses.\n But there was a similar personage named Deione.... This was\n a compound of De I\u00f6ne, the dove; and Venus Dionoea may\n sometimes have been formed in the same manner.... Dionusus was\n likewise called Thyomus.\" _Vide_ also Bryant, pp. 316, 317.\n In Genesis viii. 9, the dove returned to the ark, not having\n found \"where her foot might rest.\" \"In the hieroglyphical\n sculptures and paintings where this history was represented,\n the dove could not well be depicted otherwise than as hovering\n over the face of the deep. Hence it is that Venus or Dione\n is said to have risen from the sea. Hence it is, also, that\n she is said to preside over waters; to appease the troubled\n ocean; and to cause by her presence an universal calm; that\n to her were owing [on the retiring of the waters] the fruits\n of the earth.... She was the Oenas ('[Greek: Oinas]') of the\n Greeks; whence came the Venus of the Latins.\" The address of\n Lucretius to this deity concludes with two lines of remarkable\n significance--\n\n \"Te Dea, te fugiunt venti; te nubila coeli\n Adventumque tuum; tibi rident \u00e6quora ponti;\n _Pacatumque_ nitet diffuso lumine _coelum_.\"\n\n \"In Sicily, upon Mount Eryx, was a celebrated temple of this\n goddess, which is taken notice of by Cicero and other writers.\n Doves were here held as sacred as they were in Palestine or\n Syria [_vide_ also in Cashmere, p. 64]. It is remarkable that\n there were two days of the year set apart in this place for\n festivals, called [Greek: Anag\u00f4gia] and [Greek: Katag\u00f4gia], at\n which time Venus was supposed to _depart over the sea_, and\n after a season to return. There were _also sacred pigeons_,\n which then took their flight from the island; but one of\n them was observed on the ninth day to come back from the\n sea, and to fly to the shrine of the goddess. This was upon\n the festival of [Greek: Anag\u00f4gia]. Upon this day it is said\n that there were great rejoicings. On what account can we\n imagine this veneration for the bird to be kept up, ... but\n for a memorial of the dove sent out of the ark, and of its\n return from the deep to Noah? The history is recorded upon\n the ancient coins of Eryx; which have on one side the head of\n _Janus_ bifrons, and on the other the sacred dove.\"--Bryant,\n ii. 319.\n\n Mr Cox's (\"Mythology,\" ii. ch. ii. sec. vii.)\n counter-explanation, if I rightly gather it, is that \"on\n Aphrodit\u00ea (Venus), the child of _the froth or foam of the\n sea_, was lavished all the wealth of words denoting the\n loveliness of the morning; and thus the Hesiodic poet goes\n on at once to say that the grass sprung up under her feet as\n she moved, that Eros, Love, walked by her side, and Himeros,\n longing, followed after her.\" \"This is but saying, in other\n words, that the morning, the child of the heavens, springs up\n _first from_ the sea, as Athene is born by the water-side.\"\n But why should the morning spring first from the sea?--more\n particularly when the effects of her rising is noted in the\n springing up of flowers on the land? If the rainbow, we\n see the reason in her connection with the Deluge, and her\n connection with the subsequent renovation of nature. Mr Cox\n also says (p. 3):--\"In her brilliant beauty she is Argun\u00ee, a\n name which appears again in that of Arguna, the companion of\n Krishna and the Hellenic Argynius.\" Does not this complete the\n chain of her connection with Juno? Mr Cox (p. 8) says:--\"The\n Latin Venus is, in strictness of speech, a mere name, to which\n any epithet might be attached according to the conveniences\n or the needs of the worshipper.... The name itself has been,\n it would seem, with good reason, connected with the Sanscrit\n root 'van,' to desire love or favour,\"--a derivation which\n equally accords with Bryant's view. Then there is the striking\n connection of Venus with Dionusos (_vide_ p. 395). Mr\n Cox (p. 9) says, \"The myth of Adonis links the legends of\n Aphrodite (Venus) with those _of Dionusos_. Like the Theban\n _wine_-god Adonis, born only on the death of his mother; and\n the two myths are, in one version, _so far the same_ that\n _Dionysos_, like Adonis, is placed _in a chest_, which, being\n _cast into the sea_, is carried to Brasi\u00e6, where the body of\n his mother is buried.\" (Comp. Kabiri, Bunsen.) Mr Cox connects\n Athene with Aphrodite (Venus) (p. 4). Therefore we must ask\n him to reconsider his explanation of \"the Athenian maidens\n embroidering the sacred peplos for _the ship_ presented to\n Ath\u00eane at the great Dionysiac festival.\" Compare evidence,\n _supra_, in chap. on Boulanger, &c.; Catlin.\n\nThe digression we have just made involves some risk of distracting\nattention from the point it was intended to enforce--viz. the\ntraditionary character of the mode, and, by implication, the\ntraditionary recognition of the obligation, of the declaration of\nwar. We have already seen in Ozanam (_supra_, p. 371) indications of\nthe probability of similar traditions among the primitive tribes of\nGermany. Will it clench the argument if we find Romans and Gauls on a\ncommon understanding in these matters, when brought for the first time\ninto contact since their original separation?--\n\n \"The great misfortunes which befel the city from the Gauls, are\n said to have proceeded from the violation of these sacred rites.\n For when the barbarians were besieging Clusium, Fabius Ambustus was\n sent ambassador to their camp with proposals of peace, in favour\n of the besieged. But receiving a harsh answer, he thought himself\n released from his character of ambassador, and rashly taking up\n arms for the Clusians, challenged the bravest man in the Gaulish\n army. He proved victorious, ... but the Gauls having discovered who\n he was, sent _a herald_ to Rome to accuse Fabius of bearing arms\n against them, contrary to _treaties and good faith_, and _without\n a declaration of war_. Upon this the Feciales exhorted the Senate\n to deliver him up to the Gauls, but he appealed to the people, and,\n being a favourite with them, was screened from the sentence. Soon\n after this, the Gauls marched to Rome, and sacked the whole city\n except the Capitol, as we have related at large in the life of\n Camillus.\"--_Plutarch's Numa._\n\nI venture further to think that the traditionary modes of the\ndeclaration of war may be detected among the Gauls in C\u00e6sar's time,\nin the manner of their challenge. _E.g._ it so came about that C\u00e6sar\nwished to draw the enemy (the Nervii) to his side of the valley and to\nengage them at a disadvantage before his camp. To this end he simulated\nfear. \"Our men meanwhile retiring from the rampart, they approached\nstill nearer, _cast their darts_ on all sides within the trenches and\n_sent heralds_ round the camp to proclaim,\" &c. (Duncan's C\u00e6sar, B. v.\nxlii.)\n\nWe will now turn to the Greek tradition. I quote from an old author who\nhas examined the matter more fully than I find it treated elsewhere.\nRous. (\"Arch\u00e6ologi\u00e6 Attic\u00e6,\" lib. 6, s. 3, civ.) says:--\"As careful\nand cunning as they were in warlike affairs, I cannot find but that\nthey did 'propere signi qu\u00e6 piget inchoare,' bear a great affection to\n_peace_; as may appear in their honourable receiving of ambassadors,\nto whom they gave hearing in no worse place than a _temple_.... The\nusual ensign carried by Greek ambassadours was [Greek: k\u00earykeon],\n_caduceus_,[335] a right _staff of wood_ with snakes twisted about it\nand looking one another in the face.... If the peace could not be kept,\nbut they must needs have war, yet they would be sure to give warning\nand fair play, and make proclamations of their intentions before they\nmarcht. The manner in proclaiming war was to send a fellow of purpose\n_either to cast a spear_ or let loose _a lamb_ into the borders of the\ncountry, or into the city itself whither they were marching (which\nHesychius rather thinks to have been the signal before a battel),\nthereby showing them, that what was then a habitation for men, should\nshortly be a pasture for sheep.\"[336] I should rather have thought\nthat it had analogy with the Jewish scapegoat; but, whatever the idea,\nit was apparently symbolled and commemorated in the _woollen_ veil\nprescribed to the Roman pontiff in the declaration of war. It would\nseem, however, that the signal for battle (chap. v.) was \"instead\nof sounding a trumpet, they had fellows whom they called [Greek:\npyrphorous], that went before with torches, and throwing them down in\nthe midst between the two armies, gave the sign.... Now, this business\nthey might do safely and without any danger, ... for the torch-bearers\nwere peculiarly protected by Mars, and accounted sacred.\"[337]\n\n [335] _Vide ante_, 391. That the entwined snakes were of late date\n would appear, I think, from the allusions to the suppliants'\n wands in \u00c6schylus, _e.g._ (_vide_ Plumtre's \u00c6schylus,\n \"Libation Pourers,\" v. 1024) when Orestes puts on the\n suppliants wreaths, and takes the olive branch in his hand--\n\n \"The branch of _olive_ from the topmost growth,\n With amplest tufts of _white wool_ meetly wreathed.\"\n\n and in the Supplicants (22)--\n\n \"Holding in one hand the branches\n Suppliant, wreathed with _white wool_ fillets.\"\n\n [336] Also, \"Joannis Meursii Themis Athica, sive de Legibus\n Alticis,\" i. xi. says, \"Postquam vero exercitus eductus esset\n pugnam inire, non _licebat antiquam_ emissum agmen hostium\n quis, hunc _expectans accepisset_.\"\n\n [337] This has something in common with the fiery cross sent round\n by the Highlanders as the summons to war. In another aspect\n it has resemblances with the Indian mode of declaration of\n war. \"The manner in which the Indians declare war against\n each other is by sending a slave with a hatchet, the handle\n of which is painted _red_, to the nation which they intend\n to break with; and the messenger, notwithstanding the danger\n to which he is exposed from the sudden fury of those whom he\n thus sets at defiance, executes his commission with great\n fidelity.\"--_Carver's \"Travels in North America,\"_ p. 307.\n\nThe sense of national responsibility in war, and the reluctance of\nkings to involve themselves without the consent of their people would\nappear from OEschylos' \"Supplicants\" (v. 393, 363).\n\nI have referred (p. 326) to the Peruvian traditions of Manco Capac's\nlaws of war, and that \"in every stage of the war the Peruvian was open\nto propositions for peace.\"\n\nFrom the Hindoo tradition, apparently, Manu's code was conceived in an\nidentical spirit. (_Vide_ \"Hist. of India,\" \"The Hindu and Mahometan\nPeriods,\" by the Hon. Mountstuart Elphinstone; Murray, 1866, ch. ii.\np. 26.) \"The laws of war (Manu's code) are honourable and humane.\nPoisoned arrows and mischievously barbed arrows and fire arrows are all\nprohibited.\" [Dr Hooker, in his \"Himalayan Journal,\" mentions a similar\ntradition among the Limboos, I think, or Lepchas.[338]] \"There are many\nsituations in which it is by no means allowable to destroy the enemy.\nAmong those who must always be spared are unarmed or wounded men,\nand those who have broken their weapons, and one who says, 'I am thy\ncaptive.' Other prohibitions are still more generous.... The settlement\nof a conquered country is conducted on equally liberal principles.\nImmediate security is to be assured to all by proclamation. The\nreligion and laws of the country are to be maintained and respected.\"\nAnd I have fancied (_vide_ 395) that the recognition at least of such\na tradition, if it be only the \"homage which vice pays to virtue,\" is\nto be read in the devices carried by the Babylonians.[339]\n\n [338] That there may be limitations to the horrors of war, seems\n to be established by the instance of the prohibition\n of explosive bullets. I read in the _Times_ (March 11,\n 1871):--\"The _British Medical Journal_ declares its opinion\n that the charges which have been put forward of _explosive\n bullets_ having been used by the contending armies have been\n groundless; and is inclined to believe that the _articles of\n the St Petersburg Convention_ have been _faithfully adhered\n to_, notwithstanding the mutual recriminations to the contrary\n by both French and German Governments.\"\n\n [339] Indirect evidence of the importance formerly attached to the\n declaration of war may, I think, be discovered in the formal\n addresses and invocations of the gods by the Homeric heroes\n previous to combat, which to us seem so forced and unnatural;\n and the same sentiment was noticed by the Spaniards, when they\n first came over, among the Peruvians, who did not neglect\n the punctilio of the declaration of war even in their most\n high-handed aggressions, _e.g_. Garcilasso de la Vega (Hakluyt\n Soc. ed. ii. 141) says--\"The invaders sent _the usual summons_\n that the people might not be able to allege afterwards that\n they had been taken unawares.\"\n\nThere was, moreover, a law at Athens which forbade them to declare\nwar until after a deliberation of three days--\"Bellum vero antequam\ndecerneretur, triduo deliberare lex jubebat\" (Apsines, Marcell. in\nHermog. ap. J. Meursii Them. Att., l. i. c. xi.); and we have seen that\nthe Senate at Rome postponed the declaration of war for thirty days. I\ncannot help thinking, though it is the merest surmise, that it is in\nthe dim recollection of some such tradition that we must account for\nthe meaningless and superstitious delays which we occasionally read of\nin the warfare of barbarous nations; _e.g_. C\u00e6sar (De Bello Gallico,\ni. xl. c.) had drawn up his troops and offered the enemy battle, but\nAriovistus thought proper to sound a retreat. \"C\u00e6sar inquiring of the\nprisoners why Ariovistus so obstinately refused an engagement, found\nthat it was the custom among the Germans for _the women_ to decide by\nlots and divination when it was proper to decide a battle; and that\nthese had declared the army would not be victorious if they fought\n_before the new moon_.