{"collection":"myth-cosmogony","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_52030/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_52030","id":"gutenberg_52030","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/52030","summary":null,"tags":["Archaeology","Category: Archaeology & Anthropology","Category: History - Ancient","History, Ancient","Mythology"],"text":"BY THE SAME AUTHOR.\n\n                THE DAWN OF HISTORY. An Introduction\n                to Pre-historic Study. 12mo      =$1.25=\n\n                OUTLINES OF PRIMITIVE BELIEF\n                among the Indo-European Races. Crown\n                8vo.      =2.50=\n\n\n\n\n                                  THE\n\n                           DAWN OF HISTORY:\n\n                         _AN INTRODUCTION TO_\n\n                          PRE-HISTORIC STUDY.\n\n                               EDITED BY\n\n                       C. F. KEARY, M.A., F.S.A.\n\n                             NEW EDITION.\n\n                               NEW YORK:\n                       CHARLES SCRIBNER\u2019S SONS.\n                                 1902\n\n                           THE CAXTON PRESS\n                               NEW YORK.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nThe present edition of the _Dawn of History_ is a considerable\nenlargement upon the former one, as may be judged from the fact that the\nformer, including the Appendix, contained only 231 pages, whereas the\npresent edition contains 357. These enlargements have chiefly affected\nthe first four chapters with the ninth and tenth, and, generally\nspeaking, the chapters for which the editor is wholly responsible. He\nfelt himself quite incapable of improving chapters eight, eleven, and\nthirteen, which can hardly fail to be recognized as the best in the\nvolume; and, unhappily, the hand which wrote them--that of Annie\nKeary--is no longer able to revise or alter. Some slight corrections\ntherefore have been made, in accordance with the advance of these\nbranches of study during recent years, but nothing more. No more were\nneeded, for (in the case of the chapters on writing, for example)\nfurther research has only tended to establish more firmly the\nconclusions here accepted. The chapters on early social life (vi.,\nvii.), again, did not seem to the editor to require more than slight\ncorrections.\n\nIn the chapters dealing with religion and mythology, it was not to be\nexpected that the writers could avoid treading upon controversial\nground; but as almost every proposition upon these matters is disputed\nby some one, it was not possible to adopt the plan of putting forward\nonly those facts and theories which may be considered as established.\nSome disputed points are discussed in the Appendix. Even on the subject\nof language the views of one (small) school of philologists had to be\nrelegated in like manner to the Appendix.\n\nSo far for the character of the alterations upon the first edition. The\nnew matter introduced, whenever it has not been of the nature of a\ncorrection of the old, has been aimed in the direction of making more\nclear the _processes_ through which the human mind has gone in the\nacquisition of each fresh capacity--more clear the extent to which each\nsuccessive phase of pre-historic life has been built upon the preceding\nphase--more clear the process by which mankind seems to have gone\nthrough the stages of language-formation, and so forth. This has been\nthe direction in which the editor has sought to improve upon the earlier\nedition: rather than in loading his pages by a greater accumulation of\nfacts, to make the relationship of the various facts to one another\nplainer and more easy to remember; in one word, to appeal to the reason\nmuch more than to the memory.\n\nThis is by no means the principle on which a great majority of\n_introductions_ and _manuals_ seem to have been written, but upon a\nprinciple almost the reverse of this.\n\nFinally, it has never been lost sight of, that the present volume is\nmeant to leave the reader, so to say, at the door of history. It is not\ndesigned to be an _anthropology_, or a history of the growth of faculty\namong mankind at large, but only a _pre-historic study_, an account of\nthe ascertainable doings and thoughts on the part of the people who have\ngone to make up the historic races of the world. Even the stone-age\ncivilization is treated, not as a phase of culture in the abstract, but\nas an element of the growth in culture of the historic nations of our\nplanet.\n\nC. F. KEARY.\n\n200, CROMWELL ROAD, S.W.\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION.\n\n\nThe advance of pre-historic study has been during the last ten years\nexceptionally rapid; and, considering upon how many subsidiary interests\nit touches, questions of politics, of social life, of religion almost,\nthe science of pre-historic arch\u00e6ology might claim to stand in rivalry\nwith geology as the favourite child of this century; as much a favourite\nof its declining years as geology was of its prime. But as yet, it will\nbe confessed, we have little popular literature upon the subject, and\nthat for want of it the general reader is left a good deal in arrear of\nthe course of discovery. His ideas of nationalities and kindredship\namong peoples is, it may be guessed, still hazy. We still hear the\nRussians described as Tartars: and the notion that we English are\ndescendants of the lost Israelitish tribes finds innumerable supporters.\nI am told that a society has been formed in London for collecting proofs\nof this more than Ovidian metamorphosis. The reason of this public\nindifference is very plain. Pre-historic science has not yet passed out\nof that early stage when workers are too busy in the various branches\nof the subject to spare much time for a comparison of the results of\ntheir labours; when, one may say, fresh contributions are pouring in too\nfast to be placed upon their proper shelves in the storehouse of our\nknowledge. In such a state of things the reader who is not a specialist\nis under peculiar disadvantages for a discovery of what has been done.\nHe stands bewildered, like the sleeping partner in a firm, to whom no\none--though he is after all the true beneficiary--explains the work\nwhich is passing before his eyes.\n\nIt will not be thought a misplaced object to attempt some such\nexplanation, and that is the object of the following chapters. And as at\nsome great triumph of mechanism and science--a manufactory, an\nobservatory, an ironclad,--a junior clerk or a young engineer is told\noff to accompany the intelligent visitor and explain the workings of the\nmachinery; or as, if the simile serve better, in those cities which are\nsought for their treasures of art and antiquity, the lower class of the\npopulation become self-constituted into guides to beauties which they\ncertainly neither helped to create nor keep alive; so this book offers\nitself to the interested student as a guide over some parts of the\nground covered by pre-historic inquiry, without advancing pretensions to\nstand beside the works of specialists in that field. The peculiar\nobjects kept in view have been, to put the reader in possession of (1)\nthe general results up to this time attained, the chief additions which\npre-historic science has made to the sum of our knowledge, even if this\nknowledge can be given only in rough outline; (2) the method or\nmechanism of the science, the way in which it pieces together its\nacquisitions, and argues upon the facts it has ascertained; and (3) to\nput this information in a form which might be attractive and suitable to\nthe general reader.\n\nThe various labours of a crowd of specialists are needed to give\ncompleteness to our knowledge of primitive man, and it is scarcely\nnecessary to say that there are a hundred questions which in such a\nshort book as this have been left untouched. The intention has been to\npresent those features which can best be combined to form a continuous\npanorama, and also to avoid, as far as possible, the subjects most under\ncontroversy. No apology surely is needed for the _conjoint_ character of\nthe work: as in every chapter the conclusions of many different and\nsometimes contradictory writers had to be examined and compared, and as\nthese chapters, few as they are, spread over various special fields of\ninquiry.\n\nIt is to be hoped that some readers to whom pre-historic study is a new\nthing may be sufficiently interested in it to desire to continue their\nresearches. For the assistance of such, lists are given, at the end, of\nthe chief authorities consulted on the subject of each chapter, with\nsome notes upon questions of peculiar interest.\n\nThe vast extent of the field, the treasures of knowledge which have been\nalready gathered, and the harvest which is still in the ear, impress\nthe student more and more the deeper he advances into the study.\nSurely, if from some higher sphere, beings of a purely spiritual\nnature--nourished, that is, not by material meats and drinks, but by\n_ideas_--look down upon the lot of man, they must be before everything\namazed at the complaints of poverty which rise up from every side. When\nevery stone on which we tread can yield a history, to follow up which is\nalmost the work of a lifetime; when every word we use is a thread\nleading back the mind through centuries of man\u2019s life on earth; it must\nbe confessed that, for riches of any but a material sort, for a wealth\nof ideas, the mind\u2019s nourishment, there ought to be no lack.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\n                                                                    PAGE\n\nTHE EARLIEST TRACES OF MAN (EDITOR)                                    1\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nTHE SECOND STONE AGE (EDITOR)                                         28\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nTHE GROWTH OF LANGUAGE (EDITOR)                                       55\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nFAMILIES OF LANGUAGE (EDITOR)                                         83\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nTHE NATIONS OF THE OLD WORLD (EDITOR)                                113\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nEARLY SOCIAL LIFE (H. M. KEARY)                                      135\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nTHE VILLAGE COMMUNITY (H. M. KEARY)                                  156\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nRELIGION (A. KEARY)                                                  171\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nARYAN RELIGIONS (EDITOR)                                             197\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nTHE OTHER WORLD (EDITOR)                                             236\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\nMYTHOLOGIES AND FOLK-TALES (EDITOR)                                  254\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\nPICTURE-WRITING (A. KEARY)                                           280\n\nCHAPTER XIII.\n\nPHONETIC WRITING (A. KEARY)                                          297\n\nCHAPTER XIV.\n\nCONCLUSION (EDITOR)                                                  313\n\nAPPENDIX--_Notes and Authorities_                                    329\n\n\n\n\nTHE DAWN OF HISTORY.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nTHE EARLIEST TRACES OF MAN.\n\n\n[Sidenote: The dawn of history.]\n\nWhen St. Paulinus came to preach Christianity to the people of\nNorthumbria, King Eadwine (so runs the legend) being minded to hear him,\nand wishing that his people should do so too, called together a council\nof his chief men and asked them whether they would attend to hear what\nthe saint had to tell; and one of the king\u2019s thanes stood up and said,\n\u2018Let us certainly hear what this man knows, for it seems to me that the\nlife of man is like the flight of a sparrow through a large room, where\nyou, King, are sitting at supper in winter, while storms of rain and\nsnow rage abroad. The sparrow, I say, flying in at one door and\nstraightway out again at another is, while within, safe from the storm;\nbut soon it vanishes out of sight into the darkness whence it came. So\nthe life of man appears for a short space; but of what went before, or\nwhat is to follow, we are all ways ignorant.\u2019[1] This wise and true\nsaying of the Saxon thane holds good too for the human race as far as\nits progress is revealed to us by history. We can watch this progress\nthrough a brief interval--for the period over which real, continuous\nauthentic history extends; and beyond that is a twilight space, wherein,\namid many fantastic shapes of mere tradition or mythology, here and\nthere an object or an event stands out more clearly, lit up by a gleam\nfrom the sources of more certain knowledge which we possess.\n\nTo draw with as much accuracy as may be the outline of these shapes out\nof the past is the business of the prehistoric student; and to assist\nhim in his task, what has he? First, he has the Bible narrative, wherein\nsome of the chief events of the world\u2019s history are displayed, but at\nuncertain distances apart. Then we have the traditions preserved in\nother writings, in books, or on old temple stones--in these the truth\nhas generally to be cleared from a mist of allegory, or at least of\nmythology. And, lastly, besides these conscious records of times gone\nby, we have other dumb memorials, old buildings--cities or\ntemples--whose makers are long since forgotten, old tools or weapons,\nburied for thousands of years, to come to light in our days; and again,\nold words, old beliefs, old customs, old arts, old forms of civilization\nwhich have been unwittingly handed down to us, can all, if we know the\nart to interpret their language, be made to tell us histories of the\nantique world. It is, then, no uninteresting study by which we learn how\nto make these silent records speak. \u2018Of man\u2019s activity and attainment,\u2019\nCarlyle finely says, \u2018the chief results are aeriform, mystic, and\npreserved in tradition only: such are his Forms of Government, with the\nAuthority they rest on; his Customs or Fashions both of Cloth-habits and\nSoul-habits; much more his collective stock of Handicrafts, the whole\nFaculty he has acquired of manipulating nature--all these things, as\nindispensable and priceless as they are, cannot in any way be fixed\nunder lock and key, but must flit, spirit-like, on impalpable vehicles\nfrom Father to Son; if you demand sight of them they are nowhere to be\nmet with. Visible Ploughmen and Hammermen there have been, even from\nCain and Tubalcain downwards; but where does your accumulated\nAgricultural, Metallurgic and other Manufacturing SKILL lie warehoused?\nIt transmits itself on the atmospheric air, on the sun\u2019s rays (by\nHearing and by Vision); it is a thing aeriform, impalpable, of quite\nspiritual sort.\u2019\n\nHow many of these intangible spiritual possessions must man have\nacquired before he has learned the art of writing history, and so of\nkeeping a record of what had gone before: how much do we know that any\nindividual race of men has learned before it brings itself forward with\ndistinctness in this way! For as a first condition of all man must have\nlearned to write; and writing, as we shall hereafter see, is a slowly\ndeveloping art, which man acquired by ages of gradual experiment. His\nlanguage, too, must ere this have reached a state of considerable\ncultivation; and it will be our object in the course of these pages to\nshow through what a long history of its own the language of any nation\nmust go before it becomes fit for the purposes of literature--through\nhow many changes it passes, and what a story it reveals to us by every\nchange. And then, again, before a nation can have a history it must _be_\na nation, must have a national life to record; that is to say, the\npeople who compose it must have left the simple condition of society\nwhich belongs to a primitive age, the state of a mere hunter or fisher,\neven the state of being a mere shepherd, the pastoral and nomadic life\nwhich precedes the knowledge of agriculture. He must have drawn closer\nthe loose bonds which held men together under the conditions of\npatriarchal life, and have constituted a more permanent system of\nsociety. Whether under pressure from without, the pressure of hostile\nnationalities, or only from the growth of a higher conception of social\nlife, the nation has had to rise from out of a mere collection of\ntribes, until the head of the family has become the king--the rude tents\nof early days have grown into houses and temples, and the pens of their\nsheepfolds grown into walled cities, such as Corinth or Athens or Rome.\nSuch changes as these must be completed before history comes to be\nwritten; and with such changes as these, and with a thousand others,\nchanges and growths in Art, in Poetry, in Manufactures, in Commerce, and\nin Laws, the pre-historical student has to deal. On all these subjects\nwe shall have something to say.\n\nBefore, however, we enter upon any one of these it is right that we\nremind the reader--and remind him once for all--that our knowledge upon\nall these points is but partial and uncertain, and never of such a\ncharacter as will allow us to speak with dogmatic assurance. Our\ninformation can necessarily never be direct; it can only be built upon\ninferences of a higher or lower degree of probability. It is, however, a\nnecessity of our minds that from whatever information we possess we must\nform an unbroken panorama--imagination has no place for unfilled blanks;\nand we may form our picture freely and without danger of harm, so long\nas we are ready to modify or enlarge it when more knowledge is\nforthcoming. As the eye can in a moment supply the deficiencies of some\nincompleted picture, a landscape of which it gets only a partial glance,\nor a statue which has lost a feature, so the mind selects from its\nknowledge those facts which form a continuous story, and loses those\nwhich are known only as isolated fragments.\n\nSet a practised and an unpractised draughtsman to draw a circle, and we\nmay witness how differently they go to work. The second never takes his\npencil off the paper, and produces his effect by one continuous line,\nwhich the eye has no choice but at once to condemn as incomplete. The\nwiser artist proceeds by a number of short consecutive strokes,\nsplitting up, as it were, his divergence over the whole length of the\nfigure he is drawing, and so allows the eye, or perhaps one should\nrather say the mind, by that faculty it has, to select the complete\nfigure which it can conceive more easily than express. No one of the\nartist\u2019s strokes is the true fraction of a circle, but the result is\ninfinitely more satisfactory than if he had tried to make his pencil\nfollow unswervingly the curve he wished to trace. Or again, notice how a\nskilful draughtsman will patch up by a number of small strokes any\nimperfect portion of a curve he is drawing, and we have another like\ninstance of this selective faculty of the eye or of the mind. Just in\nthe same way is it with memory. Our ideas must be carried on\ncontinuously, we cannot afford to remember _lacun\u00e6_, mere blank spaces.\n\nIn the Bible narrative, for example, wherein, as has before been said,\ncertain events of the world\u2019s history are related with distinctness, but\nwhere as a rule nothing is said of the times which intervened between\nthem, we are wont to make very insufficient allowance for these\nunmentioned periods, and form for ourselves a rather arbitrary picture\nof the real course of things, fitting two events on to one another which\nwere really separated by long ages. To correct this view, to enlarge the\nseries of known facts concerning the early history of the human race,\ncomes in pre-historic inquiry; and again, to correct the picture we now\nform, doubtless fresh information will continue to pour in. All this is\nno reason why we should pronounce our present picture to be untrue; it\nis only incomplete. We must be always ready to enlarge it, and to fill\nin the outlines, but still we can only remember the facts which we have\nalready acquired, if we look at them, not as fragments only, but as a\ncomplete whole.\n\nIn representing, therefore, throughout the following chapters, the\nadvance of the human race in the discovery of all those arts and\nfaculties which go to make up civilization in the light of a continuous\nprogress, it will not be necessary to pause and remind the reader in\nevery case that these steps of progress which seem to spread themselves\nout so clearly before us have been made in an uncertain manner,\nsometimes rapidly, sometimes very slowly and painfully, sometimes by\nimmense strides, sometimes by continual haltings and goings backwards\nand forwards. It will be enough to say here, once for all, that our\nhistory must be thought of as a history of events rather than a strictly\nchronological one; just as the geological periods are not measured by\ndays and years, but by the mutations through which our solid-seeming\nearth has passed.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: The earliest traces of man.]\n\nFirst we turn to what must needs be our earliest inquiry--the search\nafter the oldest traces of man which have been found upon the earth. It\nhas been said that one of the first fruits of knowledge is to show us\nour own ignorance; and certainly in the early history of the world and\nof man there is nothing which science points out so clearly as the vast\nsilent periods whereof until recently we had no idea. It is difficult\nfor us of the present age to remember how short a time it is since all\nour certain knowledge, touching the earth on which we live, lay around\nthat brief period of its existence during which it had come under the\nnotice and the care of man.\n\nWhen all we knew of Europe, and especially of our own islands, belonged\nto the comparatively short time during which they have been known to\nhistory, we had in truth much to wonder at in the political changes\nthese countries were seen to have undergone; and our imaginations could\nbe busy with the contrast between the unchanged features of our lands\nand seas and the ever-varying character of those who dwelt upon or\npassed over them. It is interesting to think that on such a river bank\nor on such a shore C\u00e6sar or Charlemagne have actually stood, and that\nperhaps the grass or flowers or shells under their feet looked just the\nsame as they do now, that the waves beat upon the strand in the same\ncadence, or the water flowed by with the same trickling sound. But when\nwe open the pages of geology, we have unrolled before us a history of\nthe earth itself, extending over periods compared with which the longest\nepoch of what is commonly called history seems scarcely more than a day,\nand of mutations in the face of nature so grand and awful that as we\nreflect upon them, forgetting for an instant the enormous periods\nrequired to bring these changes about, they sound like the fantastic\nvisions of some seer, telling in allegorical language the history of the\ncreation and destruction of the world.\n\nOf such changes, not the greatest, but the most interesting to the\nquestion we have at present in hand, were those vicissitudes of climate\nwhich followed upon the time when the formation of the crust of the\nearth had been practically completed. We learn of a time when, instead\nof the temperate climate which now favours our country, these islands,\nwith the whole of the north of Europe, were wrapped in one impenetrable\nsheet of ice. The tops of our mountains, as well as of those of\nScandinavia and the north of continental Europe, bear marks of the\nscraping of this enormous glacier, which must have risen to a height of\ntwo or three thousand feet. Not a single green thing, therefore, might\nbe seen between our latitudes and the pole, while the ice-sheet, passing\nalong the floor of the North Sea, united these islands with Scandinavia\nand spread far out into the deep waters of the Atlantic. For thousands\nof years such a state of things endured, but at last it slowly passed\naway. As century followed century the glacier began to decrease in size.\nFrom being colder than that of any explored portion of our hemisphere,\nthe climate of northern Europe began to amend, until at last a little\nland became visible, which was covered first with lichens, then with\nthicker moss, and then with grass; then shrubs began to grow, and they\nexpanded into trees and the trees into forests, while still the\nice-sheet went on decreasing, until now the glaciers remained only in\nthe hills. Animals returned from warmer climates to visit our shores.\nThe birds and beasts and fishes of the land and sea were not much\ndifferent from those which now inhabit there; the species were\ndifferent, but the genera were for the most part the same. Everything\nseemed to have been preparing for the coming of man, and it is about\nthis time that we find the earliest traces of his presence upon\nearth.[2]\n\nWe may try and imagine what was the appearance of the world, and\nespecially of Europe--for it is in Europe that most of these earliest\ntraces of our race have as yet been found, though all tradition and\nlikelihood point out man\u2019s first home to have been in Asia--when we\nsuppose that man first appeared upon these western shores. At this time\nthe continent of Europe stood at a higher level than it does now. The\nwhole of the North Sea, even between Scotland and Denmark, is not more\nthan fifty fathoms, or three hundred feet deep, while the Irish Sea is\nnot more than sixty fathoms; and at this period undoubtedly the British\nIsles, besides being all joined together, formed part of the mainland,\nnot by being united to France only, but by the presence of dry land all\nthe way from Scotland to Denmark, over all that area now called the\nGerman Ocean. Our Thames and our other eastern rivers were then but\ntributaries of one large stream, which bore through this continent, and\nup into the northern seas, their waters united with those of the Rhine,\nand perhaps of the Weser and the Elbe. The same upheaval turned into\nland a portion of the Atlantic Ocean, all that bed probably which now\nextends from Spain and Africa as far as the Azores and the Canaries. The\nnorth of Africa was joined on to this continent and to Spain, for the\nnarrow Straits of Gibraltar had not yet been formed; but a great sea\nstood where we now have the Great Sahara, and united the Mediterranean\nand the Red Sea, while a great Mediterranean Sea stood in Central Asia,\nand has left no more than traces in the Caspian Sea and the Sea of Aral.\n\nWe have to look at a map to see the effect of these changes in the\nappearance of Europe; and there were no doubt other internal changes in\nthe appearances of the countries themselves. The climate still was much\nmore extreme than it is now. The glaciers were not yet quite gone. And\nthe melting of these and of the winter snows gave rise to enormous\nrivers which flowed from every hill. Our little river the Ouse, for\ninstance, which flows out through Norfolk into the Wash, was, when\nswollen by these means, probably many miles broad. Vast forests grew\nupon the banks of the rivers, and have left their traces in our peat\nformations; and in these forests roamed animals unknown to us. Of these\nthe most notable was the mammoth (_Elephas primigenius_, in the\nlanguage of the naturalists), a huge, maned elephant, whose skeleton and\ngigantic tusks are conspicuous in some of our museums, and who has given\nhis name to this the earliest age of man\u2019s existence: it is called the\nMammoth Age of man. With the mammoth, too, lived other species of\nanimals, which are either now extinct, or have since been driven from\nour latitudes; the woolly rhinoceros, the cave lion, the cave bear, the\nLithuanian bison, the urus, the reindeer, and the musk-ox. It is with\nthe remains of these animals, near the ancient banks of these great\nrivers, that we find the earliest tools and weapons manufactured by\nhuman hands.\n\n[Sidenote: Implements of the river drift.]\n\nThe earliest of all the known remains of human-kind are the implements\nwhich are found deposited in the ancient beds of rivers. Now flooded by\nmelting snow into huge lakes and now again drained off by the sudden\nbursting of a bound, it was natural that these great streams should\noften change their course, and often dig out huge areas of soil from the\nland upon their banks. In doing so they sometimes dug out the implements\nwhich earlier generations of men had left behind them on the surface of\nthe soil, and which a few years would be enough to cover with mould and\nhide from sight. Then carrying along these implements of flint, they\nhave deposited them in great beds of sand and gravel, somewhere in their\nancient course.\n\nWe have no means of measuring the time which may have elapsed since\nthese stone weapons and tools were made. And we need not speak here of\nthe geological changes which must have passed over the surface of the\nearth since they were deposited upon it. All we know is that, after the\ngreat streams flowing through wide valleys have dug these implements\nfrom under the earth which time had heaped over them, carried them\nalong and deposited them once more amid sand and pebbles in a bed upon\nsome point of its course, the river must through long subsequent years\nhave cut so much deeper into the valley through which it flowed, and at\nthe same time probably so shrunk in its bed, that these river drifts, as\nthey are called, stand in many cases fifty, eighty, a hundred feet above\nthe level of the present stream. It is because they are found in the\nbeds made by the ancient rivers, that the implements of this period are\ncalled _drift implements_.\n\nThe river Ouse, of which we spoke just now, which, though to-day a small\nriver, drains a large and level country as it runs through the counties\nof Bedford, Huntingdon, and Cambridge, has been one of the most prolific\nin this class of pre-historic remains. Another river which still better\ndeserves to be remembered in this respect is the Somme in the north of\nFrance. For it was in the beds of this stream, by Abbeville and Amiens,\nthat the drift implements were first discovered, or first recognized for\nwhat they really are, the earliest traces of human labour; and it was\nhere that the foundation was laid for this branch of pre-historic study\nby M. Boucher de Perthes. This was forty-one years ago, in 1847.\n\nThese _drift implements_, then, form a class apart--apart even from all\nother stone implements made by man, and probably earlier than any other\nclass. Very simple and rude are these drift implements. It would require\na skilled eye to detect any difference between most of them and a flint\nwhich had only been chipped by natural means. But the first thing to\nremember is, that the makers of these implements had nothing but other\nstill ruder materials to help them in this manufacture of theirs. Metals\nof all kinds were as yet utterly unknown to man.\n\nWe who are so habituated to the employment of metal, either in the\nmanufacture or the composition of every article which meets our eye, can\nscarcely realize that man lived long ages on the earth before the metals\nand minerals, its hidden treasures, were revealed to him. This pen I\nwrite with is of metal, or, were it a quill, it would still have been\nshaped by the use of steel; the rags of which this paper is made up have\nbeen first cut by metal knives, then bleached by a mineral (chlorine),\nthen torn on a metal cylinder, then thrown into a vat which was either\nitself of metal or had been shaped by metal tools, then drawn on a\n_wire_-cloth, etc. And so it is with everything which is made nowadays.\nWe can scarcely think of any single manufacture in which is not\ntraceable the paramount influence of man\u2019s discoveries beneath the\nsurface of the ground. But primitive man could profit by no such\ninherited knowledge, and had only begun to acquire some powers which he\ncould transmit to his own descendants. For his tools he must look to the\nsurface of the earth only; and the hardest substances he could find were\nstones. Not only during the period of which we are now speaking, but for\nhundreds, perhaps thousands, of years lasted man\u2019s ignorance of the\nmetals, ignorance therefore of all that the metals could produce for\nhim. The long age of this state of ignorance is distinguished in\npre-history by the name of the Stone Age, because the hardest things\nthen known to mankind were stones, and the most important of his\nimplements and utensils had therefore to be made of stones.\n\nThere can be no harm if we so far anticipate our second chapter as to\nsay that this Stone Age is distinguished by pre-historic students into\ntwo main periods: (1) the age in which all the stone implements were\nmade exclusively by chipping, (2) the age in which grinding or polishing\nwas brought in to supplement the use of chipping. Wherefore the first\nage is also called the Unpolished Stone Age, the second is called the\nPolished Stone Age. Not that by any means all the implements in the\nlater age were made of polished stone; far from it. Only that,\ncontemporaneously with the stone implements still made by chipping\nmerely, others of polished stone were used. But of this more hereafter.\nLastly, the two epochs are also distinguished more simply as the Old\nStone Age and the New Stone Age--or, turned into Greek, the Pal\u00e6olithic\nEra and the Neolithic Era.\n\nNow we go back to speak of the Pal\u00e6olithic Era only. And in this we have\nas yet got no further than the implements of the river drifts. It is not\nto be supposed that at any time of his history man used implements of\nstone and no others; for wood and bone must have been always as ready to\nhis hand as stone was, and for many purposes bone and wooden utensils\nwould serve better than stone ones. But the stone implements would\nalways deserve to be accounted the most important; because by means of\nthem the others of softer material must have been shaped. As regards the\ndrift deposits, here the remains of man\u2019s work _are_ exclusively stone\nimplements, but probably only because all that were made of some softer\nsubstance have perished, or remain as yet undiscovered. And most\nprimitive these stone tools or weapons are. By the rudeness and\nuniformity of their shapes as contrasted even with other classes of\nstone implements, they testify to the simplicity of those who\nmanufactured them. They have for the most part only two or three\ndistinctive types: they are either of a long, pear-shaped make, narrowed\nalmost to a point at the thin end, and adapted, we may suppose, for\nboring holes, while the broad end of the pear was pressed against the\npalm of the hand; and secondly, of a sort of oval form, chipped all\nround the edge, capable of being fitted into a wooden haft, a cleft\nstick or whatever it might be, to form an implement which might be used\nfor all sorts of cutting or scraping. A variety of this last implement,\nof rather a tongue-like shape, was called by the French workmen who\nworked under M. Boucher de Perthes, _langue-de-chat_. These might serve\nthe purpose of spear-heads. Some have supposed that stones of this last\nform were used, as similar ones are used by the Esquimaux to this day,\nin cutting holes in the ice for the purpose of fishing: we must not\nforget that during at any rate a great part of the early stone age the\nconditions of life were those of arctic countries at the present time. A\nthird variety of stone implements is made of thinner flakes, and capable\nof being used as a knife.[3]\n\nWe cannot determine all the uses to which primitive man must have put\nhis rude and ineffective weapons; we can only wonder that with such he\nwas able to maintain his existence among the savage beasts by which he\nwas surrounded; and we long to form to ourselves some picture of the way\nin which he got the better of their huge strength, as well as of his\ndwelling-place, his habits, and his appearance. Rude as his weapons are,\nand showing no trace of improvement, it seems as though man of the drift\nperiod must have lived through long ages of the world\u2019s history. These\nimplements are found associated with the remains of the mammoth and the\nwoolly rhinoceros, animals naturally belonging to the arctic or\nsemi-arctic climate which succeeded the glacial era; but like implements\nare found, associated with the remains of the bones of the lion, the\ntiger, and the hippopotamus, all of which, and the last especially, are\nrarely found outside the torrid zone. This would imply that the drift\nimplements lasted through the change from a rigid to a torrid climate,\nand probably back again to a cold temperate one.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: Implements of the caves.]\n\nContemporary very likely with some portion of the drift period are\nanother series of deposits which contain still more interesting traces\nof early man. These are what are called the _cave_ deposits--a\nremarkable series of discoveries made in caves in various parts of\nEurope which appear to carry us down farther in the history of human\ndevelopment.\n\nThese caves are natural caverns, generally formed in the limestone\nrocks, and at present the most remarkable \u2018finds\u2019 have been obtained\nfrom the caves of Devonshire, of the Department of the Dordogne in\nFrance, from various caves in Belgium, and from a very remarkable cavern\nin the Neanderthal, near D\u00fcsseldorf, in Germany. But there is scarcely\nany country in Europe where some caves containing human bones and\nweapons have not been opened. The rudest drift implements seem older\nthan almost any of those found in caves; and, on the whole, the\ncave-remains seem to give us a picture of man in a more civilized\ncondition than the man of the drift.\n\nLet us pause for one moment before these cave remains. For, simple as\nthey are, they open a little bit the veil which hides from us the lives\nof the earliest of men. We call the things which we have found\n_implements_. For we cannot really tell whether they should be called\ntools or weapons. Nay, and this is a thing worth remembering, in the\nmost primitive conditions of society man\u2019s tools are his weapons and his\nweapons are almost his only tools. Man\u2019s first condition of life is the\n_venatory_ condition. He is at first a mere hunter (or _trapper_) and\nfisherman. He begins without the use of any domestic animal. He has not\neven the dog, at first, to help him in his hunting; much less has he\ncattle or sheep to vary his occupation in life. With the rest of the\nanimal creation he is constantly at war. He preys upon other animals,\nand other animals, if they can, prey upon him. Wherefore, as I have\nsaid, his earliest tools are likewise his weapons, his weapons are his\ntools; and the arts of peace and war are undistinguishable.\n\nThe next distinct stage of life is the pastoral stage. Man has now his\ndomesticated animals; he has cattle and sheep and horses maybe. Tending\nhis flocks and herds is now his chief occupation. But this tending\nimplies _protecting_ them and himself. And still, though some of his\nimplements are for peaceful use--his crooks, his goads, his lassoes, his\nbridles, his hurdles and sheep-pens, or, again, his needles for sewing\ntogether the hides which form his clothes--still _most_ are for war.\nYet, if any distinction is possible, his weapons should now be those of\ndefence rather than those of offence.\n\nThe third great stage is the agricultural--a stage of life at which all\ncivilized nations and many which can hardly be called civilized have\narrived; when man ploughs and sows, and reaps, plants vines and\norchards. Then most of the implements used in these industries, the\nimplements on which therefore his nourishment depends, are wholly\ndistinct from the weapons of war, and the peaceful existence has become\n(as the phrase is) _differentiated_ from the warlike. This is the token\nof a higher civilization.\n\nAt present we are far from such a stage of progress in the history of\nman. The cave-dwellers were, we may be sure, in the hunting and fishing\nstage of civilization; and we cannot really tell, among a large\nproportion of their weapons, which were designed to serve against\nanimals for the purposes of the chase, and which against their\nfellow-men. We can hardly distinguish among some of their weapons\nwhether they were to be used in hunting or fishing. They had stone axes\nand spear-heads, and they also had what we may call harpoons. But\nharpoons are merely lances attached to a thong, and may be used with\nequal success against animals or against the larger fish, salmons or\nwhales. These harpoons are barbed. They are made of wood and of bone. A\ncurious and close inquiry has discovered that the bones of animals found\namong the human remains in the caves have been scored in such a way as\nto suggest that the sinews were cut from them--to be used, no doubt, as\nthongs to the harpoons, as lines for fishing, as threads for sewing\ngarments, etc. The cave men had also barbed hooks--fishing-hooks we may\ncall them; though they too may sometimes have been employed against\nanimals or even _birds_. It is most probable that these primitive men\ndid _not_ know the use of the bow and arrow, and that the name\narrow-heads sometimes given to certain of their weapons is a misnomer;\nthat they should be called javelin-heads. Bone awls have been found, no\ndoubt for the sake (chiefly) of piercing the scraped skins of animals,\nwhich might afterwards be sewn together into garments: bone knives,\npins, and _needles_ have also been found--the last a most important form\nof implement--in considerable numbers.\n\nWhat is still more interesting than all these discoveries, we here find\nthe rudiments of art. Some of the bone implements, as well as some\nstones, are engraved, or even rudely sculptured, generally with the\nrepresentation of an animal. These drawings are singularly faithful, and\nreally give us a picture of the animals which were man\u2019s contemporaries\nupon the earth; so that we have the most positive proof that man lived\nthe contemporary of animals long since extinct. The cave of La\nMadeleine, in the Dordogne, for instance, contained a piece of a\nmammoth\u2019s tusk engraved with an outline of that animal; and as the\nmammoth was probably not contemporaneous with man during the latter part\neven of the old-stone age, this gives an immense antiquity to the first\ndawnings of art. How little could the scratcher of this rough\nsketch--for it is not equal in skill to drawings which have been found\nin other caves--dream of the interest which his performance would excite\nthousands of years after his death! Not the greatest painter of\nsubsequent times, and scarcely the greatest sculptor, can hope for so\nnear an approach to immortality for their works. Had man\u2019s bones been\nonly found in juxtaposition with those of the mammoth and his\ncontemporary animals, this might possibly have been attributed to chance\ndisturbances of the soil, to the accumulation of river deposits, or to\nmany other accidental occurrences; or had the mammoth\u2019s bone only been\nfound worked by man, there was nothing positive to show that the animal\nhad not been long since extinct, and this a chance bone which had come\ninto the hands of a later inhabitant of the earth, just as it has since\ncome into our hands; but the actual drawing of this old-world, and as it\nsometimes seems to us almost fabulous, animal, by one who actually saw\nhim in real life, gives a strange picture of the antiquity of our race,\nand withal a strange feeling of fellowship with this stone-age man who\ndrew so much in the same way as a clever child among us might have drawn\nto-day.[4]\n\nIt is worth while to look well at these cave-drawings. They are of\nvarious degrees of merit, for some are so skilful as to excite the\nadmiration of artists and the astonishment of arch\u00e6ologists. And it is a\ncurious fact that during ages which succeeded those of the\ncave-dwellers, all through the polished stone period and the age of\nbronze--of which we shall have to speak anon--no such ambitious\nimitative works of art seem to have been attempted. So far as we can\ntell, these after generations of men aimed at no such thing as a drawing\nof an animal or even of a plant. They confined themselves to ornamental\n_patterns_, to certain arrangements of points and lines. The love of\nimitation is doubtless one of the rudimentary feelings in the human\nmind; as we may see by watching children. But, rudimentary as it is, it\nsprings from the same root as the highest promptings of the\nintellect--that is to say, from the wish to _create_--to fashion\nsomething actually ourselves. This is sufficient to explain the origin\nof these carvings; yet we need not suppose that when the art of making\nthem was once known they were used merely for amusement. Long afterwards\nwe find such drawings and representations looked upon as having some\nqualities of the things they represent; as, for instance, where in an\nancient grave at M\u00e6show, in the Orkney islands, we find the drawing of a\ndragon, which had been supposed to watch over the treasures concealed\ntherein. Savages in the present day often think that part of them is\nactually taken away when a drawing of them is made, and exactly a\nsimilar feeling gave rise to the superstition so prevalent in the Middle\nAges, that witches and magicians could make a figure in wax to imitate\nthe one on whom they wished to wreak their vengeance, and that all the\npains inflicted upon this waxen antitype were reproduced in the body of\nthe victim. On such confusion of ideas do all idolatries rest. So may we\nnot, without too bold a flight, imagine that some superstitious notions,\ntouching the efficacy of these drawings, was a spur to the industry of\nour first forerunners on the earth, and contributed to their wonderfully\nacquired skill in their art? May they not have thought that their\nrepresentations gave them some power over the animals they represented:\nthat the lance-head carved with a mammoth would be efficient against the\nmammoth\u2019s hide; that the harpoon containing the representation of a deer\nor a fish was the weapon best adapted for transfixing either?[5]\n\nHowever this may be, we cannot close our eyes to the interest which\nattaches to the first dawnings of art in the world. Nor is this interest\nconfined altogether to its \u00e6sthetic side--the mere beauty and value of\nart itself--great though this be. Not only does drawing share that\nmysterious power of imparting intense pleasure which belongs to every\nform of art, but it was likewise, after human speech, the first\ndiscovered means of conveying an idea from one man to another. As we\nshall come to see in a later chapter, the invention of drawing bore with\nit the seeds of the invention of writing, the greatest step forward, in\nmaterial things at any rate, that man has ever made.\n\nThere is one other fact to be mentioned, and then the information which\nour cave discoveries can give us concerning the life of man in those\ndays is pretty nearly exhausted. Traces of fires have been found in\nseveral caves, so that there can be no doubt that man had made this\nimportant discovery, the discovery of fire, also. It seems to us\nimpossible to imagine a time when men could have lived upon the earth\nwithout this all-useful element, when they must have devoured their food\nuncooked, and only sheltered themselves from the cold by the thickness\nof their clothing, or at night by huddling together in close underground\nhouses. We have certainly no proof that man\u2019s existence was ever of such\na sort as this; but yet it is clear that the art of making fires is one\nnot discoverable at first sight. How long man took to find out that\nmethod of ignition by friction of two sticks--the method employed in\ndifferent forms by all the less cultivated nations spread over the\nglobe, and one which we may therefore fairly take to be the most\nprimitive and natural--we shall never know. We have only the negative\nevidence that he had discovered it at that prim\u00e6val time when he began\nto leave his remains within the caves.\n\nThus have we completed the catalogue of facts upon which we may build up\nfor ourselves some representation of the life of man in the earliest\nages of his existence upon earth. It must be confessed that they are\nmeagre enough. We should like some further facts which would help us to\npicture the man himself, his size, his appearance, what race he most\nresembled of any of those which now inhabit our globe. Unfortunately we\nhave little that can assist us here. Human remains have been found--on\none or two occasions a skeleton in tolerably complete preservation--but\nnot yet in sufficient numbers to allow us to draw any certain\nconclusions from them, or even to hazard any very probable conjecture.\n\n[Sidenote: Human remains.]\n\nAmong these discoveries of human skeletons, none excited more interest\nat the time it was made than the Neanderthal skeleton, so-called from\nthe place in which it was found. The discovery was made in 1857 by Dr.\nFuhlrott of Elberfeld; and when the skull and other parts of the\nskeleton were exhibited at a scientific meeting at Bonn, in the same\nyear, doubts were expressed as to the human character of the remains.\nThese doubts, which were soon dissipated, arose from the very low type\nof the head, which was pronounced by many to be the most ape-like skull\nthat they had ever seen. The bones themselves indicated a person of much\nthe same stature as a European of the present day, but with such an\nunusual thickness in some of them as betokened a being of very\nextraordinary strength. This discovery, had it been supported by others,\nmight have seemed to indicate a race of men of a type inferior even to\nthe most savage races of our present globe. But it has not been so\nsupported. On the contrary, another skull found at Engis, near Li\u00e9ge,\nnot more than seventy miles from the cave of the Neanderthal, was proved\nafter careful measurements not to differ materially from the skulls of\nindividuals of the European race--a fact which prevents us from making\nany assertions respecting the primitive character in race or physical\nconformation of these cave-dwellers. Indeed, in a very careful and\nelaborate paper upon the Engis and Neanderthal skulls, Professor Huxley\nplaces an average skull of a modern native of Australia about half-way\nbetween those of the Neanderthal and Engis caves; but he also says that\nafter going through a large collection of Australian skulls, he \u2018found\nit possible to select from among these crania two (connected by all\nsorts of intermediate gradations), the one of which should very nearly\nresemble the Engis skull, while the other should somewhat less closely\napproximate to the Neanderthal skull in form, size, and proportions.\u2019\nAnd yet as regards blood, customs, or language, the natives of Southern\nand Western Australia are as pure and homogeneous as almost any race of\nsavages in existence. This shows us how difficult would have been any\nreasoning founded upon the insufficient data we possess. In fact, it\nwould no doubt be possible to find in Europe among persons of abnormal\nunder-development, such as idiots, skulls of a formation which would\nmatch that of the Neanderthal.\n\nThis class of evidence is therefore merely negative. We certainly cannot\npronounce that man of the old stone age was of a lower type than low\ntypes of savages of the present day; we cannot even say that he was as\nundeveloped as are the Lapps of modern Europe; but in this negative\nevidence there is a certain amount of satisfaction. We might be not\nunwilling to place on the level of the Eskimo or the Lapp the fashioners\nof the rudest of the stone implements, but the _artists_ of the caves we\nmay well imagine to have attained a higher development. And there is\nnothing at all unreasonable or opposed to our experience of Nature in\nsupposing a race of human beings to have flourished in Europe in these\nold times, to have been possessed of a certain amount of civilization,\nbut not to have advanced from that towards any very great improvement\nbefore they were at last extinguished by some other race with a greater\nfaculty for progress. As we shall come to see later on, there is some\nreason for connecting man of the later stone age as regards race with\nthe Eskimo or Lapp of to-day. Yet even if this be admitted, we must look\nupon the latter rather as the dregs of the races they represent. It is\nnot always the highest types of any particular race, whether of men, of\nanimals, or of plants, which live the longest. Species which were once\nflourishing are often only represented by stunted and inferior\ndescendants; just as the animals of the lizard class once upon a time,\nand long before the coming of man upon the earth, had their age of\ngreatest development and reached proportions which are unknown in these\ndays.\n\nSo we may imagine man spreading out at various times and in many\ndifferent streams from his first home in Asia. The earlier races to\nleave this nursing-place did not, we may suppose, contain sufficient\nforce to carry them beyond a low level of culture; very likely they sank\nin civilization and in the end got pushed on one side by more energetic\npeople who came like a second wave from the common source. When, in the\nhistory of the world, we come to speak of races of whom we know more, we\nshall see strong reasons to believe that this was the rule followed;\nnay, it is even followed at the present day, where European races are\nspreading over all the world, and gradually absorbing or extinguishing\ninferior members of the human family. We must, therefore, in our present\nstate of ignorance, be content to look upon pal\u00e6olithic man merely as we\nfind him, and not to advance vague surmises whether he gradually\nadvanced to the use of better stone weapons, and at last to metals, or\nwhether he was extinguished by subsequent races who did thus advance.\n\n[Sidenote: The life of pal\u00e6olithic man.]\n\nTaking, then, this race as we find it, without speculating upon its\nimmediate origin or future, we may endeavour to gather some notion of\nman\u2019s way of life in these primitive times. It was of the simplest. We\nmay well suppose, for some proofs to the contrary would otherwise most\nlikely have been discovered, that his life was that of the hunter, which\nis, it has been said, generally the earliest phase of human society, and\nthat he had not yet learned to till the ground, or to keep domestic\nanimals for his use. No bones of animals like the sheep or dog are found\namong pal\u00e6olithic remains, and therefore it seems probable that\npal\u00e6olithic man had not yet entered upon the next and higher phase, the\npastoral life. He had probably no fixed home, no idea of nationality,\nscarcely any of obligations beyond the circle of his own family, in\nthat larger sense in which the word \u2018family\u2019 is generally understood by\nsavages. Some sort of family or tribe no doubt held together, were it\nonly for the sake of protecting themselves against the attacks of their\nneighbours. For the rest, their time was spent, as the time of other\nsavages is spent, out of doors in fighting and hunting, within doors in\npreserving their food and their skins, in elaborately manufacturing\ntheir implements of stone and bone. In the inclement seasons they were\ncrowded together in their caves, perhaps for months together, as the\nEskimo are in winter, almost without moving. As appears from the remains\nin the caves, they were in the habit at such times of throwing the old\nbones and the offal of their food into any corner (the Eskimo do so to\nthis day), without taking the smallest trouble to obviate the unpleasant\neffects produced by the decay of all this animal matter in an atmosphere\nnaturally close. Through the long winter nights they found time to\nperfect their skill in those wonderful bone carvings, and to lay up a\nstore of weapons which they afterwards--anticipating the rise of\ncommerce--exchanged with the inhabitants of some other cave for _their_\npeculiar manufacture; for in one of the caves of the Dordogne we find\nthe remains of what must have been a regular manufactory of one sort of\nflint-knife or lance-head, almost to the exclusion of any other of the\nordinary weapons, while another cave seems to have been devoted as\nexclusively to the production of implements of bone.\n\nMan had no doubt a hard life, not only to obtain the food he needed, but\nto defend himself against the attacks of many wild animals by whom he\nwas surrounded, animals whose particular species have in many cases\nbecome extinct, and whose classes have long ceased to inhabit Europe.\nSuch are the cave lion, cave bear, cave hy\u00e6na, brown bear, grizzly bear,\nmammoth, woolly rhinoceros, urus, bison, and such rarities (with us) as\nthe reindeer, the Irish elk, and the beaver.\n\nSome people have thought that they discovered in the traces of fires\nwhich had been sometimes lighted before caves in which were found human\nskeletons, the indication of sepulchral rites, and that these caves were\nused as burial-places. But these suppositions are too vague and\nuncertain to be relied upon. It may, however, be said that we have\nevidence pointing to the fact that even in the drift period men buried\ntheir dead, and it is hardly possible to believe that they did so\nwithout paying some obsequies to the remains. On this interesting\nsubject of sepulchral rites we must forbear to say anything until we\ncome to speak of the second stone age. Our knowledge of the early\nstone-people must close with the slight picture we have been able to\nform of their life; of their death, of their rites of the dead, and the\nideas concerning a future state which these might indicate, we cannot\nspeak.\n\nThis, then, is all we know of man of the first stone age, and it is not\nprobable that our knowledge will ever be greatly increased. New finds of\nthese stone implements are being made almost every day, not in Europe\nonly, though at present chiefly there, but in many other parts of the\nglobe. But the new discoveries closely resemble the old, the same sort\nof implements recur again and again, and we only learn by them over how\ngreat a part of the globe this stage in our civilization extended.\nFurther information of this kind may change some of our theories\nconcerning the duration or the origin of this civilization, but it will\nnot add much to our knowledge of its nature. Yet it cannot be denied\nthat the thought of man\u2019s existence only, though we know little more\nthan this, a contemporary of the mammoth at the time which immediately\nsucceeded the glacial period, or perhaps before the glacial period had\nquite come to an end, is full of the deepest interest for us. The long\nsilent time which intervenes between the creation of our first parents\nand those biblical events whereof the narration is to a certain extent\ncontinuous and consecutive, till the dawn of history in the Bible\nnarrative in fact, is to some small extent filled in. We shall see in\nthe next chapter how the second stone age serves to carry the same\npicture further. In rudest outline the life of man is placed before us,\nand if we have no more than this, we have at any rate _something_ which\nmay occupy our imaginations, and prevent them, as they otherwise would\ndo, as, of old, men\u2019s minds did, from leaping almost at a bound from the\nCreation to the Flood, and from the Flood to the time of Abraham.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nTHE SECOND STONE AGE.\n\n\n[Sidenote: The age of polished stone.]\n\nBetween the earlier and the later stone age, between man of the drift\nperiod and man of the neolithic era, occurs a vast blank which we cannot\nfill in. We bid adieu to the primitive inhabitants of our earth while\nthey are still the contemporaries of the mammoth and woolly rhinoceros,\nor of the cave lion and the cave bear, and while the very surface of the\nearth wears a different aspect from what it now wears. With a changed\ncondition of things, with a race of animals which differed not\nessentially from those known to us, and with a settled conformation of\nour lands and seas not again to be departed from, comes before us the\nsecond race of man--man of the polished stone age. We cannot account for\nthe sudden break; or, what is in truth the same thing, many different\nsuggestions to account for it have been made. Some have supposed that\nthe pal\u00e6olithic men lived at a time anterior to the last glacial era,\nfor there were many glacial periods in Europe, and were either\nexterminated altogether or driven thence to more southern countries by\nthe change in climate. Others have imagined that a new and more\ncultivated race migrated into these countries, and at once introduced\nthe improved weapons of the later stone age; and lastly, others have\nlooked upon the first stone age as having existed before the Deluge, and\nhold that the second race of man, the descendants of Noah, began at once\nwith a higher sort of civilization. Two of these four theories, it will\nbe seen, must suppose that man somewhere went through the stages of\nimprovement necessary to the introduction of the newer sort of weapons,\nand they therefore take it for granted that the graduated series of\nstone implements, indicating a gradual progress from the old time to the\nnewer, though they have not yet been found, are to be discovered\nsomewhere. The first and last theories would seem to be more independent\nof this supposition, and therefore, as far as our knowledge yet goes, to\nbe more in accordance with the facts which we possess. It is, however,\nby no means safe to affirm that the graduated series of implements\nrequired to support the other suppositions will never be found.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: The kitchen-middens.]\n\nBe this as it may, with the second era begins something like a\ncontinuous history of our race. However scanty the marks of his tracks,\nwe may feel sure that from this time forward man passed on one unbroken\njourney of development and change through the forgotten eras of the\nworld\u2019s life down to the dawn of history. We take the rudest condition\nin which we find man to be the most primitive, and we start with him in\nthis new stone age as still a fisher or a hunter only. He first appears\nbefore us as depending for his nourishment chiefly upon the shell-fish\non certain coasts of northern Europe. In the north of Europe--that is to\nsay, upon the shores of the Baltic--are found numbers of mounds, some\nfive or ten feet high, and in length as much, sometimes, as a thousand\nfeet, by one or two hundred feet in breadth. The mounds consist for the\nmost part of myriads of cast-away shells of oysters, mussels, cockles,\nand other shell-fish; mixed up with these are not a few bones of birds\nand quadrupeds, showing that these also served for food to the primitive\ndwellers by the shell mounds. The mounds are called in the present day\nkj\u00f6kken-m\u00f6ddings, kitchen-middens. They have been chiefly found in\nDenmark. They are, in truth, the refuse heaps of the earliest kitchens\nwhich have smoked in these northern regions;[6] for they are the remains\nof some of the earliest among the polished-stone age inhabitants of\nEurope. So primitive are the weapons of the Danish kitchen-middens, that\nthey have sometimes been classed with the old stone age implements. But\nI believe some traces of grinding if not of polishing have been found on\nthem. And at any rate the mammalia contemporary with the kitchen-midden\nmen are very different from those of the drift or of the caves.\n\nThe raisers of these refuse mounds were, we may judge, pre-eminently\nfishers; and not generally fishers of that adventurous kind who seek\ntheir treasure in the depths of the ocean. They lived chiefly upon those\nsmaller fish and shell-fish which could be caught without much\ndifficulty or danger. Yet not only on these; for the bones of some\ndeep-sea fish have also been discovered, whence we know that these\nmound-raisers were possessed of the art of navigation, though doubtless\nin a most primitive form. Among remains believed to be contemporary with\nthe shell mounds are found canoes not built of planks, as our boats and\nas most canoes are nowadays, but merely hollowed out of the trunks of\ntrees; sometimes these canoes are quite straight fore and aft, just as\nthe trunk was when it was cut, sometimes a little bevelled from below,\nlike a punt of the present day; but we believe they are never found\nrounded or pointed at the prow. Here, then, we see another discovery\nwhich has been of the greatest use to mankind, whereof the first traces\ncome to us from these northern shell mounds. That \u2018heart with oak and\nbronze thrice bound,\u2019 the man who first ventured to sea in the first\nvessel, had lived before this time. Whoever he was, we cannot, if we\nthink of it, refuse to endorse the praise bestowed upon him by the poet;\nit required no mean courage to venture out to sea on such a strange\nmake-shift as was the first canoe. Perhaps the earliest experiment was\nan involuntary one, made by some one who was washed away upon a large\nlog or felled tree. We can fancy how thence would arise the notion of\nventuring again a little way, then of hollowing a seat in the middle of\nthe trunk, until the primitive canoes, such as we find, came into\nexistence.\n\nIn these imperfect vessels men gradually ventured further and further\ninto the ocean; and, judging of the extent of their voyages by the\ndeep-sea remains, we may be certain that their bravery was fatal to\nmany. This is in all probability the history of the discovery or\nre-discovery of the art of navigation among savage people generally; in\nall cases does the canoe precede the regular boat. I say \u2018re-discovery\u2019\nbecause a nation which has settled long inland might very easily lose\nthe art even if their ancestors had possessed it. For it is a fact that\npeople rarely begin attempts at ship-building before they come to live\nnear the sea. As long as they can range freely on land, their rivers do\nnot tempt them to any dangerous experiments. But the vast plain of the\nsea is too important, and makes too great an impression on their\nimagination for its charm to be long withstood. Sooner or later, with\nmuch risk of life, men are sure to try and explore its solitudes, and\nnavigation takes its rise. This art of seafaring, then, is amongst the\nmost noticeable of the belongings of the fishermen of the shell mounds.\nConsidering that they had none but rude stone implements, the felling\nand hollowing of trees must have been an affair of no small labour, and\nvery likely occupied a great deal of their time when they were not\nactually seeking their food, even though the agency of fire supplemented\nthe ineffectual blows of their stone weapons. They probably used nets\nfor their sea-fishing, made most likely of twisted bark or grass. And\nthey were hunters as well as fishers, for it has been said that the\nremains of various animals have been discovered on the shell mounds.\nFrom these remains we see that the age of the post-glacial animals has\nby this time quite passed away; no mammoth, woolly rhinoceros, or cave\nlion or bear is found; even the reindeer, which in pal\u00e6olithic days must\nhave ranged over France and Switzerland, has retired to the north.\n\nThe fact is, the climate is now much more temperate and uniform than in\nthe first stone age. Then the reindeer and the chamois, animals which\nbelong naturally to regions of ice and snow, freely traversed, in winter\nat least, the valleys or the plains far towards the south of Europe.[7]\nBut as the climate changed, the first was driven to the extreme north of\nEurope, and the second to the higher mountain peaks. The only extinct\nspecies belonging to the shell mounds is the wild bull (_bos\nprimigenius_), which however survived in Europe until quite historical\ntimes. His remains appear in great numbers, as do those of the seal, now\nvery rare, and the beaver, which is extinct in Denmark. No remains of\nany domesticated animal are found; but the existence of tame dogs is\nguessed at from the fact that the bones bear traces of the gnawing of\ncanine teeth, and from the absence of bones of young birds and of the\nsofter bones of animals generally. For it has been shown experimentally\nthat just such portions are absent from these skeletons as will be\ndevoured when birds or animals of the same species are given to dogs at\nthis day. Dogs, therefore, we may feel pretty sure, were domesticated by\nthe stone-age men; so here again we can see the beginning of a step in\ncivilization which has been of incalculable benefit to man, the taming\nof animals for his use. The ox, the sheep, the goat, were as yet\nunknown; man was still in the hunter\u2019s condition, and had not advanced\nto the shepherd state, only training for his use the dog, to assist him\nin pursuit of the wild animals who supplied part of his food. He was,\ntoo, utterly devoid of all agricultural knowledge. Probably the\ndomestication of the dog marks a sort of transition state between the\nhunter and the shepherd. When that experiment has been tried, the notion\nmust sooner or later spring up of training other animals, and keeping\nthem for use or food. With regard to the dogs themselves, it is a\ncurious fact that those of the stone age are smaller than those of the\nbronze period, while the dogs of the bronze age are again smaller than\nthose of the age of iron. This is an illustration of the well-known fact\nthat domestication increases the size and improves the character of\nanimals, as gardening does that of plants.\n\nThere is one other negative fact which we gather from the bones of these\nrefuse-heaps--no human bones are mingled with them; so we may conclude\nthat these men were not cannibals. In fact, cannibalism is an\nextraordinary perversion of human nature, arising it is difficult to say\nexactly how, and only showing itself among particular people and under\npeculiar conditions. There is no doubt that, among a very large\nproportion of the savage nations which at present inhabit our globe,\ncannibalism is practised, and of this fact many explanations have been\noffered; but they are generally far-fetched and unsatisfactory; and it\nis certainly not within our scope to discuss them here. How little\nnatural cannibalism is even to the most savage men is proved by the fact\nthat man is scarcely ever, except under urgent necessity, found to feed\nupon the flesh of carnivorous or flesh-eating animals, and this alone,\nbesides every instinct of our nature, would be sufficient to prevent him\nfrom eating his fellow-men.\n\nWe have many proofs of the great antiquity of the shell mounds. Their\nposition gives one. Whilst most of them are confined to the immediate\nneighbourhood of the seashore, some few are found at a distance of\nseveral miles inland. These exceptions may always be referred to the\npresence of a stream which has gradually deposited its mud at the place\nwhere it emptied itself into the sea, or to some other sufficient cause\nof the protrusion of the coast-line; so that these miles of new coast\nhave come into existence after the shell mounds were raised. On the\nother hand, there are no mounds upon those parts of the coast which\nborder on the Western Ocean. But it is just here that, owing to a\ngradual depression of the land at the rate of two or three inches in a\ncentury[8] the waves are slowly eating away the shore. This is what\nhappens on every sea-coast. Almost all over the world there is a small\nbut constant movement of the solid crust of the earth, which is, in\nfact, only a crust over the molten mass within. Sometimes, and in some\nplaces, the imprisoned mass makes itself felt, in violent upheavals, in\nsudden cracks of the inclosing surface, which we call earthquakes and\nvolcanoes; but oftener its effect is slight and almost unnoticed. This\ninterchange of state between the kingdoms of the land and of the ocean\nhelps to show us the time which has passed between the making of the\nkitchen-middens and our own days. There seems little doubt that all\nalong the Danish coast of the North Sea, as well as on that of the\nBaltic, these mounds once stood; but by the gradual undermining of the\ncliffs the former series have all been swept away, while the latter\nhave, as it appears, been moved a little inland; and we have seen that\nwhen there was another cause present to form land between the\nkitchen-middens and the sea, the distance has often been increased to\nseveral miles.\n\nHere is another and a still stronger proof of the antiquity of the shell\nmounds. If we examine the shells themselves, we find that they all\nbelong to still living species, and they are all exactly similar to such\nas might be found in the ocean at the present day. But it happens that\nthis is not now the case with the shells of the same fish belonging to\nthe Baltic Sea. For the waters of this sea are now brackish, and not\nsalt; and since they became so the shell-fish in it have gradually grown\nsmaller, and do not now attain half their natural size. The oyster,\nmoreover, will not now live at all in the Baltic, except near its\nentrance, where, whenever the wind blows from the north-west, a strong\ncurrent of salt ocean water is poured in. Yet oyster shells are\nespecially abundant in the kitchen-middens. From all this we gather\nthat, at the time of the making of these mounds, there must have been\nfree communication between the ocean and the Baltic Sea. In all\nprobability, in fact, there were a number of such passages through the\npeninsula of Jutland, which was consequently at that time an\narchipelago.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: The tumuli or barrows.]\n\nAs ages passed on the descendants of these isolated fishermen spread\nthemselves over Europe, and, improving in their way of life and mastery\nover mechanical arts, found themselves no longer constrained to trust\nfor their livelihood to the spoils of the sea-shallows. They made lances\nand axes (headed with stone), and perfected the use of the bow and arrow\nuntil they became masters of the game of the forest. And then, after a\nwhile, man grew out of this hunter stage and domesticated other animals\nbesides the dog: oxen, pigs, and geese. No longer occupied solely by the\nsearch for his daily food, he raised mighty tombs--huge mounds of earth\nenclosing a narrow grave--to the departed great men of his race; and he\nreared up those enormous masses of stone called cromlechs or\ndolmens--such as we see at Stonehenge--as altars to his gods.[9]\n\nThe great tombs of earth--which have their fellows not in Europe only,\nbut over the greater part of the world--are the special and\ncharacteristic features of the stone age. The raisers of the\nkitchen-middens probably preceded the men who built the tombs; for their\nmode of life was, as we should say, the most primitive; but they were\nconfined to a corner of Europe. The tomb-builders formed one of a mighty\nbrotherhood of men linked together by the characteristics of a common\ncivilization. These stone-age sepulchres, called in England tumuli,\nbarrows, or hows, are hills of earth from one to as much as four hundred\nfeet long, by a breadth and height of from thirty to fifty feet. They\nare either chambered or unchambered; that is, they are either raised\nover a small vault made of stone (with perhaps a sort of vestibule or\nentrance chamber), or else a mere hollow has been excavated within the\nmound. In these recesses repose the bodies of the dead, some great\nchieftain or hero--the father of his people, who came to be regarded\nafter his death with almost the veneration of a god. Beside the dead\nwere placed various implements and utensils, left there to do him honour\nor service, to assist him upon the journey to that undiscovered country\nwhither he was bound; the best of sharpened knives or spear-heads, some\njars of their rude pottery, once filled with food and drink, porridge,\nrough cakes and beer.[10] And maybe a wife or two, and some captives of\nthe last battle were sacrificed to his shade, that he might not go quite\nunattended into that \u2018other world.\u2019 The last ceremony, the slaughter of\nhuman victims to the manes of the dead, was not always, but it must have\nbeen often, enacted. Out of thirty-two stone-age barrows excavated in\nWiltshire, seventeen contained only one skeleton, and the rest various\nnumbers, from two to an indefinite number; and, in one case at least,\nall the skulls _save one_ were found cleft as by a stone hatchet.\n\nAt the doors of the mounds or in an entrance chamber many bones have\nbeen discovered, the traces of a funeral feast, the wake or watch kept\non the evening of the burial. Likely enough, if the chief were almost\ndeified after death, the funeral feast would become periodical. It\nwould be considered canny and of good omen that the elders of the tribe\nshould meet there at times in solemn conclave, on the eve of a warlike\nexpedition or whenever the watchful care of the dead hero might avail\nhis descendants. From the remains of these feasts, and from the relics\nof the tombs, we have the means of forming some idea of man\u2019s\nacquirements at this time. His implements are improvements upon those of\nthe stone age: in all respects, that is, save in this one, that he had\nnow no barbed weapons; whereas we remember that in the caves barbed\nharpoons are frequently met with. Nor, again, had he the artistic talent\nof the cave-dwellers: no traces of New Stone-age drawings have come to\nlight. For the rest, his implements and weapons may be divided into a\nfew distinctive classes:--\n\n1. Hammers, hatchets, tomahawks, or chisels; an instrument made of a\nheavy piece of stone brought to a sharp cutting edge at one end, and at\nthe other rounded or flat, so as to serve the double purpose of a hammer\nand an axe. When these are of an elongated form they are called celts or\nchisels. As subspecies to the hammers and celts we have picks and\ngouges. 2. Arrow and spear heads, which differ in size but not much in\nform, both being long and narrow in shape, often closely resembling the\nleaf of the laurel or the bay, sometimes of a diamond shape, but more\noften having the lateral corners nearest to the end which fitted into\nthe shaft. Viewed edgeways, they also appear to taper towards either\nend, for while one point was designed to pierce the victim, the other\nwas fitted into a cleft handle, and bound into it with cord or sinew.\nImplements have been discovered still fitted into their handles. 3. The\nstone knives, which have generally two cutting edges, and when this is\nthe case do not greatly differ from the spear-heads, though they are\ncommonly less pointed than the latter. And to these three important\nforms we may add, as less important types, a rounded form of implement,\ngenerally called a scraper, and similar to the scrapers of the\npal\u00e6olithic era; stones designed for slinging, net-weights, and perhaps\ncorn-grinders or nut-crushers. A few bone implements have been found in\nthe tumuli, a pin, a chisel, and a knife or so; but they are very rare,\nthey are never carved, and have not one quarter of the interest which\nbelongs to the bone implements of the caves. Finally, we must not omit\nto say that in Anhalt, in Germany, a large stone has been found which\nseems to have served the purpose of a plough. For there can be little\ndoubt that if some of the tumuli belong to a time before the use of\ndomesticated animals--save the dog--they last down to a time when man\nnot only had tame oxen, pigs, goats, and geese,[11] but also sowed and\nplanted, and lived the life of an agricultural race; nor will it be said\nthat such an advance was extraordinary when we say that the minimum\nduration of the age of polished stone in central Europe was probably two\nthousand years.\n\nOther relics from the mounds, not less interesting than the weapons, are\ntheir vessels of pottery; for here we see the earliest traces of another\nart. This pottery is of a black colour, curiously mixed with powdered\nshells, perhaps to strengthen the clay, perhaps for ornament. Its\npottery belongs to the latter portion of this age of stone, a period\ndistinguished not only by the use of domestic animals, but also by the\ngrowth of cereals. We have said that bones of cattle, swine, and in one\ncase of a goose, have been found among the refuse of the funeral feasts.\nBut man was still a hunter, as he is to this day, though he had found\nother means of support besides the wild game; so we also find the bones\nof the red deer and the wild bull, both of which supplied him with food.\nWolves\u2019 teeth, too, have been found pierced, so as to be strung into a\nnecklace; for personal adornment formed, in those days as now, part of\nthe interest of life. Jet beads have been discovered in large numbers,\nand even some of amber, which seems to have been brought from the Baltic\nto these countries and as far south as Switzerland; and it is known that\nduring the last portion of what is, nevertheless, still the stone\nperiod, the most precious metal of all, gold, was used for ornament.\nGold is the one metal which is frequently found on the surface of the\nground, and therefore it was naturally the first to come under the eye\nof man.\n\nThe religion of the mound-builders probably consisted in part of the\nworship of the dead, so that the very tombs themselves, and not the\ncromlechs only, were a sort of temples. And yet they had the deepest\ndread of the reappearance of the departed upon earth--of his ghost. To\nprevent his \u2018walking\u2019 they adopted a strange practical form of exorcism.\nThey strewed the ground at the grave\u2019s mouth with sharp stones or broken\npieces of pottery, as though a ghost could have his feet cut, and by\nfear of that be kept from returning to his old haunts. For ages and ages\nafter the days of the mound-builders the same custom lived on of which\nwe here see the rise. The same ceremony--turned now to an unmeaning\nrite--was used for the graves of those, such as murderers or suicides,\nwho might be expected to sleep uneasily in their narrow house. This is\nthe custom which is referred to in the speech of the priest to\nLaertes.[12] Ophelia had died under such suspicion of suicide, that it\nwas a stretch of their rule, he says, to grant her Christian burial.\n\n    \u2018And but the great command o\u2019ersways our order,\n     She should in ground unsanctified have lodged\n     To the last trumpet: for charitable prayers,\n     Shards, flints and pebbles, should be thrown on her.\u2019\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe body of him for whom the mound was built was not buried in the\ncentre, but at one end, and that commonly the east, for in most cases\nthe barrows lie east and west. It is never stretched out flat, but lies\nor sits in a crouched attitude, the head brought down upon the breast,\nand the knees raised up to meet the chin. So that the dead man was\ngenerally left facing toward the west--the going down of the sun. There\ncannot but be some significance in this. The daily death of the sun has,\nin all ages and to all people, spoken of man\u2019s own death, his western\ncourse has seemed to tell of that last journey upon which all are bent.\nSo that the resting-place of the soul is nearly always imagined to lie\nwestward in the home of the setting sun. For the rest, there seems\nlittle doubt that the barrows represent nothing else--though upon a\nlarge scale--than the dwelling-home of the time, and we may believe that\nthe greater part of the funeral rights connected with the mounds were\nvery literal and unsymbolical.[13] The Eskimo and Lapps of our day\ndwell in huts no more commodious than the small chambers of the barrows,\nand exceedingly like them in shape; only they keep them warm by heaping\nup over them not earth but snow. In these hovels they sit squatting, in\nan attitude not unlike that of the skeleton of the tumuli. Of the human\nremains the skulls are small and round, and have a prominent ridge over\nthe sockets of the eyes, showing that the ancient race was of small\nstature with round heads--what is called _brachycephalus_, or\nshort-headed, and had over-hanging eyebrows; in short, their skeletons\nbare a considerable resemblance to those of the modern Laplanders.\n\nWe are still, however, left in darkness about that part of the stone-age\nthought which has left the grandest traces, and of which we should so\nmuch have wished to be informed; I mean the religion. Besides the tumuli\nwe have those enormous piles of stone called cromlechs, or dolmens, and\nsometimes _miscalled_ Druid circles--such as the well-known Stonehenge;\nthese cromlechs were, we may believe, temples or sacred places. Each\narrangement of the stones is generally like a simple portico, made by\nplacing one enormous block upon two others; and these porticoes are\nsometimes arranged in circles, as at Stonehenge, sometimes in long\ncolonnades, as at Carnac in Brittany. Lesser dolmens have been found in\nmost European countries. There can be little doubt that these huge\nmonuments possessed a religious character. And here is one proof of the\nfact. As a rule, the grave-mounds--the tumuli--are built upon elevations\ncommanding a considerable prospect, and it is rare to find two within\nsight. Yet over Salisbury Plain, and the part about Stonehenge, they are\nmuch more numerous, as many as a hundred and fifty having been\ndiscovered in this neighbourhood, as though all the ground about this\ngreat cromlech were a hallowed region, and it were a desired privilege\nto be buried within such sacred precincts. Of the worship which these\nstone altars commemorate we know absolutely nothing. There seems to be\nno reasonable doubt that they belong to the period we are describing.\nThe name Druid Circles, which has been sometimes given them, is an\nabsurd anachronism, for, as we shall have occasion to see later on, the\nancestors of the Kelts (or Celts), to whom the Druidical religion\nbelonged, were probably at this time still living on the banks of the\nOxus in Central Asia; at any rate they had not yet migrated to Brittany\nor to Great Britain. Thus, though we must continue to wonder how these\npeople could ever have raised such enormous stones as altars of their\nreligion, the nature of that religion itself is hidden from us.\n\nThe tumuli and the relics which they contain are the truest\nrepresentatives of the second stone age which have come down to us. The\nbarrows raise their summits in every land, and the characteristic\nfeatures of the remains found in them are the same for each. We must\njudge that they, that the most genuine stone-age tumuli, arose during\nthe greatest extension of the stone-age races, before any new peoples\nhad come to dispute their territory. What the kitchen-middens show in\nthe germ, they show in its perfection--all the perfection attainable by\nit.\n\nWe have already enumerated the most important forms of weapons and\nimplements found in these _tumuli_; and there would be no use in\nentering upon a lengthy verbal description of what would be so much\nbetter illustrated by drawings. The books enumerated in the Appendix\ngive abundant illustrations of the stone-age remains. One caution,\nhowever, we need to give the reader. This second stone age is called, we\nknow, the age of polished stone. But, as has been already said, that by\nno means implies that all the implements made in these days were\npolished. On the contrary, certain stone manufactures, notably\narrow-heads, were never polished. They went on being made by chipping,\nnot only during the whole of the second stone age, but far into the\nfirst metal age, when bronze had been introduced and was used for the\nmanufacture of numerous weapons and implements. The grinding of the\nedges of certain sharp weapons is a more important characteristic than\nthe polishing of the whole or a portion of their surface. But this\ngrinding was not universally employed, but used generally only for the\nlarger implements.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: The lake villages.]\n\nAnd now, having dealt with the remains from the _tumuli_, the flower, as\nwe may call them, of the second stone period, we pass on to a third\nseries of remains, which must be in part contemporary with the\nstone-using men, and have continued on and been absorbed into the metal\nage, which next supervened. These remains came from what are called the\nlake-dwellings, and though traces of such dwellings have been found in\nmany countries in Europe, in our isles among others, still the chief\n_provenance_ of the lake-dwellings, so far as our discoveries yet go, is\nin Switzerland and the north of Italy. But let it not be supposed that\nthese lake-dwellings extended over a short period. A variety of separate\npieces of evidence enforce upon us the conclusion that the stone age in\nEurope endured for at least two thousand years. Even the latter portion\nof that epoch will allow a cycle vast enough for the lives of the\nlake-dwellers; for the dwellings did not come to an end at the end of\nthe age of stone, they only began in it. They were seen by Roman eyes\nalmost as late as the beginning of our own era.\n\nFor at least two thousand years, then, we may say, the men who lived in\nthe country of the Swiss lakes, and those of Northern Italy, adopted for\nthe sake of security the custom of making their dwellings, not upon the\nsolid ground, but upon platforms constructed with infinite trouble above\nthe waters of the lake. And the way they set about it was in this wise:\nHaving chosen their spot--if attainable, a sunny shore protected as much\nas possible from storms, and having a lake-bottom of a soft and sandy\nnature--they proceeded to drive in piles, composed of tree-stems taken\nfrom the neighbouring forests, from four to eight inches in diameter.\nThese piles had to be felled, and afterwards sharpened, either by fire\nor a stone axe, then driven in from a raft by the use of ponderous stone\nmallets; and when we have said that in one instance the number of piles\nof a lake village has been estimated at from 40,000 to 50,000, the\nenormous labour of the process will be apparent. This task finished, the\npiles were levelled at a certain height above the water, and a platform\nof boards was fastened on with pegs. On the platform were erected huts,\nprobably square or oblong in shape, not more than twenty feet or so in\nlength, adapted however for the use of a single family, and generally\nfurnished, it would appear, with a hearthstone and a corn-crusher\napiece. The huts were made of wattle-work, coated on both sides with\nclay. Stalls were provided for the cattle, and a bridge of from only ten\nor twelve to as much as a hundred yards in length led back to the\nmainland. Over this the cattle must have been driven every day, at least\nin summer, to pasture on the bank; and no doubt the village community\nseparated each morning for the various occupations of fishing, for\nhunting, for agriculture, and for tending the cattle. As may be\nimagined, these wooden villages were in peculiar danger from fire, and a\nvery large number have suffered destruction in this way; a circumstance\nfortunate for modern science, for many things which had been partially\nburnt before falling into the lake have, by the coating of charcoal\nformed round them, been made impervious to the corroding influence of\nthe water. Thus we have preserved their very grain itself, and their\nloaves or cakes of crushed but not ground meal. The grains are of\nvarious kinds of wheat and barley, oats, and millet.[14]\n\nIt is natural to ask for what object the enormous trouble of erecting\nthese lake-dwellings could have been undertaken; and the only answer\nwhich can be given is, that it was to protect their inhabitants from\ntheir enemies. Whether each village formed a separate tribe and made war\nupon its neighbours, or whether the lake-dwellers were a peaceful race\nfleeing from more savage people of the mainland, is uncertain. There is\nnothing which leads us to suppose they were a race of a warlike\ncharacter, and as far as the arts of peace go they had advanced\nconsiderably upon the men of the tumuli. More especially do the _woven\ncloths_, sometimes worked with simple but not inartistic patterns,\nexcite our admiration. They had their trade too. Ornaments of amber are\nfrequent, and amber must have been brought from the Baltic; while in one\nsettlement, believed to be of the stone age, the presence of a glass\nbead would seem to imply indirect commerce with Egypt, the only country\nin which the traces of glass manufacture at this remote period have been\nfound.[15] It is believed by good authorities, that the stone age in\nEurope came to an end about two thousand years before Christ, or at a\ndate which is generally considered to be about that of Abraham; and its\nshortest duration, as we saw, must also be considered to be two thousand\nyears.\n\nThese men of the lakes stand in no degree behind the mound-builders for\nthe material elements of civilization. Nay, they are in some respects\nbefore them. Their life seems to have been more confined and simple than\nthat which was going on in other parts of Europe. Its very peacefulness\nand simplicity gave men the opportunity for perfecting some of their\narts. Thus their agriculture was more careful and more extended than\nthat of the men of the tumuli. Their cattle would appear to have been\nnumerous; all were stall-fed upon the island home; if in the morning\ndriven out to pasture over the long bridge to the mainland, they were\nbrought home again at night. To agriculture these lake-dwellers had\nadded the special art of gardening, for they cultivated fruit-trees; and\nthey span hemp and flax, and even constructed--it is believed--some sort\nof loom for weaving cloth. Yet for all that, if in these respects they\nwere superior to the men of the tumuli, their life was probably more\npetty and narrow than the others\u2019. There must have been some grandeur in\nthe ideas of men who could have built those enormous tombs and raised\nthose wondrous piles of altar-stones. If the first were made in honour\nof their chiefs, the existence of such chiefs implies a power in the\nstone-age men of expanding into a wide social life; so too the immense\nlabour which the raising of the cromlechs demanded argues strong if not\nthe most elevated religious ideas. And it has been often and truly\nremarked that these two elements of progress, social and religious life,\nare always intimately associated. It is in a common worship more than in\ncommon language that we find the beginning of nationalities. It was so\nin Greece. The city life grew up around the temple of a particular\ntutelary deity, and the associations of cities arose from their\nassociation in the worship at some common shrine. The common nationality\nof the Hellenes was kept alive more than anything in the quadrennial\ngames in honour of the Olympian Zeus, just as the special citizenship of\nAthens found expression in the peculiar worship of the virgin goddess\nAth\u00ean\u00ea. So we may well argue from the great stone remains, that man had\neven then made _some_ progress in political life. They show us the\nextended conditions of tribal government. But the lake-dwellers only\ngive us a picture of the simplest and narrowest form of the village\ncommunity. It is with them a complete condition of social equality;\nthere is no appearance of any grade of rank; no hut on these islands is\nfound larger or better supplied or more cared for than the rest. A\ncondition of things not unlike that which we find in Switzerland at the\npresent day; one favourable to happiness and contentment, to improvement\nin the simpler arts, but not to wide views of life, or to any great or\ngeneral progress.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: The civilization of the stone ages.]\n\nAnd now let us, before we bid adieu to the men of the stone age, recount\nour gains, and see what picture the researches of pre-historic science\nallow us to draw of the progress of mankind from its earliest condition\nto that in which we now find it. We will forget for a moment the great\ngap which intervenes between the two stone ages, the age of unpolished\nstone and the age of polished stone, and simply following step by step\nthe changes in human implements much as if we were walking round the\ncases of some well-arranged museum, we will note, as we pass it, each\nmarked improvement or new acquisition in the arts of life.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n1. To begin, then, with the men of the river drift--so far as we can\njudge, the rudest and most uncultured of all. It is not certain that\nthese men had so much as wooden handles to their implements of stone,\nbut it is probable that they had them. As we have said, they had only\ntwo or three marked varieties in these weapons. How little advance there\nseems from the state of simply using or hurling the stones in the state\nin which they are found! At the same time, it must be said that the\nimplements of wood or horn, pointed stakes or even javelins, which these\nearly men _may_ have had would almost certainly have perished.\n\nNor, again, is there any evidence that the men of the drift period were\ncognizant of the use of fire, though here it is more likely that they\nwere than that they were not.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n2. When we come to the cave-dwellers we see marked signs of a higher\ncivilization. The first and most important of these signs undoubtedly is\nthe _evidence_ of knowledge how to procure fire. We see a much greater\nvariety in the implements used by the cave-dwellers. This, no doubt, is\ndue _in part_ to the disappearance of a portion of the implements of the\ndrift age; but still we must take things as we find them. And putting\nside by side the specimens of the drift-implements and the\ncave-implements, we are at once struck by the superiority of the latter\nin make and in variety of form.\n\nThirdly, as has already been pointed out, we have here the earliest\ntraces of art. On that subject it is not necessary again to dwell.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n3. And now pass on to the second stone age, and see what progress man\nhas made in the interval which separates the two periods. We begin with\nthe society represented by the kitchen-middens. We do not possess any\ncertainly polished-stone implements from these refuse-heaps. But I do\nnot lay any great stress upon the invention of the art of polishing or\neven of grinding the stone; though that was not without importance, for\nit enabled the men of the second stone age to make use of much harder\nand more durable sorts of stone for their cutting implements. The\nearliest stone-age men made their implements of all sorts almost\nexclusively of flints, because the flint was a stone not difficult to\nchip into shape and to give an edge to by chipping. But when it comes to\npolishing or grinding instead of chipping an edge upon stones, there are\na variety of other kinds of stone which are much more durable and much\nmore serviceable than flints are, for the very reason that they are not\nliable to chip, and these stones (jade, granite, greenstone, obsidian,\nor one or other of the marbles, for example) we find a good deal\nemployed during the latter stone age.\n\nWhat, however, is more significant than would be the use of\npolished-stone implements by the kitchen-midden men is the evidence of\ntheir use of canoes, and therefore the evidence that they understood the\nart of navigation.\n\nNext after that we must place the use of the bow, which also was\nprobably known to the earliest men of the polished-stone age, but not to\nthose of the preceding era.\n\nFinally, we have the beginning of domestication of animals in the\ndomestication of the dog. But we have as yet no beginning of\nagriculture.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n4. Pass on to the men who raised the tumuli and we find still further\nsigns of progress. Of these the tumuli themselves are the most\nsignificant. For in them we see the beginning of the art of building. I\ndo not say that houses were unknown to the kitchen-midden men; only that\nwe have no proof that they lived in houses; and we are here taking the\nevidences of advancing civilization as we come across them. In the case\nof the still earlier cave-dwellers we may take it for granted that the\nart of house-building was unknown to them, and quite as much so to the\nmen of the river drift.[16]\n\nTrue, the tumuli are not houses; they are tombs. But the men who could\nraise these tombs could raise houses likewise, and there can be little\ndoubt that the architecture of the tombs, here and throughout the\nhistory of mankind, was modelled upon the architecture of the houses.\nWherefore we may assume that these last were low and narrow chambers, a\nsort of constructed caves, so to speak, which is just what we should\nexpect the earliest houses to be. We should expect that the first\nadvance from cave-dwelling or burrowing in the ground would be to raise\nan artificial mountain and burrow within that. But soon the insecurity\nof this house would become apparent, and the next advance--no mean one,\nhowever,--would be the propping of stones upon others to make a chamber\nbefore the earth was heaped up in the tumulus, and when that step had\nbeen reached the art of house-building had begun.\n\nWe might call the next step forward the acquisition of a religion, of\nwhich the first signs are apparent in the cromlechs of this age. In this\ncase, again, we only follow the testimony of the remains that have been\ndiscovered in the order in which they have come to light. It would be\nfar too much to say that the earlier stone-age men were without\nreligious observances. All we can say is, that the first certain\nremains of these belong to the time of the tumuli and the cromlechs. The\nreasons which lead us to believe that these last, the cromlechs, had a\nreligious character have been already given.\n\nCommerce was not unknown even to the cave-dwellers, but the first proofs\nof anything like a distant commerce come to us from the date of the\ngrave-mounds.\n\nThe domestic animals of the tumuli begin to be numerous--oxen, pigs,\ngoats, and geese,--though these remains are not found in the earliest\nmounds. And there is likewise among them some trace of agriculture.\n\nFinally, traces of the art of pottery-making appear for the first time\nin these graves.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n5. The village communities show an advance to the most undoubted use of\nagriculture, to the planting of fruit-trees, to the weaving of cloths,\nand a much more extended practice of domestication than obtained among\nthe men of the grave-mounds.\n\nThus we see that as long ago as the stone age, before man had yet\ndiscovered any metal except, maybe, gold, he had advanced so far as to\nhave discovered the most necessary arts of life, hunting, fishing,\nnavigation (in some form), the domestication of animals, agriculture,\nplanting, weaving, the making of garments--not of skin only, but also of\nlinen or cloth--and the making of pottery.\n\nAnd now let us note one other thing--the point where the stone age seems\nto approach most nearly to the borders of actual history. History begins\nin Egypt. For no continuous Biblical history exists for the days prior\nto Abraham. But in Egypt, for many centuries before Abraham, we have a\ncontinuous history, or at least continuous chronicles and dynastic\nlists, whose authenticity is admitted, and the remains of no mean\ncivilization in the buildings contemporary with these earliest\nchronicles.\n\nEgyptian history may be said to begin with the builders of the pyramids.\nBut the pyramids themselves are nothing else than the children of the\ntumuli of the second stone age. We may call them a sort of crystallized\ntumuli--barrows of stone instead of earth. But, in truth, the earliest\npyramids were probably not built of stone. It is generally believed that\nthe stone pyramids which we see to-day at G\u00eeza and Sakkara were preceded\nby pyramids of unbaked brick. And what are such buildings of unbaked\nbrick save carefully raised mounds of earth? Here, then, we get the\nnearest meeting-point between the stone age and the age of history.\n\nAgain, the principle upon which were constructed the Egyptian tombs--of\nwhich the pyramids were only the most conspicuous forms--were precisely\nthe same as the principles which governed the construction of the more\nelaborate barrows. These last had not only a chamber for the dead. This\nchamber was in many cases approached by a passage also made of stones\ncovered with earth; and there can be no question that the mouth of the\ntomb was used as a sort of ante-room in which the relatives of the dead\nmight hold their wake, or funeral feast. Here have been found the traces\nof fires, the remains of animals, fragments of vessels of pottery, etc.,\nused or consumed in the feasts. We may believe that the ceremony was\nrepeated at stated intervals. The very same principle governed the\nconstruction of the Egyptian tombs. These likewise (in their earliest\nknown forms) consisted of an inner tomb and of an outer chamber;\ngenerally between the one and the other there was a passage. The outer\nchamber is that to which arch\u00e6ologists have given the name of _mastaba_.