\"[340] [There was also a law at Athens that it\nwas not lawful to lead forth an army before the seventh day of the\nmonth. \"Vetitum Athenis erat, exercitum educere ante diem septimum.\"]\nJ. Muersii, _id._\n\n [340] Carver (\"Travels in North America,\" p. 301) says of the\n Indians--\"Sometimes private chiefs make excursions.... These\n irregular sallies, however, are not always approved of by\n the elder chiefs, though they are often obliged to connive\n at them.... But when war is national, and undertaken by the\n community, their deliberations are formal and slow. The elders\n assemble in council, to which all the head warriors and young\n men are admitted, when they deliver their opinions in solemn\n speeches; weighing with maturity the nature of the enterprise\n they are about to engage in, and balancing with great sagacity\n the advantages or inconveniences that will arise from it.\n Their priests are also consulted on the subject, and even\n sometimes the advice of the most intelligent of _their women_\n is asked. If the determination be for war they prepare for it\n with much ceremony.\"\n\nI have discussed the ancient mode of declaration of war at some\nlength as an instance of tradition. There are some, I am afraid, to\nwhom the discussion will appear ineffably trifling; and I may even\nbe misconstrued to say that everything would be set right in Europe,\nif only a herald were sent in proper form to declare war. There are\nmen of a certain cast of mind to whom forms are repugnant; there\nare others to whom they are unintelligible. It has been observed,\nhowever, that the rejection of forms is one thing, the neglect of them\nanother. The rejection of forms may be, on some principle, good, though\nmisapplied, often does unconscious homage when it means to spurn, and\nmay be compensated for in other ways. The neglect of them is simply\nevidence of laxity. Cromwell perfectly well knew the divinity which\nattached to forms when he said, \"Take away that bauble;\" and, on the\nother hand, no one better than he would have judged the state of an\narmy (not his own) in which he was told that it was the custom of\nsoldiers not to salute their officers. The declaration of war without\nany solemnity, still more the commencement of hostilities without any\ndeclaration at all,[341] seems to me closely analogous--as a sign of\ndisorganisation--to the absence of any form of salute at a parade. I\nam far from contending that old forms, when they have become obsolete,\ncan be resuscitated; but I do contend for the resuscitation of ancient\nmaxims and ideas. In any age fully imbued with the responsibility of\nwar, in which it was considered unseemly to declare it until after\na three days' deliberation in solemn conclave, and which even then\nprotracted the declaration till the seventh or the thirtieth day, would\nit have been possible for two great nations to have gone to war because\nthere had been \"a breach of etiquette,\" if indeed there was a breach\nof etiquette, \"at a German watering-place?\"[342] Allowing that this\nwas merely the ostensible pretext, and that the real grounds remained\nbehind--if these long deliberations had been necessarily interposed,\nwould there not have been a thousand chances in favour of such a\nEuropean intervention as saved the peace of Europe three years before\nin the affair of Luxembourg? Yet, so far as we know at present, the\nfollowing is the history of the commencement of the most horrible, the\nmost destructive, and the most barbarous war[343] of modern times.\n\n [341] \"In ancient times war was solemnly declared either by certain\n fixed ceremonies or by the announcement of heralds; and a war\n commenced without such declaration was regarded as informal\n and irregular, and contrary to the usages of nations. Grotius\n says that a declaration of war is not necessary by the law\n of nations--\"Naturali jure nulla requiritur declaratio,\" but\n _that it was required by the law of nations, jure gentium_, by\n which term, be it remembered, he means the usages of nations.\n And in this he was right, as until the age in which he lived\n wars were almost invariably preceded by solemn declarations.\n The Romans, according to Albericus Gentilis, did not grant a\n triumph for any war which had been commenced without a formal\n declaration (De Jure Belli, c. ii. \u00a7 i.); but the Greeks do\n not seem to have been at all regular in the observance of the\n custom (Bynkershock, Qu\u00e6s. Jur. Pub., l. i. c. ii.) During the\n times of chivalry declarations of war were usually given with\n great formality, the habits of knighthood being carried into\n the customs of general warfare, and it being held mean to fall\n upon an adversary when unprepared to defend himself (Ward,\n Introd. ii. 206-230). With the decline of chivalry this custom\n fell into disuse. Gustavus Adolphus invaded Germany without\n any declaration of war (Zouch, De Judicio inter Gentes, P.\n ii. \u00a7 x. 1); but this appears to have been _an exception_ to\n the usages of the age, and Clarendon speaks of declarations\n of war as being customary in his time, and blames the war in\n which the Duke of Buckingham went to France, as entered into\n 'without so much as the formality of a declaration from the\n king, containing the ground and provocation and end of it,\n according to custom and obligation in the like cases.' Formal\n denunciations of war _by heralds_ were discontinued about the\n time of Grotius; the last instance having been, according\n to Voltaire, when Louis XIII. sent a herald to Brussels\n to declare war against Spain in 1635.\"--_W. Oke Manning's\n Commentaries on Law of Nations._\n\n [342] \"Looking back on the history of the autumn ... we may yet\n be impressed by the conviction that, had the union of\n the _European family of nations_ been strengthened as it\n might have been before the war broke out, it might never\n have been begun, or would have long since terminated. The\n Treaty of Paris put on record a declaration in favour of\n arbitration, but it proved to be worthless when sought to be\n applied.\"--_Times_, Feb. 15, 1871. I shall have a word to say\n presently on the declaration of the Treaty of Paris.\n\n [343] It must not be forgotten, however, that it was the revolution\n in Paris which gave this war its abnormal character, and\n created situations for which the law of nations had no\n precedents, or precedents only which were of doubtful\n application.\n\n \"A private letter from Paris relates that the Duc de Grammont,\n who has taken to spend his evenings at the Jockey Club, was\n lately asked there, 'How he came to blunder into such a fatal\n war?'[344] He replied, 'I asked the Minister of War, Leboeuf,\n if he was ready, and he answered, \"Ready! ay, and doubly ready;\"\n _otherwise_,' added the Duc, 'I should have taken care not\n _to have counselled_ a war which there _were twenty modes of\n averting_.'\"--_Times_, Sept. 1, 1870.[345]\n\n [344] Compare _infra_, p. 412.\n\n [345] Compare with the following account of the declaration of war\n by M. F. de Champagny, de L'Acad. Fr., in the _Correspondant_,\n 25 Juin 1871:--\"A government wrongly inspired proposed to\n us a war. Without asking it why it wished to make it,\n without asking if it could make it, without reflection,\n without discussion, without listening to the men of name and\n experience, who implored of us _at least twenty-four hours\n for reflection_, we accepted this war, I do not say with\n enthusiasm, but with frivolous levity, not as crusaders,\n but as children. It seemed to us sufficient to tipple in\n the 'caf\u00e9s,' singing the 'Marseillaise,' to intoxicate\n the soldiers, to throw squibs into what were then called\n sensational journals, to cry '\u00e0 Berlin!' in order to go right\n off to Berlin. And when it was discovered that we were not\n going on at all to Berlin, but that Berlin was coming to\n Paris, that this enthusiasm of the 'caf\u00e9' did not cause armies\n to spring into life, what was our resource? Always the same:\n to overthrow a government!\"\n\nThe extent of the disorganisation and the laxity into which we\nhave fallen, appears perhaps as strikingly as in any anything else\nin the frequency of the complaints of the little regard paid to\n\"parl\u00e9mentaires\" and officers bearing flags of truce. But what startles\nus more than all is the light manner in which this transgression of the\nlaw of nations is referred to even by the parties aggrieved.\n\nI will here place two extracts which I have made in juxtaposition:--\n\n Carver (\"Travels in North America,\" p. 358)\n says, that when a deputation sets out together\n for their enemy's country with propositions\n of peace, \"They bear before them the pipe of\n peace, which, I need not inform my readers,\n is of the same nature _as a flag of truce_\n among the Europeans, and is treated with the\n greatest respect and veneration _even by the\n most barbarous_ nations. _I never heard of\n an instance_ wherein the _bearers of this\n sacred_ badge of friendship were ever treated\n disrespectfully, or its rights violated. The\n Indians believe that the Great Spirit _never\n suffers an infraction_ of this kind to go\n unpunished.\"\n\n Count Chandordy, in his reply to Count Bismarck,\n dated Bordeaux, Jan. 25, 1871, says:--\"Count\n Bismarck reproaches the French armies with\n having _fired on parl\u00e9mentaires_.\" An accusation\n of this nature had already been brought to the\n knowledge of the Paris Government, and we may\n quote the following words of M. Jules Favre\n in his circular of 12th January--\"I have the\n satisfaction to acquaint your excellency that\n the Governor of Paris has hastened to order an\n inquiry into the facts alleged by Count Bismarck,\n and in announcing this to him he has brought\n _much more numerous facts_ of the same nature to\n his own cognizance which are imputed to Prussian\n sentinels, but _which he never would have allowed\n to interrupt ordinary relations_.\"\n\nI do not know whether this contrast between barbarism, such as it\nexisted in the last century, and modern civilisation, will astonish\nthose partisans of success whom in truth nothing in all the multiform\natrocities of this dreadful war seems to have astonished or shocked,\nso that it was at times almost ludicrous to hear these _introuvables_\ndeclare such things as the bombardment of hospitals and churches, as\nat Strasburg and Paris, quite right, which even the German commanders,\nwhen the matter was brought to their attention, admitted to be wrong.\n\nThis perhaps is the worst symptom of corruption we have yet seen,\nand yet there was a time, and that quite recent, when a different\nsentiment prevailed. I have just referred[346] to the declaration in\nthe Treaty of Paris, which thought to inaugurate a new era by bringing\nall causes of conflict in Europe to a settlement of arbitration. But\nlet no one be discouraged or cease to believe in the possibility of\nsuch a consummation because of the result. There never was a stronger\ninstance of the intellect of the world vainly striving to create an\ninternational code and system for itself which was to be distinct\nfrom the law of nations; for at the same moment that the diplomatists\nwho were collected in Paris set to work upon their tower, which was\nto erect itself above the waters of any future inundation, they one\nand all agreed to demolish, and as a first step to pull down, the\ncornerstone from the temple of the past. How this was brought about\nwill best be told in an extract from the Count de Montalembert's \"Pie\nIX. et la France en 1849 et 1859,\" p. 10:--\n\n \"Let us go back to the origin of the evil, ... it dates back more\n especially from the Congress of Paris in 1856, from that diplomatic\n reunion which, after having solemnly declared that none of the\n contracting powers _had the right to interfere either collectively\n or individually in the relations of a sovereign with his subjects_\n (Protocol of 18th March), after having proclaimed the principle\n of the absolute independence of the sovereigns, for the benefit\n of the Turkish Sultan against his Christian subjects, thought it\n within its competency, in its protocol of the 8th of April, and\n in the absence of any representative of the august accused, to\n proclaim that the situation of the Pontifical States was 'abnormal'\n and 'irregular.' This accusation developed and exaggerated at the\n Tribune, and elsewhere by Lord Palmerston and Count Cavour, was\n equally formulated under the Presidency and upon the initiative of\n the Minister of Foreign Affairs in France, and it is consequently\n France which must bear the principal responsibility before the\n Church and Europe. We can recall the grief and surprise which this\n strange proceeding created in the Catholic world.\"\n\n [346] _Vide_ note 19, p. 403.\n\nThus was the game set rolling; and the policy thus indicated was\npursued with the eager and unrelenting pertinacity of some, and with\nthe tacit approval of the rest of the co-signatories.\n\nThe war declared by France against Austria, which was the precipitating\ncause of the storm which broke upon the Papal States, can, it is true,\nonly be regarded as evidence of the conspiracy--inasmuch as it was\ndeclared by one of the conspirators at the instigation of another,\nwhose ultimate aim was the seizure of the States of the Church and\nof the other independent Italian sovereignties to the profit of\nPiedmont. So soon as the victory of the French arms was decided, the\nEmperor's proclamation from Milan appeared, inciting the populations to\ninsurrection. All then followed in sequence--the revolt of the Romagnas\nfour days after the Milan manifesto, their annexation along with the\nother independent states of Central Italy by Piedmont, this annexation\nbeing effected with the connivance, if not the consent, of France, and\nfor which payment was eventually made in the cession of Nice and Savoy\n(all this being in contravention of the treaties of Villafranca and\nZurich). But what mattered the contravention of treaties in comparison\nwith the scenes which followed? The programme of the congress, or, if\nthat is denied, the programme of two (if not three, for it is difficult\nto acquit Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell of participation by\nconsent) of the powers who had entered into the conspiracy against\nEuropean order, and these, at that time, the powers in the highest\nstate of military efficiency, was to be carried out _per fas et\nnefas_. Naples and the patrimony of St Peter had to be secured, and\nas they morally presented no vulnerable side, they were seized by the\nhand of the marauder in defiance of \"all law, human and divine.