\nIn it the relatives of the dead continued year after year to keep a\nfuneral feast in his memory. Or we may say more than in memory of the\ndead--_with_ the dead, we may say. For the essence of the feast, the\nfumes of the baked meats, was thought to penetrate along the passage and\nreach the mummy himself in his dark chamber.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: Ages of bronze and iron.]\n\nThus we come to the end of the stone age or ages. The next great\ndiscovery which man made was that of the metals. Not iron at first;\nbefore iron was discovered there supervened the age known as the Bronze\nAge, when copper and tin were known but not iron, and all the most\nimportant implements were made of that mixture of copper and\ntin--bronze, the hardest substance then obtainable. In some countries\nthe discovery of the metals was natural, and one age followed upon the\nother in gradual sequence. But in Europe it was not so. The men of the\nbronze age were a new race, sallying out of the East to dispossess the\nolder inhabitants, and if in some places the bronze men and the stone\nmen seem to have gone on for a time side by side, the general character\nof the change is that of a sudden break.\n\nTherefore we do not now proceed to speak of the characteristic\ncivilization of the bronze age. As will be seen hereafter, the bringers\nof the new weapons belonged to a race concerning whom we have much\nampler means of information than is possessed for the first inhabitants\nof these lands; and we are spared the necessity of drawing all our\nknowledge from a scrutiny of their arms or tombs. But before we can\nsatisfactorily show who were the successors of the stone-age men in\nEurope, and whence they came, we must turn aside towards another\ninquiry, viz. into the origin of language.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nTHE GROWTH OF LANGUAGE.\n\n\n[Sidenote: The growth of language.]\n\nWe have looked upon man fashioning the first implements and weapons and\nhouses which were ever made; we now turn aside and ask what were the\nfirst of those immaterial instruments, those \u2018a\u00ebriform, mystic\u2019 legacies\nwhich were handed down and gradually improved from the time of the\nearliest inhabitants of our globe? Foremost among these, long anterior\nto the \u2018metallurgic and other manufacturing _skill_,\u2019 comes language.\nWith us, in whose minds thought and speech are so bound together as to\nbe almost inseparable, the idea that language is an instrument which\nthrough long ages has been slowly improved to its present perfection,\nseems difficult of credit. We think of early man having the same ideas\nand expressing them as readily as we do now; but this he could not\nreally have done. Not, indeed, that we have any reason to believe that\nthere was a time when man had no language at all; but it seems certain\nthat long ages were necessary before this instrument could be wrought to\nthe fineness in which we find it, and to which, in all the languages\nwith which we are likely to become acquainted, we are accustomed. A rude\niron knife or spear-head seems a simple and natural thing to make. But\nwe know that before it could be made iron had to be discovered, and the\nart of extracting iron from the ore; and, as a matter of fact, we know\nthat thousands of years passed before the iron spear-head was a\npossibility; thousands of years spent in slowly improving the weapons of\nstone, and passing on from them to the weapons of bronze. So, too, with\nlanguage; simple as it seems at first sight to fit the word on to the\nidea, and early as we ourselves learn this art, a little thought about\nwhat language is will show us how much we owe to the ages which have\ngone before.\n\n[Sidenote: The two main classes of words \u2018significant\u2019 and\n\u2018insignificant.\u2019]\n\nTo understand fully the department of study called the science of\nlanguage considerable linguistic knowledge is necessary. But to grasp\nmany of the general principles of this science, and many of the most\nimportant facts which it teaches, we do not need any such wide\nknowledge. In fact, a little thoughtful examination of any single tongue\n(his own, whichever it may be) would teach a person many things which\nwithout thought he would be inclined to pass over as matters of course\nor matters of no consequence. In truth, in this science of language what\nwe need, even before we need a very wide array of facts, is what is\ncalled the scientific method in dealing with the facts which we possess.\nBut, again, this which we call the scientific method is really\nrepresented by two qualities which have less pretentious\nnames--_observation_ and _common sense_.\n\nLet us begin then by, so to say, challenging our own language, our\nEnglish as we find it to-day, and see what hints we can gain from it of\nthe formation of language as a whole and of its origin. An ounce of\ninformation gained in this wise, by examination and the use of our own\ncommon sense, is worth a much greater bulk of knowledge gained\nsecond-hand from books, and merely remembered as facts divorced from\ntheir causes.\n\nTake any sentence, and place that, so to say, under a microscope, or\nunder the dissecting-knife--take the opening sentence of this chapter,\nfor example.\n\n\u201cWe have looked upon man fashioning the first implements and weapons and\nhouses that were ever made.\u201d\n\nLet us look at these few words alone.\n\nThe first thing we have to notice about this sentence, and any other\nsentence almost that we could anywhere find, is that the words which\ncompose it fall into two distinct classes, the classes of what I will\ncall _meaning_ and _meaningless_, or significant and _in_-significant\nwords. In the first class fall the words _we_, _looked_, _man_,\n_fashioning_, _implements_, _weapons_, _houses_, _made_. These I call\n\u2018meaning\u2019 or \u2018significant\u2019 words, because, if we isolate each one and\nutter it alone, it will call up some image to the mind--_we_, _weapons_,\n_fashioning_, _houses_, _made_, and so forth: the image may be pretty\nclear or it may be (in the case of the verbs it is) somewhat hazy. But\nin every case some image or some idea does rise before the mind when any\nof these words is pronounced. _Have_ and _were_ I exclude for the moment\nfrom either class. The words of the second class, then, from the\nsentence chosen are--_upon_, _the_, _and_, _ever_. Of the first three,\nat any rate, there can be no difficulty as to why they are classed as\nthe meaningless or insignificant words of the sentence. Isolated from\nthe words of the first class, _upon_, _the_, or _and_ can by no means\npossibly call up any image or suggest any idea to the mind.\n\nNow, if you take any implement whose manufacture the world has ever\nseen, unless it be of the most primitive description imaginable, you\nwill find it really devisable into two parts, upon much the same\nprinciple that we have here resolved our typical sentence into two\nprimary divisions; it will consist of the _essential_ part, the part\nwhich _by itself_ would be useful, and the unessential adjunct which is\ndesigned to assist the usefulness of the other portion, but which is\nuseless by itself--or if not useless by itself, it is useless for the\npurposes for which the implement we are concerned with is made. All\nhandles meant to assist in the use of an implement, be it a stone axe or\na most elaborate modern weapon, form such an adjunct to the essential\npart. Such useful and by comparison useless parts are the blade and the\nhandle of a knife, the barrel and the stock of a gun, the carrying\nportion of the wheelbarrow and the wheel, the _share_--the shearing or\ncutting portion of a plough--and the wooden framework; and so forth.\nThere is no need to multiply examples. Nor, I think, is there any need\nto insist further how strictly analogous the two classes of words here\ndistinguished are to the two parts of any other implement invented by\nman. It goes almost of course that the essential portion of any\nimplement is the portion which was invented first, that knife-blades\nwere invented before knife-handles, barrows before barrow-wheels, etc.\nWherefore it seems to follow of course that, of the two classes of words\nwhereof language consists--whereof all languages consist--the meaning\nand the meaningless words, the first were the earliest invented or\ndiscovered. This is the same as saying that language once consisted\naltogether of words which had a definite meaning attaching to them even\nwhen uttered by themselves, and consequently that the words of the\nsecond class grew, so to say, out of the words of the first class.\n\nThese are the conclusions which a mere examination of a single language,\nour own, under the guidance of observation and common sense, would force\nupon us; always supposing our language to be a representative one. And\nthese conclusions are strengthened when we come to look a little into\nthe history of words, so far as we can trace it.\n\nSo far back, therefore, we may go in the history of language to a time\nwhen all the words which men used were words which by themselves evoked\ndistinct ideas. Relegating these words, as far as we can, into the\nclasses which grammarians have invented for the different parts of\nspeech, we see that the significant words are all, as a rule, either\nnouns (or _pro_-nouns), adjectives, or verbs; that the insignificant\nwords are, as a rule, adverbs, prepositions, and conjunctions--what, in\nfact, are called _particles_, fragments of speech. I say, _as a rule_,\nfor both divisions. The pronouns and the auxiliary verbs, for example,\nare very difficult to classify; and it depends rather on their use in\neach individual sentence, to which division they are to be relegated.\n\n[Sidenote: Origin of speech undiscoverable.]\n\nBut though we have now learnt to distinguish the words which by\nthemselves convey definite ideas, and those others whose meaning depends\nupon the first class, we are as far as ever from understanding how\nwords, whether of one kind or the other, come to have the significance\nwhich they have for us. _Book_--no sooner have we pronounced the word\nthan an _idea_ more or less distinct comes into our mind. The thought\nand the sound seem inseparable, and we cannot remember the time when\nthey were not so. Yet the connection between the thought and the sound\nis not necessary. In fact, a sound which generally comes connected with\none idea may--if we are engaged at the time upon a language not our\nown--enter our minds, bringing with it an idea quite unconnected with\nthe first. _Share_ and _ch\u00e8re_, _plea_ and _plie_, _feel_ and _viel_\n(German), are examples in point; and the same thing is shown by the\nnumerous sounds in our language which have two or more quite distinct\nmeanings, as for example--_ware_ and _were_, and (with most people)\n_where_ too. _Rite_ and _right_ and _wright_ are pronounced precisely\nalike; therefore there can be no reason why one sound should convey one\nidea more than another. In other words, the idea and the sound have an\narbitrary, not a natural connection. We have been _taught_ to make the\nsound \u2018book\u2019 for the idea book, but had we been brought up by French\nparents the sound \u2018livre\u2019 would have seemed the natural one to make.\n\nSo that this wondrous faculty of speech has, like those other faculties\nof which Carlyle speaks, been handed down on impalpable vehicles of\nsound through the ages. Never, perhaps, since the time of our first\nparents has one person from among the countless millions who have been\nborn had to invent for himself a way of expressing his thoughts in\nwords. This is alone a strange thing enough. Impossible as it is to\nimagine ourselves without speech, we may ask the question--What should\nwe do if we were ever left in such a predicament? Should we have _any_\nguide in fitting the sound on to the idea? _Share_ and _ch\u00e8re_, _feel_\nand _viel_--among these unconnected notions is there _any_ reason why we\nshould wed our speech to one rather than another? Clearly there is no\nreason. Yet in the case which we imagined of a number of rational beings\nwho had to invent a language for the first time, if they are ever to\ncome to an understanding at all there must be some common impulse which\nmakes more than one choose the same sound for a particular idea. How,\nfor instance, we may ask, was it with our first parents? They have\npassed on to all their descendants for ever the idea of conveying\nthought by sound, and all the great changes which have since come into\nthe languages of the world have been gradual and, so to say, natural.\nBut this first invention of the idea of speech is of quite another\ncharacter.\n\nHere we are brought to the threshold of that impenetrable mystery \u2018the\nbeginning of things,\u2019 and here we must pause. We recognize this faculty\nof speech as a thing mysterious, unaccountable, belonging to that\nsupernatural being, man. There must, one would think, have been and must\nbe in us a something which causes our mouth to echo the thought of the\nheart; and originally this echo must have been spontaneous and natural,\nthe same for all alike. Now it is a mere matter of tradition and\ninstruction, the sound we use for the idea; but at first the two must\nhave had some subtle necessary connection, or how could one of our first\nparents have known or guessed what the other wished to say? Just as\nevery metal has its peculiar ring, it is as though each impression on\nthe mind rang out its peculiar word from the tongue.[17] Or was it like\nthe faint tremulous sound which glasses give when music is played near?\nThe outward object or the inward thought called out a sort of mimicry, a\ndistant echo--not like, but yet born of the other--on the lips. These\nearliest sounds may perhaps still sometimes be detected. In the sound\n_flo_ or _flu_, which in an immense number of languages stands connected\nwith the idea of flowing and of rivers, do we not recognize some attempt\nto catch the smooth yet rushing sound of water? And again, in the sound\n_gra_ or _gri_, which is largely associated with the notion of grinding,\ncutting, or scraping,[18] there is surely something of this in the\nguttural harshness of the letters, which make the tongue grate, as it\nwere, against the roof of the mouth.\n\nIt does not, however, seem probable that the earliest words were mere\n_imitations_ of the sounds produced by the objects they designed to\nexpress, such as are some of the words of child-language whereby dogs\nare called _bow-wows_ and lambs are called _baas_. Nor need we wonder at\nthis, when we note the principles upon which other sorts of\n_language_--expressive actions, for instance--are conceived and used. If\nwe intend to express the idea of motion by an expressive gesture, we do\nnot make any copy of the mode of that motion. We say \u2018Go,\u2019 and we dart\nout our hand, half to show that the person we are addressing is to go in\nthe direction which we point out, or that he is to keep away from us;\nhalf, again, to give the idea of his movement by the rapidity of our\nown. But if we wanted to convey this last idea by mere imitation we\nshould move our legs rapidly and not our arms.\n\nIt might be thought that the study of the gesture-language which has\nbeen used by men, especially the gesture-language of deaf-mutes, who\nhave no other, would give us the best insight into the origin of\nlanguage among mankind. But in reality the results of such a study are\nnot very satisfactory; and for this reason, that the deaf-mute has in\nevery case been in contact with one or more persons who possessed\nspeech, and whose ideas were therefore entirely formed by the possession\nand the inheritance of language. This inherited language they translate\ninto signs for the benefit of the deaf-mute, while the latter is still a\nbaby and incapable of inventing language; wherefore it, in its turn,\n_inherits_ a language almost as much as its parent has done, though it\nis a language of gesture and not of spoken words.[19] It is a fact,\nhowever, that deaf-mutes who cannot hear the sounds they make, do\nnevertheless articulate certain _sounds_ which they constantly associate\nwith the same ideas. These seem to bring us very near the\nlanguage-making faculty of man. Lists of these sounds have been made,\nbut they are not such that we can draw any conclusions touching the\nnatural or universal association of sound and sense.\n\n[Sidenote: Growth of the \u2018insignificant\u2019 words out of the\n\u2018significant.\u2019]\n\nThe origin of human speech and the mode of its first operation are\ntherefore undiscoverable. We can place no measure to the rapidity with\nwhich the first created man may have obtained his stock of words of our\nfirst class; as Adam is described naming each one of the animals among\nwhom he lived. All these beginnings lie beyond the ken of linguistic\nscience. But even when he was furnished as fully as we choose to suppose\nwith a class of words which had a meaning of their own, there was still\nthe second class whose invention must have followed upon the invention\nof the first. The adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions, particles,--the\nwords which meant _to_, _and_, _at_, _but_, _when_,--these we have\nalready seen must as a whole have come into use later than the other\nclass of words.\n\nThis, then, we may fairly call the second stage in the growth of\nlanguage, the making of these auxiliary words to enforce the meaning of\nthe first class of words. And at the first moment it might seem\nimpossible to imagine how these words could ever have come into\nexistence. Given a certain word-making faculty, we can understand how\nmankind got sounds to express such ideas as _man_, _head_, _hard_,\n_red_. But how he could ever have acquired sounds to express such vague\nnotions as _at_, _by_, _and_, it is much less easy to conceive. A closer\nobservation, however, even of our own language, and a wider knowledge of\nlanguages generally, lead to the conclusion that all the words of the\nsecond class, the auxiliary words, sprang from words of the first class;\nthat every insignificant word has grown out of a word which had its own\nsignificance; that, for instance, _with_, _by_, _and_, have descended\nfrom roots (now lost) which, if placed alone, would have conveyed as\nmuch idea to the mind as _pen_, _ink_, or _paper_ does to us.\n\nThis, I say, we should guess even from an examination of our own\nlanguage alone. For the process is still going on. Take the word _even_,\nas used in the sentence which we have just written: \u2018Even from an\nexamination.\u2019 Here _even_ is an adverb, quite meaningless when used\nalone, at least as an adverb; but if we see it alone it becomes another\nword, an adjective, a meaning word, bringing before us the idea of two\nthings hanging level. \u2018Even from\u2019 is nonsense as an _idea_ with nothing\nto follow it, but \u2018even weights\u2019 is a perfectly clear and definite\nnotion, and each of the separate words _even_ and _weights_ give us\nclear and definite notions too. It is the same with _just_, which is\nboth adverb and adjective. \u2018Just as\u2019 brings no thought into the mind,\nbut \u2018just man\u2019 and _just_ and _man_, separately or together, do. _While_\nor _whilst_ are meaningless; but, \u2018a while,\u2019 or \u2018to while\u2019--to\nloiter--are full of meaning. In each case the meaningless word came from\nthe meaning word, and was first used as a sort of metaphor, and then the\nmetaphorical part was lost sight of. _Ago_ is a meaningless word by\nitself, but it is really only a changed form of the obsolete word\n_agone_, which was an old past participle of the verb \u2018to go.\u2019\n\nAnd we might find many instances of words in the same process of\ntransformation in other languages. The English word _not_ is\nmeaningless, and just as much so are the French _pas_ and _point_ in the\nsense of _not_; but in the sense of _footstep_, or _point_, they have\nmeaning enough. Originally _Il ne veut pas_ meant, metaphorically, \u2018He\ndoes not wish a step of your wishes,\u2019 \u2018He does not go a footstep with\nyou in your wish;\u2019 _Il ne veut point_, \u2018He does not go a point with you\nin your wish.\u2019 Nowadays all this metaphorical meaning is gone, except to\nthe eye of the grammarian. People recognize that _Il ne veut point_ is\nrather stronger than _Il ne veut pas_, but it never occurs to them to\nask why.\n\nThere are so many of these curious examples that one is tempted to go on\nchoosing instances; but we confine ourselves to one more. Our word _yes_\nis a word which by itself is quite incapable of calling up a picture in\nour minds, but the word _is_ or \u2018it is,\u2019 though the idea it conveys is\nvery abstract, and, so to say, intangible--as compared, for instance,\nwith such verbs as _move_, _beat_--nevertheless belongs to the\n\u2018significant\u2019 class. Now, it happens that the Latin language used the\nword _est_ \u2018it is\u2019 where we should now use the word \u2018yes;\u2019 and it still\nfurther happens that our _yes_[20] is probably the same as the German\n_es_, and was used in the same sense of _it is_ as well. Instead of the\nmeaningless word \u2018yes\u2019 the Romans used the word _est_ \u2018it is,\u2019 and our\nown ancestors expressed the same idea by saying \u2018it.\u2019 Still more. It is\nwell known that French is in the main a descendant from the Latin, not\nthe Latin of Rome, but the corrupter Latin which was spoken in Gaul. Now\nthese Latin-speaking Gauls did not, for some reason, say _est_, \u2018it is,\u2019\nfor _yes_, as the Romans did; but they used a pronoun, either _ille_,\n\u2018he,\u2019 or _hoc_, \u2018this.\u2019 When, therefore, a Gaul desired to say \u2018yes,\u2019 he\nnodded, and said _he_ or else _this_, meaning \u2018He is so,\u2019 or \u2018This is\nso.\u2019 As it happens the Gauls of the north said _ille_, and those of the\nsouth said _hoc_, and these words gradually got corrupted into two\nmeaningless words, _oui_ and _oc_. It is well known that the people in\nthe south of France were especially distinguished by using the word _oc_\ninstead of _oui_ for \u2018yes,\u2019 so that their \u2018dialect\u2019 got to be called the\n_langue d\u2019oc_, and this word Languedoc gave the name to a province of\nFrance. Long before that time, however, we may be sure, both the people\nof the _langue d\u2019oil_, or _langue d\u2019oui_, and those of the _langue d\u2019oc_\nhad forgotten that their words for \u2018yes\u2019 had originally meant \u2018he\u2019 and\n\u2018this.\u2019\n\nWe can, from the instances above given, form a pretty good guess at the\nway in which the auxiliary or meaningless class of sounds came into use\nin any language. Each of these must once have had a distinct\nsignificance by itself, then (getting meanwhile a little changed in form\nprobably) it gradually lost the separate meaning and became only a\nparticle of speech, only an adjunct to other words. In another way, we\nmay say that before man spoke of \u2018on the rock\u2019 or \u2018under the rock\u2019 he\nmust have used some expression like \u2018head of rock,\u2019 or more literally\n\u2018head rock\u2019 and \u2018foot rock;\u2019 and that as time went on, new words coming\ninto use for _head_ and _foot_, these earlier ones dropped down to be\nmere adjuncts, and men forgot that they had ever been anything else.\nJust so no ordinary Frenchman knows that his _oui_ and _il_ are both\nsprung from the same Latin _ille_; nor does the ordinary Englishman\nrecognize that _ago_ is a past participle of \u2018go;\u2019 nor again, to take a\nnew instance, does, perhaps, the ordinary German recognize that his\n_gewiss_, \u2018certainly,\u2019 is merely an abbreviation of the past participle\n_gewissen_, \u2018known.\u2019\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nWe have now followed the growth of language through\n\n[Sidenote: Root-sounds.]\n\ntwo of its stages, first, the coining of the principal or essential\nparts of speech, the nouns, adjectives, and verbs; and secondly, the\ncoining at a later date of the auxiliary parts of speech, the\nprepositions, adverbs, and conjunctions, and (where they exist) the\nenclitics _the_ and _a_; these last, however, (_as separate words_,[21])\nare wanting from a large number of languages. A third stage is the\nvariation of certain words to form out of them other words which are\nnearly related in character to the first. We may speak of this process\nas a process of ringing the changes upon certain _root-sounds_ to form a\nseries of words allied in sound and allied in sense also. We have\nseveral instances of such groups of allied words in our own language.\n_Fly_, _flee_, _flew_, _fled_, are words allied in sound and in sense.\nIn these cases the sound of the letters f-l constitutes what we may call\nthe root-sound. And it may be said at once that those languages are said\nto be related in each of which a certain number of words can be traced\nback to root-sounds which are common to the two or more tongues.\n\nIn the case of the vast majority of words, before we can begin by\ncomparing one word with another, or trying to discover the root-words of\nseveral different languages, we have first to trace the history of these\nwords backwards, each in its own language, and find their most primitive\nforms. But in tongues which are pretty nearly related we have often no\ndifficulty in seeing the similarity of corresponding words just as they\nstand to-day. We have no difficulty, for instance, in seeing the\nconnection of the German _Knecht_ and our _knight_,[22] the German\n_Nacht_ and our _night_, the German _Raum_ and our _room_; or, again,\nthe connection between the Italian _padre_ and the French _p\u00e8re_, the\nItalian _tavola_ and the French (and English) _table_, etc.\n\nBut where the connection between languages is more distant, we have more\nand more to go back to much simpler roots, in order to show the\nrelationship between them; and by a vast majority the primitive\nroot-sounds in any large family of languages are single syllables,\nwhereof the most constant parts are (as a rule) the consonants. So far\nas our knowledge goes, we might think of man as beginning human speech\nwith a certain number of these simple root-sounds, and then proceeding\nto ring the changes upon these root-sounds to express varieties in the\nroot-idea. Sometimes it is easy enough to trace the connection of ideas\nbetween different words which have been formed out of the same\nroot-word. But sometimes this is not at all easy. Nor can we say why\nthis special sound has been adopted for any one notion more than for a\nnumber of others to which it would have applied equally well. From a\nroot, which in Sanskrit appears in its most ancient form, as _m\u00e2_, \u2018to\nmeasure,\u2019 we get words in Greek and Latin which mean \u2018to think;\u2019 and\nfrom the same root comes our \u2018man,\u2019 the person who measures, who\ncompares, _i.e._, who thinks, also our _moon_, which means \u2018the\nmeasurer,\u2019 because the moon helps to measure out the time, the _months_.\nBut how arbitrary seems this connection between _man_ and _moon_! So,\ntoo, our _crab_ is from the word _creep_, and means the animal that\ncreeps. But why this name should have been given to crab rather than to\nant and beetle it is impossible to say. So that there appears as little\ntrace of a reason governing the formation of words out of root-sounds as\nthere appeared in the adoption of root-sounds to express certain\nfundamental ideas.\n\nThus equipped with his fixed root and the various words formed out of\nit, man had the rough _material_ out of which to build up all the\nelaborate languages which the world has known. And he continued his work\nsomething in this fashion. As generation followed generation the\npronunciation of words was changed, as is constantly being done at the\npresent day. Our grandmothers pronounced \u2018Rome,\u2019 \u2018Room,\u2019 and \u2018brooch,\u2019\nas it was spelt, and not as we pronounce it--\u2018broach.\u2019 And let it be\nremembered, before writing was invented, there was nothing but the\npronunciation to fix the word, and a new pronunciation was really a new\nword. When there was no written form to petrify a word, these changes of\npronunciation were very rapid and frequent, so that not only would each\ngeneration have a different set of words from their fathers, but\nprobably each tribe would be partly unintelligible to its neighbouring\ntribes, just as a Somersetshire man is to a great extent unintelligible\nto a man from Yorkshire. The first result of these changes would be the\nspringing up of that class of \u2018meaningless\u2019 words of which we spoke\nabove. Out of some significant words, such as \u2018head\u2019 and \u2018foot,\u2019 would\narise insignificant words similar to \u2018over\u2019 and \u2018under.\u2019 Such a change\ncould only begin when of two names each for \u2018head\u2019 and \u2018foot\u2019 one became\nobsolete as a noun, and was only used adverbially. Then what had\noriginally meant, metaphorically, \u2018head of rock\u2019 and \u2018foot of rock\u2019[23]\nmight come to be used for \u2018over\u2019 and \u2018under the rock,\u2019 in exactly the\nsame way that the word _ago_, having changed its form from _agone_, has\nbecome a \u2018meaningless\u2019 word to the Englishman of to-day.\n\nAnd with the acquisition of the insignificant words a new and very\nimportant process began. To understand\n\n[Sidenote: Growth of inflexions.]\n\nwhat it was we will, as we did before, begin by examining the formation\nof some of the languages with which we are, probably, more or less\nfamiliar. Let us note how very many more variations on the same root are\nto be found in some languages than in others. On the root _dic_, which\nin Latin expresses the notion of speaking, we have the variations\n_dico_, _dixi_, _dicere_, _dictum_, _dictio_, _dicto_, _dicor_,\n_dictor_, _dictator_, _dictatrix_, etc.; and yet this does not nearly\nexhaust the list, for we have all the changes in the different tenses of\n_dico_, _dicto_, _dicor_, etc., in the different cases of _dictio_,\n_dictator_. dictatrix, etc. The languages which contain these numerous\nvariations upon one root are what are called the _inflected_ languages,\nand the greater number of the changes which they make come under the\nhead of what grammarians call inflexions. These inflexions are of no\nmeaning in themselves, they have no existence even in themselves as\nwords. And yet what is curious is that they are the same for a great\nnumber of different words; and they express the same _relative_ meaning\nin the places where they stand whatever the word may be. If the _-nis_\nof _dictionis_ expresses a certain idea relative to _dictio_, so does\nthe _-nis_ of _lectionis_ express the same idea relative to _lectio_,\nthe _-nis_ of _actionis_ the same idea relative to _actio_, and so\nforth.\n\nOr, to take an example from a modern inflected language, if the _-es_ of\n_Mannes_, expresses a certain idea relative to _Mann_, so does the same\ninflexion (_-es_ or _-s_) in _Hauses_, _Baums_, etc., relative to _Haus_\nand _Baum_.\n\nNow, how are we to explain this fact? Our grammars, it is true, take it\nfor granted, and give it us as a thing which requires no\nexplanation--the genitive inflexion is _-nis_ or _-es_, or whatever it\nmay be. That is all they tell us. But we cannot be content to take\nanything of course. An explanation, however, is not difficult, and\nfollows, _almost_ of course, on the exercise of a little common sense.\nIf the _-es_ of Mannes, Hauses, Baumes (Baums) expresses the idea \u2018of,\u2019\nthen, at one time or another, _es_, or some root from which it is\nderived, must have _meant_ \u2018of.\u2019 This explains easily and naturally\nenough the inflexions in any inflected language. They have no meaning\nnow, but at one time they (or their original forms--their ancestors, so\nto speak) had no doubt just as much meaning by themselves as our \u2018of.\u2019\nAnd therefore the only difference between our use in England to-day, and\nthe ancestral use in a primitive language, was that we say \u2018of [the]\nman,\u2019 and the ancestral language would have said \u2018man-of,\u2019 \u2018house-of,\u2019\netc. This accounts for the same genitive forms being used for so many\ndifferent words.\n\nAnd that the same genitive forms are not used _throughout_ any language\nis no real objection to this theory. If we say _dictionis_, _lectionis_,\nbut _mus\u00e6_, _ros\u00e6_; if we say _Mannes_, _Hauses_, but _Blume_, _Rose_,\nthe only reason of these varieties is that the languages from which\nthese inflexions are derived possessed more than one word meaning \u2018of,\u2019\nand that one of these words was attached to a certain series of nouns,\nanother word to another series.\n\nThis is the explanation which mere common sense would give of the origin\nof inflexions in language, and further research, had we time to examine\nthe history of language more elaborately, would show that it was\n_fundamentally_ the right explanation. The only correction which we\nshould have to make on this first and crude theory is explained a little\nfurther on. Thus we see in this third stage of language a process very\nclosely analogous to the second. The second stage gave us the auxiliary\nwords, which have decayed so to say, out of the class of significant\nwords. The third stage gives us the auxiliary words joined on to the\nsignificant ones, and in their turn decaying to become mere inflexions.\n\nI have called this growth of inflexions the _third_ stage. It is the\n_third great_ stage in the formation of language, and is the only other\nstage distinguishable when we are examining what is called an inflected\nlanguage. And all the languages the general reader is likely to know\nbelong to this class. But when we turn to a wider study of the various\ntongues in use among mankind we find that this process of forming\ninflexions is a very slow one, that it, in its turn, has gone through\nmany stages. And it is, in fact, the different stages through which a\nlanguage has passed on its road to the formation of inflexions which\nsettles the class in which it is to be placed among the various tongues\nspoken by mankind.\n\nWe shall soon understand what are these further stages in\nlanguage-formation. As far as we have been able to see at present, the\ninflexion presents itself as something added on to the significant word\nto give it a varied meaning. It is evidently therefore part of a new\nprocess through which language has to go after it has completed its\noriginal stock of sounds, namely, the formation of fresh words by\njoining together two others which already exist. This is a process\nwhich, no doubt, in some shape or other, began in the very earliest\nages, and which is to this day going on continually. The simpler form of\nit is the joining together two words which are significant when they\nstand alone to form a third word expressing a new idea; just as we have\njoined \u2018ant\u2019 to \u2018hill\u2019 and formed _ant-hill_, which is a different idea\nthan either _ant_ or _hill_ taken alone. In the words _playful_,\n_joyful_, again, we have the same process carried rather further. The\nwords mean simply play-full, \u2018full of play,\u2019 joy-full, \u2018full of joy.\u2019\nBut we do not in reality quite think of this meaning when we use them.\nThe termination _ful_ has become half-meaningless by itself, and in\ndoing so we observe it has slightly changed its original form.\n\nBut far more important in the history of language is the joining of the\nmeaningless or auxiliary words on to other words of the first, the\nsignificant class, whereby in the course of time the inflexions of\nlanguage have been formed. Although _we_ always put the meaningless\nqualifying word before the chief word, and say \u2018on the rock,\u2019 or \u2018under\nthe rock,\u2019 it is more natural to man, as is shown by all languages, to\nput the principal idea first, and say \u2018rock on,\u2019 \u2018rock under,\u2019 the idea\n_rock_ being of course the chief idea, the part of the rock, or position\nin relation to the rock, coming after. So the first step towards forming\ngrammar was the getting a number of meaningless words, and joining them\non to the substantive, \u2018rock,\u2019 \u2018rock-by,\u2019 \u2018rock-in,\u2019 \u2018rock-to,\u2019 etc. So\nwith the verb. The essential idea in the verb is the action itself, the\nnext idea is the time or person in which the action takes place; and the\nnatural thing for man to do is to make the words follow that order. The\njoining process would give us from _love_, the idea of loving, \u2018love-I,\u2019\n\u2018love-thou,\u2019 \u2018love-he,\u2019 etc.; and for the imperfect \u2018love-was-I,\u2019\n\u2018love-was-thou,\u2019 \u2018love-was-he,\u2019 \u2018love-was-we,\u2019 \u2018love-was-ye,\u2019\n\u2018love-was-they;\u2019 for perfect \u2018love-have-I,\u2019 \u2018love-have-thou,\u2019\n\u2018love-have-he,\u2019 etc. Of course, these are merely illustrations, but they\nmake the mode of this early joining process clearer than if we had\nchosen a language where that process is actually found in its purity,\nand then translated the forms into their English equivalents.\n\nWe have now arrived at a stage in the formation of language where both\n_meaning_ and _meaningless_ words have been introduced, and where words\nhave been made up out of combinations of the two. We see at once that\nwith regard to meaningless words the use of them would naturally be\nfixed very much by tradition and custom; and whereas there might be a\ngreat many words standing for _ant_ and _hill_, and therefore a great\nmany ways of saying ant-hill, for the meaningless words, such as _under_\nand _on_, there would probably be only a few words. The reason of this\nis very plain. While all the separate synonyms for _hill_ expressed\ndifferent ways in which it struck the mind, either as being high, or\nlarge, or steep, or what not, for _under_ and _on_, being meaningless\nwords not producing any _picture_ in the mind, only one word apiece or\none or two words could very well be in use. So long as _under_ and _on_\nwere significant words, meaning, perhaps, as we imagined, _head of_, or\n_foot of_, there would be plenty of synonyms for them; but only one or\ntwo out of all these would be handed down in their meaningless forms.\nAnd it is this very fact which, as we have seen, accounts for all the\ngrammars of all languages, every one of those grammatical terminations\nwhich we know so well in Latin and Greek, and German, having been\noriginally nothing else than meaningless words added on to modify the\nwords which still retained their meaning. We saw before that it was much\nmore natural for people to say \u2018rock-on\u2019 or \u2018hand-in\u2019 than \u2018on the rock\u2019\nor \u2018in the hand\u2019--because rock and hand were the most important ideas\nand came first into the mind, while _on_, _in_, etc., were only\nsubsidiary ideas depending upon the important ones. If we stop at rock\nor hand without adding _on_ and _in_, we have still got something\ndefinite upon which our thoughts can rest, but we could not possibly\nstop at _on_ and _in_ alone, and have any idea in our minds at all. It\nis plain enough therefore that, though we say \u2018on the rock,\u2019 we must\nhave the _idea_ of all the three words in our mind before we begin the\nphrase, and therefore that our words do not follow the natural order of\nour ideas; whereas rock-on, hand-in, show the ideas just in the way they\ncome into the mind.\n\nIt is a fact, then, that all case-endings arose from adding on\nmeaningless words to the end of the word, the noun or pronoun--_Mann_,\n_des mann-es_, _dem Mann-e_; _hom-o_, _hom-inis_, _hom-ini_: the\naddition to the root in every case was once a distinct word of the\nauxiliary kind, or derived from such a word. The meanings of\ncase-endings such as these cannot, it is true, be discovered now, for\nthey came into existence long before such languages as German or Latin\nwere spoken, and their meanings were lost sight of in ages which passed\nbefore history. But that time when the terminations which are\nmeaningless now had a meaning, and the period of transition between this\nstate and the state of a language which is full of grammatical changes\ninexplicable to those who use them, form distinct epochs in the history\nof every language. And it is just the same with verb-endings as with the\ncase endings--_ich bin_, _du bist_, really express the \u2018I\u2019 and \u2018thou\u2019\ntwice over, as the pronouns exist though hidden and lost sight of in the\n_-n_ and _-st_ of the verb. In the case of verbs, indeed, we may without\ngoing far give some idea of how these endings can be detected. We may\nsay at once that Sanskrit, Persian, Armenian, Greek, Latin, French,\nItalian, Spanish, German, English, Norse, Gaelic, Welsh, Lithuanian,\nRussian, and other Slavonic languages are all connected together in\nvarious degrees of relationship, all descended from one common ancestor,\nsome being close cousins, and some very distant. Now in Sanskrit \u2018I am\u2019\nis thus declined:--\n\n  _as-mi_    I am.\n  _a-si_     thou art.\n  _as-ti_    he is.\n  _\u2019-smas_   we are.\n  _\u2019s-tha_   ye are.\n  _\u2019s-anti_  they are.\n\nBy separating the root from the ending in this way we may the more\neasily detect the additions to the root, and their meanings. _As_ is the\nroot expressing the idea of being, existing; _mi_ is from a root meaning\n_I_ (preserved in _me_, Greek and Lat. _me_, _mi_, _m[ich]_, etc.); so\nwe get _as-mi_, am-I, or I am. Then we may trace this form of word\nthrough a number of languages connected with the Sanskrit. The most\nimportant part of _as-mi_, the consonants, are preserved in the Latin\n_sum_, I am, from which, by some further changes come the French _suis_,\nthe Italian _sono_: the same word appears in our _a-m_, and in the Greek\n_eimi_ (Doric _esmi_), I am. Next, coming to the second word, we see one\nof the _s\u2019s_ cut out, and we get _a-si_, in which the _a_ is the root,\nand the _si_ the addition signifying _thou_. To this addition correspond\nthe final _s\u2019s_ in the Latin _es_, French _es_--_tu es_, and the Greek\n_eis_ (Doric _essi_). So, again, in _as-ti_, the _ti_ expresses he, and\nthis corresponds to the Latin _est_, French _est_, the Greek _esti_, the\nGerman _ist_; in the English the expressive _t_ has been lost. We will\nnot continue the comparison of each word; it will be sufficient if we\nplace side by side the same tense in Sanskrit and in Latin,[24] and give\nthose who do not know Latin an opportunity of recognizing for themselves\nthe tense in its changed form in French or Italian:--\n\n  ENGLISH.   SANSKRIT.      LATIN.\n  I am        _as-mi_       _sum_.\n  thou art    _a-si_        _es_.\n  he is       _as-ti_       _est_.\n  we are      _\u2019s-mas_      _sumus_.\n  ye are      _\u2019s-tha_      _estis_.\n  they are    _\u2019s-anti_     _sunt_.\n\nThe plural of the added portion we see contains the letters _m-s_, and\nif we split these up again we get the separate roots _mi_ and _si_, so\nthat _mas_ means most literally \u2018I,\u2019 and \u2018thou,\u2019 and hence \u2018we.\u2019 In the\nsecond person the Latin has preserved an older form than the Sanskrit,\n_s-t_ the proper root-consonants for the addition part of the second\nperson plural, combining the ideas thou and he, from which, ye. The\nthird person plural cannot be so easily explained.\n\nIt will be seen that in the English almost all likeness to the Sanskrit\nterminations has been lost. Our verb \u2018to be\u2019 is very irregular, being,\nin fact, a mixture of several distinct verbs. The Anglo-Saxon had the\nverb _be\u00f3_ contracted from _beom_ (here we have at least the _m-_ ending\nfor I), I am, _byst_, thou art, _bydh_, he is, and the same appear in\nthe German _bin_, _bist_. It is, of course, very difficult to trace the\nremains of the meaningless additions in such advanced languages as ours,\nor even in such as Sanskrit, Latin, and Greek. Nevertheless, the reader\nmay find it not uninteresting to trace in the Latin through most of the\ntenses of verbs these endings--_m_, for I, the first person; _s_, for\nthou, the second person; _t_, for he, the third person; _m-s_, for I and\nthou, we; _st_, for ye, thou and he, ye; _nt_, for they. And the same\nreader must be content to take on trust the fact that other additions\ncorresponding to different tenses can also be shown or reasonably\nguessed to have been words expressive by themselves of the idea which\nbelongs to the particular tense; so that where we have such a tense as--\n\n  _amabam_          I was loving,\n  _amabas_          thou wast loving,\n  _amabat_, _etc._    he was loving,\n\nwe may recognize the meaning of the component parts thus:--\n\n  _ama-ba-m_  love-was-I.\n  _ama-ba-s_  love-was-thou.\n  _ama-ba-t_  love-was-he.\n\nOf course, really to show the way in which these meaningless additions\nhave been made and come to be amalgamated with the root, we should have\nto take examples from a great number of languages in different stages of\ndevelopment. But we have thought it easier, for mere explanation, to\ntake only such languages as were likely to be familiar to the reader,\nand even to supplement these examples with imaginary ones--like\n\u2018rock-on,\u2019 \u2018love-was-I,\u2019 etc.--in English. For our object has been at\nfirst merely to give an intelligible account of how language has been\nformed, of the different stages it has passed through, and to leave to a\nfuture time the question as to which languages of the globe have passed\nthrough all these stages, and which have gone part of their way in the\nformation of a perfect language. Between the state of a language in\nwhich the meaning of all the separate parts of a word are recognized and\nthat state where they are entirely lost, there is an immense gap, that\nindeed which separates the most from the least advanced languages of the\nworld.\n\n[Sidenote: Monosyllabic Language.]\n\nEvery language that is now spoken on the globe has gone through the\nstage of forming meaningless words, and is therefore possessed of words\nof both classes. They no longer say \u2018head-of-rock\u2019 or \u2018foot-of-rock,\u2019\nbut \u2018rock-on\u2019 and \u2018rock-under.\u2019 But there are still known languages in\nwhich almost every syllable is a word, and where grammar properly\nspeaking is scarcely needed. For grammar, if we come to consider it\nexactly, is the explanation of the meaning of those added syllables or\nletters which have lost all natural meaning of their own. If each part\nof the word were as clear and as intelligible as \u2018rock-on\u2019 we should\nhave no need of a grammar at all. A language of this sort is called a\nmonosyllabic or a radical language, not because the people only speak\nin monosyllables, but because each word, however compound, can be split\nup into monosyllables or _roots_, which have a distinctly recognizable\nmeaning. \u2018Ant-hill-on\u2019 or \u2018love-was-I,\u2019 are like the words of such a\nlanguage.\n\n[Sidenote: Agglutinative language.]\n\nThe next stage of growth is where the meaning of the added parts has\nbeen lost sight of, except when it is connected with the word which it\nmodifies; but where the essential word has a distinct idea by itself,\nand without the help of any addition. Suppose, for instance, through\nages of change the \u2018was I\u2019 in our imaginary example got corrupted into\n\u2018wasi,\u2019 where _wasi_ had no meaning by itself, but was used to express\nthe first person of the past tense. The first person past of love would\nbe \u2018love-wasi,\u2019 of move \u2018move-wasi,\u2019 and so on, \u2018wasi\u2019 no longer having\na meaning by itself, but \u2018love\u2019 and \u2018move\u2019 by themselves being perfectly\nunderstandable. Or, to take an actual declension from a Turanian\nlanguage,--\n\n  _bakar-im_     I regard,\n  _bakar-sin_    thou regardest,\n  _bakar_        he regards,\n  _bakar-iz_     we regard,\n  _bakar-siniz_  you regard,\n  _bakar-lar_    they regard,\n\nwhere, as we see, the root remains entirely unaffected by the addition\nof the personal pronoun.\n\nA language in this stage is said to be in the agglutinative stage,[25]\nbecause certain grammatical endings (like \u2018wasi\u2019) are merely as it were\nglued on to a root to change its meaning, while the root itself remains\nquite unaffected, and means neither less nor more than it did before.\n\n[Sidenote: Inflected language.]\n\nBut, as ages pass on, the root and the addition get so closely combined\nthat neither of them alone has, as a rule, a distinct meaning, and the\nlanguage arrives at its third stage of grammar-formation. It is not\ndifficult to find examples of a language in this condition, for such is\nthe case with all the languages by which we are surrounded. All the\ntongues which the majority of us are likely to study, almost all those\nwhich have any literature at all, have arrived at this last stage, which\nis called the inflexional. For instance, though we might divide\n_actionis_ into two parts _actio_ and _nis_, and say that the former\ncontains the essential idea, and the addition the idea implied by the\ngenitive case, there are only a few Latin words with which such a\nprocess is possible, and even in the case of _actio_ the separation is\nsomewhat misleading. In _homo_ the real root is _hom_, and the genitive\nis not homo-nis but _hominis_. So, again, though we were able to\nseparate \u2018asmi\u2019 into two parts--\u2018as\u2019 and \u2018mi\u2019--one expressing the idea\nof being, the other the person \u2018I,\u2019 this distinction is the refinement\nof the grammarian, and would never have been recognized by an ordinary\nspeaker of Sanskrit, for whom \u2018asmi\u2019 simply meant \u2018I am,\u2019 without\ndistinction of parts. In our \u2018am\u2019 the grammarian recognizes that the \u2018a\u2019\nexpresses existence, and the \u2018m\u2019 expresses I; but so completely have we\nlost sight of this, that we repeat the \u2018I\u2019 before the verb. Just the\nsame in Latin. No Roman could have recognized in the \u2018s\u2019 of _sum_ \u2018am\u2019\nand in the \u2018m\u2019 \u2018I;\u2019 for him _sum_ meant simply and purely \u2018I am.\u2019 It was\nno more separable in his eyes than the French _\u00eates_ (Latin _estis_) in\n_vous \u00eates_ is separable into a root \u2018es,\u2019 contracted in the French into\n\u2018\u00ea,\u2019 meaning _are_, and an addition \u2018tes\u2019 signifying _you_. This, then,\nis the last stage upon which language enters. It is called the\ninflexional or inflected stage, because the different grammatical\nchanges are not now denoted by a mere addition to an intelligible word,\nbut by a change in the word itself. The root may in many cases remain\nand be recognizable in its purity, but very frequently it is\nunrecognizable, so that the different case-or tense-endings can no\nlonger be looked upon as additions, but as changes. Take almost any\nLatin substantive, and we see this: _homo_, a man, the genitive is\nformed by changing _homo_ into _hominis_, or, if we please, adding\nsomething to the root _hom_--which has in itself no meaning; _musa_\nchanges into _mus\u00e6_; and so forth.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: The five stages in the formation of language.]\n\nAnd now to recapitulate. We have in tracing the growth of language\ndiscovered first of all two stages whereby the material of the language\nwas formed: the class of what we have called the meaning or significant\nwords came into being, and out of this was formed the second class of\nso-called meaningless or auxiliary words. These two stages were in the\nmain passed through before any known language came into existence; for\nthere is no known language which does not contain words of both these\nclasses; albeit the second stage is likewise a process which is still\ngoing on, as in the examples chosen, where _even_ and _just_ pass from\nbeing adjectives into _even_ and _just_ the adverbs, and the French\nsubstantives _pas_ and _point_ take a like change of meaning.