\"[347]\nGaribaldi's descent on Sicily, effected under the cover of the English\nnavy, was simply a brusque and flagrant act of piracy, for which no\nplea of justification has ever been set up. The usurpation of the Papal\nStates, though not less ruthlessly accomplished in the end, was carried\nthrough with more regard to form in its preliminary stages; yet at\nthe last the diplomatic mask was torn off, and the invasion was made\nwithout any pretext or justification known to the law of nations, and\nwithout even a declaration of war.\n\n [347] These were the words which the Marquis of Bath had the courage\n to use in the House of Lords when everybody else was joining\n in a ludicrous \"dirge of homage\" to Cavour. I wish to put this\n protest, as well as the similar protests of the Marquis of\n Normanby and the Earl of Donoughmore on record, as there may\n come a time when England will be glad to recur to them.\n\nHere, again, the Imperial diplomacy and Italian intrigue went hand in\nhand. Lamoriciere, in reliance upon the honour of France, had made _all\nhis dispositions against Garibaldi_, and had received a letter from\nthe French ambassador as late as the 7th September (bearing the same\ndate as the so-called ultimatum of Cavour, although the Piedmontese\ntroops had crossed the frontier before it was delivered), which I shall\nhere reproduce, seeing that it is not on record in the _Annuaire des\nDeux Mondes_ (1860)--\"I inform you by the Emperor's orders that the\nPiedmontese _will not_ enter the Roman States, and that 20,000 French\nare about to occupy the different places of those states. Make, then,\nall your dispositions against Garibaldi.--Le Duc de Grammont.\"[348]\n(This letter was dated September 7, 1860, the battle of Castelgidardo\nwas fought on the 18th September 1860.) It is needless to add that no\nreinforcements from France appeared, and that the assurance served\nno other purpose than to mislead, and to throw Lamoriciere off his\nguard. Indeed, in spite of various protestations and the subsequent\nwithdrawal of the French ambassador from Turin, the Catholic world\nsettled down into the belief, not only that the Emperor of the French\nhad never had the intention of sending troops to the rescue, but that\nthe whole scheme of the invasion had been deliberately devised at the\nominous interview which took place on the 28th of August previous,\nbetween the Emperor, Farini, and General Cialdini. It was even said\nthat the words used by the Emperor on the occasion transpired, \"frappez\nfort et frappez vite,\"--a terse and striking phrase, which will fitly\nperpetuate in the human memory the most flagrant violation of the law\nof nations which history affords.[349]\n\n [348] _Vide_ \"Current Events,\" in _Rambler_, 1860.\n\n [349] \"Does the faith of treaties, the right of treaties, still\n exist? Look at what has happened in Europe during the\n last twenty years. The treaties made with the Church were\n the first violated; they have declared that a 'concordat'\n is nothing more than a law of the State, which the State\n can alter at will--in other words, that, unlike all other\n contracts, conventions of this nature, inviolable for one\n of the parties, can be broken by the other at its pleasure;\n kings have thus put the Church outside the law of nations.\n But, in consequence, they have excluded themselves. When the\n most sacred of all treaties were thus trampled upon, how would\n they have the others respected? They have even written, or\n caused to be written, on a solemn occasion ('Napoleon III. et\n L'Italie, 1859') that treaties no longer bind when the general\n sentiment declares against them; in other terms, when they\n displease us. At this epoch, in 1859, we were disputing with\n Austria a possession which all treaties had guaranteed to her,\n and the neutral signatories of these treaties did not protest.\n Victorious over Austria, we have in our turn made a treaty\n with her; and this treaty was violated when scarcely signed;\n and neither we nor the rest of Europe protested. Later on, the\n dissensions between Germany and Denmark ended in a treaty,\n which the rest of Europe guaranteed; but soon Germany broke\n this treaty by force of arms, and Europe did not say a word. I\n omit here the convention of September, ... the treaty of 1856.\n On all these occasions the indifference of third parties has\n come to the aid of the cupidity of the aggressors; and the\n moral sense has been so far wanting in the Cabinets that they\n have assisted and applauded acts of brigandage for the love of\n the art, and without even thinking that the brigand, when he\n grew strong, would fall on the morrow on themselves. Will you\n find in European history twelve years so fruitful in pledges\n and perjuries?\"\n\nAll this was done with the undisguised satisfaction of several\nveteran English statesmen, who were, moreover, directly or indirectly\nrepresented at the same congress which sought to bind the European\npowers to call in the arbitration of a friendly power, in case of\ndisagreement, before making an appeal to arms.\n\nNow there is no reason why this rule, good in itself, and congruous\nto the spirit and maxims of the law of nations, should not have been\nembodied as a fundamental article in the code; for the law of nations\nis not a dead-letter, but, like everything that is of tradition, easily\nlending itself to adaptation and development according to the changing\ncircumstances of the world.\n\nCan we be surprised that this principle, good and according to reason,\nbut which nevertheless presupposes certain sentiments in the world in\ncorrespondence with it, should in the actual circumstances have been\nbarren of results? Is it wonderful that it should have miscarried\nin the hands of men who were parties to the invasion, without even\nthe form of a declaration of war, of the State predestined by divine\nProvidence to be the cornerstone of Christendom? Would it have been\nbefitting that this beneficent arrangement should have been destined\nto be the work of men who, either by participation or as accessories\nafter the fact, had set their hands to a deed which shocked every\nprinciple of morality, and made the very notion of public law in Europe\nridiculous?\n\nThe early commencements of this policy cannot be studied at a more\nappropriate moment than now, when we are witnessing its _denouement_.\n\nWhat has been the result to France of its Italian policy? To Austria?\nTo England? To Europe?\n\nHas any power prospered that had a hand in setting the ball rolling,\nor, for that matter, any power that had the responsibility of staying\nthe parricidal hand, and held back? If Austria, the first victim, had\nfirmly and strenuously resisted the early instigations of evil, would\nshe ever, according to human calculations, have had to fight at Magenta\nand Solferino? and, in another way, was there not something dramatic\nin the sudden reverse and displacement of Count Buol, who had been\nthe Austrian representative at the Congress, immediately after he had\nhurled the fatal _ultimatum_? The retort will be triumphant. Did not\nFrance, the great culprit of all, who both cast its own responsibility\nto the winds and sowed the hurricane, conquer at Solferino? Truly\nshe did; but _respice finem_, or rather, we may say, we have lived\nto see the end. Did not Solferino, after some ten years of delusive\nprosperity, lead up to Sedan? Of England I do not wish to say more than\nthat since that date she has unaccountably fallen in the esteem of men;\nhas, in her turn, met with injustice, and no longer maintains the same\nrelative position which she held during the fifty years preceding the\nCongress.\n\nEverything, in fine, since that date, seems to have gone in favour of\nthat European power which remained in the background, and which, if\nit did no good act at the Congress, at least had the worldly wisdom\nto fold its arms and refrain from sacrilege. Yes, Prussia has had\nher victory; but by all accounts there never was a victory which has\nmade a nation so sad and mournful, and which was greeted with fewer\nmanifestations of joy. It was peace rather than victory which was\nwelcomed home. Here, too, we seem to see the subtle and nicely-measured\nretaliation. Again, was there no significance in the unlooked-for\ndisasters at Forbach and Woerth, occurring coincidently with the final\nabandonment of Rome by France?\n\nThese are things which strike the eye, but which are difficult of\ndemonstration, and it would appear a hopeless errand to convince a\ngeneration which has witnessed the burning of Paris, if not without\nemotion, at any rate without serious reflection, and, in spite\nof manifest prediction, has refused to see in it \"the finger of\nretribution and the hand of God.\"\n\nAnd yet belief in this retribution of heaven is at the foundation of\nthe law of nations. Previously to the astounding experiences of the\nrecent war, during those years so fruitful \"in pledges and perjuries,\"\nit was a common phrase, and most frequently used with reference to\nFrance, that war was no longer an affair of divine Providence, but that\nProvidence was always on the side of the big battalions.\n\nWith one word as to the significance of this phrase, which is\ntantamount to a negation of the law of nations, I shall conclude.\n\nIt may certainly happen, that in a contest one party may be consciously\nhypocrite, whilst the other is conscious of its rectitude; but\npresumedly, and until the contrary is manifested, both parties must\nbe supposed to believe themselves in the right, and to run the tilt\nlike knights in the medi\u00e6val tournament. Nevertheless, as Dr Johnson\nsaid, there are arguments for a \"plenum\" and for a \"vacuum,\" but one\nconclusion only can be true; and in some way in every conflict, which\nis true and which is just is known only to the inscrutable judgment\nof the Most High. We do not know all the secrets of courts, neither\ncould we exactly determine the point if we had before us all the\ndeliberations of councils, it is sufficient for us to know that victory\nis not always on the side of the big battalions, as witness, _inter\nalia_, Marathon, Morgarten, Bannockburn, Lepanto, Mentana. Will any\nEnglishman maintain the proposition that victory is always on the side\nof the big battalions? Then, beginning with Cressy and Poictiers, and\nfollowing Marlborough through the fields of Blenheim, Ramilies, and\nMalplaquet, and the Duke of Wellington through the Peninsular War, we\nmust renounce that which gives \"the _\u00e9clat_ to all our victories.\"\nDoubtless, then, the quality of troops will in some instances weigh\nfar more than numbers. You allow it? We now introduce an element of\ngreat uncertainty, and about which there will always be much dispute,\nand moreover it will always be a matter concerning which religion\nand morality will have much to say. It is no longer an affair of big\nbattalions, it is no longer reduced to a matter of calculation, on\nwhich side the victory is to be. Let me further remark, that whilst\nthere is one set of writers who will be ready to say that Providence is\non the side of the big battalions, there is another set of writers, and\nthese the men who are more conversant with the details, who will with\ngreat acuteness undertake to prove to you that it is so much an affair\nof Providence that in each case the victory was scarcely a victory,\nand only such because some casualty on the other side intervened to\nconvert what would otherwise have been a victory into a defeat. It is\nunfortunately true that this latter class of historians and strategists\ndo not, as a rule, trace in the turn of events the retribution of\nProvidence. Still, the presumption will always be that victory favours\nthe righteous cause, although it may be only _pro hac vice_, and\nultimate success may not crown the career of the victorious nation,\nbecause its virtues may not have merited more than a signal and single\nsuccess;--or it may even be that its merits may be of a kind such as\nto gain it a reward which transcends the rewards of earthly victory;\nor, again, the career of victory must be explained and measured by the\ndepths of the final catastrophe and discomfiture.\n\nIn any case, it is a great thing for a nation to have won a victory\nin a rightful cause. The reward of virtue remains and gladdens the\nheart in the day of disaster and distress. Whatever may chance to us,\nthere will always lie in store for us the consolation of reading the\nhistory of the battle of Waterloo; not, let us say, as the victory of\none nation over another nation, but as the great and final triumph of\na righteous over an unrighteous cause, gained by England. It is, thank\nGod! impossible alike for the conqueror and the revolutionary multitude\nto destroy the Past.\n\n\n\n\n INDEX.\n\n Aboriginal races, their mysterious origin, 35.\n\n Acton, Lord, 251.\n\n Adam, supposed identity with Prometheus and Hercules, 42, 180;\n with Fohi, 64, 232;\n meaning of the word, 134;\n correspondence of, with Chald\u00e6an god, Ana, 189.\n\n Adams, Mr Arthur, 348.\n\n Adaptability of law of nations, 410.\n\n Adonis and Venus, myths of, 396, 397.\n\n Adrastus, the legend of, 179.\n\n \u00c6neid, the, of Virgil quoted, 212.\n\n \u00c6schylus, the \"Supplicants\" of, quoted, 131.\n\n Africa, commemorative ceremonies of Deluge, 248, 250;\n Captain Burton's account of, 251;\n compared with Catlin's narrative, 254-260.\n _See also_ Deluge, Commemorative Festivals.\n\n Africanus, 95.\n\n Age of Bronze, the, 334, 335;\n commencement of, 336.\n\n Age, the Golden, 323;\n theory of and commencement, 323;\n tradition of, 328.\n\n Age, the Iron, 129.\n\n Agnatic relationship, 357, 358, 360.\n\n Algonquins, the, 152.\n\n Allies, Mr, on divergence between religion and philosophy, 108.\n\n America, the Mozca Indians of, 70;\n diluvian traditions in, 242;\n the \"O-kee-pa\" of the Mandans, 245, 246;\n Catlin's account of ceremonies, 254-262;\n the Peruvian deity, 186;\n Peruvian worship, 304.\n _See also_ Deluge, Commemorative Festivals.\n\n America, the discovery of, a proof of tradition, 324.\n\n American continent, source of peoples of, 263-266.\n\n American Indians, the legend of Michabo among the, 152, 153;\n tradition of fire among, 320.\n\n Amida or Adima, the Japanese god, 65.\n\n Amphictyonic Council and League, 361-365.\n\n Ana, a Chald\u00e6an god, 187;\n traditional identity of with Adam, 189;\n a reduplication of Enu or Enoch, 192.\n\n Ancestors, worship of, 161, 205.\n\n Ancient society, the unit of, 339.\n\n Andamans, the, 308, 313.\n\n Andriossy's hypothesis regarding overflow of the Nile, 68.\n\n Anthisteries, the, 226.\n\n Antiquity of man, 91.\n\n Apollo, 241.\n\n Apotheosis of Nimrod, 160.\n\n Arab and Iroquois, exceptional instances of human progress, 33.\n\n Arba-Lisun, the, or Four Tongues, 184.\n\n Arbitration instead of war, 380.\n\n Areopagus, a cosmopolitic, 383.\n\n Argos, feast of the deluge at, 243.\n\n Argyll, Duke of, on tradition, 120, 123;\n on capability of savage races, 314.\n\n Arrival and conflict of different races in India, 35-38.\n\n Aryan nations in India, their struggle with the Santals, 36;\n their dialect, 36;\n Mr Tylor on, 41;\n one of the primitive races, 43;\n probable identity with Japhetic race, 43;\n their colour, 84;\n their mythology, 168.\n\n Ash, the, tradition regarding, 175, 176.\n\n Assemblies of Greece, the, 369.\n\n Assyrian history, corroboration of, 289.\n\n Assyrian mythology, 182;\n deities of, 183;\n Il or Ra, 185;\n L'Abbe Gainet on, 187;\n Ana, 187;\n Bil or Enu, 190;\n Hea or Hoa, 194;\n Nebo, 206.\n\n Asteropoeus, 252.\n\n Astral religion, 163.\n\n Astronomical cycle of China, 61.\n\n Athens, the Hydrophoria at, 244.\n\n Atlantis, the, of Plato an embodiment of tradition, 367.\n\n Autochthones, or earth-born, 131.\n\n Avocations of primitive life--hunter, husbandman, and shepherd, 33.\n\n\n Babylonian chronology, 57, 58;\n Hales on, 57.\n\n Bacchus, connection of, with Saturnalia, 214;\n reduplications of, 215, 216.\n\n Baldr, the legend of, localised and individualised, 171;\n in the Scandinavian Edda, 172;\n paralleled with an account of the Fall, 172.\n\n Ballad, Welsh, quoted, 253.\n\n Basis of international law, 11.\n\n Basis of theory of Golden Age, 323.\n\n Baskets of water, the, parallel accounts of by Burton and Catlin, 256.\n\n Bastian, M.A., on human progress, 75.\n\n Bath, the Marquis of, 408.\n\n Bel Nipru or Nimrod, 191.\n\n Belligerent Rights, 376, 377.\n\n Belus, the god, 133;\n identity of with Nimrod, 159.\n\n Bentham, on International Law, 3, 5;\n his peculiar crotchet, \"utility,\" 6;\n on public opinion, 7;\n the \"greatest happiness\" principle, 13;\n criticism on Blackstone's views of primitive life, 54.\n\n Benthamism tested by Darwinism, 17.\n\n Berosus' account of Hoa, 327.\n\n Bertrand, M., legend concerning the man-bull, 203.\n\n \"Bhilsa Tope,\" the, 252.\n\n Bifrons, a name applied to several gods, 220.\n\n Big battalions, 412, 413.\n\n Big canoe, the, parallel accounts of, by Burton and Catlin, 255;\n correspondence of to the canopied boat of Egyptians, 273.\n\n Bil or Enu, a Chald\u00e6an deity, 190.\n\n Blackness of complexion, the result of the curse of Canaan, 79;\n associated with evil, 79;\n traditions regarding, 81, 82;\n a mark of inferiority, 84;\n how used by satirists, 85;\n operation as a curse, 89, 90.\n\n Blackstone on primitive life and a state of nature, 54.\n\n Boat, philology of the word, 196.\n\n Bochica, 325.\n\n Bolabola, declaration of war at, 388, 389.\n\n Bonzies, the, 270.\n\n Book of Genesis, the, 120.\n\n Book of Sothis, 95.\n\n Bougainville on divinities of the Tahitians, 315.\n\n Boulanger, M., quoted, 118;\n on diluvian tradition, 242, 243, 247, 262;\n on the Golden Age, 328, 329.\n\n Brace, Mr, his \"Ethnology,\" quoted, 27, 37, 267.\n\n \"Breach of etiquette,\" a, consequences of, 403;\n the ostensible pretext of Franco-German war, 404.\n\n Brigham Young and the Mormons, 18.\n\n _British Medical Journal_ on explosive bullets, 400.\n\n Bronze Age, the, 293, 334, 335;\n its commencement, 336.\n\n Bryant, Mr J., xi.;\n on creation of man, 133, 136;\n on the symbol of the bull, 203;\n on Dionusus, 215;\n on Noah and Janus, 219;\n his derivation of Juno and Venus, 392;\n on the dove, 395.\n\n Buddhist legend, 136.\n\n Buffaloes, Feast of the, 260.\n\n \"Bull-dance,\" the, 254;\n parallel accounts of, by Burton and Catlin, 254.\n\n Bunsen, Baron, 37;\n on Chinese and Egyptian chronology, 58-62, 73;\n on Egyptian chronicles, 94-96;\n on tradition of creation, 132;\n on the Kabiri, 198;\n on Arya, 335.\n\n Burial customs among Mandans and Formosans, 268.\n\n Burial, mode of, common to several savage nations, 308.\n\n Burton, Capt. Richard, on Fetish, 80;\n on Dahome customs, 250;\n the bull-dance, 254;\n the big canoe, 255;\n the baskets of water, 256;\n the gourds or calabashes, 257;\n the \"aged white man,\" 258, 259;\n customs at Whydat, 262.\n\n Burton, J. Hill, 3.\n\n\n Cadmus and alphabetic writing, 221.\n\n Caduceatores, the, 390.\n\n Cain, tradition in Tonga connected with, 82.\n\n Calmet on \"Sem,\" or Shem, 207;\n on Saturn, 210.\n\n Canaan. _See_ Chanaan.\n\n Canada, Col. Macdonell's service in, xxiii., xxiv.\n\n Canaanite race, the correspondence between and aboriginal tribes\n in India, 39, 48;\n literal fulfilment of prophecy regarding, 40, 41, 83, 85.\n\n Canopied boat, the, of the Egyptians, 273.\n\n Carver, Mr, on Indian wars, 28;\n the Indian mode of declaration of war, 399, 401;\n Indian flags of truce, 405.\n\n Cashmir, tradition of Deluge in, 68;\n commemorative festival in, 69.\n\n Catholicism and Christianity, identity of, 113.\n\n Catlin, Mr G., on traditions of Creation among the Indians, 134, 138;\n of Deluge, 223;\n the \"O-kee-pa,\" 245;\n the big canoe, 255;\n the baskets of water, 256;\n the gourds or calabashes used by the Indians, 257;\n the \"first man,\" 258, 259;\n the \"evil spirit,\" 260;\n water ceremonies, 262;\n on the pheasant, 266;\n description of a \"whale ashore\" at Vancouver's Island, 317;\n on the cranial development of the Flathead and Crow Indians, 318.\n\n Caverley's Theocritus quoted, 217.\n\n Centre of tradition, the, 339.\n\n Ceremony at Gorbio, 307.\n\n Chald\u00e6a, early inhabitants of, 184.\n\n Chald\u00e6an Pantheon, deities of the, 183.\n\n Chald\u00e6an system of chronology, 57;\n religion, 163.\n\n Champagny, M. F. de, 404, 409.\n\n Chanaan, or Canaan, the curse of, 79;\n tradition of this curse among the Sioux Indians, 81;\n in Tonga, 82.\n\n Chandordy, Count, 405.\n\n Chaos in the Phoenician cosmogony, 174;\n the commencement of all things, 174-177.\n\n Chateaugay, xxviii.\n\n China, certain and uncertain history of, 58, 59;\n astronomical cycle of, 61;\n aboriginal tribes, 133;\n belief in, as to creation of man, 134.\n\n Chinese chronology, 58-65;\n confusion in, 65.\n\n Chinese tradition of first and second heaven, 328.\n\n Chin-nong, 240.\n\n Chippeways and Natchez tribes, institution of perpetual\n fire among, 320.\n\n Choctaw Indians, tradition regarding creation of man, 134.\n\n Christian doctrine, the foundation of, 142.\n\n Chronicles of Egypt, 93.\n\n Chronology, Egyptian, Palmer on, 92-104;\n the Sothic cycle, 96-100;\n various systems of, 101.\n\n Chronology, from the point of view of science, 72;\n Bunsen's views, 73;\n Lyell's, 73;\n Sir John Lubbock's, 73-75;\n Hales on, 85.\n\n Chronology, from the point of view of tradition, 55;\n historical testimony and evidence in favour of Scriptural, 55;\n Indian, 56;\n Babylonian, 57;\n Hales, Rev. W., on, 57;\n Chinese, 58-65.\n\n Chronos, Saturn as, 218.\n\n Cicero, on International Law, 10;\n \"De Legibus\" quoted, 368;\n the \"Offices,\" 375.\n\n Civilisation, a state of, the primitive condition of man, 284.\n\n Civilisation, principles and teaching of, 339.\n\n Civilisation, progress of man to, 329, 331.\n\n Cognation and agnation among the Romans, 357, 358.\n\n Coincidences of the Bible with Sanchoniathon, 130.\n\n Coleridge, H. N., on oral transmission of tradition, 122.\n\n Coleridge, Rev. Henry J., 224;\n on conflicting elements of heathenism, 344.\n\n College, the Fecial, 373.\n\n Colour in man, persistency of, 77.\n\n Coloured cloth and feathers, emblematic of peace and war, 388-392, 398.\n\n Commemorative Festivals. _See_ Festivals, Commemorative.\n\n Comity of nations, restriction of the 379.\n\n Communal marriage, 51, 52.\n\n Commune, the, 110.\n\n Communistic schemes, 109.\n\n Comte and the Comtists, 112.\n\n Conflicting elements of heathenism, 344.\n\n Confusion of tongues, Hesiod on the, 334.\n\n Confusion of tradition of Enoch with Xisuthrus and Noah, 326.\n\n Conscience, Mr Darwin on, 2, 12;\n its subjective existence, 12;\n outward expression, 13.\n\n Constituent Assembly, the, of 1789, Montalembert on, 113.\n\n Cook, Capt., on customs at Huaheine, 271, 272;\n quoted, 298;\n on declaration of war at Bolabola, 388, 389.\n\n Copan, the peaceable people of, 29.\n\n Cosmogony, Roman ideas of the, 23.\n\n Cosmopolitic Areopagus, a, 383.\n\n Cox, Rev. G. W., xiv.;\n on mythology, 158, 165, 168;\n on myths of Venus and Adonis, 396, 397.\n\n Cranial development of Flathead and Crow Indians, 318.\n\n Creation of man, tradition of among Red Indians, 133;\n Max M\u00fcller on, 133.\n\n Creation, the, Mexican tradition of, 152, 153;\n Slavonian account of, 154.\n\n Creoles, the persistency of colour in, 77.\n\n Cunningham, Major, the \"Bhilsa Tope,\" 252.\n\n Curse of Canaan, the, 79;\n traditions of, 81-85, 217.\n\n Customs of the Samoides, 28;\n at Huaheine, 271.\n\n Cycle, astronomical, of China, 61;\n the Sothic, 96, 98-100.\n\n\n Dagon, the god of the Philistines, 200;\n the Fish-man, 219;\n Mr Layard on, 238.\n\n Dahome, the \"So-sin\" customs of, 250, 251, 254-262;\n precedence of women in, 259.\n\n Dancing an Indian ceremonial, 302, 303.\n\n D'Anselme, Vicomte, on philology of Noah and boat, 196.\n\n Darkness, associated with the Serpent, 173;\n the parent of light, 174-177.\n\n Darwinism, Benthamism tested by, 17.\n\n Darwin on Conscience, 2, 12;\n and the utilitarians, 15-17.\n\n Davies, Rev. E., xi., 253.\n\n Day and night, used as symbols, 84.\n\n Declaration of war, the, 386;\n accompanied by religious formalities, 386, 387;\n method of, at Bolabola, 388, 389;\n at St Julian, 389;\n symbols used at, 389-392;\n Plutarch on, 397;\n traditionary modes of, 398-400;\n importance attached to forms of, 402;\n consequences of the violation of forms of, 406-411.\n\n Deities of the Chald\u00e6an Pantheon, 183.\n\n \"De Legibus\" quoted, 10, 133.\n\n De Quincey, quoted, 383.\n\n Deluge of Deucalion, the, 224, 225, 229.\n\n Deluge of Ogyges, the, 229;\n anterior to that of Deucalion, 230;\n its date, 231.\n\n Deluge, the--traditions of, localised in China, 65-67;\n commemorative monument of, 67;\n traditions of, in Egypt, 67;\n in Cashmir, 68;\n among Sioux Indians, 81;\n among Tartar tribes, 135;\n L'Abb\u00e9 Gainet on, 137;\n Phrygian legend of, 193;\n Phoenician legend of, localised, 198;\n Santal legend of, 199;\n Etruscan monument commemorative of, 204;\n connection of Saturn with, 210-212;\n of Ogyges and Deucalion, 222;\n traditions of, among Indian tribes, 223;\n Sanscrit story of, 224;\n its date, 231;\n traditions of, among Greeks, 230-235;\n Frederick Schlegel on, 233, 234;\n traditions of, in Africa and America, 242;\n Boulanger on, 242, 243;\n commemorative festivals of, 243-246, 252-262, 275-282;\n the dove and rainbow of, 393, 396.\n _See also_ Noah.\n\n \"Democracy in America,\" Tocqueville's, 8.\n\n Demonolatry, 146.\n\n \"De Rerum Natura\" quoted, 334.\n\n Deucalion, 222;\n Mr Grote on traditions of, 224, 225;\n Max M\u00fcller on legend of, 226;\n Mr Kenrick on, 230-232, 241;\n connected with Hydrophoria at Athens, 244.\n\n Devil, the, belief in among savages 302.\n\n Devil-worship, 141.\n\n Diana, the temple of, 364.\n\n Diffusion of Hamitic races, 41.\n\n Dike and dikaspoloi, 347.\n\n Diluvian tradition.\n _See_ Noah, Deluge.\n\n Diluvian traditions in Africa and America, 242-282.\n _See_ Deluge. Festivals (commemorative).\n\n Diogenes Laertius' scheme of chronology, 101.\n\n Dionusus, identified with Noah, 215;\n the first king of India, 220, 221.\n\n Dionysia, 249.\n\n Discovery of America, the, a proof of tradition, 324.\n\n Dispersion, the, 329, 336; rise of government under, 342.\n\n Disraeli, Mr, on sceptical effects of discoveries of science, xvi., xvii.\n\n Distribution of races, 89.\n\n Divergence between religion and philosophy, 108.\n\n Divinities of the Tahitians, 315.\n\n Divinity attaching to forms, 402, 403.\n\n Dixon, Hepworth, his conversation with Brigham Young, 18;\n his views of human progress, 32.\n\n Donoughmore, Earl of, 408.\n\n Dove, the bird of Venus, 392;\n traditions of, 394-396.\n\n Duc de Grammont, the, 404.\n\n Dyaks and Javanese, contrast in colour, 81.\n\n Dyans, 170.\n\n Dyer, Dr, on the Sabines, 352;\n the temple of Diana, 364.\n\n Dynasties of Egypt, 97, 98, 102, 103.\n\n Dynasty of the Popes, 381, 382.\n\n\n Eastern Islanders, tradition among the, 200.\n\n Egg, the mundane, tradition of, 306;\n an emblem of the Creation, 307;\n the Mahabarata account of, 308.\n\n Egypt, chronology of, 92;\n its Chronicles, 93;\n dynasties of, 97;\n commemorative festival of the Deluge in, 249.\n\n Egyptian chronology, Palmer on, 92-104.\n\n Egyptians, the, canopied boat of, 273;\n Jewish rites and ceremonies borrowed from, 274.\n\n Ellis's \"Polynesian Researches\" quoted, 265;\n on Tahitian relics, 312.\n\n Endogamy, 45-47, 50.