\n\nThese first two stages passed, there follow three other stages which go\nto the formation of the grammar of a language: first the stage of merely\ncoupling words together, so as to form fresh words--the _monosyllabic_\nstate; then the stage in which one part of the additional word has lost\nits meaning while the root-word remains unchanged--the stage called the\n_agglutinative_ condition of language; and, finally the stage in which\nthe added portion has become to some extent absorbed into the\nroot-word--which last stage is the _inflected_ condition of a language.\n\nWhen we have come to this inflexional state, the history of the growth\nof language comes to an end. It happens indeed, sometimes, that a\nlanguage which has arrived at the inflected stage may in time come to\ndrop nearly all its inflexions. This has been the case with English and\nFrench. Both are descended from languages which had elaborate\ngrammars--the Saxon and the Latin; but both, through an admixture with\nforeign tongues and from other causes, have come to drop almost all\ntheir grammatical forms. We show our grammar only in a few changes in\nour ordinary verbs--the second and third persons singular, _thou goest_,\n_he goes_; the past tense and the past participle, _use_, _used_; _buy_,\n_bought_, etc.; in further variations in our auxiliary verb \u2018to be;\u2019 by\nchanges in our pronouns, _I_, _me_, _ye_, _you_, _who_, _whom_, etc.;\nand by the \u2018\u2019s\u2019 and \u2018s\u2019 of the possessive case and of the plural, and\nthe comparison of adjectives. The French preserve their grammar to some\nextent in their pronouns, their adjectives, the plurals of their nouns,\nand in their verbs. Instances such as these are cases of decay, and do\nnot find any place in the history of the growth of language.\n\nWe now pass on to examine where the growth of language has been fully\nachieved, where it has remained only stunted and imperfect.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nFAMILIES OF LANGUAGE.\n\n\nWe have now traced the different stages through which language may pass\nin attaining to its most perfect form, the inflected stage. There were\nthe two stages in which what we may call the bones of the language were\nformed, the acquisition of those words which, like _pen_, _ink_ and\n_paper_, when standing alone bring a definite idea into the mind, and,\nnext, the acquisition of those other words which, like _to_, _for_,\n_and_, produce no idea in the mind when taken alone. We saw that while\nthe first class of words _may_ have been acquired with any imaginable\nrapidity, the second class could only have gradually come into use as\none by one they fell out of the rank of the \u2018significant\u2019 class.\n\nAgain, after this skeleton of language has been got together, there\nwere, we saw, three other stages which went to make up the grammar of a\nlanguage: the radical stage, in which all the words of the language can\nbe cut up into _roots_ which are generally monosyllables, each of which\nhas a meaning as a separate word; the agglutinative stage, when the\nroot, _i.e._ the part of the word which expresses the essential idea,\nremains always distinct from any added portion; and, thirdly, the\ninflected stage, when in many cases the root and the addition to the\nroot have become so interwoven as to be no longer distinguishable.\n\nOf course, really to understand what these three conditions are like,\nthe reader would have to be acquainted with some language in each of the\nthree; but it is sufficient if we get clearly into our heads that there\nare these stages of language-growth, and that, further, each one of all\nthe languages of the world may be said to be in one of the three. Our\nopportunities of tracing the history of languages being so limited, we\nhave no recorded instance of a language passing out of one stage into\nanother; but when we examine into these states they so clearly wear the\nappearance of _stages_ that there seems every reason to believe that a\nmonosyllabic language might in time develop into an agglutinative, and\nagain from that stage into an inflexional, language, _if nothing stopped\nits growth_.\n\n[Sidenote: Arrest in the growth of language.]\n\nBut what, we may ask, are the causes which put a stop to the free growth\nand development of language? One of these causes is the invention of\nwriting. Language itself is of course spoken language, speech, and as\nsuch is subject to no laws save those which belong to our organs of\nspeaking and hearing. No sooner is the word spoken than it is gone, and\nlives only in the memory; and thus speech, though it may last for\ncenturies, dies, as it were, and comes to life again every hour. It is\nwith language as it is with those national songs and ballads which,\namong nations that have no writing, take the place of books and\nhistories. The same poem or the same tale passes from mouth to mouth\nalmost unchanged for hundreds of years, and yet at no moment is it\nvisible and tangible, nor for the most part of the time audible even,\nbut for these centuries lives on in men\u2019s memories only. So Homer\u2019s\nballads must have passed for several hundred years from mouth to mouth;\nand, stranger still, stories which were first told somewhere by the\nbanks of the Oxus or the Jaxartes by distant ancestors of ours, are told\nto this very day, little altered, by peasants in remote districts of\nEngland and Scotland. But to return to language. It is very clear that\nso long as language remains speech and speech only, it is subject to\njust so many variations as, in the course of a generation or two, men\nmay have introduced into their habits of speaking. Why these variations\narise it is perhaps not quite easy to understand; but every one knows\nthat they do arise, that from age to age, from generation to generation,\nnot only are new words being continually introduced, and others which\nonce served well enough dropped out of use, but constant changes are\ngoing on in the pronunciation of words. As we have already said, if left\nto itself a language would not remain quite the same in two different\ndistricts. We know, for instance, that the language of common people\ndoes differ very much in different counties, so that what with varieties\nof pronunciation, and what with the use of really peculiar words, the\ninhabitants of one county are scarcely intelligible to the inhabitants\nof another.\n\nThis constant change in language can be resolved, so to say, into two\nforces--one of decay, the other of renewal. The change which each word\nundergoes is of the nature of decay. It _loses_ something from its\noriginal form. But then, out of this change, it passes into new forms;\nand very often out of one word, by this mere process of change in sound,\ntwo words spring. We have already seen instances of how this may come\nabout. The Anglo-Saxon _ag\u00e2n_ becomes in process of time _agone_, as we\nhave seen. That word again, by a further process of decay, changes into\n_ago_. So far we have nothing but loss. But then the Old English _ag\u00e2n_\nhad only the same meaning as our past participle _gone_.[26] So now we\nhave two words really in the place of one, and where formerly men would\nhave said, \u2018It is a long time _agone_,\u2019 or \u2018That man has lately\n_agone_,\u2019 we now can say, \u2018It is a long time _ago_,\u2019 \u2018The man has lately\n_gone_.\u2019 And we may in any language watch this process of decay\n(_phonetic decay_, as it is called) and regeneration (_dialectic\nregeneration_, the philologists call it) ever going forward. We see, as\nit were,--\n\n                        \u2018The hungry ocean gain\n    Advantage o\u2019er the kingdom of the shore;\n      And the firm soil win of the watery main\n    Increasing store with loss, and loss with store.\u2019\n\nThe influence which keeps a language together, and tends to make changes\nsuch as these as few as possible, is that of writing. When once writing\nhas been invented it is clear that language no longer depends upon the\nmemory only, no longer has such a seemingly precarious tenure of life as\nit had when it was no more than speech. The writing remains a strong\nbulwark against the changes of time. Although our written words are but\nthe symbols of sound, they are symbols so clear that the recollection of\nthe sound springs up in our minds the moment the written word comes\nbefore our eyes. So it is that there are hundreds of words in the\nEnglish language which we should many of us not use once in a lifetime,\nwhich are yet perfectly familiar to us. All old-fashioned words which\nbelong to the _literary_ language, and are never used now in common\nlife, would have been forgotten long ago except for writing. The fact,\nagain, that those provincialisms which make the peasants of different\ncounties almost mutually unintelligible do not affect the intercourse of\neducated people, is owing to the existence of a written language.\n\n[Sidenote: Chinese.]\n\nIt was at one time thought by philologists that in Chinese we had a\ngenuine specimen of a language in the radical stage of formation. As\nsuch it is cited, for instance, in Professor Max M\u00fcller\u2019s _Lectures on\nthe Science of Language_. But the most trustworthy Chinese scholars are,\nI believe, now of opinion that the earliest Chinese of which we can find\nany trace had already passed through this stage and become an\nagglutinative language, and that it has since decayed somewhat from that\ncondition to become once more almost a monosyllabic language.\n\nHowever that may be, it is acknowledged that Chinese has never passed\nbeyond a very primitive condition, and that its having rested so long in\nthis state is due more than anything else to the early invention of\nwriting in that country. We know how strange has been the whole history\nof civilization in China. How the Chinese, after they had made long ago\nan advance far beyond all their contemporaries at that date of the\nworld\u2019s history, seem to have suddenly stopped short there, and have\nremained ever since a stunted incomplete race, devoid of greatness in\nany form. Their character is reflected very accurately in their\nlanguage. While it was still in a very primitive condition writing was\nintroduced into the country, and from that time forward the tongue\nremained almost unchanged. Other languages which are closely allied to\nChinese--Burmese, Siamese, and Thibetan--are so nearly monosyllabic that\nthey can scarcely be considered to have yet got fairly into the\nagglutinative stage.\n\nIt is, then, writing which has preserved for us Chinese in the very\nprimitive condition in which we find it. For people in a lower order of\ncivilization there may be many other causes at work to prevent an\nagglutinative language\n\n[Sidenote: Turanian languages.]\n\nbecoming inflexional. It is not always easy to say what the hindering\ncauses have been in any individual case; but perhaps, if we look at the\ndifference between the last two classes of language, we can get some\nidea of what they might be for the class of agglutinative languages as a\nwhole. An inflexional language has quite lost the memory of the real\nmeaning of its inflexions--or at least the real reason of them. We could\ngive no reason why we should not use _bought_ in the place of _buy_,\n_art_ in the place of _am_, _whom_ in the place of _who_--no other\nreason save that we have always been taught to use the words in the\nposition they take in our speech. But there was once a time when the\nchanges only existed in the form of _additions_ having a distinct\nmeaning. Even in agglutinative languages these additions have a distinct\nmeaning _as_ additions, or, in other words, if we were using an\nagglutinative language we should be always able to distinguish the\naddition from the root, and so should understand the precise effect of\nthe former in modifying the latter. To understand the use of words in an\nagglutinative language, therefore, a great deal less of tradition and\nmemory would be required than are wanted to preserve an inflected\nlanguage. This really is the same as saying that for the inflected\nlanguage we must have a much more constant use; and this again implies a\ngreater intellectual life, a closer bond of union among the people who\nspeak it, than exists among those who speak agglutinative languages.\n\nOr if we look at the change from another point of view, we can say that\nthe cause of the mixing up of the root, and its addition came at first\nfrom a desire to _shorten_ the word and to save time--a desire which was\nnatural to people who spoke much and had much intercourse. We may then,\nfrom these various considerations, conclude that the people who use the\nagglutinative languages are people who have not what is called a close\nand active national life. This is exactly what we find to be the case.\nIf a primitive language, such as the Chinese, belongs to a people who\nhave, as it were, developed too quickly, the agglutinative languages, as\na class, distinguish a vast section of the human race whose natural\ncondition is a very unformed one, who are for the most part nomadic\nraces without fixed homes, or laws, or states. They live a tribal\nexistence, each man having little intercourse save with those of his\nimmediate neighbourhood. They are unused to public assemblies. Such\nassemblies take among early peoples almost the place of literature, in\nobliging men to have a common language and a united national life. Being\nwithout these controlling influences, it results that the different\ndialects and tongues belonging to the agglutinative class are almost\nendless. It is not our intention to weary the reader by even a bare list\nof them. But we may glance at the chief heads into which these\nmultifarious languages may be grouped, and the geographical position of\nthose who speak them.\n\nThe agglutinative tongues include the speech of all those peoples of\nCentral Asia whom in common language we are wont to speak of as Tartars,\nbut whom it would be more correct to describe as belonging to the Turkic\nor Mongol class, and of whom several different branches--the Huns, who\nemigrated from the borders of China to Europe; the Mongols or Moghuls,\nwho conquered Persia and Hindustan; and lastly, the Osmanl\u00ees, or\nOttomans, who invaded Europe and founded the Turkish Empire--are the\nmost famous, and most infamous, in history. Another large class of\nagglutinative languages belongs to the natives of the vast region of\nSiberia, from the Ural mountains to the far east. Another great class,\nclosely allied to these last, the Finnish tongues namely, once spread\nacross all the northern half of what is now European Russia, and across\nNorth Scandinavia; but the people who spoke them have been gradually\ndriven to the extreme north by the Russians and Scandinavians. Lastly, a\nthird division is formed by those languages which belonged to the\noriginal inhabitants of Hindustan before the greater part of the country\nwas occupied by the Hindus. These languages are spoken of as the\nDravidian class. The natural condition of these various nations or\npeoples is, as we have said, a nomadic state, a state in which\nagriculture is scarcely known, though individual nations out of them\nhave risen to considerable civilization. And as in very early times\nancestors of ours who belonged to a race speaking an inflexional\nlanguage bestowed upon some part of these nomadic people the appellation\n_Tura_, which means \u2018the swiftness of a horse,\u2019 from their constantly\nmoving from place to place, the word Turanian has been applied to all\nthese various peoples, and the agglutinative languages are spoken of\ngenerally as Turanian tongues.\n\n[Sidenote: Aryan and Semitic languages.]\n\nAnd now we come to the last--the most important body of languages--the\ninflected; and we see that for it have been left all the more important\nnations and languages of the world. Almost all the \u2018historic\u2019 people,\nliving or dead, almost all the more civilized among nations, come under\nthis our last division: the ancient Egyptians, Chald\u00e6ans, Assyrians,\nPersians, Greeks, and Romans, as well as the modern Hindus and the\nnative Persians, and almost all the inhabitants of Europe, with the\ncountless colonies which these last have spread over the surface of the\nglobe. The class of inflected languages is separated into two main\ndivisions or _families_, within each of which the languages are held by\na tie of relationship. Just as people are of the same family when they\nrecognize their descent from a common ancestor, so languages belong to\none family when they can show clear signs that they have grown out of\none parent tongue. We may be sure that we are all the children of the\nfirst pair, and we may know in the same way that all languages must have\ngrown and changed out of the first speech. But the traces of parentage\nand relationship are in both cases buried in oblivion; it is only when\nwe come much farther down in the history of the world that we can really\nsee the marks of distinct kinship in the tongues of nations separated by\nthousands of miles, different in colour, in habits, in civilization, and\nquite unconscious of any common fatherhood.\n\n[Sidenote: Kinship in languages.]\n\nNow as to the way in which this kinship among languages may be detected.\nAmong some languages there is such a close relationship that even an\nunskilled eye can discover it. When we see, for instance, such\nlikenesses as exist in English and German between the very commonest\nwords of life--_kann_ and _can_, _soll_ and _shall_, _muss_ and _must_,\n_ist_ and _is_, _gut_ and _good_, _hart_ and _hard_, _mann_ and _man_,\n_f\u00fcr_ and _for_, together with an innumerable number of verbs,\nadjectives, substantives, prepositions, etc., which differ but slightly\none from another--we may feel sure either that the English once spoke\nGerman, that the Germans once spoke English, or that English and German\nhave both become a little altered from a lost language which was spoken\nby the ancestors of the present inhabitants of England and Deutsch-land.\nAs a matter of fact the last is the case. English and German are brother\nlanguages, neither is the parent of the other. Now having our attention\nonce called to this relationship, we might, any of us who know English\nand German, at once set about making a long list of words which are\ncommon to the two languages; and it would not be a bad amusement for any\nreader just to turn over the leaves of a dictionary and note how many\nGerman words (especially of the common sort) they find that have a\ncorresponding word in English. The first thing we begin to see is the\nfact that the consonants form, as it were, the bones of a word, and that\nchanges of a vowel are, as a rule, comparatively unimportant provided\nthese remain unaltered. The next thing we see is that even the\nconsonants do not generally remain the same, but that in place of one\nsuch letter in one language, another of a sound very like it appears in\nthe other language.\n\nFor instance, we soon begin to notice that \u2018T\u2019 in German is often\nrepresented by \u2018D\u2019 in English, as _tag_ becomes _day_; _tochter_,\n_daughter_; _breit_, _broad_; _traum_, _dream_; _reiten_, _ride_; but\nsometimes by \u2018TH\u2019 in English, as _vater_ becomes _father_; _mutter_,\n_mother_. Again, \u2018D\u2019 in German is often equal to \u2018TH\u2019 in English, as\n_dorf_, _thorpe_; _feder_, _feather_; _dreschen_, _thrash_ (_thresh_);\n_dr\u00e4ngen_, _throng_; _der_ (_die_), _the_; _das_, _that_. Now there is a\ncertain likeness common to these three sounds, \u2018T,\u2019 \u2018D,\u2019 and \u2018TH,\u2019 as\nany one\u2019s ear will tell him if he say _te_, _de_, _the_. As a matter of\nfact they are all pronounced with the tongue pressed against the teeth,\nonly in rather different places; and in the case of the last sound,\n_the_,[27] with a breath or aspirate sent between the teeth at the same\ntime. So we see that, these letters being really so much alike in sound,\nthere is nothing at all extraordinary in one sound becoming exchanged\nfor another in the two languages. We learn, therefore, to look beyond\nthe mere appearance of the word, to weigh, so to speak, the sounds\nagainst each other, and to detect likenesses which might perhaps\notherwise have escaped us. For instance, if we see that CH in German is\noften represented by GH in English--in such words as _tochter_,\n_daughter_; _knecht_, _knight_; _m\u00f6chte_, _might_; _lachen_,\n_laugh_,--we have no difficulty in now seeing how exactly _durch_\ncorresponds to our _through_. For we have at the beginning the _d_ which\nnaturally corresponds to our _t_, the _r_ remains unchanged, and the\n_ch_ naturally corresponds to our _gh_; only the vowel is different in\nposition, and that is of comparatively small account. Nevertheless at\nfirst sight we should by no means have been inclined to allow the near\nrelationship of _durch_ and _through_. Thus our power of comparison\ncontinually increases, albeit a knowledge of several languages is\nnecessary before we can establish satisfactory rules or proceed with at\nall sure steps.\n\nWhen we have acquired this knowledge there are few things more\ninteresting than noting the changes which words undergo in the different\ntongues, and learning how to detect the same words under various\ndisguises. And when we have begun to do this, it is by comparing the\nwords of our own language with corresponding words in the allied tongues\nGerman, Norse, or Dutch, whatever it may be, that we are most frequently\nreminded of the meaning of words which have half grown out of use with\nus. As, for instance, when the German _Leiche_ (corpse) reminds us of\nthe meaning of lich-gate (A.S. lica, a corpse) and Lichfield; or the\nNorse _moos_, a marshy or heathy region, explains our _moss_-troopers. I\ndoubt if most people quite know what sea-mews are, still more if the\nword mewstone (which, for example, is the name of a rock near Plymouth)\nwould at once call up the right idea into their mind. But the German\n_M\u00f6we_, sea-gull, makes it all plain. How curious is the relationship\nbetween _earth_ and _hearth_, which is exactly reproduced in the German\n_Erde_ and _Herde!_ or the obsolete use of the word _tide_ for \u2018time\u2019\n(the original meaning of the tides--the \u2018times,\u2019) in the expression\n\u2018Time and tide wait for no man\u2019! But in the Norse we have the same\nexpression _Tid og Time_, which signifies exactly Macbeth\u2019s \u2018time and\nthe hour.\u2019 And of course these words, our _tide_, Norse _Tid_, are the\ncorrespondants of the German _zeit_. When once we have detected how\noften the German _z_ corresponds to the English _t_--as in _Zahn_,\ntooth; _Zehe_, toe; _Z\u00e4hlen_, to tell (_i.e._, to count); _Zinn_,\ntin--we have no difficulty in seeing that our _town_ may correspond to\nthe German _Zaun_, a hedge: and we guess, what is in fact the case, that\nthe original meaning of town was only an enclosed or empaled place. The\nrelationship of our _fee_ to the German _Vieh_, cattle, and the proof\nthat the earliest money with us was cattle-money, would, at first sight,\nbe perhaps not so easily surmised by a mere comparison of German and\nEnglish words. These are only one or two of the ten thousand points of\ninterest which rise up before us almost immediately after we have, so to\nsay, stepped outside the walls of our own language into the domains of\nits very nearest relations.\n\nNor is the interest of this kind of comparison less great very often in\nthe case of proper names. The smaller family--or, as we have used the\nword family to express a large class of languages, let us say the branch\nto which English and German belong--is called the Teutonic branch. To\nthat branch belonged nearly all those barbarian nations who, towards the\nfall of the Roman empire, began the invasion of her territories, and\nended by carving out of them most of the various states and kingdoms of\nmodern Europe. The best test we have of the nationalities of these\npeoples, the best proof that they were connected by language with each\nother and with the modern Teutonic nations, is to be found in their\nproper names. We have, for instance, among the Vandals such names as\nHilderic, Genseric, and the like; we compare them at once with Theodoric\nand Alaric, which were names of famous Goths. Then as the Gothic\nlanguage has been preserved we recognize the termination _r\u00eek_ or _r\u00eeks_\nin Gothic, meaning a \u2018king,\u2019 and connected with the German _reich_, and\nalso with the Latin _rex_--Alaric becomes _al-rik_, \u2018all-king,\u2019\nuniversal king. In Theodoric we recognize the Gothic _thiudarik_, \u2018king\nof the people.\u2019 Again, this Gothic word _thiuda_ is really the same as\nthe German _deutsch_, or as \u2018Dutch,\u2019 and is the word of which \u2018Teutonic\u2019\nis only a Latinized form. In the same way Hilda-rik in Gothic is \u2018king\nof battles;\u2019 and having got this word from the Vandals we have not much\ndifficulty in recognizing Childeric, the usually written form of the\nname of a Frankish king, as the same word. This change teaches us to\nturn \u2018CH\u2019 of Frankish names in our history-books into \u2018H,\u2019 so that\ninstead of Chlovis (which should be Chlodoveus) we first get Hlovis,\nwhich is only a softened form of Hlodovig, or Hludwig, the modern\nLudwig, our Louis. _Hlud_ is known to have meant \u2018famous\u2019[28] and _wig_\na \u2018warrior,\u2019 so that Ludwig means famous warrior. The same word \u2018wig\u2019\nseems to appear in the word Merovingian, a Latinized form of\nMeer-wig,[29] which would mean sea-warrior.\n\nThese instances show us the _kind_ of results we obtain by a comparison\nof languages. In the case of these names, for instance, we have got\nenough to show a very close relationship amongst the Vandals, the Goths,\nand the Franks; and had we time many more instances might have been\nchosen to support this conclusion. Here, of course, we have been\nconfining ourselves to one small _branch_ of a large family. The road,\nthe farther we go, is beset with greater difficulties and dangers of\nmistake, and the student can do little unless he is guided by fixed\nrules, which we should have to follow, supposing we were able to carry\non our inquiries into many and distant languages. We may, to some\nextent, judge for ourselves what some of these guiding rules must be.\n\nThose words which we have instanced as being common to English and\nGerman, both we and the Germans have got by inheritance from an earlier\nlanguage. Yet there are in English hundreds of words which are not\nacquired by inheritance from other languages, but merely by adoption;\nhundreds of words have been taken directly from the Latin, or from the\nLatin through the French, or from the Greek, and not derived from any\nearly language which was the parent of the Latin, Greek, and English.\nHow shall we distinguish between these classes of words? We answer, in\nthe first place, that the _simpler_ words are almost sure to be\ninherited, because people, in however rude a state they were, could\nnever have done without words to express such everyday ideas as _to\nhave_, _to be_, _to laugh_, _to make_, _to kill_--_I_, _thou_, _to_,\n_for_, _and_; whereas they might have done well enough without words\nsuch as _government_, _literature_, _sensation_, _expression_, words\nwhich express either things which were quite out of the way of these\nprimitive people, or commonish ideas in a somewhat grand and abstract\nform.\n\nOne of our rules, therefore, must be to begin by choosing the commoner\nclass of words, or, generally speaking, those words which are pretty\nsure never to have fallen out of use, and which therefore must have been\nhanded down from father to son.\n\nThere is another rule--that those languages must be classed together\nwhich have like grammatical forms. This is the rule of especial\nimportance in distinguishing a complete family of languages. For when\nonce a language has got into the inflected stage, though it may\nhereafter lose or greatly modify nearly all its inflexions, it never\neither sinks back into the agglutinative stage, or adopts the\ngrammatical forms of another language which is also in the inflected\ncondition.\n\nThese are the general rules, therefore, upon which we go. We look first\nfor the grammatical forms and then for the simple roots, and according\nto the resemblance or want of resemblance between them we decide whether\ntwo tongues have any relationship, and whether that relationship is near\nor distant.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: The Semitic races.]\n\nNow it has in this way been found out that all inflected languages\nbelong to one of two families, called the Semitic and the Aryan. Let us\nbegin with the Semitic. This word, which is only a Latinized way of\nsaying Shemite, is given to the nations who are supposed to be descended\nfrom Shem, the second son of Noah. The nations who have spoken languages\nbelonging to this Semitic family have been those who appear so much in\nOld Testament history, and who played a mighty part in the world while\nour own ancestors were still wandering tribes, and at an age when\ndarkness still obscured the doings of the Greeks and Romans. Foremost\namong all in point of age and fame stand the Egyptians, who are believed\nto have migrated in far pre-historic ages to the land in which they rose\nto fame. They found there a people of a lower, a negro or half-negro\nrace, and mingled with them, so that their language ceased to be a pure\nSemitic tongue. In its foundation, however, it was Semitic. The earliest\nof the recorded kings of Egypt, Menes, is believed to date back as far\nas 5000 B.C. Next in antiquity come the Chald\u00e6ans, who have left behind\nthem great monuments in the ancient cities Erech and Ur, and their\nsuccessors the Assyrians and Babylonians. Abraham, himself, we know, was\na Chald\u00e6an, and from him descended the Hebrew nation, who were destined\nto shed the highest honour on the Semitic race. Yet, so great may be the\ndegeneration of some races and the rise of others, so great may be the\ndivisions which thus spring up between peoples who were once akin, it is\nalso true that all those peoples whom the Children of Israel were\nspecially commanded to fight against and even to exterminate--the\nCanaanites, the Moabites, and the Edomites--were likewise of Semitic\nfamily. The Ph\u0153nicians are another race from the same stock who have\nmade their mark in the world. We know how, coming first from the coasts\nof Tyre and Sidon, they led the way in the art of navigation, sent\ncolonies to various parts of the world, and foremost among these founded\nCarthage, the rival and almost the destroyer of Rome. Our list of\ncelebrated Semitic races must close with the Arabs, the founders of\nMohammedanism, the conquerors at whose name all Europe used to tremble,\nwhose kingdoms once extended in an unbroken line from Spain to the banks\nof the Indus.\n\n[Sidenote: The Aryan races.]\n\nSuch a list gives no mean place to the Semitic family of nations; but\nthose of the Aryan stock are perhaps even more conspicuous. This family\n(which is sometimes called Japhetic, or descendants of Japhet) includes\nthe Hindus and Persians among Asiatic nations, and almost all the\npeoples of Europe. It may seem strange that we English should be related\nnot only to the Germans and Dutch and Scandinavians, but to the\nRussians, Poles, Lithuanians, French, Spanish, Italians, Romans, and\nGreeks as well; stranger still that we can claim kinship with such\ndistant peoples as the Armenians, Persians, and Hindus. Yet such is the\ncase, and the way in which all these different nations once formed a\nsingle people, speaking one language, and their subsequent dispersion\nover the different parts of the world in which we now find them, affords\none of the most interesting inquiries within the range of pre-historic\nstudy. What seems actually to have been the case is this: In distant\nages, somewhere about the rivers Oxus and Jaxartes, and on the north of\nthat mountainous range called the Hindoo-Koosh, dwelt the ancestors of\nall the nations we have enumerated, forming at this time a single and\nunited people, simple and primitive in their way of life, but yet having\nenough of a common national life to preserve a common language. They\ncalled themselves Aryas or Aryans, a word which, in its very earliest\nsense, seems to have meant those who move upwards, or straight; and\nhence, probably, came to stand for the noble race as compared with other\nraces on whom, of course, they would look down.[30]\n\nHow long these Aryans had lived united in this their early home it is,\nof course, impossible to say; but as the tribes and families increased\nin numbers, a separation would naturally take place. Large associations\nof clans would move into more distant districts, the connection between\nthe various bodies which made up the nation would be less close, their\ndialects would begin to vary, and thus the seeds of new nations and\nlanguages would be sown. The beginning of such a separation was a\ndistinction which arose between a part of the Aryan nation, who stayed\nat the foot of the Hindoo-Koosh Mountains, and in all the fertile\nvalleys which lie there, and another part which advanced farther into\nthe plain. This latter received the name _Yavanas_, which seems to have\nmeant the protectors, and was probably given to them because they stood\nas a sort of foreguard between the Aryans, who still dwelt under the\nshadow of the mountains, and the foreign nations of the plains. And now,\ntheir area being enlarged, they began to separate more and more from one\nanother; while at the same time, as their numbers increased, the space\nwherein they dwelt became too small for them who had, out of one, formed\nmany different peoples. Then began a series of _migrations_, in which\nthe collection of tribes who spoke one language and formed one people\nstarted off to seek their fortune in new lands, and thus for ever broke\noff association with their kindred and their old Aryan home. One by one\nthe different nations among the Yavanas (the protectors) were infected\nwith this new spirit of adventure, and though they took different\nroutes, they all travelled westward, and arrived in Europe at last.[31]\n\nA not improbable cause has been suggested of these migrations. It is\nknown that, in spite of the immense volume of water which the Volga is\ndaily pouring into it, the Caspian Sea is gradually drying up, and it\nhas been conjectured as highly probable that hundreds of years ago the\nCaspian was not only joined to the Sea of Aral, but extended over a\nlarge district which is now sandy desert. The slow shrinking in its bed\nof this sea would, by decreasing the rainfall, turn what was once a\nfertile country into a desert; and if we suppose this result taking\nplace while the Aryan nations were gradually increasing in numbers, the\neffect would be to drive them, in despair of finding subsistence in the\never-narrowing fertile tract between the desert and the mountains, to\nseek for new homes elsewhere. This, at any rate, is what they did. First\namong them, in all probability, started the Kelts or Celts, who,\ntravelling perhaps to the south of the Caspian and the north of the\nBlack Sea, found their way to Europe, and spread far on to the extreme\nwest. At one time it is most likely that the greater part of Europe was\ninhabited by Kelts, who partly exterminated and partly mingled with the\nstone-age men whom they found there. As far as we know of their actual\nextension in historic times we find this Keltic family living in the\nnorth of Italy, in Switzerland, over all the continent of Europe west of\nthe Rhine, and in the British Isles; for the Gauls, who then inhabited\nthe northern part of continental Europe west of the Rhine, the ancient\nBritons, and probably the Iberians, the ancient inhabitants of Spain,\nbelonged to this family.[32] The Highland Scotch, who belong to the old\nblood, call themselves Gaels, and their language Gaelic, which is\nmoreover so like the language of the old Irish (who called themselves by\npractically the same name--Gaedhill) that a Highlander could make\nhimself understood in Ireland; perhaps he might do so in Wales, where\nthe inhabitants are likewise Kelts. These words Gael and Gaedhill are of\nthe same origin and meaning as Gaul. In the early days of the Roman\nrepublic the Gauls, as we know, inhabited all the north of Italy, and\nused often to make successful incursions down to the very centre of the\npeninsula. Beyond the Alps they extended as far as into Belgium, which\nformed part of ancient Gaul. So much for the Kelts.\n\nAnother great family which left the Aryan home was that from which\ndescended the Greeks and Romans.[33] The primitive ancestors of these\ntwo people have been called the Pelasgians (Pelasgi), the name which the\nGreeks gave to their own ancestors who lived in the days before the name\nHellenes was used for the Greek nationality. There is evidence of a\ncertain early civilization, which is believed to have been that of these\nprimitive Pelasgi, in the centre of Asia Minor. And it seems probable\nthat the line of migration of this nationality passed to the south of\nthe Caspian Sea, then through Asia Minor, and finally, not all at once,\nbut in successive streams, some across the Hellespont or Dardanelles to\nthe north of Italy and the north of Greece, and some to the coast of\nAsia Minor, and across by the islands of the \u00c6gean to the mainland of\nGreece. At every point upon the route there were left behind\nremains--offshoots, as it were, or cuttings from the great Pelasgic\nstem,--a primitive half-Greek stock in the centre of Asia Minor, a\nbarbarous half-Greek stock in Thrace and Macedon; while all along the\ncoasts of Asia Minor and the Greek Islands, and in the southern parts of\nEuropean Greece (more especially those which looked eastward) there\narose a much more cultivated race. For in these regions the Greeks came\nin contact with the Ph\u0153nicians, and gathered much from the\ncivilizations of Egypt and Assyria. If there were remains of a primitive\nItalian race in the north of Italy these were (in subsequent, but still\npre-historic years) blotted out by the spread of the Gauls beyond the\nAlps.\n\nHow little did these rival nationalities, the Greeks and Romans, deem\nthat their ancestors had once formed a single people! All such\nrecollections had been lost to the Greeks and Romans, who, when we find\nthem in historic times, had invented quite different stories to account\nfor their origin.\n\nNext we come to two other great families of nations who seem to have\ntaken the same route at first, and perhaps began their travels together\nas the Greeks and Romans did. These are the Teutons and the Slavs. They\nseem to have travelled by the north of the Caspian and Black Sea,\nextending over all the south of Russia, and down to the borders of\nGreece; then gradually to have pushed on to Europe, ousting the Kelts\nfrom the eastern portion, until we find them in the historical period\nthreatening the borders of the Roman empire on the Rhine and the Danube.\nProbably the Teutons pushed on most to the west, and left the Slavs\nbehind.\n\nThe Teutonic family of nations first comes before us vaguely in the\nhistory of the invasion of Gaul and Italy by the Cimbri and the\nTeutones, which, as we know, was checked by Marius in the years 102 and\n101 B.C. It is probable that both Cimbri and Teutones were of German\norigin, though some have connected the name _Cimbri_ with _Cymri_, the\nnative name of the Welsh (whence _Cumberland_, etc.). This attack by the\nCimbri and Teutones was only an isolated attempt on behalf of the\nTeutons. The great invasion of the Roman empire by them did not begin\ntill five centuries later, in 395 A.D. Of the nations who from this time\nforward were engaged in the dismemberment of the empire, and in laying\nthe foundations of medi\u00e6val history, almost all seem to have been of\nTeutonic origin. The chief among these nationalities were the\nGoths--divided into two great nationalities, the Visi-Goths (West\nGoths), and the Ostro-Goths (East Goths), who successively conquered\nItaly, and founded kingdoms in Italy, South Aquitaine, and Spain. Then\nthere were the Vandals, the Burgundians, the Alani and the Suevi, who\ninvaded Gaul at the beginning of the fifth century, and passed on, some\nof them, to found kingdoms in Spain and Africa. There were the Lombards\nwho succeeded the Ostro-Goths as conquerors of Italy; the Franks who\nsubdued the Burgundians and the Visi-Goths; the Bavarians who settled in\nthe Roman provinces of Vindelicia and Noricum, the English (Saxons,\nAngles, and Jutes) who settled in the Roman province of Britain. All\nthese nations carved for themselves new states out of the fragments of\nthe Roman empire, and these states have for the most part remained\nunchanged till our day. And of all those other German states, many of\nwhich were acquired by driving back the Slavs (_e.g._ modern Saxony,\nPrussia), we need not speak here. For we have already said what are the\nmodern nations which compose the Teutonic, or be it, for the words are\nthe same, the Deutsch, or Dutch family. They are the Scandinavians--that\nis to say, the inhabitants of Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Iceland, the\nEnglish, the Dutch and Flemings (most of the old Keltic inhabitants of\nBelgium were subsequently driven out by Teutonic invaders), and the\nGermans.\n\nLastly, we come to the Slavonians (Slavs), about whom and the\nPanslavonic movement which is to weld all the Slavonic peoples into one\ngreat nationality we have heard so much in recent years. The word Slav\ncomes from _slowan_, which in old Slavonian meant to \u2018speak,\u2019 and was\ngiven by the Slavonians to themselves as the people who alone, in their\nview, spoke intelligibly. Just so the Greek word \u03b2\u03ac\u03c1\u03b2\u03b1\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\n(_barbaroi_), from which we get our word barbarians, arose, in obedience\nto a like prejudice, only from the imitation of people babbling or\nmaking unintelligible sounds--\u2018bar-bar-bar.\u2019 But among the Germans who\nconquered and enslaved the people, Slav became synonymous with the Latin\n_servus_, and from them it passed on to express the idea of\nslave--_esclave_, _schiavo_, etc. The Slavonic people once extended much\nfarther to the west in Northern Europe than they do at present--as far,\nfor instance, as the Elbe in Northern Germany. We begin to hear of them\nin history about the age of Charlemagne--a little, that is, before the\nend of the eighth century, A.D. The _Obotriti_ and the _Wiltzi_ are the\nnames of two Slavonic nations on the Baltic, of whom we hear much about\nthis time. But they can no longer be identified as the ancestors of any\nexisting race. In the reign of Charlemagne\u2019s grandson, called Lewis the\nGerman, we hear much of other Slavonic peoples whose names have more\nmeaning for us--the Sorabians, the Czechs (_i.e._ Bohemians), the M\u00e4hren\nor Moravians, and the Carinthians, who, if they have as separate peoples\nceased to exist, have left behind them their names in the lands they\ninhabited.\n\nThe same has been the case with other Slavonic peoples who appear later\nin history--the Pomeranians and the Prussians (earlier Borussians) and\nthe Silesians. The people who now bear these names and inhabit these\ncountries are by origin almost exclusively Teutonic; but the names\nthemselves and the earlier inhabitants were not Teutons, but Slavs.\n\nThe existing Slavonic nationalities are the Russians, Lithuanians\n(incorporated in Russia), the Poles, the Czechs or Bohemians, the\nBulgarians, Servians, Montenegrins, etc.,--most, in fact, of the nations\nof the Southern Danube.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: Pre-historic research through language.]\n\nThis is the classification of nationalities by their language. No\nclassification is perfect; and we know, as an historical fact, that many\nnations have abandoned their original tongue, and adopted that of some\nother people--their conquerors probably,--as the Gauls and Goths (or\nIberians) of France and Spain have adopted the Latin of the Romans, as\nthe Highland Scottish, the Irish, the Welsh and Cornishmen have adopted\nEnglish.\n\nBut a classification by language is far more satisfactory than any other\nsort of classification of nations. For when we think of nations we do\nnot think first of all of their _physique_. The most important thing to\nknow about them is not their hair was dark or red, their eyes brown or\nblue. What we care most to learn are their national character, their\nthoughts, their beliefs, their forms of social life. And for the days\nwhen we have no national literature, no history, to guide us, almost the\nonly means of gaining reliable information upon these points is by a\nstudy of the language of the people in question. Language holds within\nit far better than do _tumuli_ or weapons, or articles of pottery or\nwoven-stuffs or ornaments, the records of long-past times, records of\nmaterial civilization and mental culture likewise. It holds these\nrecords, as a chemist would say, in solution in it; not visible perhaps\nto the mere passer-by; but if we know how to precipitate the solution it\nis wonderful what results we obtain.\n\nNo sooner has he finished his classification of languages than a mine of\nalmost exhaustless wealth then opens before the philologist--a mine,\ntoo, which has at present been only broached. He soon learns the laws\ngoverning the changes of sound from one tongue into another. We have\nnoted experimentally some of these laws in the more simple relationships\nof language, as between English and German, where \u2018tag\u2019 becomes \u2018day,\u2019\n\u2018dorf\u2019 \u2018thorpe,\u2019 and the like; and all relationships of language are\nanswerable to similar rules. There are laws for the change of sound from\nSanskrit into the primitive forms of Greek, Latin, German, English,\netc., just as there are laws of change between the first two or the last\ntwo.[34] So we soon learn to recognize a word in one language which\nreappears in altered guise in another. And it may be well imagined how\nvaluable such knowledge can be made. If we find a word common say to\nGreek and Latin, signifying some simple object, a weapon, a tool, an\nanimal, a house, it is not over-likely that it will have changed from\nthe time when it was first employed: the words of this kind which are\nnow in use have, we know, little tendency to change. So that the time\nwhen this word was first used is in all probability the time when the\n_thing_ was first known to primitive man; and if the word is common to\nthe whole Aryan family, or if it is peculiar to a portion only, then it\nis argued that the thing was known or unknown before the separation of\nthe Aryan folk. I do not, of course, say that rule is never at fault,\nonly that this is a better criterion than any other sort of research\nwould afford us, and that by this method of word-comparison we get no\nbad picture of the world of our earliest Aryan ancestors.\n\nIt might well have happened that when the migrations began our ancestors\nwere still like the stone-age men of the shell-mounds, still in the\nhunter condition; that they knew nothing of domesticated animals, or of\npastures and husbandmen: or it might be, again, that they had left the\npastoral state long behind, and that all their ideas associated\nthemselves with agriculture, with the division of the land, and with the\nrecurring seasons for planting. The evidence of language, dealt with\nafter the fashion we have described, points to the belief that the\nancient Aryans had only made some beginnings of agriculture, as a\nsupplement to their natural means of livelihood, their flocks and herds:\nfor among the words common to the whole Aryan race there are very few\nconnected with farming, whereas their vocabulary is redolent of the\nherd, the cattle-fold, the herdsman, the milking-time. Even the word\ndaughter, which corresponds to the Greek _thugat\u00ear_ and the Sanskrit\n_duhitar_, means in the last language \u2018the milker,\u2019 and that seems to\nthrow back the practice of milking to a vastly remote antiquity.[35]\n\nOn the other hand, the various Indo-European branches have different\nnames for the plough, one name for the German races, another for the\nGr\u00e6co-Italic, and for the Sanskrit. And though _aratrum_ has a clear\nconnection with a Sanskrit root _ar_, it is not absolutely certain that\nit ever had in this language the sense of ploughing, and not merely of\nwounding, which is a still more primitive meaning of the same root,\nwhence came the expression for ploughing as of wounding the earth.\n\nOr say we wish to form some notion of the social life of the Aryans. Had\nthey extended ideas of tribal government? Had they kings, or were they\nheld together only by the units of family life? Our answer would come\nfrom an examination of their common word for \u2018king.\u2019 If they have no\ncommon word, then we may guess that the title and office of kingship\narose among the separate Aryan people and received a name from each. Or\nis it that their common word for king had first some simpler\nsignification, \u2018father,\u2019 perhaps, showing that among the Aryan folk the\nsocial bond was still confined within the real or imaginary boundary of\nthe family? In fact we do find a common word for king in several of the\nAryan languages which has no subsidiary meaning less than that of\n_directing_, or keeping straight. This is the Latin _rex_, the Gothic\n_r\u00eeks_, Sanskrit _r\u00eeg_, etc., and its earliest ascertainable meaning was\n\u2018the director.\u2019 The Aryans then, even in those days, acknowledged as\nsupreme[36] some director chosen (probably) from out of the tribe, a\nchief to lead their common warlike or migratory expeditions.\n\nThese are but illustrations of the method upon which are founded all\nconclusions touching these our ancestors, and the manner of our\nknowledge concerning them; far better obtained than merely by gazing\nupon the instruments which have fallen from their hands, or the\nmonuments they might have raised to commemorate the dead. The\ndifference, in truth, between relics such as these which lie enclosed in\nlanguage, and the weapons and tombs of the Stone Ages, is exactly the\ndifference between Shakespeare\u2019s statue in Westminster Abbey or his bust\nat Stratford, and that \u2018livelong monument\u2019 whereof Milton spoke. By\nperfecting beyond the power of any other race the wonderfully complex\nfaculty of speech the Aryans secured that their memory should be handed\non the more certainly, and with far greater completeness, than by\nrecords left palpable to men\u2019s eyes and hands. Many of their secret\nthoughts might be unlocked by the same key. Already the same means are\nbeing used to give us glimpses of their religious ideas. For the _names_\nof the common Aryan gods can be arrived at by just the same comparative\nmethod: it may well happen that a name which is only a proper name in\none language, can in another be traced to a root which unravels its\noriginal meaning. It was so, we saw, with the word _daughter_. Here the\nSanskrit root seems to unravel the hidden--the lost, and so\nhidden--meaning in the Greek or English words. So with a god, the\nmeaning of a name, concealed from the sight of those who used it in\nprayer or praise, becomes revealed to _us_ by the divining rod of the\nscience of language.\n\nAnd it is true, nevertheless, that the mine of wealth thus opened has as\nyet been but cursorily explored.[37] There are far more and greater fish\nin this sea than ever came out of it. Some day, perhaps, a strictly\nscientific method may be found for classifying and tracing the changes\nwhich words undergo. Sometimes a word is found greatly modified;\nsometimes it survives almost intact between the different tongues. Is\nthere any reason for this? At present we cannot say.\n\nThe question might be answered by means of an elaborate classification\nunder the head of the alterations which words have undergone,[38] and\nsuch a comparative vocabulary would lead to the solution of infinite\nquestions concerning the growth of nations. We should be able to look\nalmost into the minds of people long ago, better than we can examine the\nminds of contemporary races in a lower mental condition, and see what\nideas took a strong hold upon them, what things they treated as\nrealities, what metaphorically, and how large for them was the empire of\nimagination.