\n\n English socialists, 110.\n\n Enoch, result of his disappearance regarding Nimrod, 160;\n embodied traditionally in Chald\u00e6an gods Ana and Enu, 192.\n\n Enu or Bil, a Chald\u00e6an deity, 190;\n a reduplication of Enoch, 192.\n\n _Epi_metheus (afterthought) and _Pro_metheus (forethought), 180.\n\n Epochs of prehistoric arch\u00e6ology, 287, 288.\n\n Equality of the sexes, 109.\n\n Eratosthenes, 95;\n scheme of chronology of, 103.\n\n Eros and Iris, 394.\n\n Eschylus, the \"Supplicants\" quoted, 398.\n\n Esquimaux, the, 311.\n\n Ethnological difficulties, 89-91.\n\n Etruscan monument commemorative of the Deluge, 204.\n\n Etymologies--of _man_, 134, 227, 228;\n _Noah_, 196;\n _boat_, 196;\n _river_, 253;\n _horse_, 253, 255;\n _plough_, 255;\n names of metals, 290;\n _fire_, 321;\n _plough_, 335.\n\n Euridike and Orpheus, 173.\n\n European league, a general, 381, 382.\n\n European radicalism, 110.\n\n Eusebius' testimony to value of tradition, 120.\n\n Evil associated with blackness, 79.\n\n Evil Spirit, the, in Mandan ceremonies, 260.\n\n \"Excursion,\" the, of Wordsworth quoted, 145.\n\n Exogamy, 45-47.\n\n\n Falconer's \"Pal\u00e6ontological Mem.,\" 139.\n\n Fall, the, Lenormant on, 128.\n\n Family, the, 26;\n tendency to dispersion of, 27;\n gradual consolidation and expansion into tribes and then to\n states, 30, 31;\n the unit of ancient society, 339.\n\n Family tradition, confusion of, 116.\n\n Fatimala, the, 40.\n\n Feast of the Buffaloes, the, 260.\n\n Feathers, coloured, emblematic of peace and war, 389-392.\n\n Fecial College, the, 373;\n correspondence of, with Herald's College, 374.\n\n Federal union between Romans and Latins, 355.\n\n Feegees, the, religion among, 301;\n their characteristics and civilisation, 313.\n\n Fergusson, Adam, on the Six Nations, 365.\n\n Festivals, commemorative, of the Deluge, 66;\n in Cashmir, 69;\n among various nations, 243;\n the Hydrophoria at Athens, 244;\n the \"O-kee-pa,\" 245;\n the Panathen\u00e6a, 248;\n the Dionysia, 249;\n in Egypt, 249;\n among the Mandan Indians, 250;\n the \"So-sin\" customs of Dahome, 250, 251;\n at Sanchi, 252;\n the \"Bull-dance,\" 254;\n the \"big canoe,\" 255;\n the baskets of water, 256;\n the gourds and calabashes, 257;\n the \"first man,\" 258, 259;\n among the Santals, 262;\n among the Japanese, 268, 269;\n at Huaheine, 271;\n among the Egyptians, 273;\n among the Patagonians, 275-279;\n Pongol Festival of Southern India compared with Mandan and Dahoman\n ceremonies, 275-282.\n _See_ Deluge.\n\n Fetish, 80.\n\n Feuds and wars, origin of, 27-29.\n\n Fire, unknown to various ancient nations, 128, 129;\n knowledge of among savages, 318-320;\n Polynesian etymology of the word, 321.\n\n \"First man,\" the, in Mandan ceremonies, 258, 259, 263.\n\n Fish-god, the, of Berosus, 202.\n\n \"Fish, history of the,\" 197.\n\n Flag, the white, a symbol of peace, 391.\n\n Flags of truce, Carver and Count Chandordy parallelised, 405.\n\n Flathead and Crow Indians, the heads of, 318.\n\n Flint, use of, among ancient nations, 297.\n\n Fohi the great, 63;\n identified with Adam, 64, 232.\n\n Formation of States, 342, 343.\n\n Formosans, burial customs among the, 268.\n\n Foundation of law of nations, 412.\n\n Foundation of Christian doctrine, the, 142.\n\n Foundation of Roman law, 352-360.\n\n Four Races, the, or Kiprat-Arbat, 184.\n\n France against Austria, consequences of the war of, 407-409.\n\n Franco-German war, the, its ostensible pretext, 404;\n its abnormal character, 404;\n origin of traced to Congress of 1856, 406.\n\n Fresquet, De, on declaration of war, 386, 387.\n\n Fuegians, religion among the, 303, 304;\n the lowest race of savages, 313.\n\n Fulfilment of prophecy regarding Chanaan, 40, 41.\n\n\n Gainet, L'Abb\u00e9, on diluvian tradition, 137;\n on mythology, 159;\n on Chald\u00e6an monotheism, 187;\n translation of the \"History of the Fish,\" 197;\n on Deucalion, 228;\n on Mandan traditions, 272.\n\n Genesis, the Book of, 120;\n relation of traditions to, 127, 128, 130.\n\n Geological speculations, 233.\n\n \"Gesta Romanorum,\" tale from the, 179.\n\n Gibbon, on the use of letters, 120;\n his \"Decline and Fall,\" quoted, 120, 361.\n\n Gladstone, W. E., his \"Juventus Mundi,\" 114;\n on the mythology of Homer, 162;\n on tradition, 182, 183;\n on impersonation of good and evil, 310;\n the key to the Homeric system, 332;\n the progress of Greek morality, 349;\n the Homeric age, 375.\n\n Gnostic sect, a curious, 154.\n\n Goguet, M., on origin of laws, 121;\n human progress, 128;\n kinship, 129;\n Janus, 219.\n\n Golden Age, the, and Noah, 323;\n basis of the theory, 323;\n its commencement, 323;\n under Saturn, 325;\n tradition of, 328;\n Boulanger on, 328, 329;\n Sir Henry Maine on, 351.\n\n Gorbio, curious ceremony at, 307.\n\n Gould, Mr Baring, xvi.;\n on \"Origin and Development of Religious Belief,\" 140;\n summary of his views, 141;\n his views opposed to tradition, 142;\n partial recognition of the value of revelation, 147;\n on monotheism, 150;\n on the Samoyed superstitions, 155.\n\n Gourds and calabashes, the, used in Dahoman and Mandan festivals, 257.\n\n Govat, Charles E., his description of the Pongol festivals, 275-282.\n\n Governments, rise of, after Dispersion, 342.\n\n Gradual progress of religion among primitive peoples, 143, 144, 148, 154.\n\n Great Hare or Rabbit, tradition of the, 152, 153.\n\n Greatest happiness principle, the, 13, 16.\n\n Grecian mythology, 164-170.\n\n Grecian traditions of the Deluge, 230-235.\n\n Greek and Latin Leagues, 367.\n\n Greenwood's, Col. G., \"Rain and Rivers,\" quoted, 233, 234.\n\n Grote, Mr, 30, 42; on importance of myths, 117;\n on Deucalion, 224.\n\n Grotesque belief of the Hindoos as to support of the Earth, 138.\n\n Guanches, religion of the, 305.\n\n Guinea, religious festival in, 303.\n\n Guinnard, M., his narrative of Patagonian ceremonies, 275-279.\n\n\n Hales, Rev. W., on chronology, 57, 85, 90.\n\n Ham, identified with Hoang-ti, 64;\n prosperity of, 85;\n tradition of his blackness of complexion, 86;\n Sir J. G. Wilkinson on, 86;\n Bacchus identified with, 215.\n\n Hamitic races, diffusion of the, 41;\n apostasy of, 160.\n\n Hea or Hoa, a Chald\u00e6an deity, 194;\n the inventor of cuneiform writing, 195.\n\n Heathenism, conflicting elements of, 344.\n\n Heavens, First and Second, Chinese tradition of, 328.\n\n Helps, Mr, on worship of Peruvians, 304;\n his traditions of Peru compared with classical and oriental\n traditions, 325-327.\n\n Hercules or Herakles, supposed identity with Adam, 42;\n confusion of traditions regarding, 158, 180.\n\n Herodotus quoted, 33, 68.\n\n Hero-worship an early form of idolatry, 160, 161;\n among the Chald\u00e6ans a source of deification, 188, 190, 191.\n\n Hesiod and the Iron Age, 129;\n on the confusion of tongues, 334.\n\n Hetairism, 53.\n\n Heterogeneity, 46.\n\n Hieroglyphic of the Dove, 395.\n\n Hindoo laws of war, 400.\n\n Hindoos, curious belief as to the world's support, 138.\n\n \"Historicus\" (in _Times_) on International law, 384.\n\n \"History of the Fish,\" 197.\n\n History of Western civilisation, Dr Newman on, 338-340.\n\n Hoa or Hea, 194.\n\n Hoa, account of, by Berosus, 327.\n\n Hoang-ti, 60, 63;\n identified with Shem or Ham, 64;\n with Noah, 65.\n\n _Home and Foreign Review_ on Belligerent Rights at Sea, 376, 377.\n\n Homeric Age, the, 375.\n\n Homer's Iliad quoted, 347.\n\n Hooker, Dr, on the beliefs of the Lepchas, 305;\n on the Khasias, 306;\n on the conduct of war, 400.\n\n Horrors of war, limitations to, 400.\n\n Horse, etymology of the word, 253, 255.\n\n Houacouvou, director of evil spirits, Patagonian festival in\n honour of, 277.\n\n Huaheine, customs at, 271.\n\n Human race, tradition of the, 105-153.\n\n Human society founded upon a contract, 21.\n\n Hunter, Mr, on Indian traditions, 29;\n on primitive life in India, 34, 36;\n on Aryan colour, 84;\n on Santal customs, 247, 262.\n\n Husenbeth, Very Rev. Dr, xv.\n\n Huxley's definition of Positivism, 113.\n\n Hydrophoria, the, at Athens, 244.\n\n Hyksos or Shepherds, dynasty of, 102.\n\n\n Identification of Noah with Saturn, 325.\n\n Identity of Christianity and Catholicism, 113.\n\n Il or Ra, the Chald\u00e6an deity, 183;\n account of, by Rawlinson, 185.\n\n Iliad, the, quoted, 347.\n\n _Illustrated London News_ on Japanese religious festivals, 268;\n on ceremony at Gorbio, 307.\n\n Impersonation of good and evil, Mr Gladstone on, 310.\n\n Indian ceremonials, Washington Irving on, 302.\n\n Indian chronology, 56.\n\n Indian mode of declaration of war, 399, 401.\n\n Indian tribes, close resemblance of one to another, 77.\n\n Indian wars, their causes, 28, 29.\n\n Indians, Red, tradition regarding creation of man, 133;\n of the earth, by Michabo, 152, 153;\n ordeals and tortures, 247.\n\n Indians, traditions among Mozca, 70.\n\n Indo-Germanic races identified with descendants of Japheth, 42.\n\n Influence of Stoics on Roman law, 372.\n\n Inheritance through females, 52.\n\n Interfusion of ancestral and solar worship, 205.\n\n International Law, the _Tablet_ on, 3;\n Bentham on, 3, 5, 6;\n its origin and growth, 4;\n an unwritten law, 4;\n De Tocqueville on, 8;\n _Pall Mall Gazette_ on, 9, 11;\n Cicero on, 10;\n an \"organised constraint,\" 10;\n analogy with law of honour, 11;\n original idea at its basis, 11;\n relation to utilitarianism, 14, 15;\n the _jus feciale_, 373;\n \"Historicus\" on, 384.\n\n International Society, the, 110.\n\n Invention of writing, 123.\n\n Inventiveness of savage races, Sir J. Lubbock on, 310.\n\n Ionian federation, the, 364.\n\n Iris and Eros, 394.\n\n Iron Age, the, 129.\n\n Iroquois, traditions regarding creation of man, 135.\n\n Irving, Washington, on Indian ceremonials, 302.\n\n\n Jacob, 151.\n\n James, W., xxiii.\n\n Janus, 217;\n derivation of January, 218;\n a double-headed god, 219, 220;\n identified with Noah, 326.\n\n Japan, commemorative festival of the Deluge in, 268, 269.\n\n Japanese legend of the bull and the egg, 257.\n\n Japetus, identity of with Japheth, 43.\n\n Japheth, fulfilment of prophecy regarding the race of, 41;\n their prosperity, 41;\n identity with Indo-Germanic races, 42.\n\n Javan, son of Japheth, identified with Yavana, 43.\n\n Javanese and Dyaks, contrast in colour, 81.\n\n Jenkins, Captain, xxvii.\n\n Jewish monotheism, 149.\n\n Jewish rites and ceremonies borrowed from Egyptians, 272-274.\n\n Juno and Venus, derivation of names of, 392.\n\n _Jus Feciale_, the, 373.\n\n _Jus Gentium_, the, 351, 353, 373.\n\n\n Kabiri, the, 197;\n Bunsen on, 198.\n\n Kant's scheme of a universal society, 383.\n\n Kenrick, Mr, on Manu, 228;\n the tradition of Deucalion, 230-232.\n\n Khasias, the, superstitions of the, 306.\n\n King, Captain, quoted, 265;\n on Sandwich Islanders, 315.\n\n Kinship through females, 46, 47, 51;\n Goguet on, 129.\n\n Kiprat-Arbat, the, or Four Races, 184.\n\n Klaproth, on Sanscrit history, 68;\n on the curse of Canaan, 83.\n\n Kronos, or Noah, 136.\n\n\n Lacordaire, L'Abb\u00e9, 4;\n on tradition, 105-107.\n\n Laertius', Diogenes, scheme of chronology, 101.\n\n Lamech, the story of, embodied in various traditions, 178, 179.\n\n Lapland tradition, a, 296.\n\n \"Last Rambles,\" the, of Catlin, quoted, 134.\n\n Latin League, the, 355.\n\n Law connected with religion, 368.\n\n Law, International. _See_ International Law.\n\n Law of honour, the, 11.\n\n Law of Nations, the, an unwritten law, 4;\n Sir Henry Maine on the, 338;\n common to all nations, 345;\n testimony to in the Manx Thing, 347;\n ancient codes of, 350;\n the _jus gentium_, 351;\n origin of the phrase, 352, 353;\n the Amphictyonic Council, 361;\n primary objects of, 367;\n common source, 371;\n discussed on the basis of usage, 378;\n the _lex legum_ of mankind, 385;\n a modern transgression of, 405;\n the seizure of Papal States a flagrant violation of, 407-409;\n adaptability of, 410;\n foundation of, 412.\n _See_ International Law.\n\n Law of Nature, the, 20;\n question whether there is or is not a, 20;\n different solutions of this question, 20;\n Sir G. C. Lewis on, 22;\n Sir H. Maine on, 22, 25;\n what the Roman meant by it, 23;\n among the ancients, 23;\n a social compact, 23, 24;\n tradition of, 350;\n origin of the phrase, 352, 353.\n\n Law, unwritten, 369;\n Ozanam on, 370, 371.\n\n Laws, the first, of all nations, 121.\n\n Layard, Mr, on the man-fish, 238.\n\n League of the Ten Kings, 367.\n\n Legend of the tortoise, 138, 139;\n of Michabo, 152, 153;\n of the bull and the egg, 257.\n\n Legends of OEdipus and Perseus, 178.\n\n Legists of different nationalities, their agreement accounted for, 385.\n\n Lenormant, on Noe, 88;\n on the Fall, 128.\n\n Lepchas, the, curious legend of, 224;\n religion among the, 305, 307.\n\n Letters, the use of, a distinction between a civilised and savage\n people, 120.\n\n Levitical worship, the ceremonial borrowed from Egypt, 272, 273.\n\n Lewis, Sir G. C, on Law of Nature, 22, 24, 380.\n\n Light and darkness, as symbols, 84.\n\n Limitations to horrors of war, 400.\n\n Local tradition, persistency of, 117.\n\n Lower Egypt, dynasties of, 103.\n\n Lowest races of savages, the, 313.\n\n Lubbock, Sir John, on primitive marriage, 51;\n on the antiquity of man, 91;\n on _water_-worship, 252;\n on tradition, 283;\n his theory opposed to that of De Maistre, 287;\n division of pre-historic arch\u00e6ology, 287,288;\n untrustworthiness of tradition for evidence of history, 294;\n on religion among savage races, 299, 300, 308;\n his suppositions regarding inventiveness of savage races, 310-314;\n views supported by Duke of Argyll, 314;\n description of a \"whale ashore\" in Australia, 316;\n on the knowledge of fire, 318-321.\n\n Lucas, Mr Edward, xv.\n\n Lucretius' \"De Rerum Natura\" quoted, 334.\n\n Lyell, Sir C., xiii.;\n on human progress, 73, 123.\n\n\n Macaulay, Lord, on Benthamism, 13, 15;\n the dynasty of the Popes, 381, 382.\n\n Macdonell, Col. George, xii.;\n memoir of, xix.;\n parentage, xx.;\n an admirer of the Stuarts, xxi.;\n results of a letter to the War Secretary, xxii.;\n raises a regiment of Macdonells, xxiii.;\n service in Canada, xxiv.;\n the taking of Ogdensburg, xxv.-xxix.\n\n M'Lennan, Mr, on primitive marriage, 44;\n on marriage customs, 47, 125.\n\n Macrobius, on Janus Bifrons, 218.\n\n Maine, Sir Henry, xv.;\n on the law of nature, 22, 25;\n on the law of nations, 338;\n the unit of ancient society, 341;\n notions of primitive antiquity, 343;\n on ancient codes, 350;\n the _jus gentium_, 351;\n origin of name of law of nations, of nature, &c., 352, 353;\n the foundation of Roman law, 357, 358;\n his distinction between _jus gentium_ and _jus feciale_, 373.\n\n Maistre, Count Joseph de, his theory regarding the early races\n of man, 78;\n his view of tradition, 283-286;\n on the pontifical power, 381.\n\n Malays, traditions among the, 136.\n\n Malthus, Mr, theories regarding over-population, 17.\n\n \"Man,\" Max M\u00fcller on derivation of the word, 134;\n its etymology, 227, 228.\n\n Man and the monkey, traditions connecting the, 136.\n\n Man-bull, the, traditions of, 203.\n\n Manco-Capac, 240;\n the lawgiver of Peru, 325;\n identity of with Quetzalcohuatl, 326.\n\n Mandan Indians, traditions among the, 134, 138;\n tradition of the Deluge, 191;\n commemorative festivals among, 250, 254-262;\n the Evil Spirit of, 200;\n source and origin of, 263-266;\n mode of burial of, 268;\n art of fortifying their towns, 314.\n\n Manetho, 94;\n system of chronology of, 95, 96.\n\n Man-fish, Mr Layard on the, 238.\n\n Manning, Dr. _See_ Westminster.\n\n Manning, W. Oke, 14, 384.\n\n Man's progress, from a savage to a civilised state, 32;\n exceptional cases of the Arab and Iroquois, 33;\n Lyell's views of, 73;\n Lubbock's views, 73, 75;\n Bastian's views, 75.\n\n Manx Thing, the, 347.\n\n Maritime Alps, local ceremony in the, 307.\n\n Marriage, primitive, 44, 125;\n customs, 47;\n communal, 51, 52.\n\n Maupertuis', M., account of a Lapland tradition, 296.\n\n Meaco, ceremony in the temple of, at Japan, 269.\n\n Meaning of the word Adam, 134.\n\n Melia, Very Rev. Dr P., xv.\n\n Memoir of Colonel Macdonell, xix-xxix.\n\n Memphis, 67.\n\n Menes, the first king of Egypt, 67;\n early legend regarding, 192;\n the first who put laws in writing, 295.\n\n Menu, Ordinances of, 40, 49.\n\n Metallic weapons of ancient races, 290, 293.\n\n Metallurgy of the ancients, Mr Vaux on the, 292.\n\n Mexico, the States of, 366.\n\n Mexicans, traditions among the, regarding creation of man, 133;\n of the earth, 153.\n\n Michabo, the legend of, among the American Indians, 152, 153.\n\n Mill, Mr J. S., quoted, 32;\n on the status of women, 109.\n\n Mistletoe, the legend of the, 172, 176.\n\n Mivart, Mr St George, xv.\n\n Modes of settlement into communities, 31.\n\n Monkey and man, traditions connecting the, 136.\n\n Monogamy, 124.\n\n Monotheism, Jewish, 149;\n Semitic, 170;\n Chald\u00e6an, 187.\n\n Mosaic law, origin of, 359.\n\n Montagu, Lord Robert, M.P., xvi.\n\n Montalembert, De la, 4, 113;\n on results of Congress of Paris, in 1856, 406.\n\n Montesquieu, 384, 385.\n\n Montfau\u00e7on on Bacchus, 215;\n the declaration of war, 387.\n\n Mormons, the, 18.\n\n Mosaic authorship of Pentateuch, evidence of, 359.\n\n Mozca Indians, the, 70;\n tradition of Bochica among, 325.\n\n M\u00fcller, Mr Max, on Aryan dialects, 36;\n on Comparative Philology, 116;\n on derivation of the word _man_, 134, 228;\n nature-worship, 143;\n mythology, 165, 167-170;\n on legend of Deucalion, 226;\n \"Comparative Philology\" quoted, 393.\n\n Mundane egg, the, 306, 307.\n\n Myrmidon, 240.\n\n Mysterious origin of aboriginal races, 35.\n\n Mythological tradition among the Eastern Islanders, 200.\n\n Mythology, 157;\n source and origin of, 159-164;\n solar, 166;\n Rev. G. W. Cox on, 168;\n Max M\u00fcller on, 167-170;\n complications and confusion in, 171-181;\n Assyrian, _see_ Assyrian mythology.\n\n Myths connecting man with the monkey, 136.\n\n Myths, their importance, 117.\n\n\n Natchez tribes, institution of perpetual fire among, 320.\n\n Nations, law of. _See_ International Law, Law of Nations.\n\n Natural right, 5.\n\n Nature, law of. _See_ Law of Nature.\n\n Nature-worship, 143, 163, 173.\n\n Nazarians, the, a curious Gnostic sect, 154.\n\n Nebo, a Chald\u00e6an deity, 206;\n resemblance of, to Shem, 207.\n\n Necessities of the pastoral life, 27.\n\n Negro, the, persistency of colour in, 77;\n subserviency of, 80.\n\n _Ner_, _soss_, and _sar_, Chald\u00e6an periods of time, 57.\n\n Nergal identified with Mars, 164.\n\n Newman, Dr, 310, 323;\n on history of Western civilisation, 338-340.\n\n New Zealanders, curious tradition among, 139;\n their degeneration and retrogression, 321, 322.\n\n Nicolas, Mon. A., 107.\n\n Nieb\u00fchr, quoted, 364.\n\n Nillson, Professor, on the Stone Age, 290, 292;\n quoted, 297.\n\n Nimrod, a powerful chieftain, 88;\n in the Chald\u00e6an mythology, 158;\n identity with Belus, 159;\n his apotheosis confounded with Enoch's disappearance, 160.\n\n Nin or Ninip, the true fish-god, 200;\n identification with Noah, 202;\n emblem of, in Assyria, 203;\n note of Rawlinson on, 205.\n\n Noah (or Noe), identified with Shin-nong, 64, 232;\n with Oannes, 139;\n confusion of traditions regarding, 158;\n traditions of, among the Chald\u00e6ans, 183;\n philology of the name, 196;\n warlike epithets applied to, 202;\n correspondence of Nin to, 202;\n Nebo a counterpart of, 206;\n identifications of (with Xisuthrus) 208,\n (with Saturn) 210-212,\n (with Bacchus) 215,\n (with Janus) 217, 326,\n (with Ogyges and Deucalion) 222;\n the depositary of tradition and channel of law, 236;\n summary of evidence regarding traditional identifications, 236-241;\n and the Golden Age, 323;\n proofs of identity with Saturn, 325;\n associations of dove and rainbow with, 393, 396. _See_ also Deluge,\n Festivals, commemorative.\n\n Nomadic life, 27.\n\n Normandy, the Marquis of, 408.\n\n Notions of primitive antiquity, 343.\n\n \"Num,\" the deity of Samoides, 155.\n\n\n Oannes, the mysterious fish, 199;\n the god of science and knowledge, 201.\n\n Oceanus, Saturn identified as, 217.\n\n OEdipus, legend of, 178;\n identified with Lamech, 178;\n corruption of the legend in the \"Gesta Romanorum,\" 179.\n\n \"Offices,\" the, of Cicero quoted, 373.\n\n Ogdensburg, the taking of, xxvii.\n\n Ogier, M. Pegot, on the worship of the Guanches, 305.\n\n Ogilby's \"Japan,\" quoted, 268, 269.\n\n Ogyges and Deucalion, traditional connection of, with Deluge, 222.\n\n \"O-kee-pa,\" the, a religious ceremony of Mandans, 245, 246.\n\n Old Chronicle of Egypt, the, 93;\n analysis of, 97.\n\n Opischeschaht Indians, ceremonies among the, 268.\n\n \"Oracula Sybillina,\" the, quoted, 188, 195, 236, 237.\n\n Oral transmission of tradition, 121, 122;\n H. N. Coleridge on, 122.\n\n _Orbis terrarum_, the, 338, 339;\n nucleus of, 344.\n\n Ordeals among the Indians, 247.\n\n Ordinances of Menu, 40, 49.\n\n Oriental religions, Cardinal Wiseman on the, 154.\n\n \"Origin and Development of Religious Belief,\" Mr Baring Gould\n on, 140-153.\n\n Origin and growth of International law, 4.\n\n \"Origin of Laws,\" Goguet's, quoted, 128.\n\n Origin of Mosaic law, 359.\n\n Orpheus and Euridike, 173.\n\n \"Orvar Odd's saga,\" 296, 297.\n\n Osiris, the judge of the soul, 189, 240.\n\n Over-population, Malthus' views regarding, 17.\n\n Ox Temple of Meaco, ceremony in the, 269.\n\n Ozanam, on Laws, 370, 371.\n\n\n Pachacamac, the Peruvian deity, 186, 304, 305.\n\n Pagan view of the social compact, 23.\n\n _Pall Mall Gazette_, the, on the Darwinian theory of conscience, 2, 12;\n on laws, 9, 11;\n on utilitarianism, 14, 18;\n on European radicalism, 110;\n on the custom of the Manx Thing, 347.\n\n Palmer, Mr William, on Egyptian chronology, 92-104, 159;\n on Osiris, 189.\n\n Panathen\u00e6a, the, 248.\n\n Pantheon, the, of the Egyptians, 159;\n of the Chald\u00e6ans, 163.\n\n Papacy, the, head of a general European league, 381, 382.\n\n Papal States, seizure of the, 407-409.\n\n Paralleled traditions, 254-262;\n customs, 268;\n festivals, 275-282, 325-327.\n\n Parlementaires, 405.\n\n Pastoral life, necessities of, 27.\n\n Pastoret's History, quoted, on Amphictyonic Council, 363, 364, 369.\n\n Patagonians, religious festivals among the, 275-279.\n\n Peace and war, symbols of, 388-392.\n\n Peacock, the, symbol of the rainbow, 388-392.\n\n Pelasgians, the, 361.\n\n Pelasgus, 240.\n\n Pentateuch, the Rev. W. Smith's work on, quoted, 272, 273, 359.\n\n Pentheus, the fate of, 217.\n\n Peopling of American Continent, how accomplished, 263-266.\n\n Persistency of colour in African races and others, 77.\n\n Perseus, legend of, 178.\n\n Persians, ancient tradition of the, 128.\n\n Peru, the deity of, 186.\n\n Peruvians, worship of the, 304;\n Garcilasso de la Vega on, 305.\n\n Pheasant, the, relation of, to the Mandans, 266.\n\n Philology, comparative, 116.\n\n Philosophy alone is not religion, 145.\n\n Phoenician tradition of Deluge, 211;\n cosmogonies, 132, 159.\n\n Phoroneus, the father of mankind, 90, 239.\n\n Phrygian legend of the Deluge, 193.\n\n Pinkerton's account of religion of the Samoides, 155.\n\n Plato, tradition of condition of families recorded by, 30, 332;\n his Atlantis, an embodiment of tradition, 367.\n\n Plough, etymology of the word, 255, 335.\n\n Plumtre's \u00c6schylus, 390.\n\n Plutarch's \"Numa,\" quoted, 397.\n\n Polyandry, regulated and rude, 48, 49.\n\n Polygamy, 125.\n\n \"Polynesian Researches,\" quoted, 265.\n\n Polytheism and monotheism, 149-151.\n\n Pongol festival of Southern India, 275-282.\n\n Pontifical power, the, 381.\n\n Poole, Mr, 76.\n\n Pope, the, centre of a European league, 382.\n\n Pope's Odyssey quoted, 389.\n\n Poseidon, 240.\n\n Positivism, Huxley's definition of, 113.\n\n Posterity of Ham, the, 87, 88.\n\n Precedence of women in Dahome, 259.\n\n Pottery, the art of, an evidence of progress, 73, 311.\n\n Pre-historic Arch\u00e6ology divided into four epochs, 287, 288.\n\n Prayer and Punishment, expressed by same word by Latins, 286.\n\n Prescott's \"History of Mexico\" quoted, 309, 366.\n\n Prevost, Sir G., xxv., xxvi.\n\n Primary objects of Law of Nations, 367.\n\n Primitive condition of mankind, traditions regarding, from\n Sanchoniathon, 126, 284.\n\n Primitive life, 26;\n the family, 26;\n society and government, 26;\n necessities of pastoral, 27;\n origin of feuds and wars, 27-29;\n tendency to dispersion, 27;\n gradual consolidation, 30, 31;\n Mr J. S. Mill on, 32;\n progress from a savage to a civilised state, 32;\n the Arab and Iroquois exceptional instances, 33;\n distinctive avocations of hunter, husbandman, and shepherd, 33;\n in India, Mr Hunter on, 34, 36;\n exogamous tribes, 46;\n polyandrous families, 48;\n marriage, 49-51;\n views of Blackstone on, 54.\n\n Primitive marriage, Mr M'Lennan's theory of, 44;\n Sir John Lubbock on, 51.\n\n Primitive races, 43.\n\n Prophecy of St Malachy, 380.\n\n Progress of man to civilisation, 329, 331.\n\n Prometheus, supposed identity with Adam, 42;\n confusion of traditions regarding, 158, 180.\n\n Promiscuity, 47, 125.\n\n Pu-an-ku, the primeval man, 63.\n\n Public opinion, 6, 7.\n\n Purification and punishment, association of, 286.\n\n Pythagoras, 233.\n\n\n Quapaws, tradition of the, 29.\n\n Quetzalcohuatl, identity of with Manco Capac, 326.\n\n Quincey, De, 136;\n on Kant's scheme of a universal society, 383.\n\n\n Rabbit, the Great, tradition of, 152, 153.\n\n Races, primitive, 43.\n\n Radicalism, European, 110.\n\n Radien, the deity of Scandinavian mythology, 186.\n\n \"Rain and Rivers,\" the, of Col. G. Greenwood, quoted, 233, 234.\n\n Rainbow, the symbol of peace, 392;\n tradition of the, 393-395.\n\n Ra or Il, the Chald\u00e6an deity, 183;\n account of, by Rawlinson, 185.\n\n Ravana, 50.\n\n Rawlinson, Professor, xvi., 25, 30;\n on Babylonian chronology, 57, 58;\n on good and evil personifications, 83;\n identification of Nergal with Mars, 164;\n on deities of Chald\u00e6an Pantheon, 183, 185, 190, 194;\n on Nin or Ninip, 205;\n on Noah, 239;\n corroboration of Assyrian history, 289;\n the use of metals, 293.\n\n Reduplication and confusion of deities, 190.\n\n Reduplications--of Yao and Hoang-ti, 65;\n of Enoch, 192;\n of Bacchus, 215, 216.\n\n Relics of Scriptural tradition in Greece, 182.\n\n Religion and philosophy, divergence between, 108.\n\n Religion of the Samoides, 155;\n among savage races, 299;\n the Tonpinambas of Brazil, 301;\n the Feegees, 301;\n among Indians, 302, 303;\n in Guinea, 303;\n among the Fuegians, 303, 304;\n among Peruvians, 304, 305;\n among Lepchas and Limboos, 305;\n among the Khasias, 306;\n among Andamans, 308;\n among Tahitians, 314, 315;\n among Sandwich Islanders, 315;\n in Vancouver's Island, 317.\n\n Religion, gradual progress of, among primitive peoples, 143, 144,\n 148, 154.\n\n \"Religion the representation of a philosophic idea,\" 141.\n\n Religious formalities on declaration of war, 386.\n\n Restriction of the comity of nations, 379.\n\n Revelation, primitive, 146, 147.\n\n Rites, Levitical, borrowed from the Egyptians, 272, 273.\n\n River, etymology of the word, 253.\n\n Rock, the Very Rev. Dr, 387.\n\n Roman Church, the _Spectator_ on, 110.\n\n Roman law, 351-353;\n influence of Stoics on, 372.\n\n Roman ideas of the cosmogony, 23.\n\n Romans and Latins, political union of the, 355.\n\n Rude and regulated polyandry, 48, 49.\n\n Ryley, Mr E., on Belligerent Rights, 376, 377.\n\n\n Sabines, the, 352.\n\n Sacrifices in the Temple of Neptune, 368.\n\n Sacrificial weapons, 293.\n\n St Julian, scene at, 389.\n\n St Malachy, ancient prophecy of, 380.\n\n Saluberry, General De, xxvii.\n\n Samoans, the, 313.\n\n Samoides, customs of the, 28;\n their religion, 155, 156.\n\n Samoyed traditions of Creation, 154, 155.\n\n Sanchi, commemorative festival of Deluge at, 252.\n\n Sanchoniathon, traditions from, 126;\n relation of, to Genesis, 127, 128, 130;\n on diluvian tradition, 211.\n\n Sandwich Islanders, religion among the, 315.\n\n Sanscrit literature, 56;\n etymology of the word _plough_, 335.\n\n Sanscrit story of the Deluge, 224.\n\n Santals, the, 35;\n struggle with the Aryans for the mastery, 36;\n traditions of, 223;\n customs of, 262.\n\n Satirists, use of blackness of complexion by, 85.