\n\nNext there is the boundless field of proper names, both those of persons\nand geographical names. These last in every country bear a certain\nwitness to the races who have passed through that country, and\nshow--roughly at least--the order of their appearance there. The older\ngeographical names will be those of natural features, rivers, mountains,\nlakes, which have been never absent from the scene; the newer names will\nbe those bestowed upon the works of man. In our own country this is the\ncase. The names of our rivers (Thames, Ouse, Severn, Wye) are nearly all\nKeltic, _i.e._ British; those of our towns are Teutonic, Saxon or Norse.\nSome few Roman names linger on, as in the name and termination\n\u2018Chester;\u2019 but this, as meaning a place of strength, shows us clearly\nthe reason of its survival. Every European country has changed hands, as\nours has done; nay, every country in the world.[39] So here again we\nhave promise of plenty of work for the philologist in compiling a\n\u2018Glossary of Proper Names\u2019 with etymologies.\n\nLastly, let it not be forgotten that a great part of all that has been\ndone for the Aryan can be done likewise for the Semitic languages--a\nfield as yet little turned by the plough; and the reader will confess\nthe debt the world is likely some day to owe to Comparative Philology.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nTHE NATIONS OF THE OLD WORLD.\n\n\n[Sidenote: Prehistoric nationalities.]\n\nWhen we try and gather into one view the results of our inquiries upon\nthe kindreds and nations of the old world, it must be confessed we are\nstruck rather by the extent of our ignorance than of our knowledge. For\nall the light we are able to shed, the movements and the passage of the\nvarious races in this prehistoric time appear to the eye of the mind\nmost like the movement of great hosts of men seen dimly through a mist.\nOr shall we say that we are in the position of persons living upon some\none of many great military highways, while before their eyes pass\ncontinually bodies of troops in doubtful progress to and fro, affording\nto them, where they stand, no indication of the order of battle or the\nplan of the campaign? Still, to men in such a position there would be\nmore or less of intelligence possible in the way in which they watched\nthe steps of those who passed before them; and we, too, though we cannot\nattempt really to follow the track of mankind down from the earliest\ntimes, may yet gather some idea of the changing positions which from age\nto age have been occupied by the larger divisions of our race.\n\nIn the Bible narrative continuous history begins, at the earliest, not\nbefore the time of Abraham. In the earlier chapters of Genesis we find\nonly scattered notices of individuals who dwelt in one particular corner\nof the world, nothing to indicate the general distribution of races, or\nthe continuous lapse of time. It is, moreover, a fact that, owing partly\nto the associations of childhood, we are apt, by a too literal\ninterpretation, to rob the narrative of some part of its historical\nvalue. Here, proper names, which we might be inclined to take for the\nnames of single individuals, often stand for whole races, and sometimes\nfor the countries which gave their names to the people dwelling in them.\n\u2018Son of,\u2019 too, must not be taken in its most literal meaning, but in the\nwider, and in old languages the perfectly natural, sense of \u2018descended\nfrom.\u2019 When nations kept the idea of a common ancestor before their\nminds, in a way with which we of the present day are quite unfamiliar,\nit was very customary to describe any one person of that people as the\n\u2018son of\u2019 the common ancestor. Thus a Greek who wished to bring before\nhis hearers the common nationality of the Greek people--the\nHellenes--would speak of them as being the sons of Hellen, of the\n\u00c6olians or Ionians as sons of \u00c6olus or Ion. In another way, again, an\nAthenian or Theban might speak of his fellow-citizens as sons of Athens\nor of Thebes. Such language among any ancient people is not poetical or\nhyperbolical language, but the usual speech of every day. It is in a\nsimilar fashion that in the Bible narrative, centuries are passed\nrapidly over. And if the remains of the stone ages lift a little the\nveil which hides man\u2019s earliest doings upon earth, it must be confessed\nthat the light which these can shed is but slight and partial. We catch\nsight of a portion of the human race making their rude implements of\nstone and bone, living in caves as hunters and fishers, without domestic\nanimals and without agriculture, but not without faculties which raise\nthem far above the level of the beasts by which they are surrounded.\nYet of these early men we may say we know not whence they come or\nwhither they go. We cannot tell whether the picture which we are able to\nform of man of the earliest time--of the first stone age--is a general\nor a partial picture; whether it represents the majority of his\nfellow-creatures, or only a particular race strayed from the first home\nof man.\n\n[Sidenote: Black, yellow, red, and white races.]\n\nWe must therefore be content to resign the hope of anything like a\nreview of man\u2019s life since the beginning. Before we see him clearly, he\nhad probably spread far and wide over the earth, and already separated\ninto the three or four most important divisions of the race. It is usual\nto divide the human race into four divisions named after, but not\nentirely founded upon, the colour of their skins. These divisions are\nthe black, yellow, red, and white races. I do not propose to go into any\nelaborate description either of the peculiarities or the _habitat_ of\nthese four sections of humanity. The greater part of mankind have no\nplace in history properly so called. We know them only in the present,\ntheir past is lost for ever. And the present volume being designed to\nopen the door to history is really not concerned with races such as\nthese. It will be enough very briefly to indicate the main\ncharacteristics of the four races of mankind, and to refer the reader\nfor more information to the chapter in Mr. Tylor\u2019s _Anthropology_\ndealing with the subject.\n\n[Sidenote: The Black Races.]\n\nThe black or negro race, then, consists of two divisions the negroes of\nAfrica, and the negroes of certain among the islands of the Pacific\nbordering upon Australia and called Melanesia. This Melanesia, or \u2018the\nnegro islands\u2019 as we might call them, include Tasmania, New Guinea, and\na great number of smaller islands. But they do not include Australia\nand New Zealand, the inhabitants of both which countries have physical\nfeatures differing from those of the genuine negro, though the\nAustralian type approaches very near to his. The colour of the skin is\nnot really the chief characteristic of this race, but far more so is the\nvery crisp hair (what is called wool), the very flat and broadened nose,\nthe broad lips, and the advanced under-jaw, or, as it is called, the\n_prognathism_ of the face. This black race has never had anything that\ndeserves to be called either a literature or a history.\n\n[Sidenote: The Red Races.]\n\nThe red race, which we will take next, is that which inhabits or, till\nthe Europeans came, inhabited the whole of America, North and South,\nexcept the extreme North, the country of the Eskimo. We take these\npeople next because they are almost as unknown to history as are the\nnegroes. The peculiarities of the red races are their red skin, their\nhigh cheek-bones, the straight black hair which, exactly opposite to\nthat of the negro, never curls.[40] This race has not been quite so\nstationary as the negro. Some of its members, the Aztecs of Mexico, the\nIncas of Peru, did attain to a considerable civilization. But they had\nadvanced no way in the art of writing or keeping records of their past,\nwhich is thus wholly lost to us; and we have no means of connecting the\ncivilization of the red races with the civilization of that part of the\nworld which has had a history.\n\nWe are therefore left to deal with the two remaining classes, the yellow\nand the white. The oldest, that is to say apparently the least changed,\nof these is the yellow\n\n[Sidenote: The Yellow Races.]\n\nrace, and perhaps their most typical representatives are the Chinese.\nThe type is a sufficiently familiar one. \u2018The skull of the yellow race\nis rounded in form. The oval of the head is larger than with Europeans.\nThe cheek-bones are very projecting; the cheeks rise towards the\ntemples, so that the outer corners of the eyes are elevated; the eyelids\nseem half closed. The forehead is flat above the eyes. The bridge of the\nnose is flat, the chin short, the ears disproportionately large and\nprojecting from the head. The colour of the skin is generally yellow,\nand in some branches turns to brown. There is little hair on the body;\nbeard is rare. The hair of the head is coarse, and, like the eyes,\nalmost always black.\u2019[41] In the present day the different families of\nthe globe have gone through the changes which time and variety of\nclimate slowly bring about in all; and the yellow race has not escaped\nthese influences. While some of its members have by a mixture with white\nraces or by gradual improvement, reached a type not easily\ndistinguishable from the European, others have, through the effect of\nclimate, approached more nearly to the characteristics of the black\nfamily. We may, however, still class these divergent types under the\nhead of the yellow race, which we consequently find extending over a\nvast portion of our globe. Round the North Pole the Eskimo, the Lapps,\nand the Finns form a belt of people belonging to this division of\nmankind. Over all Northern and Central Asia the various tribes of\nMongolian or Turanian race inhabiting the plains of Siberia and of\nTartary, and again the Thibetans, the Chinese, Siamese, and other\nkindred peoples of Eastern Asia, are members of this yellow family. From\nthe Malay peninsula the same race has spread southward, passing from\nland to land over the countless isles which cover the South Pacific,\nuntil they have reached the islands which lie around the Australian\ncontinent, the islands of _Polynesia_ in the South Pacific, and have\nmingled with the negro race that had preceded them there and that\nremains unmixed in the _Melanesian_ islands. The Maoris, the inhabitants\nof New Zealand, belong to this yellow race; and the Australians,\n_perhaps_, represent a mixture of negro and yellow races. In all, this\ndivision of mankind covers an immense portion of the globe stretching\nfrom Greenland in a curved line, through North America and China,\ndownwards to New Zealand, and again westward from China through Tartary\nor Siberia, up to Lapland in the north of Europe. And it must be added\nthat many anthropologists consider the red races of America only a\nvariety of this wide-spread yellow race.\n\n[Sidenote: The White Races.]\n\nFrom the results of the previous chapter we see that to the yellow race\nmust be attributed all those peoples of Europe and Asia which speak\nagglutinative languages, and therefore that for the white race are left\nthe inflected tongues. These it will be remembered, we divided into two\ngreat families, the Semitic and the Aryan or Japhetic. We thus see that\nfrom the earliest times to which we are able to point we have living in\nEurope and Asia these three divisions of the human family, whom some\nhave looked upon as the descendants of Ham, Shem, and Japhet. What\nrelationship the other excluded races of mankind, the black and red,\nbear to the Hamites, Shemites, and Japhetites, has not been suggested.\nIt seems more reasonable to consider Noah as merely the ancestor of the\nwhite races, and, therefore, so far as our linguistic knowledge goes, of\nthe Semitic and Aryan families of speech only. But outside the pure\nSemites there lived a race of a less pure nationality, springing,\nprobably, from a mixture of Semites with earlier black and yellow races.\nThese people we may distinguish as Hamites. A division of this race were\nthe Cushites, the stock from which the Egyptian, the Chald\u00e6an, and many\nof the Canaanite nations were mainly formed.\n\nBut though from the earliest times there were probably in Asia these\nthree divisions of mankind, their relative position and importance was\nvery different from what it is now. At the present time the Turanian\nraces are everywhere shrinking and dwindling before the descendants of\nJaphet. At the moment at which I write it is the Aryan Slavs who are\npushing the yellow-skinned Tartars farther and farther back in Siberia\nand Central Asia, and are endeavouring to push the Mongolian Turks from\ntheir last foothold in Europe.[42] The Tartar races have had their era\nof great conquest too, for to them belong those races--Huns, Avars,\nMagyars--who have spread such devastation in Europe, to them belong such\nconquerors as Attila, Genghis Khan, and Tim\u00fbr Lenk (Tamerlane). In the\nfirst few centuries after Mohammedism was introduced among them, the\nTuranians of Central Asia rose into power. Several different Tartar\nraces in succession--Selj\u00fbks, Ayy\u00fbbites, Mongols (Moghuls), etc.--rose\nupon the ruins of the Arab Chalifate, and invaded India, Persia, Africa,\nand Europe. The last of these is the race of the Osmanl\u00ees, or, as we\ncall them simply, the Turks. Their days of conquest are past, and\ntherefore, great as is the space which the Turanian people now occupy\nover the face of the globe, there is reason to believe that in early\nprehistoric times they were still more widely extended. In all\nprobability the men of the polished-stone age in Europe and Asia were of\nthis yellow-skinned Mongolian type. We know that the human remains of\nthis period seem to have come from a short and round-skulled people; and\nthis roundness of the skull is one of the chief marks of the Mongolians\nas distinguished from the white races of mankind.\n\nWe know, too, that the earliest inhabitants of India belonged to a\nTuranian, and therefore to a yellow, race; and that Turanians mingled\nwith one of the oldest historical Semitic peoples, and helped to produce\nthe civilization of the Chald\u00e6ans. And as, moreover, we find in various\nparts of Asia traces of a civilization similar to that of Europe during\nthe latter part of the polished-stone age, it seems not unreasonable, in\ncasting our eyes back upon the remotest antiquity on which research\nsheds any light, to suppose an early widespread Turanian or Mongolian\nfamily extending over the greater part of Europe and Asia. These\nTuranians were in various stages of civilization or barbarism, from the\nrude condition of the hunters and fishers of the Danish shell-mounds to\na higher state reigning in Central and Southern Asia, and similar to\nthat which was afterwards attained towards the end of the polished-stone\nage in Europe. The earliest home of these pure Turanians was probably a\nregion lying somewhere to the east of Lake Aral. \u2018There,\u2019 says a writer\nfrom whom we have already quoted, \u2018from very remote antiquity they had\npossessed a peculiar civilization, characterized by gross Sabeism,\npeculiarly materialistic tendencies, and complete want of moral\nelevation; but at the same time, by an extraordinary development in some\nbranches of knowledge, great progress in material culture in some\nrespects, while in others they remained in an entirely rudimentary\nstate. This strange and incomplete civilization exercised over great\npart of Asia an absolute preponderance, lasting, according to the\nhistorian Justin, 1500 years.\u2019[43]\n\nAs regards its pre-historic remains, we know that this civilization, or\nhalf-civilization, was especially distinguished by the raising of\nenormous grave-mounds and altar-stones, and it must have been\ncharacterized by strong, if not by the most elevated, religious ideas,\nand by a peculiar reverence paid to the dead. Now, we have seen that it\nis by characteristics very similar to these that the civilization of\nEgypt is distinguished, and Egypt, of all nations which have possessed a\nhistory, is the oldest.\n\n[Sidenote: Egypt.]\n\nThese are reasons, therefore, for considering the Egyptian civilization,\nwhich is in some sort the dawn of history in the world, as the\ncontinuation--the improvement, no doubt, but still the continuation--of\nthe half-civilization of the age of stone, a culture handed on from the\nTuranian to the Cushite peoples. We may look upon this very primitive\nform of culture as spreading first through Asia, and later on outwards\nto the west. Four thousand and five thousand years before Christ are the\ndates disputed over as those of Menes, the first recorded King of\nEgypt.[44] And Egypt even at this early time seems to have emerged from\nthe age of stone, and been possessed, at least, of bronze, possibly of\niron. The later date, 4000 B.C., probably marks the beginning of the\nstone-age life corresponding to the more extensive remains in Europe. It\nwas therefore with this early culture as it has been with subsequent\nfuller civilizations--\n\n    \u2018Nosque ubi primus equis Oriens afflavit anhelis\n     Illic sera rubens accendit lumina Vesper.\u2019\n\nThe Egyptian civilization which (for us) begins with Menes, say 5000\nB.C., reaches its zenith under the third and fourth dynasty, under the\nbuilders of the pyramids some eight hundred or a thousand years\nafterwards. Then in its full strength the Egyptian life rises out of the\npast like a giant peak, or like its own pyramids out of the sandy\nplains. It is cold and rigid, like a mass of granite, but it is so great\nthat it seems to defy all efforts of time. Even when the Egyptians first\ncome before us everything seems to point them out as a people already\nold; whether it be their enormous tombs and temples, their elaborately\nordered social life, or their complicated religious system, with its\nlong mysterious ritual. For all this, the Egyptian life and thought\npresent two elements of character which may well spring from the union\nof two distinct nationalities. Its enormous tombs and temples and its\nexcessive care for the bodies of the dead--for what are the pyramids but\nexaggerations of the stone-age grave-mounds, and the temples but\nimprovements upon the megalithic dolmens?--recall the era of stone-age\nculture. The evident remains of an early animal worship show a descent\nfrom a low form of religion, such a religion as we find among Turanian\nor African races. But with these co-existed some much grander features.\nThe Egyptians were intellectual in the highest degree,--in the highest\ndegree then known to the world; and, unlike the stone-age men, succeeded\nin other than merely mechanical arts. In astronomy they were rivalled by\nbut one nation, the Chald\u00e6ans; in painting and sculpture they were at\nthe head of the world, and were as nearly the inventors of history as of\nwriting itself,--not _quite_ of either, as will be seen hereafter.\nMixed, too, with their animal worship were some lofty religious\nconceptions stretching not only beyond _it_--the animal worship--but\nbeyond that \u2018natural\u2019 polytheism which was the earliest creed of our own\nancestors the Aryans, and a noble hope and ambition for the future of\nthe soul. Were these higher features due to the influx of Semitic blood?\nIt seems likely, when we remember how from the same race came a chosen\npeople to whom the world is indebted for all that is greatest in\nreligious thought.\n\n[Sidenote: Chald\u00e6a.]\n\nDuring the fourth and fifth dynasties, or some three or four thousand\nyears before Christ, Egypt and the Egyptians do, as we have said, rise\nup distinctly out of the region of mere conjecture. Three or four\nthousand years before Christ--five or six thousand years ago: this is no\nsmall distance through which to look back to the place where the first\nmountain-peak of history appears in view. What was doing in the other\nunseen regions round this mountain? Only probably in one other part of\nthe globe could there have been found at this date a civilization in the\nsmallest degree comparable to that of the Egyptians. This region is the\nvalley of the Tigrus and Euphrates.\n\nThe Tigro-Euphrates valley, or Mesopotamia, was in early days as regards\nappearance and position very similar to the land of Egypt. These two\nterritories are in fact two oases in an immense band of desert, which\nstretches from the western edge of the great Sahara (which is almost the\nedge of Africa itself) in a curved sweep, through part of Arabia, part\nof Persia, up to the great plains of central Asia; in other words, it\nstretches across more than one-third of the circumference of the globe.\nThe Tigro-Euphrates oasis which the Greeks called Mesopotamia is in the\nBible called Chald\u00e6a or the country of the Chaldees. In days known to\nhistory, its inhabitants were a mixed people, of whom the oldest\nelement was undoubtedly Turanian; and this section of the nation had\nprobably descended from the country afterwards called Iran to the mouths\nof the Tigris and Euphrates. These people are called by modern scholars\nthe Accadians, or the Sh\u00fbm\u00eero-Accadians.[45] They are the Accad of the\nBible. Mixed with them were a people of Semitic, or half-Semitic origin,\nwhose language is closely allied to the Hebrew and the Aram\u00e6an. If we\ntake the Biblical name for them, we should call them Hamites or\nCushites. But the best ethnological name would be that of Aram\u00e6ans.\n\nThese two races mingled, and formed the nation of Chald\u00e6ans as known to\nhistory; and in time the Semitic element predominated over the Turanian.\nNevertheless it was the Accadians who had brought to the common stock\nthe earliest elements of civilization. Their earliest tombs show them in\npossession of both the metals bronze and iron, though of the latter in\nsuch small quantities that it took with them the position of a precious\nmetal; ornaments were made from it as much as from gold. What is far\nmore important, the Accadians possessed a hieroglyphic writing similar\nin character to that of the Egyptians, and, after their junction with\nthe Semite people, that developed into a syllabic alphabet.[46] We may\ndate the fusion of the Accadian and Aram\u00e6an peoples at about 4000 B.C.\n\nIt is in this country, be it remembered, in the Tigro-Euphrates basin,\nthat the Bible places the earliest history of the human race. \u2018And it\ncame to pass that as they journeyed from the East they found a plain in\nthe land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.\u2019[47] Here, too, is placed the\nbuilding of Babel, and the subsequent dispersion of the human family.\nHere ruled Nimrod, \u2018the son of Cush,\u2019 the first of the kings of this\nregion of whom any authentic mention is made; though we have dynastic\nlists of supernatural beings who were supposed to have reigned in\nChald\u00e6a in far distant ages of the world, as we have in the case of\nEgypt. Even of Nimrod\u2019s reign no monumental records have yet come to\nlight. The cities which Nimrod built, says the Bible, were Erech [in\nAccadian, Ounoug, or \u00dbr\u00fbk] and Ur [Accad. Ur\u00fb]--these two are the\npresent Warkah and Mugheir,--Accad [Agad\u00ea] and Calneh. But the earliest\nhuman king of whom we have anything like an authentic date is either\nSargon I., who may have reigned as early as 3800 B.C., or \u00dbrbag\u00fbs, who\nseems to have ruled over all Mesopotamia, contemporaneously with the\nfifth Egyptian dynasty (3900 or 2900 B.C.).\n\nThe Chaldean buildings of this period, like the contemporary Egyptian\nones, are of gigantic proportions, and like them seem to recall bygone\ndays, the grandiose conceptions of the later stone-age, those _tumuli_\nand cromlechs which, spread over the face of the world, most undoubtedly\nhave suggested to subsequent nations of mankind the belief in a giant\nrace which had preceded them on earth--\n\n              \u2018The far-famed hold,\n    Piled by the hands of giants\n    For god-like kings of old.\u2019\n\nAnd thus, as has already been often said, this earliest civilization in\nthe world looks back to pre-historic days as much as forward to historic\nones.\n\nClose beside Chald\u00e6a, in the more mountainous country to the east, but\nnot far from the Persian Gulf, rose another civilization, that of the\nElamites, which may possibly have been not much later than the Chald\u00e6an.\nThis, too, we may believe, was in its origin Turanian. The capital of\nthe country of Elam was Susa. Between 2300 and 2280 B.C., a king of\nSusa, Kurdur-Nankunty, conquered the reigning king of Chald\u00e6a, and\nhenceforward the two districts were incorporated into one country. The\naccession of strength thus gained to his crown induced one of the kings\nof the Elamitic line, Kudur-lagomer (Chedorlaomer) by name, to aspire\ntowards a wider empire (c. 2200 B.C.). He sent his armies against the\nSemitic nations on his west, who were now beginning to settle down in\ncities, and to enjoy their share of the civilization of Egypt and\nChald\u00e6a. These he subdued, but after sixteen years they rebelled; and it\nwas after a second expedition to punish their recalcitrancy, wherein he\nhad conquered the kings of Sodom and Gomorrah, and had among the\nprisoners taken Lot, the nephew of Abraham, that Chedorlaomer was\npursued and defeated by the patriarch. \u2018And when Abram heard that his\nbrother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his\nown house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan. And he\ndivided himself against them, he and his servants, by night, and smote\nthem, and pursued them unto Hobah, which is on the left hand of\nDamascus. And he brought back all the goods, and also brought again his\nbrother Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people.\u2019[48]\n\nThe conquest of a powerful Chald\u00e6an king by a handful of wandering\nSemites seems extraordinary, and might have sounded a note of warning to\nthe ear of the Chald\u00e6ans. Their kingdom was destined soon to be\noverthrown by another Semitic people. After a duration of about half a\nthousand years for the Elamite kingdom, and some seven hundred years\nsince the time of Nimrod, the Chald\u00e6an dynasty was overthrown and\nsucceeded by an Arabian one, that is, by a race of nomadic Shemites\nfrom the Arabian plains; and after two hundred and forty-five years they\nin their turn succumbed to another more powerful people of the same\nSemitic race, the Assyrians. The empire thus founded upon the ruins of\nthe old Chald\u00e6an was one of the greatest of the ancient world, as we\nwell know from the records which meet us in the Bible. Politically it\nmay be said to have balanced the power of Egypt. But the stability of\nthis monarchy rested upon a basis much less firm than that of Egypt; the\nsouthern portion--the old Chald\u00e6a--of which Babylon was the capital, was\nalways ready for revolt, and after about seven hundred years the\nBabylonians and Medes succeeded in overthrowing their former conquerors.\nAll this belongs to history--or at least to chronicle--and is therefore\nscarcely a part of our present inquiry.\n\nTo these primitive civilizations of Egypt, Chald\u00e6a, and Susa we might,\nif we could put faith in native records, be inclined to add a fourth.\n\n[Sidenote: China.]\n\nThe _Chinese_ profess to extend their lists of dynasties seven, eight,\nor even ten thousand years backward, but there is nothing on which to\nrest such extravagant pretensions. Their earliest known book is believed\nto date from the twelfth century before Christ. It is therefore not\nprobable that they possessed the art of writing more than fifteen\nhundred years before our era, and before writing is invented there can\nbe no reliable history. The best record of early times _then_ is to be\nfound in the popular songs of a country, and of these China possessed a\nconsiderable number, which were collected into a book--the _Book of\nOdes_--by their sage Confucius.[49] The picture which these odes present\nis of a society so very different from that of the time from which their\nearliest book--the _Book of Changes_--dates, that we cannot refuse to\ncredit it with a high antiquity. From the songs we learn that before\nChina coalesced into the monarchy which has lasted so many years, its\ninhabitants lived in a sort of feudal state, governed by a number of\npetty princes and lords. The pastoral life which distinguished the\nsurrounding Turanian nations had already been exchanged for a settled\nagricultural one, to which houses, and all the civilization which these\nimply, had long been familiar. For the rest, their life seems to have\nbeen then, as now, a simple, slow-moving life, not devoid of piety and\ndomestic affection. But it should be mentioned here that recent\nresearches seem to point to the conclusion, strange as it may appear,\nthat the Chinese civilization is closely connected with that of the\nAccadians, and may have had an origin from some contact with the\nAccadian peoples in their earliest homes in Central Asia. In any case it\nhardly seems likely that this can be classed as the fourth civilization\nwhich may have existed in the world when the pyramids were being built.\nBut it is without doubt after these three the next oldest of the\ncivilizations which the world has known. It seems to be remote alike\nfrom the half-civilization of the other Mongolian people of the stone\nage, and from the mixed Turanian-Semitic civilizations of Egypt and\nChald\u00e6a.\n\nTo these early civilizations in the old world, may we add any from the\nnew, and believe in a great antiquity of the highest civilization of the\n_red_ race? The trace of an early civilization in Mexico and Peru,\nbearing many remarkable points of resemblance to the civilization of\nChald\u00e6a, is undoubted. This _may_ have been passed on by the Chinese at\na very early date. But there is nothing to show that the identity in\nsome of the features of their culture extended to an identity in their\nrespective epochs.\n\n[Sidenote: Assyrians, Ph\u0153nicians, Hebrews.]\n\nA greater destiny, though a more tardy development, awaited the pure\nSemitic and Japhetic races. Among the former we might notice many\nnations which started into life during the thousand years following that\ndate of 3000 B.C., which we have taken as our starting-point. Of the\nAssyrians we have already spoken. The next most conspicuous stand the\nPh\u0153nicians, who, either in their early home upon the seacoast of\nSyria, or in their second home, the sea itself, or in one of their\ncountless colonies, came into contact with almost every one of the great\nnations of antiquity, from the Egyptians, the Assyrians, and the\nIsraelites, to the Greeks and Romans.\n\nBut it is upon the life and history of the nomadic Shemites, and among\nthem of one chosen people, that our thoughts chiefly rest. Among the\nprouder citied nations which inhabited the plains of the Tigris and\nEuphrates, from the Mediterranean to the Caspian Sea, dwelt a numerous\npeople, more or less nomadic in their habits, under the patriarchal form\nof government which belonged to their mode of life. Among such a people\nthe chief of one particular family or clan was summoned by a Divine call\nto escape from the influence of the idolatrous nations around, and to\nlive that vagrant pastoral life which was in such an age most fitted for\nthe needs of purity and religious contemplation. It is as something like\na wandering Bedouin chieftain that we must picture Abraham, while we\nwatch him, now joining with one small city king against another, now\ndriven by famine to travel with his flocks and herds as far as Egypt.\nThen again he returns, and settles in the fertile valley of the Jordan,\nwhere Lot leaves him, and, seduced by the luxuries of a town life, quits\nhis flocks and herds and settles in Sodom, till driven out again by the\ndestruction of that city. And we are not now reading dry dynastic lists,\nbut the very life and thought of an early time.[50] To us--whose lives\nare so unsimple--the mere picture of this simple nomadic life of early\ndays would have an interest and a charm; but it has a double charm and\ninterest viewed by the light of the high destiny to which Abraham and\nhis descendants were called. Plying the homely, slighted shepherd\u2019s\ntrade, these people lived poor and despised beside the rich monarchies\nof Egypt or Chald\u00e6a; one more example, if one more were needed, how wide\napart lie the empires of spiritual and of material things.\n\nUp to very late times the Children of Israel bore many of the\ncharacteristics of a nomadic people. It was as a nation of shepherds\nthat they were excluded from the national life of Egypt. For long years\nafter their departure thence they led a wandering life; and though, when\nthey entered Palestine, they found cities ready for their\noccupation--for the nations which they dispossessed were for the most\npart settled people, builders of cities--and inhabited them, and,\ngrowing corn and wine, settled partly into an agricultural life, yet the\nchief wealth of the nation still probably consisted in their flocks, and\nthe greater portion of the people still dwelt in tents. This was,\nperhaps, especially the case with the people of the north, for even so\nlate as the separation, when the ten tribes determined to free\nthemselves from the tyranny of Rehoboam, we know how Jeroboam cried out,\n\u2018To your tents, O Israel.\u2019 \u2018So Israel departed unto their tents,\u2019 the\nnarrative continues. After the separation we are told that Jeroboam\nbuilt several cities in his own dominions. The history of the Israelites\ngenerally may be summed up as the constant expression and the ultimate\ntriumph of a wish to exchange their simple life and theocratic\ngovernment for one which might place them more on a level with their\nneighbour states. At first it is their religion which they wish to\nchange, whether for the gorgeous ritual of Egypt or for the vicious\ncreeds of Asiatic nations; and after a while, madly forgetful of the\ntyrannies of a Ramses or a Tiglath-Pileser, they desire a king to reign\nover them in order that they may \u2018take their place\u2019 among the other\nOriental monarchies. Still their first two kings have rather the\ncharacter of military leaders, the monarchy not having become\nhereditary; the second, the warrior-poet, the greatest of Israel\u2019s sons,\nwas himself in the beginning no more than a shepherd. But under his son\nSolomon the monarchical government becomes assured, the country attains\n(like Rome under Augustus) the summit of its splendour and power, and\nthen enters upon its career of slow and inevitable decline.\n\n[Sidenote: The Aryans.]\n\nNow let us turn to the Japhetic people--the Aryans. It is curious that\nthe date of three thousand years before Christ, from which we started in\nour glance over the world, should also be considered about that of the\nseparation of the Aryan people. Till that time they had continued to\nlive--since when we know not--in their early home near the Oxus and\nJaxartes, and we are able by the help of comparative philology to gain\nsome little picture of their life at the time immediately preceding the\nseparation. We have already seen how this picture is obtained; how,\ntaking a word out of one of the Aryan languages and making allowance for\nthe changed form which it would wear in the other tongues, if we find\nthe same word with the same meaning reappearing in all the languages of\nthe family, we may fairly assume that the _thing_ for which it stands\nwas known to the old Aryans before the separation. If, again, we find a\nword which runs through all the European languages, but is not found in\nthe Sanskrit and Persian, we guess that in this case the thing was known\nonly to the Yavanas, the first separating body of younger Aryans, from\nwhom it will be remembered all the European branches are descended. Thus\nwe get a very interesting list of words, and the means of drawing a\npicture of the life of our prim\u00e6val ancestors. The earliest appearance\nof the Aryans is as a pastoral people, for words derived from the\npastoral life have left the deepest traces on their language. Daughter,\nwe saw, meant originally \u2018the milker;\u2019 the name of money, and of booty,\nin many Aryan languages is derived from that of cattle;[51] words which\nhave since come to mean lord or prince originally meant the guardian of\nthe cattle;[52] and others which have expanded into words for district\nor country, or even for the whole earth, meant at first simply the\npasturage. So not without reason did we say that the king had grown out\nof the head of the family, and the pens of sheepfolds expanded into\nwalled cities.\n\nBut though a pastoral, the ancient Aryans do not seem to have been a\nnomadic race, and in this respect they differed from the Shemites of the\nsame period, and from the Turanians, by whom they were surrounded. For\nthe Turanian _civilization_ had pretty well departed from Asia by that\ntime, and having taught its lessons to Egypt and Chald\u00e6a, lived on, if\nat all, in Europe only. There it faded before the advance of the Celts\nand other Aryan people, who came bringing with them the use of bronze\nweapons and the civilization which belonged to the bronze age. The stone\nage lingered in the lake dwellings of Switzerland, as we thought, till\nabout two thousand years before Christ or perhaps later, and it may be\nthat this date, B.C. 2000, which is also nearly that of Abraham,\nrepresents within a few hundred years the entry of the Aryans into\nEurope. The Greeks are generally believed to have appeared in Greece, or\nat least in Asia Minor, about the nineteenth century before our era, and\nthey were probably preceded by the Latin branch of the Aryan family, as\nwell as by the Celts in the north of Europe. So that the period of one\nthousand years which intervened between our starting-point and the call\nof Abraham, the starting-point of the Hebrew history, and which saw the\ngrowth and change of many great Asiatic monarchies, must for the Aryans\nbe only darkly filled up by the gradual separation of the different\nnations, and their unknown life between this separation and the time\nwhen they again become vaguely known to history.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: Summary.]\n\nThe general result, then, of our inquiries into the grouping of nations\nof the world in pre-historic times may be sketched in rough outline. At\na very early date, say 4000 or 5000 B.C., arose an extensive Turanian\nhalf-civilization, which, flourishing probably in Central and Southern\nAsia, spread in time and through devious routes to India and China upon\none side, on the other side to Europe. This was, at first at any rate, a\nstone age, and was especially distinguished by the raising of great\nstones and grave-mounds. This civilization was communicated to the\nEgyptians and Chald\u00e6ans, a mixed people--Semite, Turanian,\nEthiopian--who were not strangers to the use of metals. As early as 3000\nyears before our era the civilization of Egypt had attained its full\ngrowth, and had probably even then a considerable past. Chald\u00e6a, too,\nand the neighbouring Elam were both advanced out of their primitive\nstate; possibly so also were China, Peru, and Mexico. But the pure\nSemite peoples, the ancestors of the Jews, and the Aryans, were still\npastoral races, the one by the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates, the\nother by the banks of the Jaxartes and the Oxus. The first of these\ncontinued pastoral and nomadic for hundreds of years, but about this\ntime the Western Aryans separated from those of the East, and soon after\nadded some use of agriculture to their shepherd life. Then between 3000\nand 2000 B.C. came the separation of the various peoples of the Western\nAryans and their migration towards Europe, where they began to appear at\nthe latter date. After all the Western Aryans had left the East, the\nolder Aryans seem to have lived on for some little time together, and at\nlast to have separated into the nations of Iranians and Hindus, the\nfirst migrating southward, and the second crossing the Hindoo-Koosh and\ndescending into the plains of the Indus and the Ganges. Thence they\ndrove away or exterminated most of the older Turanian inhabitants, as\ntheir brethren had a short time before done to the Turanians whom they\nfound in Europe. Such, so far as we can surmise, were in rough outline\nthe doings of the different kindreds and nations and languages of the\nold world in times long before history.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nEARLY SOCIAL LIFE.\n\n\n[Sidenote: Formation of settlements.]\n\nWe have seen, so far, that the early traces of man\u2019s existence point to\na gradual improvement in the state of his civilization, to the\nacquirement of fresh knowledge, and the practice of fresh arts. The rude\nstone implements of the early drift-period are replaced by the more\ncarefully manufactured ones of the polished-stone age, and these again\nare succeeded by implements of bronze and of iron. By degrees also the\narts of domesticating animals and of tilling the land are learnt; and by\nsteps, which we shall hereafter describe, the art of writing is\ndeveloped from the early pictorial rock-sculptures. Now, in order that\neach step in this process of civilization should be preserved for the\nbenefit of the next generation, and that the people of each period\nshould start from the vantage-ground obtained by their predecessors,\nthere must have been frequent intercommunication between the different\nindividuals who lived at the same time; so that the discovery or\nimprovement of each one should be made known to others, and become part\nof the common stock of human knowledge. In the very earliest times,\nthen, men probably lived collected together in societies of greater or\nless extent. We know that this is the case now with all savage tribes;\nand as in many respects the early races of the drift-beds seem to have\nresembled some now existing savage tribes in their mode of life,\nemploying, to a certain extent, the same implements, and living on the\nsame sort of food, this adds to the probability of their gregariousness.\nThe fact, too, that the stone implements of the first stone period have\ngenerally been found collected near together in particular places,\nindicates these places as the sites of early settlements. Beyond this,\nhowever, we can say very little of the social state of these early\nstone-age people. Small traces of any burial-ground or tomb of so great\nan antiquity have yet been found, and all that we can say of them with\nany certainty is, that their life must have been very rude and\nprimitive. Although they were collected together in groups, these groups\ncould not have been large, and each must have been generally situated at\na considerable distance from the next, for the only means of support for\nthe men of that time was derived from hunting and fishing. Now it\nrequires a very large space of land to support a man who lives entirely\nby hunting; and this must have been more particularly the case in those\ntimes when the weapons used by the huntsman were so rude, that it is\ndifficult for us now to understand how he could ever have succeeded in\nobtaining an adequate supply of food by such means. Supposing that the\nsame extent of territory were required for the support of a man in those\ntimes as was required in Australia by the native population, the whole\nof Europe could only have supported about seventy-six thousand\ninhabitants, or about one person to every four thousand now in\nexistence.\n\nNext to the cave-dwellings the earliest traces of anything like fixed\nsettlements which have been found are the \u2018kitchen-middens.\u2019 The extent\nof some of these clearly shows that they mark the dwelling-place of\nconsiderable numbers of people collected together. But here only the\nrudest sort of civilization could have existed, and the bonds of society\nmust have been as primitive and simple as they are among those savage\ntribes at the present time, who support existence in much the same way\nas the shell-mound people did. In order that social customs should\nattain any development, the means of existence must be sufficiently\nabundant and easily procurable to permit some time to be devoted to the\naccumulation of superfluities, or of supplies not immediately required\nfor use. The life of the primitive hunter and fisher is so precarious\nand arduous, that he has rarely either the opportunity or the will for\nany other employment than the supply of his immediate wants. The very\nuncertainty of that supply seems rather to create recklessness than\nprovidence, and the successful chase is generally followed by a period\nof idleness and gluttony, till exhaustion of supplies once more compels\nmen to activity. That the shell-mound people were subject to such\nfluctuations of supply we may gather from the fact that bones of foxes\nand other carnivorous animals are frequently found in those mounds; and\nas these animals are rarely eaten by human beings, except under the\npressure of necessity, we may conclude that the shell-mound people were\ndriven to support existence by this means, through their ill-success in\nfishing and hunting, and their want of any accumulation of stores to\nsupply deficiencies.\n\nThe next token of social improvement that is observable is in the\ntumuli, or grave-mounds, which may be referred to a period somewhat\nlater than that of the shell-mounds. These contain indications that the\npeople who constructed them possessed some important elements necessary\nto their social progress. They had a certain amount of time to spare\nafter providing for their daily wants, and they did not spend that time\nexclusively in idleness. The erection of these mounds must have been a\nwork of considerable labour, and they often contain highly finished\nimplements and ornaments, which must have been put there for the use of\nthe dead. They are evidences that no little honour was sometimes shown\nto the dead; so that some sort of religion must have existed amongst the\npeople who constructed the ancient grave-mounds. The importance of this\nelement in early society is evident if we inquire further for whom and\nby whom these mounds were erected. Now, they are not sufficiently\nnumerous, and are far too laborious in their construction, to have been\nthe ordinary tombs of the common people. They were probably tombs\nerected for chiefs or captains of tribes to whom the tribes were anxious\nto pay especial honour. We do not know at all how these separate tribes\nor clans came into existence, and what bonds united their members\ntogether; but so soon as we find a tribe erecting monuments in honour of\nits chiefs, we conclude that it has attained a certain amount of\ncompactness and solidity in its internal relations. Amongst an\nuneducated people there is probably no stronger tie than that of a\ncommon faith, or a common subject of reverence. It is impossible not to\nbelieve, then, that the people who made these great, and in some cases\nelaborately constructed tombs, would continue ever after to regard them\nas in some sort consecrated to the great chiefs who were buried under\nthem. Each tribe would have its own specially sacred tombs, and perhaps\nwe may here see a germ of that ancestor-worship which may be traced in\nevery variety of religious belief.\n\nIt has been supposed by some that a certain amount of\n\n[Sidenote: Barter.]\n\ncommerce or barter existed in the later stone age. The reason for this\nopinion is that implements of stone are frequently found in localities\nwhere the stone of which they are made is not native. At Presigny le\nGrand, in France, there exists a great quantity of a particular kind of\nflint which seems to have been very convenient for the manufacture of\nimplements; for the fields there are covered with flint-flakes and chips\nwhich have been evidently knocked off in the process of chipping out the\nknives, and arrow-heads, and hatchets which the stone-age men were so\nfond of. Now, implements made of this particular kind of flint are found\nin various localities, some of which are at a great distance from\nPresigny; and it has therefore been supposed that Presigny was a sort of\nmanufactory for flint weapons which were bartered to neighbouring\ntribes, and by them again perhaps to others further off; and so these\nweapons gradually got dispersed. But it is also possible that the tribes\nof the interior, who would subsist almost exclusively by hunting, and\nwould therefore be of a more wandering disposition than those on the\nsea-coast, may have paid occasional visits to this flint reservoir for\nthe purpose of supplying themselves with weapons of a superior quality,\njust as the American Indians are said to go to the quarry of Coteau des\nPrairies on account of the particular kind of stone which is found\nthere.\n\nIn any case, whatever system of barter was carried on at that time was\nof a very primitive kind, and not of frequent enough occurrence to\nproduce any important effects on the social condition of the people.\nThat that condition had already advanced to some extent beyond its\noriginal rudeness, shows us that there existed, at all events, some\ncapacity for improvement among the tribes which then inhabited Europe;\nbut, when we compare them with modern tribes of savages, whose apparent\ncondition is much the same as theirs was, and who do not seem to have\nmade any advance for a long period, or, so far as we can judge, to be\ncapable of making any advance by their own unassisted efforts, we cannot\nbut conclude that the stone-age people, if left to themselves, would\nonly have emerged out of barbarism by very slow degrees. Now we know\nthat, about the time when bronze implements first began to be used, some\nvery important changes also occurred in the manners and customs of the\ninhabitants of Europe. A custom of burning the dead superseded then the\nolder one of burial; domestic animals of various sorts seem to have been\nintroduced, and the bronze implements themselves show, both in the\nelaborateness of their workmanship and the variety of their designs,\nthat a great change had come over European civilization. The greatness\nand completeness of this change, the fact that there are no traces of\nthose intermediate steps which we should naturally expect to find in the\ndevelopment of the arts, denote that this change was due to some\ninvading population which brought with it the arts that had been\nperfected in its earlier home; and other circumstances point to the East\nas the home from which this wave of civilization proceeded. Language has\ntaught us that at various times there have been large influxes of Aryan\npopulations into Europe. To the first of these Aryan invaders probably\nwas due the introduction of bronze into Europe, together with the\nvarious social changes which appear to have accompanied its earliest\nuse. To trace then the rise and progress of the social system which the\nAryans had adopted previous to their appearance in Europe, we must go to\ntheir old Asiatic home, and see if any of the steps by which this system\nhad sprung up, or any indications of its nature, may be extracted from\nthe records of antiquity.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: The patriarchal family.]\n\nHitherto scarcely any attempt has been made to discover or investigate\npre-historic monuments in the East. We can no longer therefore appeal to\nthe records of early tombs or temples, to indications taken from early\nseats of population; but though as yet this key to Aryan history has not\nbeen made available, we have another guide ready to take us by the hand,\nand show us what sort of lives our ancestors used to lead in their\nfar-off Eastern home. That guide is the science of Language, which can\nteach us a great deal about this if we will listen to its lessons: a\nrich mine of knowledge which has as yet been only partially explored,\nbut one from which every day new information is being obtained about the\nhabits and customs of the men of pre-historic times.\n\nAll that we know at present of the Aryan race indicates that its social\norganization originated in a group which is usually called the\nPatriarchal Family, the members of which were all related to each other\neither by blood or marriage. At the head of the family was the\npatriarch, the eldest male descendant of its founder; its other members\nconsisted of all the remaining males descended on the father\u2019s side from\nthe original ancestor, their wives, and such of the women, also\ndescended on the father\u2019s side from the same ancestor, as remained still\nunmarried. To show more exactly what people were members of the ancient\npatriarchal family, we will trace such a family for a couple of\ngenerations from the original founder. Suppose, then, the original\nfounder married, and with several children, both sons and daughters. All\nthe sons would continue members of this family. The daughters would only\ncontinue members until they married, when they would cease to be\nmembers of the family of their birth, and become members of their\nrespective husbands\u2019 families. So when the sons of the founder married,\ntheir wives would become members of the family; and such of their\nchildren as were sons would be members, and such as were daughters would\nbe members only until they married; and so on through succeeding\ngenerations. On the founder\u2019s death he would be succeeded as patriarch\nby his eldest son. On the eldest son\u2019s death, he would be succeeded by\n_his_ eldest son, if he had a son; and if not, then by his next brother.