\n\n _Saturday Review_, the, on Mr Gladstone's \"Juventus Mundi,\" 114;\n on Indian traditions, 228.\n\n Saturnalia, the, 214.\n\n Saturn, identified as Nin, 201;\n traditional connection of, with Deluge, 210-212;\n reference to as Oceanus, 217;\n the inventor of agriculture, 325.\n\n Savage belief in the devil, 302.\n\n Savage races, vestiges of religion among, 299, 300.\n\n Scandinavian Edda, story of Baldrin, 172;\n quoted, 175.\n\n Scandinavian mythology, the deity of, 186.\n\n Sceptical effect of discoveries in science, xvi., xvii.\n\n Scheme of a universal society, Kant's, 383.\n\n Schemes, communistic, 110.\n\n Schlegel on tradition, 124;\n on Chald\u00e6an mythology, 188;\n on Indian traditions, 199;\n on diluvian tradition, 233, 234.\n\n Scriptural chronology, historical testimony and evidence in\n favour of, 55.\n\n Scriptural tradition, relics of in Greece, 182.\n\n Scripture and tradition, 119.\n\n Scythians, the, 33.\n\n Seebohm, Mr F., xv.\n\n Semitic monotheism, 170.\n\n Serpent, the, associated with darkness, 173.\n\n Servitude in marriage, the law of, 109.\n\n Sethites and Cainites, 188.\n\n Shakergal, the feast of roses in Cashmir, 69.\n\n Shem, resemblance of Nebo to, 207.\n\n Shepherds, dynasty of the, 102.\n\n Shin-nong, the divine husbandman, 63;\n identified with Noah, 64, 232.\n\n Siethas, the, worshipped by the Lapps, 155.\n\n Sioux Indians, tradition among the, regarding blackness of\n complexion, 81;\n of creation of man, 134.\n\n Six Nations, tribes of the, 365.\n\n Slavonian account of the Creation, 154.\n\n Smith, Rev. Dr, on the Pentateuch, 272, 273;\n origin of Mosaic law, 359.\n\n Social compact, the, Pagan view of, 23.\n\n Socialists, English, 110.\n\n Society and government, elementary constituent of, 26.\n\n Society, human, founded upon a contract, 21.\n\n Solar and ancestral worship, interfusion of, 205.\n\n Solar mythology, 166, 172.\n\n \"So-sin,\" the, commemorative festival in Dahome, 250, 254.\n\n _Soss_, _sar_, and _ner_, Chaldean periods of time, 57.\n\n Sothic cycle, the, 96, 98-100.\n\n Sothis, Book of, 95.\n\n Southern India, Pongol festival of, 275-282.\n\n \"Spanish Conquest of America,\" the, of Helps, quoted, 304, 325-327.\n\n _Spectator_, the, on the Roman Church, 110.\n\n Spencer, Dr, 274.\n\n State of nature, a, 331-333.\n\n States, formation of, 342-343.\n\n Stephens' \"Central America\" quoted, 29.\n\n Stevens, Mr E. T., 269, 296.\n\n Stoics, the, their influence on Roman law, 372.\n\n Stone Age, the, untenable hypothesis of, 289;\n Professor Nillson on, 290, 292, 297;\n evidence in favour of, 296, 297;\n mode of burial in, 308, 309.\n\n Stripes of coloured cloth, emblematic, 388.\n\n \"Struggle for existence,\" the, 16.\n\n Subjective existence of conscience, 12.\n\n Sudra, the, 40.\n\n Sun-worship, 154-156, 163.\n\n Superstitions of the Khasias, 306.\n\n \"Supplicants,\" the, of \u00c6schylus quoted, 131.\n\n Symbols of peace and war, 388-392.\n\n Syncellus, 94, 95, 97;\n quoted, 199.\n\n\n _Tablet, The_, quoted, 2;\n on Arbitration instead of War, 380;\n on position of the Papacy, 382.\n\n Tahitians, the, tools of, 290;\n religion and civilisation of, 314, 315.\n\n Tamanacs, tradition of the, 229.\n\n Tangaloa, the Tonga god, 82.\n\n Tartar tribes, tradition of Deluge among, 135.\n\n Tasman's \"Voyage of Discovery\" quoted, 298, 299.\n\n Tasmanians, knowledge of fire among the, 319.\n\n Taurus, 204.\n\n Taylor, Rev. Richard, on the New Zealanders, 321, 322.\n\n Temple of Diana, the, 364.\n\n Temple of Neptune, sacrifices in the, 368.\n\n Tendency of tradition to uncertainty and distortion, 115, 116;\n to reduplication, 209.\n\n Ten Kings, League of the, 367.\n\n Themis and Themistes, 346, 348, 349.\n\n Three stages of progress with man, 32.\n\n _Times, The_, quoted, 245, 380;\n on Franco-German war, 403.\n\n Tlascala, the republic of, 366, 367.\n\n Tlascopan, the kingdom of, 366.\n\n Tocqueville, De, on international law, 8.\n\n Tohil, the fire-god, 319.\n\n Tonga, tradition in, regarding blackness of complexion, 82.\n\n Tongusy, the religion of the, 156.\n\n Tonpinambas, the, of Brazil, 301.\n\n Topan, the idol, 269.\n\n Tortoise, curious belief regarding the, 138, 139.\n\n Tortures among the Indians, 247.\n\n \"Totems and Totemism,\" 125.\n\n Tradition--among Mozca Indians, 70;\n of the human race, 105;\n P\u00e8re Lacordaire on, 105-107;\n common origin of, 108;\n antagonism of religion to, 109;\n tendency of, to uncertainty and distortion, 115, 116;\n confusion of family tradition, 116;\n persistency of local, 117;\n unity of Scripture with, 119;\n Duke of Argyll on, 120;\n testimony of Eusebius to value of, 120;\n oral transmission, the main channel of, 122;\n Schlegel on, 124;\n Sanchoniathon on, 126;\n concordance and divergence in, 130;\n truth and persistence of, 131;\n of the creation of man, 131-137;\n intellectual strictures upon, 139;\n opposition of Baring Gould's views, 142;\n relics of scriptural, in Greece, 182;\n of the man-bull, 203;\n of the Deluge among American Indians, 223;\n among Santals and Lepchas, 224;\n the _Saturday Review_ on Indian, 228;\n Sir John Lubbock on, 283;\n De Maistre's view, 283-286;\n untrustworthiness and uncertainty of, according to Lubbock, 294;\n a Lapland, 296;\n capacity of savages for transmission of, 297-299;\n evidences of, in religion of savage nations, 301-306;\n of the mundane egg, 306-308;\n of fire, 319, 320;\n the discovery of America a proof of, 324;\n of Bochica among Mozca Indians, 325;\n Peruvian, compared with classical and oriental, 325-327;\n transfusion and intermixture of, 327, 328;\n of Golden Age, 328;\n of first and second heavens among Chinese, 328;\n of age of primitive equality, 332;\n coincidence of science with, 334;\n the centre of, 339;\n preservation of, under patriarchal governments, 343;\n of a law common to all nations, 345;\n of a law of nature, 350;\n the Atlantis of Plato an embodiment of, 367;\n of law connecting religion, 368;\n of the rainbow, 393-395;\n of the dove, 393-396;\n of modes of declaration of war, 398.\n _See_ also Deluge, Festivals, Noah.\n\n Traditions connecting man with the monkey, 136.\n\n Traditions, paralleled and compared, of diluvian customs, 254-262,\n 268.\n\n Transition from Stone to Bronze Age, 293.\n\n Treaties, the violation of, 409, 410.\n\n Treaty of Paris, the, 403.\n\n Tressan, L'Abbe, on mythology, 208.\n\n Tribes of the Malay peninsula, 136;\n of the Six Nations, 365.\n\n Triptolemus, the inventor of the plough, 216.\n\n Truth and persistence of tradition, 131.\n\n Turanian race, their migrations, 37.\n\n Turditani, the, 240.\n\n Tylor, Mr E. B., xiv., 41;\n on myths connecting man with the monkey, 136;\n on Animism, 300.\n\n\n Union of Romans and Latins, the, 355.\n\n Universal society, scheme of a, 383.\n\n Unwritten laws, 369.\n\n Usage the basis of law of nations, 378.\n\n Untenable hypothesis of a Stone Age, 289.\n\n Urquhart, Mr D., 386.\n\n Utilitarianism and international law, 14, 15.\n\n \"Utility,\" Bentham's peculiar crotchet, 6;\n the basis of his juridical system, 12.\n\n\n Vaivaswata, 197.\n\n Valdegamas, Marquis de, 112.\n\n Vancouver's Island, scene on, 317.\n\n Vaux, Mr, on metallurgy of the ancients, 292.\n\n Vega, Garcilasso de la, on Peruvian religion, 305.\n\n Venus, 396;\n myths of, 396, 397.\n\n Vestiges of religion among savage races, 299, 300.\n\n Vigne, Mr G. G., 64, 69.\n\n Violation of treaties, the, 409, 410.\n\n Virgil, lines of, on Saturn, 137;\n his \u00c6neid quoted, 211;\n the Eclogues, 327.\n\n Virtue and vice personified as white and black in the Zendavesta, 83.\n\n Voltaire, the intellect of, 113.\n\n Voltairean prejudices against primitive records, 25.\n\n Vul, the son of Ana, 193.\n\n\n Wallace, Mr, 81;\n on man, 91.\n\n Wallis, Captain, 291, 389.\n\n Wallis, Mr J. E., 2.\n\n War and peace, symbols of, 388-392.\n\n War, the Declaration of, 386. _See_ Declaration of War.\n\n Warburton, E., on oral transmission of past events among the\n Indians, 121.\n\n Waring, Mr J. B., 308.\n\n Warlike epithets applied to Noah, 202.\n\n Water, etymology of the word, 253.\n\n Weapons of metal among ancient races, 290, 293.\n\n Weld, Rev. A., xiv.\n\n Weld, F. A., Governor of Western Australia, 297.\n\n Welsh ballad quoted, 253.\n\n Westminster, Archbishop of, xv.\n\n \"Whale ashore,\" a, contrasted descriptions of, by Catlin and Sir John\n Lubbock, 316, 317.\n\n Whately, Archbishop, 283.\n\n White and black personifications of vice and virtue in the\n Zendavesta, 83.\n\n White flag, the, a symbol of peace, 391.\n\n Wilkinson, Sir J. G., on Ham, 86;\n his \"Ancient Egyptians\" quoted, 335.\n\n Wilson's \"Arch\u00e6ologia of Scotland\" quoted, 289, 293.\n\n Wiseman, Cardinal, 39;\n on the distribution of man, 82;\n the unity of Scripture with tradition, 119;\n the Oriental religions, 154;\n conformity of grammatical forms, 189;\n Jewish rites and ceremonies, 274;\n the growth of nations, 331.\n\n Wordsworth's \"Excursion\" quoted, 145.\n\n Women, their status, 109;\n precedence of, in Dahome, 259.\n\n Worship, mode of, among the Peruvians, 304.\n\n Worship of ancestors, 161, 205.\n\n Writing, its invention, 123;\n cuneiform, 195;\n Greece indebted to Cadmus for, 221.\n\n\n Xisuthrus, attempted identification of with Noah, 208.\n\n\n Yao or Yu, 65;\n erection of monument by, commemorative of the Deluge, 67.\n\n Yavana identified with Javan, son of Japheth, 43.\n\n Yokohama, religious festivals at, 268.\n\n\n Zendavesta, the, 83.\n\n Zeus, 169-171.\n\n\n PRINTED BY BALLANTYNE AND COMPANY\n\n EDINBURGH AND LONDON\n\n\n\n\n BURNS, OATES & CO.'S LIST.\n\n\n =Narratives of Remarkable Conversions=; containing Mrs.\n Seton, Hermann Cohen, David Richard, Alphonse Ratisbonne,\n Comte Laferronays, &c. Cloth, 2_s._ 6_d._\n\n\n =Tales of the French Revolution.= Fcp., cloth, 3_s._\n This interesting volume contains eight Historical Tales,\n illustrating the Faith and Heroism of Clergy and Laity in\n those troubled times.\n\n\n =Christian Schools and Scholars.= By the Author of the\n \"Three Chancellors,\" \"Knights of St. John,\" &c. Two vols.\n 8vo, 30_s._; cash, 25_s._ This important and interesting\n work should be in every library.\n\n\n =Life of St. Ignatius.= By Father BARTOLI, S.J. 2 vols.\n 14_s._\n\n\n =Life of Blessed Charles Spinola=, S.J. By Father\n BROCKAERT, S.J. 6_s._\n\n\n =The Path which led a Protestant= Lawyer to the Catholic\n Church. By P. H. BURNETT. 8vo. 8_s._ 6_d._\n\n\n =Balmez' Fundamental Philosophy.= By BROWNSON. 2 vols.\n 16_s._\n\n\n =Irish Homes and Irish Hearts.= By FANNY TAYLOR, Author of\n \"Eastern Hospitals,\" \"Tyborne,\" &c. Handsome cloth, 6_s._\n\n\n WORKS BY FATHERS OF THE SOCIETY OF JESUS.\n\n =Reply to Dr. Pusey's \"Eirenicon.\"= By Rev. Father HARPER.\n 8vo, 15_s._\n\n =Vita Vit\u00e6 nostri, Meditantibus= proposita. By the Rev. H.\n J. COLERIDGE. Cloth, 7_s._ 6_d._; calf, 10_s._ 6_d._\n\n =Life of Blessed Margaret Mary= Alacoque. By Rev. G.\n TICKELL. 7_s._ 6_d._\n\n =Sermons,= Part I. By Fathers COLERIDGE and HATHAWAY.\n 2_s._--Part II. By Fathers GALLWEY and PARKINSON.\n 2_s._--Part III. By Fathers PARKINSON, COLERIDGE, and\n HARPER. 2_s._\n\n Ditto, the Three Parts in One. Cloth, 6_s._\n\n =Union with Rome.= By Father CHRISTIE. 1_s._\n\n =The Church of St. Patrick.= By Father WATERWORTH. 2_s._\n 6_d._\n\n =The Papacy and Schism.= By Father BOTTALLA. 2_s._ 6_d._\n\n =Infallibility of the Pope.= By the same. 10_s._ 6_d._\n\n =Reply to Renouf on Pope Honorius.= By the same. 3_s._\n 6_d._\n\n =The Life and Letters of St.= Francis Xavier. The\n narrative and arrangement by the Rev. H. J. COLERIDGE.\n (Preparing.)\n\n\n =A'Kempis.= The following of Christ, in four books; a\n new translation, beautifully printed in royal 16mo, with\n borders round each page, and illustrative engravings\n after designs by the best German artists. Cloth, 3_s._\n 6_d._; calf, 6_s._ 6_d._; morocco, 8_s._; gilt, 10_s._\n 6_d._ Ditto, antique morocco, with clasp, and beautifully\n illustrated with numerous engravings, 25_s._\n\n\n =Vesper Book for the Laity.= This volume contains the\n Office of Vespers (including Compline and Benediction),\n complete for the first time for _every day in the year_,\n with the New Offices and Supplements. Roan, gilt edges,\n 3_s._ 6_d._; calf, 5_s._ 6_d._; morocco, 6_s._ 6_d._;\n gilt, 7_s._ 6_d._ The same, in thin vellum, half an inch\n thick, same prices.\n\n\n =Lives of the Roman Pontiffs.= 4 vols. 4to, in half\n antique calf, 40 beautiful steel engravings, 4_l._ 4_s._;\n cloth, 2_l._ 18_s._\n\n\n =Butler's Lives of the Saints.= 4 vols. 4to, best edition,\n calf, 3_l._ 10_s._\n\n\n =Imitation of the Sacred Heart.= By Father ARNOLD, S.J.\n Calf, 8_s._; morocco, 9_s._; ditto, with flaps, 12_s._;\n illustrated with numerous engravings, antique morocco,\n gilt, with clasp, 25_s._\n\n\n =New Meditations= for every Day in the Year. By a Father\n of the Society of Jesus. New and revised edition. 2 vols.\n calf, 16_s._; morocco, 17_s._\n\n\n =Rodriguez' Christian Perfection.= 2 vols. calf, 12_s._;\n morocco, 14_s._\n\n\n =Manresa=; or Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius. Calf,\n 6_s._ 6_d._; morocco, 7_s._ 6_d._; ditto, gilt, 8_s._ 6_d._\n\n\n =Practical Piety.= St. FRANCIS of Sales. Calf, 6_s._;\n morocco, 7_s._; ditto, gilt, 8_s._\n\n\n =Lyra Liturgica.= Calf, 7_s._ 6_d._; morocco, 9_s._;\n ditto, gilt, 10_s._\n\n\n =Spiritual Combat.= 16mo, calf, 6_s._; morocco, 7_s._;\n ditto, gilt, 8_s._\n\n\n =Formularium Sacerdotale=; containing the Form of erecting\n the Via Crucis; Blessing of Scapulars, Rosaries, &c.;\n Ritual of Admission into the Third Orders; and other forms\n useful to the Clergy. Edited by Rev. J. MORRIS. Cloth,\n 2_s._ 6_d._\n\n\n =Fullerton's, Lady G.=, Life of St. Frances of Rome.\n 2_s._; cheap edition, 1_s._ 8_d._--Laurentia, a Tale of\n Japan. 3_s._ 6_d._\n\n\n =Liguori= (St. Alphonso). New and improved Translation\n of the Complete Works of St. Alphonso, edited by Father\n Coffin:\n\n Vol. I. The Christian Virtues, and the means for obtaining\n them. Cloth elegant, 4_s._--Or, separately: (1.) The Love\n of our Lord Jesus Christ, 1_s._ 4_d._ (2.) Treatise on\n Prayer, 1_s._ 4_d._ (_In the ordinary editions a great\n part of this work is omitted._) (3.) A Christian's Rule of\n Life, 1_s._\n\n Vol. II. The Mysteries of the Faith--the Incarnation;\n containing Meditations and Devotions on the Birth and\n Infancy of Jesus Christ, etc.; suited for Advent and\n Christmas. 3_s._ 6_d._ Cheap edition, 2_s._\n\n Vol. III. The Mysteries of the Faith--the Blessed\n Sacrament. 3_s._ 6_d._ Cheap edition, 2_s._\n\n Vol. IV. Eternal Truths--Preparation for Death. 3_s._\n 6_d._ Cheap edition, 2_s._\n\n Vol. V. Treatises on the Passion. Containing, \"Jesus hath\n loved us,\" etc. 3_s._ Cheap edition, 2_s._\n\n St. Liguori's \"JESUS HATH LOVED US,\" separately, _new and\n correct edition_, 9_d._ cloth.\n\n Visits to the B. Sacrament and to the B. V. Mary. An\n entirely new translation by the Redemptorist Fathers.\n 1_s._ cloth; bound, roan, 1_s._ 6_d._; French morocco,\n 2_s._ 6_d._; calf, 4_s._; morocco plain, 4_s._ 6_d._;\n morocco gilt, 5_s._ 6_d._\n\n\n =Little Flower-Garden,= or Tales for the Young. First\n Series. Price, in a packet, 2_s._; cloth, 2_s._ 6_d._\n Ellen's Dream, &c. Lucy's Pilgrimage. The Shepherd Boy.\n Requiescat in Pace. Little Adam. The Cherries, etc. The\n Rosary. No Virtue without Struggle. Little Martin. Tale of\n the Ardennes. The Two Mothers. The Two Italians.\n\n\n =Manna of the New Covenant=: Meditations for Communion. By\n the Rev. Dr. PAGANI. Cloth, neat, 2_s._ 6_d._\n\n\n WORKS BY DR. NEWMAN.\n\n =The Grammar of Assent.= Cloth, 8_s._ 6_d._ _3rd Edition._\n\n =Verses on various Occasions=, now collected for the first\n time. Fcap. 8vo, 2nd edit., 5_s._\n\n =The Dream of Gerontius.= Separately, 6_d._; cloth, 1_s._\n\n =The Church of the Fathers.= New edition, 5_s._\n\n =Callista.= Fcap. 8vo, cloth, 3_s._ 6_d._\n\n =Loss and Gain.= Fcap. 8vo, cloth, 4_s._\n\n =Lectures on the Turks.= 4_s._\n\n =Occasional Sermons.= Fcap. 8vo, cloth, 6_s._\n\n =An Essay on Development.= 12_s._\n\n\n =The Life of S. Teresa=, written by herself: a new\n translation from the last Spanish Edition. To which is\n added for the first time in English THE RELATIONS, or the\n Manifestations of her Spiritual State which the Saint\n submitted to her Confessors. Translated by DAVID LEWIS. In\n a handsome volume, 8vo, cloth, 10_s._ 6_d._\n\n \"The work is incomparable; and Mr. Lewis's rare\n faithfulness and felicity as a translator are known so\n well, that no word of ours can be necessary to make\n the volume eagerly looked for.\"--_Dublin Review._\n\n \"We have in this grand book perhaps the most copious\n spiritual autobiography of a Saint, and of a\n highly-favoured Saint, that exists.\"--_Month._\n\n\n=Life of St. Paula.= From the, French. With beautiful Frontispiece.\nSmall 8vo, 1_s._ 6_d._; neat cloth, 2_s._\n\n\n=The Unity of the Episcopate= considered with reference to certain\nAnglican Difficulties and Pretensions. By EDWARD HEALY THOMPSON, M.A.\nCloth, 4_s._\n\n The object of this work (a few copies of which remain\n on hand) is to show the necessary connection which\n subsists between the Papal Prerogatives and the\n Organic Unity of the Church.\n\n=The Martyrdom of St. Cecilia=: a Drama. By ALBANY J. CHRISTIE, S.J.\nWith a Frontispiece after Mol\u00ector. Cloth elegant, 5_s._\n\n\n=Life of Mother Margaret, of the= Third Order of St. Dominic. _2nd\nEdition_, 10_s._\n\n\n=The Rivers of Damascus and= Jordan: a Causerie. By a Tertiary of the\nOrder of St. Dominic. Price 4_s._\n\n\n=The Invitation Heeded=: Reasons for a Return to Catholic Unity. By\nJAMES KENT STONE, late President of Kenyon College, Gambier, Ohio, and\nof Hobart College. Cloth, 5_s._ 6_d._\n\n \"Dr. Stone's book has a deep interest, both as a\n statement of his reasons for his return to Catholic\n Unity, and as one of the ablest, most learned, and\n satisfactory arguments for the Church that a convert\n from Anglicanism has given us.\n\n \"As far as argument can avail anything against\n such an enemy, his book is the death-warrant of\n Anglicanism.\"--DR. BROWNSON in the _New York Tablet_.\n\n =The Hidden Life of Jesus=: a Lesson and Model to\n Christians. Translated from the French of BOUDON. Cloth,\n 3_s._\n\n =Devotion to the Nine Choirs of= Holy Angels, and\n especially to the Angel-Guardians. Translated from the\n same. 3_s._\n\n\n =Disputationes Theologic\u00e6= de Justitia et Jure ad Normam\n Juris Municipalis Britannici et Hibernic\u00e6 conformat\u00e6.\n Auctore GEORGIO CROLLY, in Collegio S. Patricii apud\n Maynooth Sacr\u00e6 Theologi\u00e6 Dogmatic\u00e6 et Moralis Professore.\n 12mo, 7_s._ 6_d._\n\n\n =Faith and Reason.= A translation of the well-known work\n of the Abb\u00e9 MARTINET, well adapted for circulation in the\n present day. 8vo, cloth, 5_s._ 6_d._\n\n\n =The New Testament Narrative=, in the Words of the\n Sacred Writers. With Notes, Chronological Tables, and\n Maps. A book for those who, as a matter of education or\n of devotion, wish to be thoroughly well acquainted with\n the Life of our Lord. What is narrated by each of His\n Evangelists is woven into a continuous and chronological\n narrative. Thus the study of the Gospels is complete and\n yet easy. Cloth, 2_s._\n\n \"The compilers deserve great praise for the manner in\n which they have performed their task. We commend his\n little volume as well and carefully printed, and as\n furnishing its readers, moreover, with a great amount\n of useful information in the tables inserted at the\n end.\"--_Month._\n\n \"It is at once clear, complete, and\n beautiful.\"--_Catholic Opinion._\n\n =The Countess of Glosswood=: a Tale of the Times of the\n Stuarts. From the French. 3_s._ 6_d._\n\n \"The tale is well written, and the translation seems\n cleverly done.\"--_Month._\n\n \"This volume is prettily got up, and we can\n strongly recommend it to all as an excellent and\n instructive little book to place in the hands of the\n young.\"--_Westminister Gazette._\n\n \"An excellent translation, and a very pretty tale,\n well told.\"--_Catholic Opinion._\n\n \"This is a pretty tale of a Puritan conversion in the\n time of Charles II., prettily got up, and a pleasing\n addition to our lending-libraries.\"--_Tablet._\n\n \"This tale belongs to a class of which we have had\n to thank Messrs. Burns for many beautiful specimens.\n Such books, while they are delightful reading to us\n who are happily Catholics, have another important\n merit--they set forth the claims of Catholicism, and\n must do a vast deal of good among Protestants who\n casually meet with and peruse them. The book before us\n is beautifully got up, and would be an ornament to any\n table.\"--_Weekly Register._\n\n =The Agonising Heart=: Salvation of the Dying, Consolation\n of the Afflicted. By the Rev. Father BLOT, Author of \"The\n Agony of Jesus.\" With approbation of the Bishop of Mans.\n Price 4_s._ 2 vols.\n\n\n =The Love of our Lord Jesus= Christ. Three vols. 8vo,\n 31_s._ 6_d._ A translation for the first time of the\n standard work of ST. JURE.\n\n\n =The Glories of Mary.= By St. ALPHONSUS LIGUORI. Edited\n by the Rev. F. COFFIN, Provincial of the Redemptorists.\n New edition, cloth, 3_s._ 6_d._ This is the only edition\n which has the Work of the Saint entire, and in a correct\n translation.\n\n\n =The Raccolta of Indulgenced= Prayers. Translated (by\n authority) by the Rev. Father ST. JOHN. New edition,\n cloth, 3_s._ 6_d._; calf, 6_s._ Supplement to former\n editions, 6_d._--_Also, uniform_, =Sarra on Indulgences=,\n 1_s._\n\n\n =Memorials of those who suffered= for the Faith in Ireland\n in the Sixteenth, Seventeenth, and Eighteenth Centuries.\n Collected from authentic and original documents by MYLES\n O'REILLY, B.A., LL.D. 8vo, cloth, 7_s._ 6_d._\n\n \"A very valuable compendium of the martyrology\n of Ireland during the times of active Protestant\n persecution. The language of many of these original\n records is inexpressibly touching.\"--_Dublin Review._\n \"Very interesting memories.\"--_Month._\n\n =The Doctrine of the Spiritual= Life. By Father LALLEMANT,\n S.J. New edition, 5_s._\n\n\n =A Harmony of the Gospels.= By the Rev. Father LAW, of the\n Oratory. 1_s._\n\n\n =Little Book of the Love of God.= By Count STOLBERG. With\n Life of the Author. Cloth, 2_s._\n\n \"An admirable little treatise, perfectly adapted\n to our language and modes of thought.\"--BISHOP OF\n BIRMINGHAM.\n\n =Heroines of Charity.= Containing Popular Lives of\n\n Mme. de Miramion.\n Mme. de Pollalion.\n Mdlle. de Lamoignon.\n Louise de Marillac.\n Duchess de Aiguillon.\n The Sisters of Vincennes.\n Jeanne Biscot.\n Anne de Melun.\n The Little Sisters of the Poor.\n\n Cloth neat, 2_s._ 6_d._\n\n =17 & 18 Portman Street, & 63 Paternoster Row.=\n\n\n\n\n Transcriber's Note\n\nFootnotes in the original were numbered consecutively for each chapter.\nThey have been renumbered to be unique to the text. References to\nnotes below follow the newly numbered sequence. For those issues\nwhich occur in footnotes, the page number refers to the page on which\nthe note begins.\n\nThe punctuation of many quoted passages is haphazard, with quotation\nmarks incorrectly or incompletely indicating the nesting thereof.\nFor example, Footnote 112 on p. 134 consists in part of a quotation\nending with \"...the last work of the Creator.\" Here, the punctuation of\nnested quotations is incorrect. It is not clear where the boundary\nof the quote should be.\n\nUnless the scope is very clear, no attempt has been made to correct\nthese lapses, and the text stands as printed. We note the following\nparagraphs which remain as printed:\n\np. 134 n. 112 \"The Chinese cosmogony...\n\np. 138 n. 116 \"The Mandans believed...\n\np. 176 n. 142 In the _second_ ... fixed it at midnight.\"\n\np. 185 Ra is a god with few peculiar...\n\np. 191 Rawlinson says of this god...\n\np. 195 n. 154 _Vide_ his other epithets...\n\np. 216 Bachus is by some called...\n\np. 239 \"He is said to have transmitted to mankind...\n\np. 254 \"The chief actors in these strange scenes...\n\np. 258 It will be remembered...\n\n The opening scene in the Mandan customs...\n\np. 260 We shall not be surprised to learn...\n\np. 262 At Whydat ... white visitors.\n\np. 265 n. 224 \"The Sandwich Islands...\n\np. 270 At pp. 477-78 there is perhaps...\n\np. 275 Mr Max M\u00fcller adds...\n\np. 327 \"Amongst the Mexicans ... in the old world.\"\n\np. 387 n. 325 The Very Rev. Dr Rock...\n St Paul says...\n\np. 392 n. 333 _Vide_ also in Carver's...\n\nThis text is dense with citations, some of which seem incorrect.\nFor example, the reference to Genesis i. 2. on p. 234 is attributed\nto \"Gen. x.\". No attempt was made to correct any attributions.\n\nIn note 305 on p. 364, the quoted passage from Pastoret's (ix, 170)\nwas corrupted, and is corrected: \"On s'assembloit dans [au lien/un lieu]\nsacr\u00e9 du Mont Mycale\".\n\nOn p. 399, the name \"\u00c6schylus\" appears, unaccountably as \"OEschylos\",\nbut is retained.\n\nThis text is generally followed as printed. Corrections are made\nonly where there are obvious printer's errors or where there\nare numerous examples of a correct spelling. Where the issue appears\nin quoted passages, no corrections were made. This includes foreign\nlanguage citations (French, Latin and Greek), where spelling and\naccents, in particular, may not appear as expected.\n\nIn the index and advertisements, incidental inconsistencies of\npunctuation are corrected without further notice.\n\nThe following table describes textual issues encountered during the\npreparation of this text, and the resolution of each.\n\np. xxviii occ[c]upy Removed.\n\np. 30 ethnic division.[\"] Added.\n\np. 61 n. 51 \"Vues des Cordill\u00e8res[\"], Added.\n\np. 69 n. 56 (Sanskrit, pota = boat[)] Added.\n\np. 70 n. 57 TO THE WATERS OF THE GREAT LAKE,\n &c.[\"] Added.\n\np. 77 n. 63 the extent of the countries they _sic._ Opening\n inhabit.[\"] quote missing.\n\np. 79 according to different [different]\n degrees Removed.\n\np. 83 a 'dark['] spirit Added.\n\np. 96 (1461 [+/\u00d7] 2) = 2922 Corrected.\n\np. 98 generations [ ], years _sic._ Missing.\n\np. 111 acc[c]ounted Removed.\n\np 115 '_In the mountain the Lord will\n see_.[']\" Added.\n\np. 109 n. 79 co[s]mopolitanism Added.\n\np. 118 n. 88 \"L'Antiquite devoil\u00e9e par ses\n Usages[\"] Added.\n\np. 133 n. 110 M[u/\u00fc]ller Corrected.\n\np. 135 are still living under the\n ground.[\"] Added.\n\np. 195 [ ']arrow-head,' Added.\n\np. 203 'the chief of the spirits,['] Added.\n\np. 205 n. 163 \"Anacalypsis,['/\"] Corrected.\n\np. 226 which owes it[s] origin Added.\n\np. 228 mi[s]chievous Added.\n\np. 240 with two horns.[\"] Added.\n\np. 244 Montfau[c/\u00e7]on Corrected.\n\np. 248 n. 209 noted also in the \"Panathen\u00e6a.[\"] Added.\n\np. 250 _kan_ (rope) 'gbe (to-day).[\"] Added.\n\np. 252 n. 212 being the most common.[\"] Added.\n\np. 262 which are thus described[?] _sic._ ':'?\n\np. 266 n. 224 Hawaiki, [(]Sandwich Islands). _sic._ ?\n\np. 267 in the branches of the trees[\"] Added.\n\np. 267 n. 226 [\"]The Indians resemble Added.\n\np. 271 [\"]gods Canon and Camis or Chamis;\" Added.\n\np. 272 n. 230 divided into _four acts_[\"]. Added.\n\np. 284 n. 235 ['/\"]Soir\u00e9es de St Petersbourg\" Corrected.\n\np. 289 Lubb[u/o]ck's Corrected.\n\np. 304 n. 255 and \"camac\" participle of\n \"camani,\" [\"]I create.\" Added.\n\np. 316 to [the] the reader Line break repetition.\n\np. 321 n. 265 ([\"]Traditions of the New\n Zealanders\") Added.\n\np. 341 n. 285 (Gen. xiii.)[]] _sic._ ?\n\np. 355 n. 294 (Nieb\u00fchr, ii. ch. vi.[)] Added.\n\np. 363 n. 304 [\"]The oath taken by Added.\n\np. 372 n. 309 [\"]_L'Antiquit\u00e9 d\u00e9voil\u00e9e par ses\n usages_ Removed.\n\np. 385 n. 323 ne saurait assez reconna\u00eetre.[\"] Added.\n\np. 387 n. 326 \"_Droit Romain_,[\"] i. 48. Added.\n\np. 390 the \"caduceatores[\"] Added.\n\np. 394 n. 334 Smith (\"Myth. Dict.\"[)] Added.\n\np. 421 Romans and [and ]Latins Line break repetition.\n\np. 426 Norma[m/n]by Corrected.\n Go[q/g]uet's Corrected.","title":"Tradition, Principally with Reference to Mythology and the Law of Nations","tradition":"myth-cosmogony","translated_text":null,"word_count":164454}