\nThe patriarchal family also included in its circle, in later times at\nall events, slaves and other people, who, although perhaps not really\nrelations at all, were _adopted_ into the household, assumed the family\nname, and were looked upon for all purposes as if its actual members.\nThis little group of individuals seems originally to have existed\nentirely independent of any external authority. It supported itself by\nits own industry, and recognized no other law or authority than its own.\nThe one source of authority within this little state was the patriarch,\nwho was originally regarded, not only as the owner of all the property\nof which the family was possessed, but also as having unlimited power\nover the different individuals of which it was composed. All the members\nlived together under the same roof, or within the same enclosure. No\nmember could say that any single thing was his own property. Everything\nbelonged to the family, and every member was responsible to the\npatriarch for his actions.\n\n[Sidenote: Custom and law.]\n\nOriginally the power of the patriarch may have been almost absolute over\nthe other members of the family, but it must very early have become\nmodified and controlled by the growth of various customs. Indeed, in\ntrying to picture to ourselves these early times, when as yet no\nregular notions of law had arisen, it is important to remember how great\na force is possessed by custom. Even now, when we distinguish pretty\nclearly between law and custom, we still feel the great coercive and\nrestraining powers of the latter in all the affairs of life. But when no\nexact notions of law had been formed, it seemed an almost irresistible\nargument in favour of a particular action that it had always been\nperformed before. There would thus spring up in a household certain\nrules of conduct for the different members, certain fixed limits to\ntheir respective family duties. Before any individual would be commanded\nby the patriarch to do any particular duty, it would come to be inquired\nwhether it was customary for such a duty to be assigned to such an\nindividual. Before the patriarch inflicted any punishment on a member of\nthe family, it would come to be inquired whether and in what manner it\nhad been customary to punish the particular act complained of. Many\nthings would tend to increase this regard for custom. The obvious\nadvantages resulting from regularity and certainty in the ordering of\nthe family life would soon be felt, and thus a public opinion in favour\nof custom would be created. Ancestor-worship, too, which plays so\nconspicuous a part in early Aryan civilization, acted, no doubt, as a\npowerful strengthener of the force of custom, as is indicated by the\nfact that in many nations the traditionary originator of their laws is\nsome powerful ancestor to whom the nation is accustomed to pay an\nespecial reverence.\n\nResulting from this development of custom into law in the early family\nlife of the Aryans, we find that special duties soon became assigned to\npersons occupying particular positions. To the young men of the\nhousehold were assigned the more active outdoor employments; to the\nmaidens the milking of the cows; to the elder women other household\nduties. And the importance of knowing what the customs were also gave\nrise to the family council, or \u2018sabh\u00e2,\u2019 as it is called in Sanskrit,\nwhich consisted of the elders of the family, the \u2018sabhocita,\u2019 presided\nover by the \u2018sabhapati,\u2019 or president of the assembly. The importance\nattached to the decisions of this council was so great, that the\n\u2018saby\u00e2,\u2019 or decrees of the \u2018sabh\u00e2,\u2019 came to be used simply to express\nlaw or custom. It is probable therefore that this assembly regulated to\na great extent the customs and laws of the family in its internal\nmanagement, and also superintended any negotiations carried on with\nother families.\n\n[Sidenote: The house-fire.]\n\nTo complete our picture of the patriarchal family, we have the\ntraditions of three distinct customs or rites affecting its internal\neconomy. Two of these rites, the maintenance of the sacred house-fire,\nand the marriage ceremony, probably date back to a very remote period;\nand the third, the custom of adoption, though of later development, may\nbe regarded, in its origin at least, as primitive. Fire is itself so\nwonderful in its appearance and effects, so good a servant, so terrible\na master, that we cannot feel any surprise at its having attracted a\ngreat deal of attention in early times. The traces of fire-worship are\nso widely spread over the earth that there is scarcely a single race\nwhose traditions are entirely devoid of them. But the sacred house-fire\nof the Aryans is interesting to us chiefly in its connection with other\nfamily rites in which it played an important part. This fire, which was\nperpetually kept burning on the family hearth, seems to have been\nregarded in some sort, as a living family deity, who watched over and\nassisted the particular family to which it belonged. It was by its aid\nthat the food of the family was cooked, and from it was ignited the\nsacrifice or the funeral pyre. It was the centre of the family life; the\nhearth on which it burned was in the midst of the dwelling, and no\nstranger was admitted into its presence. That hearth was to each member\nof the household as it were an _umbilicus orbis_, or navel of the\nearth--_hearth_, only another form of _earth_.[53] When the members of\nthe family met together to partake of their meals, a part was always\nfirst offered to the fire by whose aid the meal was prepared; the\npatriarch acted as officiating priest in this as in every other family\nceremony; and to the patriarch\u2019s wife was confided the especial charge\nof keeping the fire supplied with fuel.\n\n[Sidenote: Marriage.]\n\nBy _marriage_, as we have seen, a woman became a member of her husband\u2019s\nfamily. She ceased to be any longer a member of the household in which\nshe was born, for the life of each family was so isolated that it would\nhave been impossible to belong to two different families at once. So we\nfind that the marriage ceremony chiefly consisted in an expression of\nthis change of family by the wife. In general it was preceded by a\ntreaty between the two families, a formal offer of marriage made by the\nintending husband\u2019s family on his behalf, together with a gift to the\nbride\u2019s family, which was regarded as the price paid for the bride. If\nall preliminary matters went forward favourably, then, on the day fixed\nfor the marriage, the different members of the bridegroom\u2019s family went\nto the household of the bride and demanded her. After some orthodox\ndelay, in which the bride was expected to express unwillingness to go,\nshe was formally given up to those who demanded her, the patriarch of\nher household solemnly dismissing her from it and giving up all\nauthority over her. She was then borne in triumph to the bridegroom\u2019s\nhouse; and, on entering it, was carried over the threshold, so as not to\ntouch it with her feet; thus expressing that her entry within the house\nwas not that of a mere guest or stranger. She was finally, before the\nhouse-fire, solemnly admitted into her husband\u2019s family, and as a\nworshipper at the family altar.\n\n[Sidenote: Adoption.]\n\nThis ceremony was subject to a great many variations amongst the\ndifferent Aryan races; but in every one of them some trace of it is to\nbe found, and this always apparently intended to express the same idea,\nthe change of the bride\u2019s family. _Adoption_, which in later times\nbecame extremely common among the Romans--the race which seems in Europe\nto have preserved most faithfully the old Aryan family type--originated\nin a sort of extension of the same theory that admitted of the wife\u2019s\nentry into her husband\u2019s family, as almost all the details of the\nceremony of adoption are copied from that of marriage. Cases must have\noccurred pretty often where a man might be placed in such a position as\nto be without a family. He may have become alienated from his own\nkindred by the commission of some crime, or all his relatives may have\ndied from natural causes or been killed in war. In the condition in\nwhich society was then, such a man would be in a peculiarly unenviable\nposition. There would be no one in whom he could trust, no one who would\nbe the least interested in him or bound to protect him. Thus wandering\nas an outlaw, without means of defence from enemies, and unable to\nprotect his possessions if he chanced to have any, or to obtain means of\nsubsistence if he had none, he would be very desirous of becoming a\nmember of some other family, in order that he might find in it the\nassistance and support necessary for his own welfare. It might also\nsometimes happen, that owing to a want of male descendants some house\nmight be in danger of extinction. Now the extinction of a family was a\nmatter of peculiar dread to its members. Connected with the worship of\nthe hearth was the worship of the ancestors of the family. It was the\nduty of each patriarch to offer sacrifices on stated occasions to the\ndeparted spirits of his ancestors; and it was considered as a matter of\nthe utmost importance that these sacrifices should be kept up, in order\nto insure the happiness of those departed spirits after death. So\nimportant indeed was this rite held to be, that it was reckoned as one\nof the chief duties which each patriarch had to perform, and the family\nproperty was regarded as dedicated to this object in priority to every\nother. It would therefore be the chief care of each head of a household\nto leave male descendants, in order that the offerings for his own and\nhis ancestors\u2019 benefit might be continued after his death. The only\nperson, however, capable of performing these rites was a member of the\nsame family, one who joined in the same worship by the same household\nfire: so if all the males of a family were to die out, these rights must\nof necessity cease.\n\nThe marriage ceremony had already supplied a precedent for introducing\nmembers into a house who were not born in it. It was very natural, then,\nthat this principle should be extended to the introduction of males when\nthere was any danger of the male line becoming extinct. This was done by\nthe ceremony of adoption, which was in many respects similar to that of\nmarriage, being a formal renunciation of the person adopted by the\npatriarch of his original family, in case he was a member of one, and a\nformal acceptance and admission into the new family of his adoption, of\nwhich he was thenceforward regarded as a regular member. This ceremony\nexhibits in a very marked manner the leading peculiarity of the\npatriarchal household. We see how completely isolated, in theory, such\na group was from the rest of the world; having its own distinct worship,\nin which no one but its own members were permitted to share, reverencing\nits own ancestors only, who might receive worship from none but their\ndescendants. So jealously was this separation of families guarded, that\nit was impossible for a man or woman at the same time to worship at two\nfamily shrines. While displaying its isolation in the strongest light,\nadoption is nevertheless a mark of decay in the patriarchal family. It\nis an artificial grafting on the original simple stock; and however\ncarefully men may have shut their eyes at first to its artificial\nnature, it must have had a gradual tendency to undermine the reverence\npaid to the principle of blood relationship.\n\nBefore we consider, however, the causes of decay of this form of\nsociety, which we shall do in the next chapter, there are some other\nindications of their manner of livelihood which will help us to\nunderstand the social condition of these Aryan patriarchal families. We\nhave seen that, with the introduction of bronze into Europe, various\nchanges took place in the manner of men\u2019s lives. One of these is the\nregular domestication of animals. It is true that domestic animals were\nby no means unknown before the bronze age in Europe: but until that time\nthis custom had not attained any great extension. In remains of\nsettlements whose age is supposed to be before the introduction of\nbronze, by far the larger number of animals\u2019 bones found are those\nbelonging to wild species, while those belonging to tame species are\ncomparatively rare. This shows that the principal part of the food of\nthose people who lived before the bronze age was obtained by hunting.\nAfter the introduction of bronze, however, exactly the reverse is the\ncase. In these later remains the bones of domestic animals become much\nmore common, while those of wild animals are comparatively rare, which\nshows what an important revolution had taken place in men\u2019s habits.\n\n[Sidenote: Introduction of the pastoral life.]\n\nIt must also be remembered that many remains supposed to belong to the\nlater stone age may, in fact, belong to societies that existed during\nthe bronze age, but who had not yet adopted the use of bronze, or else\nfrom their situation were unable to obtain any. As yet so little is\nknown of how this metal was obtained at that time, that it is impossible\nto say what situations would be least favourable for obtaining it; but\nconsidering that tin, of which bronze is partly composed, is only found\nin a very few places, the wonder is rather that bronze weapons are so\nfrequent amongst the different remains scattered over Europe, than that\nthey should be absent from some of them. Moreover, the races that\ninhabited Europe before the Aryans came there would afterwards remain\ncollected together in settlements, surrounded by the invading\npopulation, for a considerable length of time before they had either\nbeen exterminated or absorbed by the more civilized race. These\naborigines would adopt such of the arts and customs of the Aryans as\nwere most within their reach. The increased population and the greater\ncultivation of the land which followed the Aryan invasion would make it\nmore difficult to obtain food from hunting, and the aborigines would\ntherefore be compelled to adopt domestication of animals as a means of\nsupport, which they would have little difficulty in doing, as they would\nbe able to obtain a stock to start from, either by raids on their\nneighbours\u2019 herds or, perhaps, by barter. But the manufacture of bronze\nweapons, being a much more complicated affair than the rearing of\ncattle, would take a much longer time to acquire. This perhaps may\naccount for the remains found in the lake-dwellings, some of which show\na considerable degree of social advance, but an entire ignorance of the\nuse of bronze, while in the later ones bronze weapons are also found. We\nmay, then, regard the domestication of animals, to the extent that it\nwas practised by the Aryans in their Asiatic home, as a new thing in\nEurope, and as introduced by the Aryans. It was on their flocks and\nherds that these races chiefly depended for subsistence, and the\nimportance of the chase as a means of livelihood was very much less with\nthem than it was with the old hunter-tribes that formed the earlier\npopulation of Europe. This in itself was a great advance in\ncivilization. It implied a regular industry, and the possession of\ncattle was not only a guarantee against want, but an inducement to a\nmore regular and orderly mode of living.\n\nThere are no lessons so important to uncivilized nations as those of\nprovidence and industry, and the pastoral life required and encouraged\nboth these qualities. It was necessary to store up at one time of year\nfood to support the cattle during another period; to preserve a\nsufficient number of animals to keep the stock replenished. The cows too\nhad to be milked at regular times, and every night the flocks and herds\nhad to be collected into pens to protect them from beasts of prey, and\nevery morning to be led out again to the pasture. All this shows the\nexistence of a more organized and methodical life than is possible to a\nhunter-tribe. The pastoral life, moreover, seems to be one particularly\nsuited to the patriarchal type of society. Each little community is\ncapable of supplying its own wants, and is also compelled to maintain a\ncertain degree of isolation. The necessity of having a considerable\nextent of country for their pasturage would prevent different families\nfrom living very near each other. In its simplest state, too, the\npastoral life is a nomadic one; so that the only social connection which\ncan exist among such a people is one of kinship, for having no fixed\nhomes they can have no settled neighbours or fellow-countrymen. The\nimportance attached to cattle in this stage of civilization is evidenced\nby the frequent use of words in their origin relating to cattle, in all\nthe Aryan languages, to express many of the ordinary incidents of life.\nNot only do cattle occupy a prominent place in Aryan mythology, but\ntitles of honour, the names for divisions of the day, for the divisions\nof land, for property, for money, and many other words, all attest by\ntheir derivation how prominent a position cattle occupied with the early\nAryans. The patriarch is called in Sanskrit \u2018lord of the cattle,\u2019 the\nmorning is \u2018the calling of the cattle,\u2019 the evening \u2018the milking time.\u2019\nThe Latin word for money, _pecunia_, and our English word \u2018fee\u2019 both\ncome from the Aryan name for cattle. In Anglo-Saxon movable property is\ncalled \u2018cwicfeoh,\u2019 or living cattle, while immovable property, such as\nhouses and land, is called \u2018dead cattle.\u2019 And so we find the same word\nconstantly cropping up in all the Aryan languages, to remind us that in\nthe pastoral life cattle are the great interest and source of wealth to\nthe community, and the principal means of exchange employed in such\ncommerce as is there carried on.\n\n[Sidenote: Commerce.]\n\nThe commerce between different tribes or families seems to have been\nconducted at certain meeting-places agreed upon, and which were situated\nin the boundary-land or neutral territory between the different\nsettlements. Very frequently at war with each other, or at best only\npreserving an armed and watchful quiet,--each side ready at a moment\u2019s\nnotice to seize on a favourable opportunity for the commencement of\nactive hostilities,--continual friendly intercourse was impossible. So\nthat when they wished for their mutual advantage to enter into amicable\nrelations, it was necessary to establish some sort of special agreement\nfor that purpose. It is probable, then, that when they found the\nadvantages which could be derived from commercial exchanges, certain\nplaces were agreed upon as neutral territory where these exchanges might\ntake place. Such places of exchange would naturally be fixed upon as\nwould be equally convenient to both parties; and their mutual jealousy\nwould prevent one tribe from permitting the free entrance within its own\nlimits of members of other tribes. Places, too, would be chosen so as to\nbe within reach of three or four different tribes; and thus the place of\nexchange, the market-place, would be fixed in that border-land to which\nno tribe laid any special claim. So we see that to commerce was due the\nfirst amicable relations of one tribe with another; and perhaps our\nmarket crosses may owe their origin to some remains of the old ideas\nassociated with assemblies where men first learnt to look upon men of\ndifferent tribes as brothers in a common humanity.\n\nIt took a long time, however, to mitigate that feeling of hostility\nwhich seems to have existed in early times between different\ncommunities. Even when they condescended to barter with each other they\ndid not forget the difference between the friend and the foe. In the\n_Senchus Mor_, a book compiled by the old Irish or \u2018Brehon\u2019 lawyers,\nthis difference between dealing with a friend and a stranger is rather\ncuriously indicated in considering the rent of land. \u2018The three rents,\u2019\nsays the _Great Book of the Law_, as it is called, \u2018are rack rent (or\nthe extreme rent) from a person of a strange tribe, a fair rent from one\nof the tribe (that is one\u2019s own tribe), and the stipulated rent, which\nis paid equally by the tribe and the strange tribe.\u2019 Such a distinction\nis generally recognized in all early communities. In dealing with a man\nof his own tribe, the individual was held bound in honour not to take\nany unfair advantage, to take only such a price, to exact only such a\nvalue in exchange, as he was legitimately entitled to. It was quite\notherwise, however, in dealings with members of other tribes. Then the\nhighest value possible might justly be obtained for any article; so that\ndealings at markets which consisted of exchanges between different\ntribes, came to mean a particular sort of trading, where the highest\nprice possible was obtained for anything sold. It is probable that this\ncast, to a certain extent, a slur upon those who habitually devoted\nthemselves to this kind of trading. Though it was recognized as just to\nexact as high a price as possible from the stranger, still the person\nwho did so was looked upon to a certain extent as guilty of a\ndisreputable action; viewed, in fact, much in the same light as usurious\nmoney-lenders are viewed nowadays. They were people who did not offend\nagainst the laws of their times, but who sailed so near the wind as to\nbe tainted, as it were, with fraud. Indeed, our word \u2018monger,\u2019 which\nsimply means \u2018dealer,\u2019 comes from a root which, in Sanskrit, means \u2018to\ndeceive;\u2019 so commerce and cheating seem to have been early united, and\nwe must therefore not be surprised if they are not entirely divorced\neven in our own time.\n\nNow \u2018mark,\u2019 which, as we know, means a boundary or border-land, comes\nfrom a root which means \u2018the chase,\u2019 or \u2018wild animals.\u2019 So \u2018mark\u2019\noriginally meant the place of the chase, or where wild animals lived.\nThis gives us some sort of picture of these early settlements, whose\nin-dwellers carried on their commerce with each other in such primitive\nfashion. They were little spots of cleared or cultivated land,\nsurrounded by a sort of jungle or primeval forest inhabited only by wild\nbeasts. It was in such wild places as these that the first markets used\nto be held. Here, under the spreading branches of the trees, at some\nspot agreed upon beforehand,--some open glade, perhaps, which would be\nchosen because a neighbouring stream afforded means of refreshment,--the\nfierce distrustful men would meet to take a passing glimpse at the\nblessings of peace. These wild border-lands which intervened also\nexplain to us how it was that so great an isolation continued to be\nmaintained between the different settlements. If their pasture-lands had\nabutted immediately on each other, if the herds of one tribe had grazed\nby the herds of another, there must have been much more intercommunion\nand mutual trust than appears to have existed.\n\nThe value of cattle does not consist only in the food and skins which\nthey provide. Oxen have from a very early time been employed for\npurposes of agriculture; and we find among the names derived from cattle\nmany suggesting that they must have been put to this use at the time\nwhen those names arose. Thus the Greeks spoke of the evening as\n\u03b2\u03bf\u03c5\u03bb\u03c5\u03c4\u03cc\u03c2 (boulutos), or the time for the unyoking of oxen; and\nthe same idea is expressed in the old German word for evening, \u2018\u00e0bant\u2019\n(Abend), or the unyoking. This, then, is the next stage in social\nprogress: when agriculture becomes the usual employment of man. With the\nadvance of this stage begins the decay of the patriarchal life, which,\nas we shall see in the next chapter, gradually disappears and gives\nplace to fresh social combinations. Though we have hitherto spoken only\nof the patriarchal life of the Aryans, it was a life even more\ncharacteristic of the Semitic race. They were essentially pastoral and\nnomadic in their habits, and they seem to have continued to lead a\npurely pastoral life much longer than the Aryans did. In the Old\nTestament we learn how Abraham and Lot had to separate because their\nflocks were too extensive to feed together; and how Abraham wandered\nabout with his flocks and herds, his family and servants, dwellers in\ntents, leading a simple patriarchal life, much as do the Arabs of the\npresent day. Long after the neighbouring people had settled in towns,\nthese Semitic tribes continued to wander over the intervening plains,\ndepending for food and clothing only on their sheep and cattle and\ncamels.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nTHE VILLAGE COMMUNITY.\n\n\n[Sidenote: The agricultural life.]\n\nSo long as people continued to lead a wandering shepherd life, the\ninstitution of the patriarchal family afforded a sufficient and\nsatisfactory basis for such cordial union as was possible. It was a\ncondition of society in which the relations of the different members to\neach other were extremely simple and confined within very narrow\nboundaries; but these habits of life prevented the existence of any very\ncomplicated social order, and at the same time gave a peculiar force and\nendurance to those customs and ties which did exist. For while the\ndifferent tribes had no settled dwelling-places, the only cohesion\npossible was that produced by the personal relations of the different\nmembers one to another. Those beyond the limits of the tribe or\nhousehold could have no permanent connection with it. They were simply\n\u2018strangers,\u2019 friends or enemies, as circumstances might determine, but\nhaving no common interests, connected by no abiding link, with those who\nwere not members of the same community. When a family became so numerous\nthat it was necessary for its members to separate, the new family,\nformed under the influence of this pressure, would at first remember the\nparent stock with reverence, and perhaps regard the patriarch of the\nelder branch as entitled to some sort of obedience from, and possessing\nsome indefinite kind of power over, it after separation. It would,\nhowever, soon wander away and lose all connection with its relatives,\nforgetting perhaps in the course of time whence it had sprung, or\ninventing a pedigree more pleasing to the vanity of its members. But\nwhen men began to learn to till the soil, by degrees they had to abandon\ntheir nomadic life, and to have for a time fixed dwelling-places, in\norder that they might guard their crops, and gather, in the time of\nharvest, the fruits of their labour. Cattle were no longer the only\nmeans of subsistence, nor sufficiency of pasture the only limit to\nmigration. A part of their wealth was, for a time, bound up in the land\nwhich they had tilled and sowed, and to obtain that wealth they must\nremain in the neighbourhood of the cultivated soil. Thus a new\nrelationship arose between different families. They began to have\nneighbours--dwellers on and cultivators of the land bordering their\nown,--so that common interests sprang up between those who hitherto had\nnothing in common, new ties began to connect together those who had\nformerly no fixed relationship.\n\nThe adoption of agriculture changed likewise the relation of men to the\nland on which they dwelt. Hitherto the tracts of pasture over which the\nherdsman had driven his flocks and cattle had been as unappropriated as\nthe open sea, as free as the air which he breathed. He neither claimed\nany property in the land himself, nor acknowledged any title thereto in\nanother. He had spent no labour on it, had done nothing to improve its\nfertility; and his only right as against others to any locality was that\nof his temporary sojourn there. But when agriculture began to require\nthe expenditure of labour on the land, and its enclosure, so as to\nprotect the crops which had been sown, a new distinct idea of the\npossession of these enclosed pieces of land began to arise, so that a\nman was no longer simply the member of a particular family. He had\nacquired new rights and attributes, for which the patriarchal economy\nhad made no provision. He was the inhabitant of a particular locality,\nthe owner and cultivator of a particular piece of land. The effect of\nthis change was necessarily to weaken the household tie which bound men\ntogether, by introducing new relations between them. The great strength\nof that early bond had consisted in its being the only one which the\nstate of society rendered possible; and its force was greatly augmented\nby the isolation in which the different nomadic groups habitually lived.\nThe adoption of a more permanent settlement thus tended in two ways to\nfacilitate the introduction of a new social organization. By increasing\nthe intercourse, and rendering more permanent the connection between\ndifferent families, it destroyed their isolation, and therefore weakened\nthe autocratic power of their chiefs; and at the same time, by\nintroducing new interests into the life of the members of a family, and\nnew relations between different families, it compelled sometimes the\nadoption of regulations necessarily opposed to the principles of\npatriarchal rule. We must remember, however, that the change from a\nnomadic to a settled state took place very gradually, some peoples being\ninfluenced by it much more slowly than others. Agriculture may be\npractised to a certain extent by those who lead a more or less wandering\nlife, as is the case with the Tartar tribes, who grow buckwheat, which\nonly takes two or three months for its production; so that at the end of\nthat time they are able to gather their harvest and once more wander in\nsearch of new pastures. And it is from its use by them that this grain\nhas received in French the name of _bl\u00e9 sarrasin_ (Saracen corn) or\nsimply _sarrasin_. We may suppose that the earliest agriculture\npractised was something of this rude description; and even when tribes\nlearnt the advantage of cultivating more slowly germinating crops, they\nwould not readily abandon their nomadic habits, which long continuance\nhad rendered dear to them; but would only become agriculturists under\nthe pressure of circumstances. The hunter tribes of North American\nIndians, and the Gipsies of Europe, serve to show us how deeply rooted\nin a people may become the love of wandering and the dislike to settled\nindustry.\n\n[Sidenote: The village community.]\n\nIt was probably to the difficulty of supporting existence produced by\nthe increase of population that the more continuous pursuit of\nagriculture was due; and it would therefore be first regularly followed\nby the less warlike tribes, whose territory had been curtailed by the\nincursions of their bolder neighbours. No longer able to seek pasture\nover so extended an area as formerly, and with perhaps an increasing\npopulation, they would find the necessity of obtaining from the land a\ngreater proportionate supply of subsistence than they had obtained\nhitherto. Agriculture would therefore have to be pursued more regularly\nand laboriously, and thus the habit of settlement would gradually be\nacquired. Under this influence we may discern a change taking place in\nthe social state of the Aryan tribes. Gradually they become less nomadic\nand more agricultural; and as this takes place, there arises also a\nchange in the relations of peoples to each other. We should naturally\nexpect considerable variety in the effects produced on different nations\nby the adoption of a settled life. The results depend upon climate and\nlocality, upon the kind of civilization chosen, and the special\nidiosyncrasies of the people who adopt it. All these elements had their\nshare in moulding the life of the Aryans when they became an\nagricultural people. Yet we find, nevertheless, one special type of\nsociety to have been the prevailing type among them. This form of\nsociety is called the Village Community. It possesses some features\napparently so peculiarly its own, that it would be difficult to decide\non the cause of its adoption or growth. It will be safer with our\npresent limited knowledge to be satisfied with noting the more marked\ncharacteristics of this form of society, and the localities in which it\nmay be traced; and not attempt to determine whether it is to be regarded\nas a natural resultant of the settlement of patriarchal families, or as\ninherited or evolved by some particular groups of tribes.\n\nThe village community in its simplest state consisted of a group of\nfamilies, or households, whose dwellings were generally collected\ntogether within an enclosure. To this group belonged a certain tract of\nland, the cultivation and proprietorship of which were the subject of\nminute regulations. The regulations varied in different localities to a\ncertain extent, but they were based on the division of the land into\nthree principal parts, viz. (1) the land immediately in the\nneighbourhood of the dwellings, (2) another part specially set aside for\nagricultural purposes, and (3) the remaining portion of the surrounding\nopen country, which was used only for grazing. Each of these divisions\nwas regarded as in some sort the common property of the village; but the\nrights of individuals in some of them were more extensive than in\nothers. That part of the land which was annexed especially to the\ndwellings was more completely the property of the different inhabitants\nthan any other. Each head of a house was entitled to the particular plot\nattached to his dwelling, and probably these plots, and the dwellings to\nwhich they were annexed, remained always practically in the ownership\nof the same family. The area of this section, however, was very\ninsignificant when compared with the remainder of the communal estate.\nIn this the arable land was divided into a number of small plots, each\nor several of which were assigned to particular households. The mode of\ndivision was very various; but generally speaking, either each household\nhad an equal share assigned to it, or else a share in proportion to the\nnumber of its males. Redistributions of the shares took place either at\nstated periods, or whenever circumstances had rendered the existing\ndivision inequitable. Each household cultivated the particular share\nassigned to it, and appropriated to its own use the crops produced; but\nindividuals were never allowed themselves to settle the mode of\ncultivation that they might prefer. The crops to be sown, and the part\nof land on which they were to be sown, were all regulated by the common\nassembly of the whole village, as were also the times for sowing and for\nharvest, and every other agricultural operation; and these laws of the\nassembly had to be implicitly followed by all the villagers. The third\nportion, open or common land of the village, was not divided between the\nhouseholds at all; but every member of the community was at liberty to\npasture his flocks and herds upon it.\n\nIn their relations to each other the villagers seem to have been on a\nfooting of perfect equality. It is probable that there existed generally\nsome sort of chief, but his power does not appear to have been very\ngreat, and for the most part he was merely a president of their\nassemblies, exercising only an influence in proportion to his personal\nqualifications. The real lawgivers and rulers of this society were the\ndifferent individuals who constituted the assembly. These, however, did\nnot comprise all the inhabitants of the village. Only the heads of the\ndifferent families were properly included in the village assembly. But\nthe household had no longer the same extended circle as formerly, and,\nso far as we can gather, there seems to have been little check on the\ndivision of families and the formation of new households.\n\nIt must be borne in mind, however, that we have no existing institution\nexactly resembling the village community, such as we may suppose it to\nhave originally been. As with the patriarchal family, we meet with it\nonly after it has undergone considerable modification, and we have to\nreconstruct it from such modified forms and traditions as remain to us.\nMany minor details of its nature are therefore necessarily matters of\nspeculation. The community, however, may still be found in a changed\nform in several localities; notably among the peasantry in Russia, where\nit bears the name of the _mir_, and among the native population of\nIndia. Its former existence among the Teuton tribes is attested by the\nclearest evidence. With each of these peoples, however, the form is\nsomewhat varied from what we may conclude to have been its original\nnature; in each country it has been subject not only to the natural\ngrowth and development which every institution is liable to, but to\nspecial influences arising from the events connected with the nation\u2019s\nhistory, and from the nature and extent of its territory. But before we\ninquire what these different influences may have been, let us notice\nfirst certain leading characteristics of this group, and consider how\nthey probably arose.\n\nThe first thing that we notice is the change in the source of authority\nin the Village Community as compared with that which existed in the\npatriarchal family. The ruling power is no longer placed in the hands of\nan individual\n\n[Sidenote: The assembly of householders.]\n\nchief, but is vested in an assembly of all the householders. The second\nmarked peculiarity is the common possession of nearly all the land by\nthe village, combined with the individual possession of goods of a\nmovable nature by the different members. These may be said to be the two\nessentials of a true village community. Now the change from the\npatriarchal to this later social form may have taken place by either of\ntwo processes--the extension of an individual family into a community,\nor the amalgamation of various families. Probably both of these\nprocesses took place; but wherever anything like the formation of a\nvillage community has been actually observed, and the process has\noccasionally been discernible even in modern times in India, it is due\nto the former of the two causes indicated. This mode of formation also\nappears to have left the most distinct impress on society, and we will\ntherefore notice first how it probably acted.\n\nWhen a family had devoted itself to agricultural pursuits, and settled\nin a fixed locality, one of those divisions of its members might take\nplace which probably were of frequent occurrence in the nomadic state.\nAlthough theoretically we speak of the patriarchal family as united and\nindivisible, yet as a matter of fact we know that it could not always\nhave been so, and that families must frequently have either split up, or\nelse sent off little colonies from their midst. Now, we have seen how\nmarked an effect the settlement of the family must have had in\npreserving a permanent connection between that family and the households\nwhich sprang out of it. The separation between the older and the younger\nhouseholds would be by no means so complete as formerly. The subsidiary\nfamily would continue in close intercourse with the elder branch, and\nwould enjoy with it the use of the land which had been appropriated. In\ncourse of time it might happen that a whole group of families would thus\nbecome settled near each other, all united by a common origin and\nenjoying in common the land surrounding the settlement. The desire for\nmutual protection, which would often be felt, would alone be a strong\ninducement to preserve the neighbourhood between those who through\nkinship were allies by nature and tradition. Thus, though each separate\nfamily would continue in its internal relations the peculiarities of the\npatriarchal rule, the heads of the different families would be related\nto each other by quite a new tie. They would not be members of one great\nfamily all subservient to a common chief. They would be united simply by\nthe bond of their common interests.\n\nIn this way, no doubt, sprang up a new relationship between the family\nchiefs, a relationship not provided for in the construction of the\npatriarchal family. We might expect perhaps that a special pre-eminence\nwould be accorded to the original family from which the others had\nseparated, and possibly some traces of this pre-eminence may here and\nthere be discovered. Why we have not more traces of it may be difficult\nto explain. For upon the whole the relationship among the different\nheads of households seems generally to be one of equality. As we do not\nknow exactly by what process families became divided, it is useless to\nspeculate how this equality arose. Alongside of this new reign of\nequality among the different patriarchs or heads of households, went a\ndecrease in the power of the patriarch within his own circle. The family\nhad ceased to be the bond of union of the community at large, albeit the\nunits composing the new combination were themselves groups constructed\non the patriarchal type; so that the fact that they were now only parts\nof larger groups had the effect of weakening the force of patriarchal\ncustoms. When the household was the only state of which an individual\nwas a member, to leave it was to lose all share in its rights and\nproperty, to become an outlaw in every possible sense. But when the\nfamily became part of the village, the facilities for separating from it\nwere necessarily increased. Households would more readily subdivide, now\nthat after separation their component parts continued united in the\ncommunity. Thus by degrees the old patriarchal life decayed, and gave\nplace to this new and more elastic social formation. The importance of\nan individual\u2019s relation to the family became less, that of the family\nto the community became greater; so that in time the community took to\nitself the regulation of many affairs originally within the exclusive\npower of the patriarch.\n\nWith these changes in social life came new theories of rights and\nobligations. A new lesson was learnt with regard to property. It is\ndifficult to discern whether, in the older, the patriarchal society, the\nproperty was regarded as exclusively that of the chief, or as belonging\nto the family collectively. The truth seems to be that the two ideas\nwere blended, and neither was conceived with any clearness or\ncompleteness. In the village community for the first time the two forms\nof property, personal and communal, became fully distinguished; each\nkind, by defining and limiting, producing a clearer idea of the other.\nThe land, the bond of union, and the limit of the extent of the\ncommunity, remained the common property of all; in part, no doubt,\nbecause the idea of possessing land was still so new that it had not\nbeen thoroughly grasped. The produce of the land, whether corn or\npasture, was, on the other hand, rather regarded as a proper subject of\nprivate possession. At first, perhaps, in obedience to the habits of an\nearlier life, even this may have been looked upon as common property.\nBut it did not long continue so, as the separation of the households\nremained too complete to permit of any community with regard to the\npossessions of the individual homestead, or of the produce required for\nthe support of each household; and this enforced separation of household\ngoods soon extended to the live stock, and to the produce of the\nharvest.[54]\n\n[Sidenote: Law.]\n\nThe effects produced by their new relation to each other upon the\nindividual members of this group were very important. Hitherto such idea\nof law as existed was confined to the mandates or traditional\nregulations of the patriarchs. Law was at first inseparably connected\nwith religion. It was looked upon as a series of regulations handed down\nby some ancestor who had received the regulations by Divine inspiration.\nThis notion of the origin of law is so general, that it is to be met\nwith in the traditions of almost every nation. Thus we find the\nEgyptians reputing their laws to the teachings of Hermes (Thoth); while\nthe lawgivers of Greece, Min\u00f4s and Lycurgus, are inspired, the one by\nZeus the other by Apollo. So too the Iranian lawgiver Zoroaster is\ntaught by the Good Spirit; and Moses receives the commandments on Mount\nSinai. Now, though this idea of law is favourable to the procuring\nobedience to it, it produces an injurious effect on the law itself, by\nrendering it too fixed and unalterable. Law, in order to satisfy the\nrequirements and changes of life, should be elastic and capable of\nadaptation; otherwise, regulations which in their institution were\nbeneficial will survive to be obnoxious under an altered condition of\nsociety. But so long as laws are regarded as Divine commands they\nnecessarily retain a great degree of rigidity. The village community, in\ndisconnecting the source of law from the patriarchal power, tended to\ndestroy this association. The authority of the patriarch was a part of\nthe religion of the early Aryans; he was at once the ruler and the\npriest of his family; and though this union between the two characters\nlong continued to have great influence on the conception of law, the\nfirst efforts at a distinction between Divine and human commands sprang\nfrom the regulations adopted by the assembly of the village. The\ncomplete equality and the joint authority exercised by its members was\nan education in self-government, which was needed to enable them to\nadvance in the path of civilization, teaching them the importance of\nself-dependence and individual responsibility.\n\nThose who learnt that lesson best displayed in their history the\ngreatness of its influence, having gained from it a vigour and readiness\nto meet and adapt themselves to new requirements such as was never\npossessed by those absolute monarchies which sprang out of an enlarged\nform of the principle of patriarchal government. The history of the\nvarious states which arose in Asia, each in its turn to be overwhelmed\nin a destruction which scarcely left a trace of its social influence,\nexhibits in a very striking manner the defects which necessarily ensue\nwhen a people ignorant of social arts attempts to form an extensive\nscheme of government. The various races who have risen to temporary\nempire by the chances of war in the East, have been in very many\ninstances nomadic tribes whose habits had produced a hardihood which\nenabled them to conquer with ease their effeminate neighbours of the\nmore settled districts, but whose social state was not sufficiently\nadvanced to allow them to carry on any extended rule. Used only to their\nsimple nomadic life, they were suddenly brought face to face with wants\nand possessions of which they had hitherto had no experience, and which\nlay beyond the bounds of their customs or ideas. They contented\nthemselves with exacting from the conquered such tribute as they could\nextort, leaving their new subjects to manage their own affairs much as\nthey had done before, till the conquerors, gradually corrupted by the\nluxuries which their position afforded, and having failed to make for\nthemselves any firm footing in their new empire, were in their turn\noverwhelmed by fresh hordes of nomadic invaders.\n\nSuch, indeed, may be the fate of any nation. Such was the fate of Rome.\nHer mighty empire, too, fell; but how different a record has she left\nbehind from that of the short-lived monarchies of the East! Having\nlearnt in her earliest infancy, better perhaps than any other nation,\nhow to reconcile the conflicting theories of the household and the\ncommunity, she never flagged in her study of the arts of government.\nEarly imbued with a love of law and order, her people discovered in due\ntime how to accommodate their rule to the various conditions of those\nwhich came under their sway. Her laws penetrated to the remotest\nboundaries of her state, and the rights of a Roman citizen were as\nclearly defined in Britain as in Rome itself. Thus the Romans have left\nbehind them a system of law the wonder and admiration of all mankind,\none which has left indelible marks on the laws and customs, the arts and\ncivilization, of every country which once formed part of their\ndominions.\n\nSuch were among the changes resulting from the adoption of the village\ncommunity; but their influences only gradually asserted themselves, and\nthe extent of their development was very various among different\npeoples. In India, the religious element in the household had always a\npeculiar force, and its influence continued to affect to a great extent\nthe formation of the community. There this organization never lost sight\nof the patriarchal power, and has exhibited a constant tendency to\nrevert to that more primitive social form. Among the Slavonic tribes the\ncommunity seems to have found its most favourable conditions, and some\nof the reasons for this are not difficult to discern. The Slavs in\nRussia have for a long time had open to them an immense tract of thinly\ninhabited country, their only rivals to the possession of which were the\nFinnish tribes of the north. Now, the village community is a form\npeculiarly adapted for colonization, and this process of colonizing\nfresh country by sending out detachments from over-grown villages seems\nto have gone on for a long time in Russia; so that the communities which\nstill exist there present a complete network; all are bound by ties of\nnearer or more distant relationship to each other; every village having\nsome \u2018mother-village\u2019 from which it has sprung.[55] Having a practically\nboundless territory awaiting their settlement, none of those\ndifficulties in obtaining land which led to the decay of the village in\nwestern Europe affected the Russians in their earlier history.\n\nWith the Teutons the village had a somewhat different history. It is\ndifficult to determine exactly to what extent it existed among them; but\ntraces of its organization are still discoverable among the laws and\ncustoms of Germany and England. The warlike habits of the German tribes,\nhowever, soon produced a marked effect on this organization. The chief\nof the village, whether hereditary or elective, was under normal\nconditions possessed of but little power. Among a warlike people,\nhowever, the necessity for a captain or dictator must have been much\ngreater than with peaceful tribes; for war requires, more than any other\npursuit, that it should be directed by an individual mind. Among the\npeaceful inhabitants of India or Russia the village head-man was\ngenerally some aged and venerable father exercising a sort of paternal\ninfluence over the others through the reverence paid to his age and\nwisdom. The habits of the Teutons gave an excessive importance to the\nstrength and vigour of manhood, and they learnt to regard those who\nexhibited the greatest skill in battle as their natural chieftains.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nRELIGION.\n\n\nWe have hitherto been occupied in tracing the growth of inventions which\nhad for their end the supply of material wants, or the ordering of\nconditions which should enable men to live peaceably together in\ncommunities, and defend the products of their labour from the attacks of\nrival tribes and warlike neighbours. A very little research into the\nrelics of antiquity, however, brings another side of human thought\nbefore us, and we discover, whether by following the revelations of\nlanguage or by examining into the traces left in ancient sites, abundant\nproof to show that the material wants of life did not alone occupy the\nthoughts of our remote ancestors any more than our own, and that even\nwhile the struggle for life was fiercest, conjectures about the unseen\nworld and the life beyond the grave, and aspirations towards the\ninvisible source of life and light they felt to be around them, occupied\na large space in their minds. God did not leave them without witness at\nany time, but caused the \u2018invisible things to be shown by those that do\nappear.\u2019 And even in the darkest ages and among the least-favoured races\nthere were always to be found some minds that vibrated, however feebly,\nto the suggestions of this teaching, and shaped out for themselves and\ntheir tribe some conception of a Divine Ruler and His government of the\nworld from those works of His hands of which their senses told them.\nBefore commerce, or writing, or law had advanced beyond their earliest\nbeginnings, religious rites and funeral rites had no doubt been\nestablished in every tribe, and men\u2019s thoughts about God and His\nrelationship to His creatures had found some verbal expression, some\nsort of creed in which they could be handed down from father to son and\nform a new tie to bind men together. The task of tracing back these\nrites and creeds to their earliest shape is manifestly harder than that\nof tracing material inventions, or laws between man and man, to their\nfirst germs, for we are here trenching on some of the deepest questions\nwhich the human mind is capable of contemplating--nothing less, indeed,\nthan the nature of conscience and the dealings of God Himself with the\nsouls of His creatures. We must therefore tread cautiously, be content\nto leave a great deal uncertain, and, making up our minds only on such\npoints as appear to be decided by revelation, accept on others the\nresults of present researches as still imperfect, and liable to be\nmodified as further light on the difficult problems in consideration is\nobtained.\n\n[Sidenote: Explanation of mythology through the study of language.]\n\nThe study of language has perhaps done more than anything else to clear\naway the puzzles which mythologies formerly presented to students. It\nhas helped in two ways: first, by tracing the names of objects of\nworship to their root-forms, and thus showing their meaning and\nrevealing the thought which lay at the root of the worship; secondly, by\nproving the identity between the gods of different nations, whose names,\napparently different, have been resolved into the same root-word, or to\na root of the same meaning, when the alchemy of philological research\nwas applied to them.\n\nThe discovery of a closer relationship than had been formerly suspected\nbetween the mythologies of various nations is a very important one, as\nit enables us to trace the growth of the stories told of gods and\nheroes, from the mature form in which we first become acquainted with\nthem in the religious systems of the Greeks, Romans, and Scandinavians,\nto the primitive shape in which the same creeds were held by the more\nmetaphysical and less imaginative Eastern peoples among whom they\noriginally sprang up. In some respects this task of tracing back the\npoetical myths of Greek and Northern poets to the simpler, if grander,\nbeliefs of the ancient Egyptians or Chald\u00e6ans or Hindus is not unlike\nour search in a perfected language for its earliest roots. We lose\nshapeliness and beauty as we come back, but we find the form that\nexplains the birth of the thought, and lets us see how it grew in the\nminds of men. One chief result arrived at by this comparison of creeds,\nand by unravelling the meaning of the names of ancient gods and heroes,\nis the discovery that a worship of different aspects and forces of\nnature lies at the bottom of nearly all mythologies, and that the cause\nof the resemblance between the stories told of the gods and heroes (a\nresemblance which strikes us as soon as we read two or three of them\ntogether) is that they are in reality only slightly different ways of\ndescribing natural appearances according to the effect produced on\ndifferent minds, or to the variations of climate and season of the year.\nHaving once got the key of the enigma in our hands, we soon become\nexpert in hunting the parable through all the protean shapes in which it\nis presented to us. The heroes of the old stories we have long loved\nbegin to lose their individuality and character for us. And instead of\nthinking of Apollo, and Osiris, and Theseus, and Herakles, and Thor as\nseparate idealizations of heroic or godlike character; of Ariadne, and\nIdun, and Isis as heroines of pathetic histories, our thoughts as we\nread are busied in tracing all that is said about them to the aspects of\nthe sun in his march across the heavens, through the vicissitudes of a\nbright and thundery eastern, or a gusty northern, day, and the tenderly\nglowing and fading colours of the western sky into which he sinks when\nhis course is run.\n\nOur first feeling on receiving this simple explanation of the old\nstories of mythology is rather one of disappointment than of\nsatisfaction; we feel that we are losing a great deal--not the interest\nof the stories only, but all those glimpses of deep moral meanings, of\nyearnings after Divine teachers and rulers, of acknowledgment of the\npossibility of communion between God and man, which we had hitherto\nfound in them, and which we are sure that the original makers of them\ncould not have been without. It seems to rob the old religions of the\nessence of religion--spirituality--and reduce them to mere observations\nof natural phenomena, due rather to the bodily senses than to any\ninstincts or necessities of the soul. But here the science of language,\nwith which we were about to quarrel as having robbed us, comes in to\nrestore to the old beliefs those very elements of mystery, awe, and\nyearning towards the invisible, which we were fearing to see vanish\naway. As is usually the case on looking deeper, we shall find that the\nexplanation which seemed at first to impoverish really enhances the\nbeauty and worth of the subject brought into clearer light. It teaches\nus to see something more in what we have been used to call mere\nnature-worship than appears at first sight.\n\nWhen we were considering the beginnings of language, we learned that\nall root-words were expressions of sensations received from outward\nthings, every name or word being a description of some bodily feeling, a\ngathering-up of impressions on the senses made by the universe outside\nus. With this stock of words--pictorial words, we may call them--it is\neasy to see that when people in early times wanted to express a mental\nfeeling, they were driven to use the word which expressed the sensation\nin their bodies most nearly corresponding to it. We do something of the\nsame kind now when we talk of _warm_ love, _chill_ fear, _hungry_\navarice, and _dark_ revenge--mixing up words for sensations of the body\nto heighten the expression of emotions of the mind. In using these\nexpressions we are conscious of speaking allegorically, and we have,\nover and above our allegorical phrases, words set aside especially for\ndescribing mental actions, so that we can talk of the sensations of our\nbodies and of our minds without any danger of confounding them together.\nBut in early times, before words had acquired these varied and enlarged\nmeanings, when men had only one word by which to express the glow of the\nbody when the sun shone and the glow of the mind when a friend was near,\nthe difficulty of speaking, or even thinking, of mental and bodily\nemotions apart from each other must have been very great. Only gradually\ncould the two things have become disentangled from one another, and\nduring all the time while this change was going on an allegorical way of\nspeaking of mental emotions and of the source of mental emotions must\nhave prevailed. It is not difficult to see that while love and warmth,\nfear and cold, had only one word to express them, the sun, the source of\nwarmth, and God, the source of love, were spoken of in much the same\nterms, and worshipped in songs that expressed the same adoration and\ngratitude. It follows, therefore, that while we acknowledge the large\nproportion in which the nature element comes into all mythologies, we\nneed not look upon the worshippers of nature as worshippers of visible\nthings only. They felt, without being able to express, the Divine cause\nwhich lay behind the objects whose grandeur and beauty appealed to their\nwonder, and they loved and worshipped the Unseen while naming the seen\nonly. As time passed on and language developed, losing much of its\noriginal significance, there was, especially among the Greeks and\nRomans, a gradual divergence between the popular beliefs about the gods\nand the spirit of true worship which originally lay behind them. People\nno longer felt the influence of nature in the double method in which it\nhad come to them in the childhood of the race, and they began to\ndistinguish clearly between their bodies and their minds, between the\nthings that lay without and the emotions stirred within. Then the old\nnature-beliefs became degraded to foolish and gross superstitions, and\nyearning souls sought God in a more spiritual way.\n\nThe mythologies of the different Aryan nations are those which concern\nus most nearly, entering as they do into the very composition of our\nlanguage, and colouring not only our literature and poetry, but our\ncradle-songs and the tales told in our nurseries. We shall find it\ninteresting to compare together the various forms of the stories told by\nnations of the Aryan stock, and to trace them back to their earliest\nshape.\n\n[Sidenote: Egyptian religion.]\n\nBut before entering on this task, it may be well to turn our attention\nfor a little while to a still earlier mythology, where the mingling of\nmetaphysical conceptions with the worship of natural phenomena is\nperhaps more clearly shown than in any other, and which may therefore\nserve as a guide to help us in grasping this connection in the more\nhighly coloured, picturesque stories we shall be hereafter attempting\nto unravel. This earliest and least ornamented mythology is that of the\nancient Egyptians, a people who were always disposed to retain primitive\nforms unchanged, even when, as in the case of their hieroglyphics, they\nhad to use the primitive forms to express thoughts which these forms\ncould not naturally convey. That they followed this course with their\nreligious ceremonies and in their manner of representing their gods, is\nperhaps fortunate for us, as it enables us to trace with greater ease\nthe particular aspect of nature, and the mental sensation or moral\nlesson identified with it, which each one of their gods and goddesses\nembodied. We have the rude primitive form embodying an aspect or force\nof nature, instead of a beautiful confusing story, merely for the most\npart titles, addresses, and prayers, whose purport more or less reveals\nthe spiritual meaning which that aspect of nature conveyed to the\nworshipper.\n\nThe chief objects of nature-worship must obviously be the same, or\nnearly the same, in every part of the world, so that even among\ndifferent races, living far apart, and having no connection with each\nother, a certain similarity in the stories told about gods and heroes,\nand in the names and titles given to them, is observable. The sun, the\nmoon, the heavens and stars, the sea, the river, sunshine and darkness,\nnight and day, summer and winter,--these objects and changes must always\nmake the staple, the back-bone so to speak, round which all mythological\nstories founded on nature-worship are grouped. But climate and scenery,\nespecially any striking peculiarity in the natural features of a\ncountry, have a strong influence in modifying the impressions made by\nthese objects on the imaginations of the dwellers in the land, and so\ngiving a special form or colour to the national creed, bringing perhaps\nsome Divine attribute or some more haunting impression of the condition\nof the soul after death, into a prominence unknown elsewhere. The\nreligion of the ancient Egyptians was distinguished from that of other\nnations by several such characteristics, and in endeavouring to\nunderstand them we must first recall what there is distinctive in the\nclimate and scenery of Egypt to our minds.\n\n[Sidenote: Influence of nature in Egyptian religion.]\n\nThe land of Egypt is, let us remember, a wedge-shaped valley, broad at\nits northern extremity and gradually narrowing between two ranges of\ncliffs till it becomes through a great part of its length a mere strip\nof cultivatable land closely shut in on each side. Its sky overhead is\nalways blue, and from morning till evening intensely bright, flecked\nonly occasionally, and here and there, by thin gauzy clouds, so that the\nsun\u2019s course, from the first upshooting of his keen arrowy rays over the\nlow eastern hills to his last solemn sinking in a pomp of glorious\ncolour behind the white cliffs in the west, can be traced unimpeded day\nafter day through the entire course of the year. Beyond the cliffs which\nreceive the sun\u2019s first and last greeting stretches a boundless\nwaste--the silent, dead, sunlit desert, which no one had ever traversed,\nwhich led no one knew where, from whose dread, devouring space the sun\nescaped triumphant each morning, and back into which it returned when\nthe valley was left to darkness and night.\n\nThe neighbourhood of the desert, and the striking contrast between its\nlifeless wastes and the richly cultivated plains between the hills, had,\nas we can see, a great effect on the imaginations of the first\ninhabitants of the land of Egypt, and gave to many of their thoughts\nabout death and the world beyond the grave an intensity unknown to the\ndwellers among less monotonous scenery. The contrast was a perpetual\nparable to them, or rather perhaps a perpetual _memento mori_. The\nvalley between the cliffs presented a vivid picture of active and\nintense life, every inch of fruitful ground teeming with the results of\nlabour--budding corn, clustering vines, groups of palm-trees, busy\nsowers and reapers and builders; resounding, too, everywhere with brisk\nsounds of toil or pleasure. The clink of anvil and hammer, the creaking\nof water-wheels, the bleating and lowing of flocks and herds, the tramp\nof the oxen treading out the corn, the songs of women, and the laughter\nof children playing by the river. On the other side of the cliffs, what\na change! There reigned an unbroken solitude and an intense silence,\nsuch as is only found in the desert, because it comes from the utter\nabsence of all life, animal or vegetable: no rustle of leaf or bough, no\nhum of an insect or whirr of a wing, breaks the charmed stillness even\nfor a minute. There is silence, broad, unbroken sunshine, bare cliffs,\nrivers of golden sand--nothing else. Amenti, the ancient Egyptians\ncalled the western desert into which, as it seemed to them, the sun went\ndown to sleep after his day\u2019s work was done; Amenti, the vast, the\ngrand, the unknown; and it was there they built their most splendid\nplaces of worship, there that they carried their dead for burial,\nfeeling that it spoke to them of rest, of unchangeableness, of eternity.\n\nAnother striking and peculiar feature of Egyptian scenery was the\nbeautiful river--the one only river--on which the prosperity, the very\nexistence, of the country depended. It, too, had a perpetual story to\ntell, a parable to unfold, as it flowed and swelled and contracted in\nits beneficent yearly course. They saw that all growth and life depended\non its action; where its waters reached, there followed fruitfulness and\nbeauty, and a thousand teeming forms of animal, vegetable, and insect\nlife; where its furthest wave stayed, there the reign of nothingness and\ndeath began again. The Nile, therefore, became to the ancient Egyptians\nthe token and emblem of a life-giving principle in nature, of that\nperpetual renewal, that passing from one form of existence into another,\nwhich has ever had so much hopeful significance for all thinking minds.\nIts blue colour when it reflected the sky was the most sacred of their\nemblems, and was devoted to funeral decorations and to the adornments of\nthe dead, because it spoke to them of the victory of life over death, of\nthe permanence of the life-principle amid the evanescent and vanishing\nforms under which it appeared. Of these two distinctive features of\nnature in Egypt, the unexplored western desert and the unending river,\nwe must, then, think as exercising a modifying or intensifying effect on\nthe impressions produced on the minds of ancient Egyptians by those\naspects of nature which they had in common with other Eastern peoples.\nLet us think what these are. First and most conspicuous we must put the\nsun, in all his changing aspects, rising in gentle radiance over the\neastern hills, majestically climbing the cloudless sky, sending down\nfierce perpendicular rays through all the hot noon, withdrawing his\noverwhelming heat towards evening as he sloped to his rest, and painting\nthe western sky with colour and glory, on which the eyes of men could\nrest without being dazzled, vanishing from sight at last behind the\nwhite rocks in the west. And then the moon--white, cold, changeable,\nruling the night and measuring time. Besides these, the planets and\ncountless hosts of stars; the green earth constantly pouring forth food\nfor man from its bosom; the glowing blue sky at noon and the purple\nmidnight heaven; the moving wind; the darkness that seemed to eat up and\nswallow the day.\n\n[Sidenote: Sun-gods.]\n\n[Sidenote: Amun.]\n\nNow let us see how the ancient Egyptians personified these into gods,\nand what were the corresponding moral or spiritual ideas of which each\nnature-power spake to their souls. We shall find the mythology easier to\nremember and understand if we group the personifications round the\nnatural objects whose aspects inspired them, instead of enumerating them\nin their proper order as first, second, and third class divinities. So\nfor the present we will class them as Sun-gods, Sky-gods, Wind-gods,\netc.; and we will begin with the sun, which among ancient Egyptians\noccupied the _first_ place, given, as we shall see, to the sky among our\nAryan ancestors. The sun, indeed, not only occupies the most conspicuous\nposition in Egyptian mythology, but is presented to us in so many\ncharacters and under so many aspects that he may be said to be the chief\ninspiration, the central object of worship, nothing else, indeed, coming\nnear to his grandeur and his mystery. It is to be remarked, however--and\nthis is a distinctive feature in the Egyptian system of worship--that\nthe _mystery_ of the sun\u2019s disappearance during the night and his\nreappearance every morning is the point in the parable of the sun\u2019s\ncourse to which the Egyptians attached the deepest significance, and to\nthe personification of which they gave the most dignified place in their\nhierarchy of gods. Atum, or Amun, \u2018the concealed one,\u2019 was the name and\ntitle given to the sun after he had sunk, as they believed, into the\nunder-world; and by this name they worshipped the concealed Creator of\nall things, the \u2018Dweller in Eternity,\u2019 who was before all, and into\nwhose bosom all things, gods and men, would, they thought, return in the\nlapse of ages. The figure under which they represented this their oldest\nand most venerable deity was that of a man, sometimes human-headed and\nsometimes with the man\u2019s face concealed under the head and horns of a\nram--the word \u2018ram\u2019 meaning \u2018concealment\u2019 in the Egyptian language. The\nfigure was coloured blue, the sacred colour of the Source of life. Two\nderivations are given for the name Amun. It means that which brings to\nlight; but it also expresses the simple invitation \u2018Come,\u2019 and in this\nsense it appears to be connected with a sentence in the ritual, where\nAtum is represented as dwelling alone in the under-world in the ages\nbefore creation, and on \u2018a day\u2019 speaking the word \u2018Come,\u2019 when\nimmediately Osiris and Horus (light and the physical sun) appeared\nbefore him in the under-world.\n\n[Sidenote: Osiris.]\n\nThe aspect of the sun as it approached its mysterious setting exercised,\nperhaps, a still greater power over the thoughts of the Egyptians, and\nwas personified by them in a deity, who, if not the most venerable, was\nthe best loved of all their gods. Osiris was the name given from the\nearliest times to the kind declining sun, who appeared to men to veil\nhis glory, and sheathe his dazzling beams in a lovely, many-coloured\nradiance, which soothed and gladdened the weary eyes and hearts of men,\nand enabled them to gaze fearlessly and lovingly on the dread orb from\nwhich during the day they had been obliged to turn their eyes. This was\nthe god who loved men and dwelt among them, and for man\u2019s sake permitted\nhimself to be for a time quenched and defeated by the darkness--it was\nthus that the ancient people read the parable of the sun\u2019s evening\nbeauty and of his disappearance beneath the shades of night, amplifying\nit, as the needs of the human heart were more distinctly recognized,\ninto a real foreshadowing of that glorious truth towards which the whole\nhuman race was yearning--_the_ truth of which these shows of nature\nwere, indeed, speaking continually to all who could understand. The\nreturn of Osiris every evening into the under-world invested him also,\nfor the ancient Egyptians, with the character of guardian and judge of\nsouls who were supposed to accompany him on his mysterious journey, or\nat all events to be received and welcomed by him in Amenti (the realm of\nsouls) when they arrived there. Osiris therefore filled a place both\namong the gods of the living and those of the dead. He was the link\nwhich connected the lives of the upper and the under worlds together,\nand made them one--the Lover and Dweller among men while yet in the\nbody, and also the Judge and Ruler of the spirit-realm to which they\nwere all bound. Two distinct personifications showed him in these\ncharacters. As the Dweller among men and the Sharer of the commonness\nand materiality of their earth-life, he was worshipped under the form of\na bull--the Apis, in which shape his pure soul was believed constantly\nto haunt the earth, passing from one bull to that of another on the\ndeath of the animal, but never abandoning the land of his choice, or\ndepriving his faithful worshippers of his visible presence among them.\nIn his character of Judge of the dead, Osiris was represented as a\nmummied figure, of the sacred blue colour, carrying in one hand the rod\nof dominion, and in the other the emblem of life, and wearing on his\nhead the double crown of Upper and Lower Egypt. In the judgment scenes\nhe is seated on a throne at the end of the solemn hall of trial to which\nthe soul has been arraigned, and in the centre of which stands the\nfateful balance where, in the presence of the evil accusing spirit and\nof the friendly funeral gods and genii who stand around, the heart of\nthe man is weighed against a symbol of Divine Truth.\n\nNext in interest to the setting sun is the personification under which\nthe Egyptians worshipped the strong young sun, the victorious conqueror\nof the night, who each\n\n[Sidenote: Horus.]\n\n[Sidenote: Ra.]\n\nmorning appeared to rise triumphant from the blank realm of darkness in\nwhich the rays of yesterday\u2019s sun had been quenched. They figured him as\nthe eldest son of Osiris, Horus, the vigorous bright youth who loved his\nfather, and avenged him, piercing with his spear-like ray the monster\nwho had swallowed him up. Horus is represented as sailing up the eastern\nsky from the under-world in a boat, and slaying the serpent Night with a\nspear as he advances. The ultimate victory of life over death, of truth\nand goodness over falsehood and wrong, were the moral lessons which this\nparable of the sun\u2019s rising read to the ancient Egyptians. The midday\nsun, ruling the heavens in unclouded glory, symbolized to them majesty\nand kingly authority, and was worshipped as a great and powerful god\nunder the name of Ra, who was often identified with Amun and worshipped\nas Amun-Ra. This was especially the case at Thebes.\n\n[Sidenote: Ptah.]\n\nThough these four appearances may well seem to exhaust all the aspects\nunder which the sun can be considered, there are still several other\nattributes belonging to him which the ancient Egyptians noticed and\npersonified into other sun-gods. These we will enumerate more briefly.\nPtah, a god of the first order, worshipped with great magnificence at\nMemphis, personified the life-giving power of the sun\u2019s beams, and in\nthis character was sometimes mixed up with Osiris, and in the ritual is\nspoken of also as the creative principle, the \u2018word\u2019 or \u2018power\u2019 by which\nthe essential deity revealed itself in the visible works of creation.\nAnother deity, Mandoo, appears to personify the fierce power of the\nsun\u2019s rays at midday in summer, and was looked upon as the god of\nvengeance and destruction, a leader in war, answering in some measure,\nthough not entirely, to the war-gods of other mythologies.\n\n[Sidenote: Sekhet-Pasht.]\n\nThere were also Gom, Moui, and Kons, who are spoken of always as the\n_sons_ of the sun-god, those who reveal him or carry his messages to\nmankind, and in them the _rays_, as distinguished from the _disk_ of the\nsun, are apparently personified. The rays of the sun had also a feminine\npersonification in Sekhet or Sekhet-Pasht, the goddess with the\nlioness\u2019s head. To her several different and almost opposite qualities\nwere attributed: as, indeed, an observer of the burning and enlightening\nrays of an Eastern sun might be doubtful whether to speak oftenest of\nthe baleful fever-heat with which they infect the blood, or of their\nvivifying effects upon the germs of animal and vegetable life. Thus the\nlioness-goddess was at once feared and loved; dreaded at one moment as\nthe instigator of fierce passions and unruly desires, invoked at another\nas the giver of joy, the source of all tender and elevating emotions.\nHer name, Pasht, means \u2018the lioness,\u2019 and was perhaps suggested by the\nfierceness of the sun\u2019s rays, answering to the lion\u2019s fierce strength or\nthe angry light of his eyes. She was also called the \u2018Lady of the Cave,\u2019\nsuggesting something of mystery and concealment. Her chief worship was\nat Bubastis; but, judging from the frequency of her representations,\nmust have been common throughout Egypt.\n\n[Sidenote: Thoth.]\n\nWe will now take the second great light of the heavens, the moon, and\nconsider the forms under which it was personified by the Egyptians.\nRising and setting like the sun, and disappearing for regular periods,\nthe moon was represented by a god, who, like the god of the setting sun,\noccupied a conspicuous position among the powers of the under-world, and\nwas closely connected with thoughts of the existence of the soul after\ndeath, and the judgment pronounced on deeds done in the body. Thoth,\n\u2018the Word,\u2019 the \u2018Lord of Divine Words,\u2019 was the title given to this\ndeity; but though always making one in the great assemblage in the\njudgment-hall, his office towards the dead does not approach that of\nOsiris in dignity. He is not the judge, he is the recorder who stands\nbefore the balance with the dread account in his hand, while the\ntrembling soul awaits the final sentence. His character is that of a\njust recorder, a speaker of true words; he wears the ostrich feather,\nthe token of exact rigid evenness and impartiality, and yet he is\nrepresented as having _uneven_ arms, as if to hint that the cold white\nlight of justice, untempered by the warmth of love, cannot thoroughly\napprehend what it seems to take exact account of, leaving, after all,\none side unembraced, unenlightened, as the moonlight casts dense shadows\naround the spots where its beams fall. The silent, watching, peering\nmoon! Who has not at times felt an inkling of the parable which the\nancient Egyptians told of her cold eye and her unwarming rays which\nenlighten chilly, and point out while they distort?\n\nIn spite of his uneven arms, however, Thoth (the dark moon and the light\nmoon) was a great god, bearing sway in both worlds in accordance with\nhis double character of the revealed and the hidden orb. On earth he is\nthe great teacher, the inventor of letters, of arithmetic, and\nchronology; the \u2018Lord of Words,\u2019 the \u2018Lover of Truth,\u2019 the \u2018Great and\nGreat.\u2019 Thoth was sometimes represented under the form of an ape; but\nmost frequently with a human figure ibis-headed; the ibis, on account of\nhis mingled black and white feathers, symbolizing the dark and the\nillumined side of the moon. Occasionally, however, he is drawn with a\nman\u2019s face, and bearing the crescent moon on his head, surmounted by an\nostrich feather; in his hand he holds his tablets and his recording\npencil.\n\n[Sidenote: Maut and Neit.]\n\nThe sky-divinities were all feminine among the Egyptians; representing\nthe feminine principle of receptivity, the sky being regarded by them\nmainly as the abode, the home, of the sun and moon gods. The greatest of\nthe sky-deities was Maut, or Mut, the mother, who represents the deep\nviolet night sky, tenderly brooding over the hot exhausted earth when\nthe day was over, and wooing all living things to rest, by stretching\ncool, protecting arms above and around them. The beginning of all\nthings, abysmal calm, but above all, motherhood, were the metaphysical\nconceptions which the ancient Egyptians connected with the aspect of the\nbrooding heavens at midnight, and which they worshipped as the oldest\nprimeval goddess, Maut. The night sky, however, suggested another\nthought, and gave rise to yet another personification. Night does not\nbring only repose; animals and children sleep, but men wake and think;\nand, the strife of day being hushed, have leisure to look into their own\nminds, and listen to the still small voice that speaks within. Night was\nthus the parent of thought, the mother of wisdom, and a personification\nof the night sky was worshipped as the goddess of wisdom. She was named\nNeit, a word signifying \u2018I came from myself,\u2019 and she has some\nattributes in common with the Greek goddess of wisdom, Athene, whose\nwarlike character she shared. Nu, another sky-goddess, who personifies\nthe sunlit blue midday sky, may also on other accounts claim kinship\nwith the patroness of Athens. She is the life-giver--the joy-inspirer.\nClothed in the sacred colour which the life-giving river reflects, the\nmidday sky was supposed to partake of the river\u2019s vivifying qualities,\nand its goddess Nu is very frequently pictured as seated in the midst of\nthe tree of life, giving of its fruits to faithful souls who have\ncompleted their time of purification and travel in the under-world, and\nare waiting for admission to the Land of Aoura, the last stage of\npreparation before they are received into the immediate presence of the\ngreat gods.\n\n[Sidenote: Sat\u00e9 and Hathor.]\n\nTwo other aspects of the sky were considered worthy of personification\nand worship. The morning sky, or perhaps the eastern half of the morning\nsky, which awaited the sun\u2019s earliest beams, and which was called Sat\u00e9,\nand honoured as the goddess of vigilance and endeavour, and the\nbeautiful western sky at even, more lovely in Egypt than anywhere else,\nto the exaltation of which the Egyptians applied their prettiest titles\nand symbols. Hathor, the \u2018Queen of Love,\u2019 was the name they gave to\ntheir personification of the evening sky, speaking of her at once as the\nloving and loyal wife of the sun, who received the weary traveller, the\nbattered conqueror, to rest on her bosom after his work was done, and\nthe gentle household lady whose influence called men to their homes when\nlabour was finished, and collected scattered families to enjoy the\nloveliest spectacle of the day, the sunset, in company. Hathor is\nrepresented as a figure with horns, bearing the sun\u2019s disk between them,\nor sometimes carrying a little house or shrine upon her head.\n\n[Sidenote: Kneph.]\n\nThe sky, however, with the ancient Egyptians, did not include the _air_;\nthat again was personified in a masculine form, and regarded as a very\ngreat god, some of whose attributes appear to trench on those of Osiris,\nand Ptah; Kneph was the name given to the god who embodied the air, the\nliving breath or spirit; and he was one of the divinities to whom a\nshare in the work of creation was attributed. He is represented in a\nboat, moving over the face of the waters, and breathing life into the\nnewly created world. He was no doubt connected in the minds of pious\nEgyptians with thoughts of that breath of God by whose inspiration man\nbecame a living soul; but in his nature-aspect he perhaps especially\npersonified the wind blowing over the Nile valley after the inundation,\nand seeming to bring back life to the world by drying up the water under\nwhich the new vegetation was hidden.\n\n[Sidenote: Isis.]\n\nThe soil of the country thus breathed upon, which responded to the rays\nof Osiris and the breath of Kneph by pouring forth a continual supply of\nfood for men, was naturally enough personified into a deity who claimed\na large share of devotion, and was worshipped under many titles. Isis,\nthe sister-wife of Osiris, was the name given to her, and so much was\nsaid of Isis, and so many stories told of her, that it appears at times\nas if, under that single name, the attributes of all the other goddesses\nwere gathered up. Isis, was a personification, not of the receptive\nearth only, but of the feminine principle in nature wherever perceived,\nwhether in the tender west that received the sun, or in the brooding\nmidnight sky that invited to repose, or in the cherishing soil that drew\nin the sun\u2019s warmth, and the breath of the wind, only to give them forth\nagain changed into flowers and fruit and corn. Isis of \u2018the ten thousand\nnames\u2019 the Greeks called her; and if we consider her as the embodiment\nof all that can be said of the feminine principle, we shall not be\nsurprised at her many names, or at the difficulty of comprehending her\nnature. She was, above all else, however, the wife of Osiris and the\nmother of Horus, which certainly points to her being, or at all events\nto her having been originally, a sky-goddess; but then again she is\nspoken of as dressed in robes of many hues, which points to the changing\nand parti-coloured earth. Some of her attributes\n\n[Sidenote: Nephthys.]\n\nseem to connect her with the dark moon, especially the fact that her\nmost important offices are towards the dead in the under-world, whose\ngovernment she is spoken of as sharing with her husband Osiris. In\npictures of the funeral procession she is drawn as standing at the head\nof the mummied body during its passage over the river that bounds the\nunder-world, and in that position she represents the beginning; her\nyounger sister, Nephthys, the end, stands at the foot of the still\nsleeping soul; the two goddesses thus summing up, with divinity at each\nend, the little span of mortal life. In the judgment-hall, Isis stands\nbehind the throne of Osiris, drooping great protecting wings over him\nand it. This quality of protecting, of cherishing and defending, appears\nto be the spiritual conception worshipped under the form of the\nmany-named goddess. Isis is constantly spoken of as the protector of her\nbrother Osiris, and is drawn on the tomb with long drooping wings. She\nis also frequently represented as nursing Horus, the son who avenged his\nfather, and in that character she wears the cow\u2019s head, the cow being\nsacred to Isis, as was the bull to Osiris.\n\nBut when we have made this summary there is one thing which should also\nbe borne in mind with regard to the religion of Egypt. Ancient Egypt,\nwhich appears at first sight such a single and united empire, was in\nreality (and in this respect it was something like the Chinese empire)\ndeeply infected with a sort of feudalism, in virtue of which the\ndifferent divisions (nomes) of the country did in reality constitute\nsomething like different states. And each state tried to preserve its\nsense of independence by having some special divinity or group of\ndivinities which it held in peculiar honour. So that the Egyptian\npantheon itself is infected by this republican spirit. Almost each\nsingle god is supreme somewhere; elsewhere he may be almost overlooked.\n\n[Sidenote: Animal-gods.]\n\nThe origin of the strangely intimate connection between these Egyptian\ngods, and certain animals held to be sacred to them, and in some cases\nto be incarnations of them, is a very difficult question to determine.\nTwo explanations are given by different writers. One is that the\nanimal-worship was a remnant of the religion of an inferior race who\ninhabited Egypt in times far back, and who were conquered but not\nexterminated by immigrants from Asia, who brought a higher civilization\nand a more spiritual religion with them, which, however, did not\nactually supersede the old, but incorporated some of its baser elements\ninto itself. Other writers look upon the animal-worship as but another\nform of the unending parable from nature, which, as we have seen,\npervades the whole Egyptian mythology. The animals, according to this\nview, being not less than the nature-gods worshipped as revelations of a\ndivine order, manifesting itself through the many appearances of the\noutside world; their obedient following of the laws imposed on their\nnatures through instinct making them better witnesses to the Divine Will\nthan self-willed, disobedient man was found to be.\n\nThis is one of the problems which must be left to be determined by\nfurther researches into unwritten history, or perhaps by a fuller\nunderstanding of Egyptian symbols. That a great deal of symbolical\nteaching was wrapped up in the Egyptians\u2019 worship of animals may be\ngathered by the lesson which they drew from the natural history of the\nsacred beetle, whose habit of burying in the sand of the desert a ball\nof clay, full of eggs, which in due course of time changed into\nchrysalises and then into winged beetles, furnished them with their\nfavourite emblem of the resurrection of the body and the continued life\nof the soul through the apparent death-sleep--an emblem which was\nwanting to no temple, and without which no body was ever buried.\nThinking of this, we must allow that their eyes were not shut to the\nteaching of the \u2018visible things\u2019 which in the ages of darkness yet spoke\na message from God.\n\nWe have now gone over the most important of the Egyptian gods,\nconnecting them with the natural appearances which seem to have inspired\nthem, so as to give the clue to a comparison with the nature-gods of the\nAryans, of which we shall speak in the next chapter. There were, of\ncourse, other objects of worship, not so easily classed, among which we\nought to mention Hapi, the personification of the river Nile; Sothis,\nthe dog-star, connected with Isis; and two more of the funeral\ngods--Anubis, who in his nature-aspect may be possibly another\npersonification of air and wind, and who is always spoken of as the\nfriend and guardian of pure souls, and represented at the death-bed\nsometimes in the shape of a human-headed bird as helping the new-born\nsoul to escape from the body; and Thmei, the goddess of Truth and\nJustice, who introduces the soul into the hall of judgment. The evil\npowers recognized among the ancient Egyptians were principally\nembodiments of darkness and of the waste of the desert, and do not\nappear to have had any distinct conception of moral evil associated with\nthem. They are, however, spoken of in the book of the dead as enemies of\nthe soul, who endeavour to delude it and lead it out of its way on its\njourney across the desert to the abode of the gods. Amenti was no doubt\nthe desert, but not only the sunlit desert the Egyptians could overlook\nfrom their western hills--it included the unknown world beyond and\nunderneath, to which they supposed the sun to go when he sank below the\nhorizon, and where, following in his track, the shades trooped when\nthey had left their bodies. The story of the trials and combats of the\nsoul on its journey through Amenti to the judgment-hall, and its\nreception by the gods, is written in the most ancient and sacred of\nEgyptian books, the Ritual, or Book of the Dead, which has been\ntranslated into French by M. de Roug\u00e9, and later by M. Pierret, and into\nEnglish by Dr. Birch. The English translation is to be found in the\nAppendix to the fifth volume of Bunsen\u2019s _Egypt\u2019s Place in History_.\n\n[Sidenote: Chald\u00e6an religion.]\n\nThe mythologies of the other uninspired Semitic nations resemble the\nEgyptian in the main element of being personifications of the powers of\nnature. The Chald\u00e6ans directed their worship chiefly towards the\nheavenly bodies as did the ancient Egyptians, but not exclusively. Their\nprincipal deities were arranged in triads of greater and less dignity;\nnearly all the members of these were personifications of the heavens or\nthe heavenly bodies. The first triad comprised Ana, the heavens or the\nhidden sun, Father of the gods, Lord of Darkness, Ruler of a far-off\ncity, Lord of Spirits. By these titles, suggestive of some of the\nattributes and offices towards the dead, attributed by the Egyptians to\nAtum and Osiris, was the first member of their first order of gods\naddressed by the Chald\u00e6ans. Next in order came Bil, also a sun-god: the\nRuler, the Lord, the Source of kingly power, and the patron and image of\nthe earthly king. His name has the same signification as Baal, and he\npersonifies the same aspect of nature, the sun ruling in the heavens,\nwhose worship was so widely diffused among all the people with whom the\nIsraelites came in contact. The third member of the first triad was Hoa\nor Ea, who personified apparently the earth: Lord of the abyss, Lord of\nthe great deep, the intelligent Guide, the intelligent Fish, the Lord of\nthe Understanding, are some of his titles, and appear to reveal a\nconception somewhat answering to that of Thoth. His symbol was a\nserpent, and he was represented with a fish\u2019s head, which connects him\nwith the Philistine\u2019s god Dagon. The second triad comprised Sin, or\nUrki, a moon-god, worshipped at Ur, Abraham\u2019s city--his second name\nUrki, means \u2018the watcher,\u2019 and has the same root as the Hebrew name for\n\u2018angel\u2019--San, the disk of the sun; and Vul, the air. Beneath these\ndeities in dignity, or rather perhaps in distance, came the five\nplanets, each representing some attribute or aspect of the deity, or\nrather being itself a portion of deity endowed with a special\ncharacteristic, and regarded as likely to be propitious to men from\nbeing less perfect and less remote than the greater gods. These\nplanetary gods were called--Nebo (Mercury), the lover of light; Ishtar\n(Venus), the mother of the gods; Nergal (Mars), the great hero; Bel\nMerodach (Jupiter), the ruler, the judge; Nin (Saturn), the god of\nstrength. To these gods the chief worship of the Assyrians was paid, and\nit was their majesty and strength, typifying that of the earthly king,\nwhich Assyrian architects personified in the winged, man-headed bulls\nand lions with examples of which we are familiar. The gods of the\nCanaanite nations, Moloch, Baal, Chemosh, Baal-Zebub, and Thammuz, were\nall of them personifications of the sun or of the sun\u2019s rays, considered\nunder one aspect or another; the cruel gods, to whom human sacrifices\nwere offered, representing the strong, fierce summer sun, and the gentle\nThammuz being typical of the softer light of morning and of early\nspring, which is killed by the fierce heat of midday and midsummer, and\nmourned for by the earth till his return in the evening and in autumn.\nAshtoreth, the horned queen, symbolized by trees and worshipped in\ngroves, is the moon and also the evening star; but, like Isis, she seems\nto gather up in herself the worship of the feminine principle in nature.\nThe Canaanites represented their gods in the temples by symbols instead\nof by sculptured figures. An upright stone, either an aerolite or a\nprecious stone (as in the case of the great emerald kept in the shrine\nof the Temple of Baal-Melcarth at Tyre), symbolized the sun and the\nmasculine element in nature; while the feminine element was figured\nunder the semblance of a grove of trees, the Ashara, sometimes\napparently a grove outside the temple, and sometimes a mimic grove kept\nwithin.\n\nThere was, however, behind and beyond all these, another and perhaps a\nmore ancient and more metaphysical conception of God worshipped by all\nthe Semitic peoples of Asia. His name, Il or El, appears to have been\nfor Chald\u00e6ans, Assyrians, Canaanites, and for the wandering tribes of\nthe desert, including the progenitors of the chosen people, the generic\nname for God; and his worship was limited to a distant awful\nrecognition, unprofaned by the rites and sacrifices wherein the\nnature-gods were approached. Il became a concealed, distant deity, too\nfar off for worship, and too great to be touched by the concerns of men,\namong those nations with whom the outside aspects of nature grew to be\nconcealers instead of revealers of the Divine; while to the chosen\npeople the name acquired ever new significance, as the voice of\ninspiration unfolded the attributes of the Eternal Father to His\nchildren.\n\nThis sketch of the heathen mythology of the Shemites is, it must be\nowned, very barren in incident and character. It presents, indeed, no\nmore than a shadowy hierarchy of gods and heroes, through whose thin\npersonalities the shapes of natural objects loom with obtrusive\nclearness. They may serve, however, as finger-posts to point the way\nthrough the mazes of more complex, full-grown myths, and it must also be\nremembered that we have not touched upon the later more ornamented\nstories of the Egyptian gods, such as that of the death and\ndismemberment of Osiris by his enemy Typhon, and the recovery of his\nbody, and his return to life through the instrumentality of Isis and\nHorus.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nARYAN RELIGIONS.\n\n\n[Sidenote: Nature-worship.]\n\nThat morning speech of Belarius (in _Cymbeline_) might serve as an\nillustration of a primitive religion, a nature-religion in its simplest\ngarb:\n\n                    \u2018Stoop, boys: this gate\n    Instructs you how to adore the heavens, and bows you\n    To morning\u2019s holy office: the gates of monarchs\n    Are arched so high, that giants may jet through\n    And keep their impious turbans on, without\n    Good-morrow to the sun. Hail, thou fair heaven!\n    We house i\u2019 the rock, yet use thee not so hardly\n    As prouder livers do.\u2019\n\nOmit only that part which speaks the bitterness of disappointed hopes\nwhich once centred round the doing as prouder livers do, and the rest\nbreathes the fresh air of mountain life, different altogether from our\nlife, free alike from its cares and temptations and moral\nresponsibilities. Belarius gazes up with an unawful eye into the\nheavenly depths, and fearlessly pays his morning orisons. \u2018Hail, thou\nfair heaven!\u2019 There is no sense here of sin, humility, self-reproach.\nAnd in this respect--taking this for the moment as the type of an Aryan\nreligion--how strongly it contrasts with the utterances of Hebrew\nwriters! Is this the voice of natural as opposed to inspired religion?\nNot altogether; for the Semitic mind was throughout antiquity imbued\nwith a deeper sense of awe or fear--awe in the higher religion, fear in\nthe lower--than ever belonged to the Aryan character. We see this\ndifference in the religions of Egypt and Assyria; and it will be\nremembered that, when speaking of the earliest records of the Semitic\nand Aryan races, we took occasion to say that it may very well have been\nto their admixture of Semitic blood that the Egyptians stood indebted\nfor the mystic and allegorical part of their religious system; for among\nall the Semitic people, whether in ancient or modern times, we may\nobserve a tendency--if no more--towards religious thought, and towards\nthoughts of that mystic character which characterized the Egyptian\nmythology.\n\nBut the Aryans grew up and formed themselves into nations, and developed\nthe germs of their religion apart from external influence, and in a land\nwhich from the earliest times had belonged to them alone. Their\ncharacter, their religion, their national life, were their own; and\nthough in after-times these went through distinctive modifications, when\nthe stems of nations that we know, Greeks, Latins, Germans, and the\nrest, grew out of the Aryan stock, they yet bore amid these changes the\nmemory of a common ancestry. The land in which they dwelt was favourable\nto the growth of the imaginative faculties, and to that lightness and\nbrightness of nature which afterwards so distinguished the many-minded\nGreeks, rather than to the slow, brooding character of the Eastern mind.\nThere, down a hundred hillsides and along a hundred valleys trickled the\nrivulets whose waters were hurrying to swell the streams of the Oxus and\nthe Jaxartes. And each hill and valley had its separate community,\njoined, indeed, by language and custom to the common stock, but yet\nliving a separate simple life in its own home, which had, one might\nalmost say, its individual sun and sky as well as hill and river. No\ndoubt in such a land innumerable local legends and beliefs sprang up,\nand these, though lost to us now, had their effects upon the changes\nwhich among the many branches of the race the Aryan mythology\nunderwent--a mythology which before all others is remarkable for the\nendless diversity of its legends, for the infinite rainbow-tints into\nwhich its essential thoughts are broken.\n\n[Sidenote: Sky-and sun-gods.]\n\nDespite these divergences, the Aryans had a common chief deity--the sky,\nthe \u2018fair heaven.\u2019 This, the most abstracted and intangible of natural\nappearances, at the same time the most exalted and unchanging, seemed to\nthem to speak most plainly of an all-embracing deity. And though their\nminds were open to all the thousand voices of nature, and their\nimaginations equal to the task of giving a personality to each, yet\nnone, not even the sun himself, imaged so well their ideal of a highest\nAll-Father as did the over-arching heaven.\n\nThe traces of this primitive belief the Aryan people carried with them\non their wanderings. This sky-god was the Dy\u00e2us (the sky) of Indian\nmythology, the Zeus of the Greeks, the Jupiter of the Romans, and the\nZio, Tew, or Tyr of the Germans and Norsemen. For all these names are\netymologically allied. Zeus (gen. Dios) and Dy\u00e2us are from the same\nroot; so are Jupiter (anciently Diupiter) and the compound form\nDy\u00e2us-pitar (father Dy\u00e2us); and Zio and Tew also bear traces of the same\norigin. Indeed, it is by the reappearance of this name as the name of a\ngod among so many different nations that we argue his having once been\nthe god of all the Atyan people. The case is like that of our word\n_daughter_. As we find this reappearing in the Greek _thugat\u00ear_, and the\nSanskrit _duhitar_, we feel sure that the old Aryans had a name for\ndaughter from which all these names are derived; and as we find the\nSanskrit name alone has a secondary meaning, signifying \u2018the milker,\u2019 we\nconclude that this was the original meaning of the name for a daughter.\nJust so, Zeus and Jupiter and Zio and Dy\u00e2us show a common name for the\nchief Aryan god; but the last alone explains the meaning of that name,\nfor Dy\u00e2us signifies the sky.\n\nThis sky-god, then, stood to the old Aryans for the notion of a supreme\nand common divinity. Whatever may have been the divinities reigning over\nlocal streams and woods, they acknowledged the idea of one overruling\nProvidence whom they could only image to their minds as the\nover-spreading sky. This, we may say, was the essential feature in their\nreligion, its chief characteristic; whereas to the Semitic nations, the\nsun, the visible orb, was in every case the supreme god. The reason of\nthis contrast does not, it seems to me, lie _only_ in the different\nparts which the sun played in the southern and more northern regions;\nor, if it arises in the difference of the climate, it not the less forms\nan important chapter in religious development. There are discernible in\nthe human mind two diverse tendencies in dealing with religious ideas.\nBoth are to be found in every religion, among every people; one might\nalmost say in every heart. The first tendency is an impulse upwards--a\ndesire to press the mind continually forward in an effort to idealize\nthe deity, but, by exalting or seeming to exalt Him into the highest\nregions of abstraction, it runs the risk of robbing Him of all\nfellowship with man, and man of all claims upon His sympathy and love.\nThen comes the other tendency, which oftentimes at one stroke brings\ndown the deity as near as possible to the level of human beings, and\nleaves him at the end no more than a demi-god or exalted man. One may be\ncalled the metaphysical, the other the mythological tendency; and we\nshall never be able to understand the history of religions until we\nlearn to see how these influences interpenetrate and work in every\nsystem. They show at once that a distinction must be drawn between\nmythology and religion. The supreme god will not be he of whom most\ntales are invented, because, as these tales must appeal to human\ninterests and relate adventures of the human sort, they will cling more\nnaturally round the name of some inferior divinity. The very age of\nmythology--so far as regards the beings to whom it relates[56]--is\nprobably rather that of a decaying religion.\n\nIn any case, there will probably be a metaphysical and a mythological\nside to every system. Thus among the Egyptians, Amun, the concealed, was\nthe metaphysical god; but their mythology centred round the names of\nOsiris and Horus. And just so with the Aryans, the sky was the original,\nmost abstracted, and most metaphysical god; the sun rose into prominence\nin obedience to the wish of man for a more human divinity. If the\nSemitic people were more inclined toward sun-worship, the Aryans\ninclined rather toward heaven-worship; and the difference is consistent\nwith the greater faculty for abstract thought which has always belonged\nto our race.\n\nThe two influences of which we have spoken are perfectly well marked in\nAryan mythology. The history of it may almost be said to represent the\nrivalry between the sky-gods and the gods of the sun. It is on account\nof his daily change that the last far less becomes the position of a\nsupreme god. Born each day in the east, faint and weak he battles with\nthe clouds of morning; radiant and strong he mounts into the midday sky;\nand then, having touched his highest point, he turns to quench his beams\nin the shadowy embrace of night. Even the Egyptians and Assyrians, in\nview of these vicissitudes, were driven to invent a sort of abstract\nsun, separated in thought from the mere visible orb. This daily course\nmight stand as an allegory of the life of man. The luminary who\nunderwent these changing fortunes, however great and godlike in\nappearance, must have some more than common relationship with the world\nbelow; he must be either a hero raised among the gods, or, better (for\nof this thought the Aryans too had their dim foreshadowing), he is an\nAvatar, an Incarnation of the Godhead, come down to take upon him for a\nwhile the painful life of men. This was the way the sun-gods were\nregarded by the Indo-European nations. Accordingly, while their deepest\nreligious feelings belonged to the abstract god Zeus, Jupiter among the\nGreeks and Romans, Dy\u00e2us and later on Brahma (a pure abstraction) among\nthe Indians, the stories of their mythology belonged to a more human\ndivinity, who in most cases is the sun-god. He is the Indra[57] of the\nHindus, who wrestles with the black serpent, the Night, as Horus did\nwith Typhon; he is the Apollo of the Greeks, likewise the slayer of the\nserpent, the Pyth\u00f4n; or else he is Heracles (Hercules), the\ngod-man--sometimes worshipped as a god, sometimes as a demi-god\nonly--the great and mighty hero, the performer of innumerable labours\nfor his fellows; or he is Thor, the Hercules of the Norsemen, the enemy\nof the giants and of the great earth-serpent, which represent the dark\nchaotic forces of nature; or Frey, the bearer of the sword, or the mild\nBalder, the fairest of all the gods, the best-beloved by gods and men.\n\nIt is clear that a different character of worship will belong to each\norder of divinity. The sacred grove or the wild mountain-summit would be\nnaturally dedicated to the mysterious pervading presence; the temple\nwould be the natural home of the human-featured god; and this all the\nmore because men worshipped in forest glade or upon mountain-top before\nthey dedicated to their gods houses made with hands. Dy\u00e2us is the old,\nthe primevally old, divinity, the \u2018son of time\u2019 as the Greeks called\nhim.[58] Whenever, therefore, we trace the meeting streams of thought,\nthe _cult_ of the sun-god and the _cult_ of the sky, to the latter\nbelongs the conservative part of the national creed, his rival is the\nreforming element. In the Vedic religion of India, Indra, as has been\nsaid, has vanquished the older deity; we feel in the Vedas that Dy\u00e2us,\nor even another sky-god, Varuna, though often mentioned, no longer\noccupy a commanding place. Not, however, without concessions on both\nsides. Indra could not have achieved this victory but that he partakes\nof both natures. He is the sky as well as the sun, more human than the\nunmoved _watching_ heavens, he is a worker for man, the sender of the\nrain and the sunshine, the tamer of the stormwinds, and the enemy of\ndarkness.\n\nAnd if any one should examine in detail the different systems of the\nAryan people, he would, I think, have no difficulty in tracing\nthroughout them the two influences which have been dwelt upon, and in\neach connecting these two influences with their sky-and sun-gods.\nWhatever theory may be used to account for it, the change of thought is\nnoticeable. Man seems to awake into the world with the orison of\nBelarius upon his lips; he is content with the silent unchanging\nabstract god. But as he advances in the burden and heat of the day he\nwishes for a fellow-worker, or at least for some potency which watches\nhis daily struggles with less of godlike sublime indifference. Hence\narise his sun-gods--the gods who toil and suffer, and even succumb and\ndie.\n\n[Sidenote: The earth-goddess.]\n\nThe sky-and the sun-gods, then, were, I think, the two chief male\ndivinities among the Aryan folk taken as a whole. There corresponded to\nthem in most Aryan creeds two female divinities, an older and a younger,\na wife and a maiden, such as were on the one side among the Greeks Hera\nand Demeter, and on the other side Athene and Artemis,[59] or\nPersephone, the daughter of Demeter. In the Norse creed, again, there is\nFrigg, the wife of Odin, and Freyja, the sister of Frey. This last is\nindeed not a maiden in the Eddic mythology. But the husband of Freyja is\na person of such very small importance that we may feel sure he is only\na sort of _addendum_ to her nature and surroundings, and that she is in\ncharacter very much the counterpart of her brother, a maiden-goddess--goddess\nof spring-time and of love.\n\nIn respect to the elder, the married goddess, we may say, almost with\ncertainty, that she is the earth--the natural wife of the heavens, and\nnaturally thought of as the mother of all mankind--_Terra Mater_. We\nknow that the ancient Germans worshipped a goddess whom Tacitus calls\nNerthus (possibly a mistake for _Hertha_, Earth), and, he adds,\n_Nerthus id est Terra Mater_. And in the Scandinavian offshoot of the\nancient German creed there can be no doubt that the same idea of Mother\nEarth is embodied in the goddess Frigg, the wife of Odin.\n\nThe Romans had their native goddess Tellus, who was only obscured in\nlater times by such Greek or half-Greek divinities as Demeter or Cybele.\nFor this Demeter of the Greeks bears a name which most philologists are\nagreed had a signification precisely the same as _Terra\nMater_--G\u00ea-m\u00eat\u00ear. Demeter is but one of many wives of Zeus mentioned in\nthe Theogony of Hesiod. All of these wives, including Hera (Juno), the\nhighest in rank of them all, were probably at one time or another\npersonifications of the earth.\n\nThe Vedas, too, have their mother-goddess, their Mother Earth. This is\nPrithvi, or Prithivi, the wide-stretching, generally called\nPrithivi-m\u00e1tar, which is also Earth-Mother. And some think this word\n\u2018Prithvi\u2019 is connected with that of the Northern Frigg.[60] And the\nVedas have their young maiden-goddess, who in the Vedas is called Ushas\nthe Dawn.\n\n[Sidenote: Goddesses of Spring and Dawn.]\n\nWhat is the nature-significance of this maiden-goddess? It is less easy\nto determine than in the case of the other three divinities. One form of\nthe maiden-goddess is the divinity of the seed, like Persephone, that is\nto say, a goddess of all vegetation, and hence of the spring. In the\nVedas, again, Ushas is a goddess of the dawn, an idea nearly allied to\nthat of Spring; and some people think that this is also the foundation\nof Athen\u00ea\u2019s nature. There are other characteristics of the\nmaiden-goddess which look as if she were an embodiment of the clouds;\nbut then the clouds are so nearly connected with the dawn that such an\nidea can scarcely be said to contradict the other notion. The\nmaiden-goddess is in many cases born of the sea. Not only is Aphrodit\u00ea,\nor Venus, born of the sea, but Athen\u00ea is so likewise; at any rate one of\nher names, Tritogeneia, implies this origin. The more common story of\nAthen\u00ea\u2019s birth, that she sprang from the head of her father, Zeus--this,\ntoo, when we remember that Zeus is the sky, is not inconsistent with her\nbeing the cloud.\n\nWhen all is said, it must be owned that the nature-origin of this\nmaiden-goddess is not so obvious as in the case of the divinities of the\nsky, sun, or earth. That only means that, as a nature-goddess, she is\nnot so necessary to the creed, but that on the other hand many objects\nof nature--the dawn, the clouds, streams, the wind, sunshine--have\nsuggested the thought of this divinity, and that the suggestion found a\nnatural echo in the heart of mankind.\n\nThere are, of course, behind the greater nature-gods a number of other\nnatural forces--the sea, the wind, lightning, fire, streams, fountains,\nthe dawn, the clouds. These all receive their place in the Aryan\npantheon. But the characters of the lesser gods tend to echo those of\nthe greater. Sometimes two different but nearly allied objects of nature\nare rolled into one to form a new god.\n\nThus the god of storms and thunder is often associated with the sky, as\nare Zeus and Jupiter among the Greeks and Romans. Dy\u00e2us, the most\nprimitive form of sky-god, is the clear heaven. The name is connected\nwith a root _div_, to shine. But Zeus and Jupiter are the cloudy or\nthundery skies. The Vedic Indra is often not unlike them. That is to\nsay, the sky-god, in their persons, has taken upon him the nature of the\ngod of storms. But despite these changes, we may still go back to the\ngods of earth, and sky, and sun, and cloud as forming the backbone of\nthe Aryan creed taken as a whole.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: Vedic religion of India.]\n\nFrom this primitive stock different religious systems developed\nthemselves just as different nationalities sprang from the original\nAryan race. We can only form an adequate idea of what these religious\nsystems were like by studying them in the books of religion, of poetry,\nand mythology which the various peoples have left behind them. And as a\nmatter of fact, we have really only three or four literatures of ancient\nreligion and mythology among the different branches of the Aryan people\nfrom which much information can be gained. These are the Vedas for the\nancient Indians, Greek literature for the religion of the Greeks, and\nthe Old Norse poetry--what we may call the Eddaic literature--for the\nreligion of the Scandinavians. The Romans, before their literature\nbegan, had almost exchanged their early creed for that of the Greeks;\nthe other German races (not Scandinavian) and the Slavs left no record\nof their beliefs before they were converted to Christianity. Of the Zend\nAvesta, the religious book of the Persians, we will speak hereafter.\n\n[Sidenote: Indra.]\n\nNaturally enough, each separate creed has developed many peculiar\nfeatures. In the religion of India, Indra, who had been the younger and\nmore active divinity--whether a sun-god or no we cannot be quite\nsure--had, before the Vedas came to be written, almost completely ousted\nDy\u00e2us from the supreme position which he once occupied. The worship of\nIndra is the central point of Vedic religion; and in many hymns of the\nVedas Indra has taken the character of a god of storms; almost as much\nso as Zeus and Jupiter. It was the power of the god which was\nespecially worshipped. He was no doubt the god of battles _par\nexcellence_ to the ancient Indian. The Vedic hymnist calls upon him, as\nthe Psalmist calls upon Jehovah, to show his might and confound those\nwho dared to doubt his supremacy. For here in India, as in Palestine,\n\u2018the wicked saith in his heart There is no God.\u2019\n\n\nHYMN TO INDRA.\n\n_Indra speaks._\n\n    \u2018I come with might before thee, stepping first,\n     And behind me move all the heavenly powers.\n\n_The Poet speaks._\n\n    \u2018If thou, O Indra, wilt my lot bestow,\n     A hero\u2019s part dost thou perform for me.\n\n    \u2018To thee the holy drink I offer first;\n       Thy portion here is laid, thy _soma_[61] brewed.\n     Be, while I righteous am, to me a friend;\n       So shall we slay of foemen many a one.\n\n    \u2018Ye who desire blessings bring your hymn\n       To Indra, for the true is always true.\n     \u201cThere is no Indra,\u201d many say. \u201cWho ever\n       Hath seen him? Why should we his praise proclaim?\u201d\n\n_Indra speaks._\n\n    \u2018I am here, singer; look on me, here stand I.\n       In might all other beings I surpass.\n     Thy holy service still my strength renews,\n       And thereby smiting, all things I smite down.\n\n    \u2018And as on heaven\u2019s height I sat alone,\n       To me thy offering and thy prayer rose up.\n     Then spake my soul this word unto herself:\n       \u201cMy votaries and their children call upon me.\u201d\u2019\n\nThe _character_ of Indra, then, is, as we find it in the Vedas, more\nlike that of a supreme Zeus than of any other divinity of the parallel\nAryan religious systems. But his _deeds_, the mythology connected with\nhis name, remind us of the deeds of Apollo. For he is the great\nserpent-or dragon-slayer, like the Greek Apollo and the Northern Thor.\nHeracles, too, as we remember, is a serpent-slayer. The \u2018enemy\u2019 whom\nIndra is most constantly implored to strike are two serpents, Ahi and\nVritra. These are serpents of darkness, but they are also the concealers\nof the water, and this water Indra sets free. \u2018Him (the serpent) the god\nstruck with Indra-might, and set free the all-gleaming water for the use\nof man.\u2019 Therefore these serpents must also typify the clouds.\n\nIn going forth to fight, Indra is accompanied by a band of supernatural\nheroes, who have no exact counterpart in any of the other Aryan\nmythologies, and who are certainly beings, children we might say, of the\nstorm. Their name is the Maruts. And some of the many hymns dedicated to\nthem have a fine martial ring, like the tramp of armed men--\n\n\nHYMN TO THE MARUTS.\n\n  \u2018Where is the fair         assemblage of heroes,\n  The men of Rudra,[62]       with their bright horses?\n  For of their birth         knoweth no man the story,\n  Only themselves,           their wondrous descent.\n\n  \u2018The light they flash      upon one another;\n  The eagles fought,         the winds were raging;\n  But this secret            knoweth the wise man,\n  Once that Prishna[63]       her udder gave them.\n\n  \u2018Our race of heroes,       through the Maruts be it\n  Ever victorious            in reaping of men.\n  On their way they hasten,  in brightness the brightest,\n  Equal in beauty,           unequalled in might.\u2019\n\n[Sidenote: Agni.]\n\nThe god who is most peculiar to the Vedic pantheon is Agni, the\nFire-god. The word _Agni_ is allied to the Latin _ignis_. No doubt Agni\nhas his representatives in the creeds of other Aryan peoples, in the\nHeph\u00e6stus of the Greeks, or in the Vulcan of the Romans; probably in the\nLoki of the Scandinavians. But these are all quite secondary beings:\nLoki cannot be called a god at all. Agni, on the other hand, is one of\nthe very greatest of the Vedic deities. Only Indra has more hymns\ndedicated to him than Agni. This shows how great was the reverence which\nfire commanded among the Indians, and it is consistent with much that\nhas been said in an earlier chapter of the importance which primitive\npeople always attach, and which the native Indians to this day still\nattach, to the sacred house-fire in their midst. It reminds us too of\nthe fire-worship of the Persians.[64]\n\nAgni, however, is not only the house-fire. He has a double birth--one on\nearth, one in the clouds. He descends as the lightning descends from\nheaven. But, at the same time, he is born of the rubbing of two sticks,\nand in the flame of the sacrifice he is imagined to ascend again to\nheaven bringing with him the prayers of the worshipper. How well,\ntherefore, Agni was adapted to take the place of the younger god, the\nfriend of man, when Indra, once probably a sun-god, had (so to say)\nremoved himself from familiar approach by taking his throne high in\nheaven!\n\n\nHYMN TO AGNI.\n\n    \u2018Agni is messenger of all the world.\n\n           *       *       *       *       *\n\n     Skyward ascends his flame the merciful,\n       With our libations watered well;\n     And now the red smoke seeks the heavenly way,\n       And men enkindle Agni here.\n\n    \u2018We make of thee our Herald, Holy One;\n       Bring down the gods unto our feast.\n     O son of night, and all who nourish man,\n       Pardon us when on you we call.\n\n    \u2018Thou, Agni, art the ruler of the house;\n       Thou at the altar art our priest.\n     O purifier, wise and rich in good,\n       O sacrificer, bring us safely now.\u2019\n\nThere are other genuine sun-gods in the Vedic creed, to whom hymns are\naddressed. One of these is Mitra.[65] Mitra too is a friend of man--\n\n    To man comes Mitra down in friendly converse.\n    Mitra it was who fixed the earth and heaven.\n    Unslumbering mankind he watches over.\n    To Mitra then your full libations pour.\u2019\n\nBut there are not many hymns addressed to Mitra alone. And he stands far\nbehind Indra or Agni in the Vedic creed as we actually find it. Another\nsun-god--the disk of the sun, so to say--is Surya, the shiner. He is\nsometimes called the eye of Mitra and Varuna. But in other places he is\nsaid to come through heaven dragging his wheel. Yet great as he is, the\nsun-god is compelled to follow his daily round. \u2018He travels upon\nchangeless paths.\u2019 Another sun-god is Savitar, whose name is almost\nidentical in meaning with Surya.\n\n[Sidenote: Dawn and Evening.]\n\nThe writers of the Vedic hymns were very largely taken up with observing\nand recording in their mythic fashion all the skyey phenomena from dawn\nto sunset. For each changed aspect of the heavens, bright or cloudy,\ncalm or windy, they had a divinity. They sang to the fair young morning\nas she came out of the chambers of darkness and opened the stalls for\nthe cattle to go forth to pasture; they sang the heavy labouring sun of\nmidday; they sang the stormy sky or the hurrying clouds; and at evening\nthey sang the evening sun sinking peacefully to rest and bringing \u2018night\nand peace\u2019 to all the world. Wherefore, to bring to a close this picture\nof the religion of the Vedas, we will give just two more hymns from that\nvast collection, the Rig-Veda--a hymn to the morning, and a hymn to the\nsun (Savitar) at sun-setting.\n\n\nHYMN TO THE DAWN.\n\n    \u2018Dawn full of wisdom, rich in everything!\n     Fairest! attend the singers\u2019 song of praise.\n     O thou rich goddess, old, yet ever young!\n     Thou, all-dispenser, in due order comest.\n\n    \u2018Shine forth, O goddess, thine eternal morning,\n     With thy bright cars our song of praise awakening.\n     Thee draw through heaven the well-yoked team of horses--\n     The horses golden-bright, that shine afar.\n\n    \u2018Enlightener of all being, breath of morning,\n     Thou holdest up aloft the light of gods.\n     Unto one goal ever thy course pursuing,\n     Oh, roll towards us now thy wheel again!\n\n    \u2018Opening at once her girdle, she appears,\n     The lovely Dawn, the ruler of the stalls.\n     She, light-producing, wonder-working, noble,\n     Up-mounted from the coast of earth and heaven.\n\n    \u2018Up, up, and bring to meet the Dawn, the goddess\n     Bright beaming now, your humble song of praise.\n     To heaven climbed up her ray the sweet due bearing,\n     Joying to shine the airy space she filled.\n\n    \u2018With beams of heaven the Pure One was awakened,\n     The Rich One\u2019s ray mounted through both the worlds.\n     To Ushas[66] goest thou, Agni, with a prayer\n     For goodly wealth, when she bright-shining comes.\u2019\n\n\nHYMN TO THE EVENING SUN.\n\n    \u2018Savitar the god arose, in power arose,\n     His quick deeds and his journey to renew.\n     He \u2018tis who to all gods dispenses treasure,\n     And blesses those that call him to the feast.\n\n    \u2018The god stands up and stretches forth his arm,\n     Raises his hand and all obedient wait;\n     For all the waters to his will incline,\n     And the winds even on his path are stilled.\n\n    \u2018Now he unyokes the horses that have borne him,\n     The wanderer from his travel now he frees,\n     The serpent-slayer\u2019s fury now is stayed;\n     At Savitar\u2019s command come night and peace.\n\n     And now rolls up the spinning wife her web,\n     The artificer now his cunning labour leaves,\n\n           *       *       *       *       *\n\n    And to the household folk beneath the roof,\n    The household fire imparts their share of light.\n\n           *       *       *       *       *\n\n    \u2018He who to work went forth is now returned,\n     The longing of all wand\u2019rers turns toward home;\n     Leaving his toil, goes each man to his house:\n     The universal mover orders so.\n\n    \u2018In the water settest thou the water\u2019s heir,[67]\n     On the firm earth badst the wild beast to roam;\n     The bird[68] makes for his nest, cattle for their stall,\n     To their own home all beasts the sun-god sends.\u2019\n\n[Sidenote: Greek religion.]\n\nIn Greece it would seem that the chief religious influences came from\nZeus (Jupiter[69]) and Apollo, and belonged, as appears, to two separate\nbranches of the same race who came together to form the Hellenic people.\nThe ancestors of the Greeks had, we know, travelled from the Aryan home\nby a road which took them south of the Black Sea, and on to the\ntable-land of Asia Minor. So far a comparison of names and traditions\nshows them advancing in a compact body. Here they separated; and, after\na stay of some centuries, during which a part had time to mingle with\nthe Semitic people of the land, they pushed forward, some across the\nHellespont and round that way by land through Thrace and Thessaly,\nspreading as they went down to the extremity of the peninsula; others to\nthe western coast of Asia Minor, and then, when through the lapse of\nyears they had learnt their art from the Ph\u0153nician navigators who\nfrequented all that land, onward from island to island, as over\nstepping-stones, across the \u00c6gean.\n\n[Sidenote: Zeus.]\n\nThe Pelasgic Zeus, however, is not quite the same being as is the Zeus\nwhom we are to fancy as the supreme god of the Hellenic race. This last,\nwe know, is called the Olympic Zeus. The Pelasgic god is a being who\nloves solitary mountain heights or dark groves of trees. In this aspect\nof his character he is very like the chief divinity of the Northmen,\nOdin. And there can be no doubt that in his nature he is a god of\nstorms and wind. He is not the clear sky, as is the Vedic Dy\u00e2us (from\nthe root _div_, shining), and as had once been the supreme god of the\nAryan race. From that condition to the condition of a god of storms,\nZeus had already passed before we catch any sight of him under this name\nZeus--in other words, before we catch any sight of _him_ at all.\n\nThese Pelasgi were before all things the worshippers of pure nature.\nTheirs were all those primitive elements in the Greek religion which\nwere caught up into the more developed creed, and, though they were\nsoftened in the process of amalgamation with it, still showed above its\nsurface as masses of rock show upon a hillside, albeit they are covered\nover by a thin covering of green. Those strange half-human beings like\nPan, the Arcadian god, like the Thessalian centaurs,--these belong to\nthe primitive creed of the Greeks. So long as they were confounded with\nthe phenomena of nature in which they took their rise, they were, in\nevery sense, natural enough. But when art took possession of them, and\ntried to body them forth in visible shapes, they became monsters,\nunformed, neither man nor beast.\n\nThe fact that the greatest shrines of Zeus were at Dodona in Epirus, and\nin Elis, both states on the _western_ coast of Greece, would almost of\nitself show that the worship of Zeus belonged more especially to the\nfirst comers of the Greek race, who got pushed further westward as the\nmore enlightened people came in from the east; and while _these_ were\nworshipping their gods in temples, the Pelasgic Greeks still worshipped\ntheir Zeus in sacred groves like those of Dodona and of Elis.\n\nThe god, on the other hand, who is more especially the god of the newer\nGreek people, the Dorians and the Ionians,\n\n[Sidenote: Apollo.]\n\nthose who reformed the Greek race, and through whom the Pelasgic people\ngrew into the Hellenes, this god is Apollo.\n\nApollo is, we have said, in origin a sun-god. We see some traces of his\nnature even in the statues which represent him, as in the abundant hair\nwhich streams from his head, the picture of the sun\u2019s rays.[70] But, of\ncourse, long before historic days he had become much more than a mere\ngod of nature to his worshippers. He had become what we know him, the\nideal of youthful manhood as the Greeks admired it most, the ideal of\nsuppleness and strength, the ideal, too, of what we call \u2018culture,\u2019 of\npoetry and music, and all that adds a grace to life.\n\nApollo\u2019s chief shrines were rather on the eastern than on the western\nside of Greece--at Delphi, for example, in Phocis. (Is it not\ncharacteristic to find in this wise the oracle of Apollo at Delphi, the\noracle of Zeus at Dodona?) But Delphi is the most westerly of Apollo\u2019s\nfavourite homes. Another, we know, was on the island of Delos, midway in\nthe \u00c6gean, that island which the Greeks fancied the _umbilicus\norbis_--the navel of the world. Delphi and Delos are the shrines of\nApollo belonging to one out of the two great nationalities of the new\nblood who reformed the nation of the Greeks. Delphi and Delos belong to\nthe Dorians. But among the Ionians of Asia Minor, who were the other\ngreat reforming element in Greek life, Apollo had likewise many holy\nplaces. And we know how, in the Iliad, he is represented as the champion\nof the easterns, the Asiatic Greeks, against the westerns, the Greeks\nof Greece proper. \u2018Hear me,\u2019 prays Glaucus, in the Iliad--\u2018hear me, O\nking, who art somewhere in the rich realm of Lycea or of Troy; for\neverywhere canst thou hear a man in sorrow, such as my sorrow is.\u2019\n\nNot but that these worshippers of Apollo were likewise worshippers of\nZeus. It was from the Dorians, whose ancient home was in Thessaly, in\nthe vale of Tempe, and under the shadow of Olympus, that sprang the\nworship of the Olympian Zeus. This Olympian Zeus was the same as the\nancient god of the Pelasgians--the Pelasgian Zeus--the same, and yet\ndifferent, for he was the ancient storm-god, softened and made more\nhuman by his contact with Apollo. In time this Olympian Zeus superseded\nthe Pelasgic god even in his own favourite seats, and we have the\nphenomenon of the festival in his honour--the greatest festival of\nGreece--the Olympia, being held in the plains of Elis, near the ancient\ngrove of the Pelasgian Zeus.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: Hermes.]\n\nAs before by a comparison of words, so now in mythology by a comparison\nof legends, we form our notion of the remoteness of the time at which\nthese stories first passed current. Not only, for instance, do we see\nthat Indra and Apollo resembled each other in character, but we have\nproof that nature-myths--stories really narrating some process of\nnature--were familiar alike to Greeks and Indians. The Vedas, the sacred\nbooks from which we gather our knowledge of ancient Hindu religion, do\nnot relate their stories of the gods in the same way, or with the same\nclearness and elaboration, that the Greek poets do. They are collections\nof hymns, prayers in verse, addressed to the gods themselves, and what\nthey relate is told more by reference and implication than directly.\nBut even with this difference, we have no difficulty in signalizing some\nof the adventures of Indra as almost identical with those of the son of\nL\u00eat\u00f4. Let one suffice. The pastoral life of the Aryans is reflected in\ntheir mythology, and thus it is that in the Vedas almost all the varied\nphenomena of nature are in their turn compared to cattle. Indra is often\nspoken of as a bull; still more commonly are the clouds the cows of\nIndra, and their milk the rain. More than one of the songs of the\nRig-Veda allude to a time when the wicked Pa_n_is (beings of fog or\nmist[71]) stole the cows from the fields of Indra and hid them away in a\ncave. They obscured their footprints by tying up their feet or by making\nthem drag brushwood behind them. Then Indra sent his dog Sarama (the\ndawn or breath of dawn), and she found out where the cattle were hidden.\nBut (according to one story) the Pa_n_is overcame her honesty and gave\nher a cup of milk to drink, so that she came back to Indra and denied\nhaving seen the cows. But Indra discovered the deception, and came with\nhis strong spear and conquered the Pa_n_is, and recovered what had been\nstolen.\n\nNow turn to the Greek myth. The story here is cast in a different key.\n\n    \u2018Te boves olim nisi reddidisses\n     Per dolum amotas, puerum minaci\n     Voce dum terret, viduus pharetra\n     Risit Apollo.\u2019\n\nHermes (Mercury) is here the thief. He steals the cattle of Apollo\nfeeding upon the Pierian mountain, and conceals his theft much as the\nPa_n_is had done. Apollo discovers what has been done, and complains to\nZeus. But Hermes is a god, and no punishment befalls him like that which\nwas allotted to the Pa_n_is; he charms Apollo by the sound of his lyre,\nand is forgiven, and allowed to retain his booty. Still, all the\nessentials of the story are here; and the story in either case relates\nthe same nature-myth. The clouds which in the Indian tale are stolen by\nthe damp vapours of morning, are in the Greek legend filched away by the\nmorning breeze; for this is the nature of Hermes. And that some such\npower as the wind had been known to the Indians as accomplice in the\nwork, is shown by the complicity of Sarama in one version of the tale.\nFor Sarama likewise means the morning breeze; and, in fact, _Sarama_ and\n_Hermes_ are derived from the same root, and are almost identical in\ncharacter. Both mean in their general nature the wind; in their special\nappearances they stand now for the morning, now for the evening breeze,\nor even for the morning and evening themselves.\n\n[Sidenote: Heracles.]\n\nThe next most important deity as regards the whole Greek race is\nHeracles (Hercules). It is a great mistake to regard him, as our\nmythology-books often lead us to do, as a demi-god or hero only.\nOriginally, and among a portion of the Greek race, he was one of the\nmightiest gods; but at last, perhaps because his adventures became in\nlater tradition rather preposterous and undignified, he sank to be a\ndemi-god, or immortalized man. The story of Heracles\u2019 life and labours\nis a pure but most elaborate sun-myth. From his birth, where he\nstrangles the serpents in his cradle--the serpents of darkness, like the\nPyth\u00f4n which Apollo slew--through his _Herculean_ labours to his death,\nwe watch the labours of the sun through the mists and clouds of heaven\nto its ruddy setting; and these stories are so like to others which are\ntold of the Northern Heracles, Thor, that we cannot refuse to believe\nthat they were known in the main in days before there were either\nGreek-speaking Greeks or Teutons. The closing scene of Heracles\u2019 life\nspeaks the most eloquently of his nature-origin. Returning home in\nvictory--his last victory--to Trachis, Deianira sends to him there the\nfatal white robe steeped in the blood of Nessus. No sooner has he put it\non than his death-agony begins. In the madness of his pain he dashes his\ncompanion, Lichas, against the rocks; he tears at the burning robe, and\nwith it brings away the flesh from his limbs. Then, seeing that all is\nover, he becomes more calm. He gives his last commands to his son,\nHyllus, and orders his funeral pile to be prepared upon mount \u0152ta, as\nthe sun, after its last fatal battle with the clouds of sunset, sinks\ndown calmly into the sea. Then as, after it has gone, the sky lights up\naglow with colour, so does the funeral pyre of Heracles send out its\nlight over the \u00c6gean, from its _western_ shore.\n\n[Sidenote: Ares.]\n\nI believe Ares to have been once likewise a sun-god. The special home of\nhis worship was warlike Macedon and Thrace. There can be no question,\nhowever, that in pre-historic times his worship was much more widely\nextended than we should suppose from reading Homer or the poets\nsubsequent to Homer. Traces of his worship are to be found in the Zeus\nAreios at Elis, and in the Athenian Areopagus. But his natural home was\nin the North. He was the national divinity of the Thracians. And I have\nno doubt, as I have said, that he was once the sun-god of these Northern\npeople, and only in later times became an abstraction, a god of war and\nvalour.\n\n[Sidenote: D\u00eam\u00eat\u00ear.]\n\nAnother deity who was distinctly of Aryan origin was D\u00eam\u00eat\u00ear (Ceres), a\nname which is, as we have said, probably, none other than G\u00eam\u00eat\u00ear,\n\u2018mother earth.\u2019 She is the Greek equivalent of the Prithvi of the Vedas.\nBut whereas Prithvi has sunk into obscurity, D\u00eam\u00eat\u00ear was associated\nwith some of the most important rites of Greek religion. The association\nof ideas which, face to face with the masculine godhead, the sun or sky,\nplaced the fruitful all-nourishing earth, is so natural as to find a\nplace in almost every system. We have seen how the two formed a part of\nthe Egyptian and Chald\u00e6an mythologies. And we have seen that each branch\nof the Aryan folk carried away along with their sky-and sun-worship this\nearth-worship also. But among none of the different branches was the\ngreat nature-myth which always gathers round the earth-goddess, woven\ninto a more pathetic story than by the Greeks. The story is that of the\nwinter death or sleep of earth, or of all that makes earth beautiful and\nglad. And it was thus the Greeks told that world-old legend. Persephone\n(Proserpina), or Cor\u00ea, is the green earth, or the green verdure which\nmay be thought the daughter of earth and sky. She is, indeed, almost the\nreduplication of D\u00eam\u00eat\u00ear herself; and in art it is not always easy to\ndistinguish a representation as of one or of the other. At spring-time\nPersephone, a maiden, with her maidens, is wandering careless in the\nNysian plain, plucking the flowers of spring, \u2018crocuses and roses and\nfair violets,\u2019[72] when in a moment all is changed. Hades, regent of\nHell, rises in his black-horsed golden chariot; unheeding her cries, he\ncarries her off to share his infernal throne and rule in the kingdoms of\nthe dead. In other words, the awful shadow of death falls across the\npath of youth and spring, and Hades appears to proclaim the fateful\ntruth that all spring-time, all youth and verdure, are alike with hoary\nage candidates for service in his Shadowy Kingdom. The sudden contrast\nbetween spring flowers and maidenhood and death gives a dramatic\nintensity to the scene and represents the quiet course of decay in one\ntremendous moment.[73] To lengthen out the picture and show the slow\nsorrow of earth robbed of its spring and summer, D\u00eam\u00eat\u00ear is portrayed\nwandering from land to land in bootless search of her lost daughter. We\nknow how deep a significance this story had in the religious thought of\nGreece; how the representation of it composed the chief feature of the\nEleusinian mysteries, and how these and other mysteries probably\nenshrined the intenser, more hidden feelings of religion, and continued\nto do so when mythology had lost its hold upon the popular mind. It is,\nindeed, a new-antique story, patent to all and fraught for all with\nsolemnest meaning. So that this myth of the death of Proserpine has\nlived on in a thousand forms through all the Aryan systems.\n\n[Sidenote: Athen\u00ea and other goddesses.]\n\nPersephone is one of the most characteristic of the maiden-goddesses of\nwhom we spoke above. The most literal and material interpretation of her\nmyth would show her to be an embodiment of the grain, which sinks into\nthe ground when it is sown and springs up again to live above the earth\nfor half the year. But in a wider sense I have no doubt that Persephone\nis meant to typify the spring of which the grain might well be a sort of\nsymbol, or to typify vegetation generally. And this is one of the\nnatural characters belonging to the maiden-goddess. She is very\nfrequently a goddess of spring in some aspect or other--of spring as the\nseason of beauty and love. Such is the Freyja of the Norse mythology;\nsuch, to some extent, are Aphrodit\u00ea (Venus) and Artemis (Diana).[74]\n\nThere is, however, one divinity among the Greeks who seems to have a\nsomewhat different character, and who is so much more important a\nmaiden-goddess than any of these that she at once springs into our\nthoughts when we are speaking of divinities of this class. I mean, of\ncourse, Athen\u00ea (Minerva). But in the first place, the wide worship of\nAthen\u00ea is partly accidental and due to her being the patroness of\nAthens; in the second place, Athen\u00ea has taken so many ethical\ncharacteristics, she is so advanced a conception of a divine being, that\nshe is not at all a good representative of a religion in its early\nstate. It would be rather confusing than otherwise to have to trace the\ncharacter of Athen\u00ea step by step out of the natural phenomenon from\nwhich she sprang. I will only say here that I believe her to have been\noriginally born from the sea or from a river. She may once have actually\nbeen a goddess of water. Afterwards she became, I think, the goddess of\nthe rivers of heaven or the clouds. And as the clouds hold the storm and\nthe lightning, Athen\u00ea is sometimes a storm-goddess, sometimes a goddess\nof the lightning.[75] Or again, she may be the heaven which bears the\nstorm-cloud, the thundering heaven. We remember that Zeus and Athen\u00ea\neach have the privilege of wearing the \u00c6gis--the dreadful fringed \u00c6gis,\nwhich is, I think, the lightning-bearing cloud.\n\nArtemis (Diana) is the moon-goddess, at least she is so in her character\nas sister of Apollo. But there were really many different Artemises in\nGreece. And very often she is a river-goddess. In the same way, there\nwere many different Aphrodit\u00eas. The more sensuous the character in which\nAphrodit\u00ea (Venus) appears, the more does she show her Asiatic birth; and\nthis was why the Greeks, when regarding her especially as the goddess of\nlove, called her Cypris, or Cyther\u00e6a, after Cyprus and Cythera, which\nhad been in ancient days stations for the Ph\u0153nician traders, and\nwhere they had first made acquaintance with the Greeks. Aphrodit\u00ea was\nthe favourite goddess of these mariners, as, indeed, a moon-goddess well\nmight be; and it was they who gave her her most corrupt and licentious\naspect. For she has not always this character even among the\nPh\u0153nicians; but oftentimes appears as a huntress, more like Artemis,\nor armed as a goddess of battle, like Athen\u00ea. Doubtless, however,\ngoddesses closely allied to Aphrodit\u00ea or Artemis, divinities of\nproductive nature and divinities of the moon, belonged to the other\nbranches of the Indo-European family. The _idea_ of these divinities was\na common property; the exact being in whom these ideas found expression\nvaried with each race.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: Scandinavian religion.]\n\nIf we travel from India and from Hellas to the cold North, the same\ncharacteristic features reappear. In the Teutonic religions, _as we know\nthem_,[76] Odin has taken the place of the old Aryan sky-god, Dy\u00e2us. The\nlast did, indeed, linger on in the Zio or Tyr of these systems; but he\nhad sunk from the position of a chief divinity. The change, however, is\nnot great. The god chosen to fill his place resembles him as nearly as\npossible in character. Odin, or Wuotan,[77] whose name in its\netymological meaning is probably the god who moves violently or rushes\nalong,[78] was originally a god of the wind rather than of the\natmosphere of heaven. Yet along with this more confined part of his\ncharacter, he bears almost all the attributes of the exalted sky-god,\nthe Dy\u00e2us or Zeus; only he adds to these some parts peculiar to a god of\nwind; and we can easily understand how, as these Aryan people journeyed\nnorthwards, their wind-god grew in magnitude and power.\n\n[Sidenote: Odin.]\n\nIt was Odin who lashed into fury their stormy seas, and kept the\nimpatient _vikings_ (fjord-men) forced prisoners in their sheltered\nbays. He it was who rushed through their mountain forests, making the\nancient pine-tops bend to him as he hurried on; and men sitting at home\nover their winter fires, and listening to his howl, told one another how\nhe was hastening to some distant battle-field, there to direct the\nissue, and to choose from among the fallen such heroes as were worthy to\naccompany him to Valhalla, the Hall of Bliss.[79] Long after the worship\nof Christ had overturned that of the \u00c6sir,[80] this, the most familiar\nand popular aspect of Odin\u2019s nature, lived on in the thoughts of men. In\nthe Middle Ages the wind reappears in the legend of the Phantom Army, a\nstrange apparition of two hosts of men seen to join battle in midair.\nThe peasant of the Jura or the Alps could tell how, when alone upon the\nmountain-side, he had beheld the awful vision. Sometimes all the details\nof the fight were visible, but as though the combatants were riding in\nthe air; sometimes the _sounds_ of battle only came from the empty space\nabove, till at the end a shower of blood gave the fearful witness a\nproof that he was not the dupe of his imagination only.[81] In other\nplaces, especially, for example, in the Harz mountains, the Phantom\nArmy gave place to the Wild Huntsman. This phantom hunt has many\ndifferent names in the different countries of Europe. With us it is\nknown best under the name of Herne the Hunter or of Arthur\u2019s Chase. In\nBrittany this last name is also used. In the Harz and in other places in\nGermany the huntsman was called Hackelb\u00e4rend or Hackelberg; and the\nstory went how he had been chief huntsman to the Duke of Brunswick, but\nfor impiety or for some dreadful oath, like that which had brought\nvengeance on the famous Van der Decken, had been condemned to hunt for\never through the clouds--for ever, that is, until the Day of\nJudgment.[82] All the year through he pursues his way alone, and the\npeasants hear his holloa, mingled with the baying of his two dogs.[83]\nBut for twelve nights--between Christmas and the Twelfth-night--he hunts\non the earth; and if any door is left open during the night, and one of\nthe two hounds runs in, he will bring misfortune upon that house.\n\nBesides this wilder aspect of his character, Odin appears as the\nheaven-god--all-embracing--the father of gods and men, like Zeus.\n\u2018All-father Odin\u2019 he is called, and his seat was on Air-throne; thither\nevery day he ascended and looked over Glad-home, the home of the gods,\nand over the homes of men, and far out beyond the great earth-girding\nsea, to the dim frost-bound giant-land on earth\u2019s border. And whatever\nhe saw of wrong-doing and of wickedness upon the earth, that he set to\nrights; and he kept watch against the coming of the giants over seas to\ninvade the abode of man and the citadel of the gods. Only these\nlast--the race of giants--he could not utterly subdue and exterminate;\nfor Fate, which was stronger than all, had decreed that they should\nremain until the end, and only be overthrown at the Twilight of the Gods\nthemselves. But of this myth, which was half-Christian, we have not\nspace to speak at length here.\n\nIn this picture of Odin we surely see a fellow-portrait to that of the\n\u2018wide-seeing\u2019 Zeus. \u2018The eye of Zeus, which sees all things and knows\nall,\u2019 says one poet; or again, as another says, \u2018Zeus is the earth,\nZeus is the sky, Zeus is all, and that which is over all.\u2019\n\n[Sidenote: Tyr, Thor, and Balder.]\n\nBehind Odin stands Tyr--of whom we have already spoken--and Thor and\nBalder, who are, or originally were, two different embodiments of the\nsun; Thor being also a god of thunder. He is in character very closely\nallied to Heracles. He is the mighty champion, the strongest and most\nwarlike of all the gods. But he is the friend of man and patron of\nagriculture,[84] and as such the enemy of the giant-race, which\nrepresents not only cold and darkness, but the barren, rugged,\nuncultivated regions of earth. Like Heracles, Thor is never idle,\nconstantly with some work on hand, \u2018faring eastward to fight Trolls\n(giants),\u2019 as the Eddas often tell us. In one of these expeditions he\nperforms three labours, which may be paralleled from the labours of\nHeracles. He nearly drains the sea dry by drinking from a horn; this is\nthe sun \u2018sucking up the clouds\u2019 from the sea, as people still speak of\nhim as doing. It corresponds to the turning the course of the Alpheus\nand Peneus, which Heracles performs. Then he tries to lift (as he\nthinks) a large cat from the ground, but in reality he has been lifting\nthe great mid-earth serpent (notice the fact that we have the sun at war\nwith a serpent once more) which encircles the whole earth, and he has by\nhis strength shaken the very foundations of the world. This is the same\nas the feat of Heracles in bringing up Cerberus from the underworld. And\nlastly, he wrestles, as he thinks, with an old woman, and is worsted;\nbut in reality he has been wrestling with Old Age or Death, from whom no\none ever came off the victor. So we read in Homer that Heracles once\nwounded Hades himself, and \u2018brought grief into the land of shades,\u2019 and\nin Euripides\u2019 beautiful play, _Alcestis_, we see Heracles struggling,\nbut this time victoriously, with Thanatos, Death himself. In these\nlabours the Norse hero, though striving manfully, fails; but the Greek\nis always victorious. Herein lies a difference belonging to the\ncharacter of the two creeds.\n\nBalder the Beautiful--the fair, mild Balder--represents the sun more\ntruly than Thor does: the sun in his gentle aspect, as he would\nnaturally appear to a Norseman. His house is Breidablik, \u2018Wide-glance,\u2019\nthat is to say, the bright upper air, the sun\u2019s home. He is like the son\nof L\u00eat\u00f4 seen in his benignant aspect, the best beloved among gods, the\nbrightener of their warlike life, beloved, too, by all things on earth,\nliving and inanimate, and lamented as only the sun could be--the chief\nnourisher at life\u2019s feast. For, when Balder died, everything in heaven\nand earth, \u2018both all living things and trees and stones and all metals,\u2019\nwept to bring him back again, \u2018as thou hast no doubt seen these things\nweep when they are brought from a cold place into a hot one.\u2019 A modern\npoet has very happily expressed the character of Balder, the sun-god,\nthe great quickener of life upon earth. Balder is supposed to leave\nheaven to tread the ways of men, and his coming is the signal for the\nnew birth, as of spring-time, in the sleeping world.\n\n    \u2018There is some divine trouble\n       On earth and in air;\n     Trees tremble, brooks bubble,\n       Ants loosen the sod,\n     Warm footsteps awaken\n       Whatever is fair,\n     Sweet dewdrops are shaken\n       To quicken each clod.\n     The wild rainbows o\u2019er him\n       Are melted and fade,\n     The light runs before him\n       Through meadow and glade.\n     Green branches close round him,\n       Their leaves whisper clear--\n     He is ours, we have found him,\n       Bright Baldur is here.\u2019[85]\n\n[Sidenote: Frigg, Freyja, Frey.]\n\nThe earth-mother of the Teutons was Frigg, the wife of Odin; but perhaps\nwhen Frigg\u2019s natural character was forgotten, Hertha (Earth) became\nseparated into another personage. \u2018Odin and Frigg,\u2019 says the Edda,\n\u2018divide the slain;\u2019 and this means that the sky-god received the breath,\nthe earth-goddess the body. But on the whole Frigg plays an\ninsignificant part in our late form of Teuton mythology. Closely related\nto her, as Persephone is related to D\u00eam\u00eat\u00ear, with a name formed out of\nhers, stands Freyja, the goddess of spring and beauty and love; for the\nNorthern goddess of love might better accord with the innocence of\nspring than could the Ph\u0153nician Aphrodit\u00ea. Freyja has a brother\nFreyr, who reduplicates her name and character, for he too is a sun-god\nor a god of spring.\n\nVery beautiful is the myth which reverses the sad story of Persephone\n(and of Balder), and tells of the barren earth wooed by the returning\nspring. Freyr one day mounted the seat of Odin which was called\nair-throne, and whence a god might look over all the ways of earth. And\nlooking out into giant-land far in the north, he saw a light flash forth\nas the aurora lights up the wintry sky.[86] And looking again, he saw\nthat a maiden wondrously beautiful had just opened her father\u2019s door,\nand that this was her beauty which shone out over the snow. Then Freyr\nleft the air-throne and determined to send to the fair one and woo her\nto be his wife. Her name was Gerda.[87] Freyr sent his messenger Skirnir\nto carry his suit to Gerda; and Skirnir told her how great Freyr was\namong the gods, how noble and happy a place was Asgard, the home of the\ngods. For all Skirnir\u2019s pleading Gerda would give no ear to his suit.\nBut Freyr had given his magic sword (the sun\u2019s rays) to Skirnir; and at\nlast the ambassador, tired of pleading, drew that and threatened to take\nthe life of Gerda unless she granted Freyr his wish. So she consented to\nmeet him nine nights hence in the wood of Barri. The nine nights typify,\nit is thought, the nine winter months of the Northern year; and the name\nof the wood, Barri, means \u2018the green;\u2019 the beginnings of spring in the\nwood being happily imaged as the meeting of the fresh and the barren\nearth.\n\nAll the elements of nature were personified by the spirit of Aryan\npoetry, and it would be a hopeless task--wearisome and useless to the\nreader--to give a mere category of the nature-gods in each system. Those\nwhich had most influence upon their religious thought were they who have\nbeen mentioned, the gods of the sky and sun and mother-earth. The other\nelemental divinities were (as a rule) more strictly bound within the\ncircle of their own dominions. It is curious to trace the difference\nbetween these strictly polytheistic deities--coequal in their several\nspheres--and those others who arose in obedience to a wider ideal of a\ngodhead. We have seen that the Indians had a strictly elemental heaven\nor sky, as well as their god Dy\u00e2us, and that they called him Varu_n_a, a\nword which corresponds etymologically to the Greek Ouranos, the heaven.\nIn the later Indian mythology Varu_n_a came to stand, not for the sky,\nbut for the wide expanse of ocean, and so corresponds to the Greek\nPoseidon, the Latin Neptune, and the Norse \u0152gir. All these were the\ngods of the sea and of all waters. The wind, as we saw, combined in the\nperson of Odin with the character of a highest god; but in the Greek the\npart was played by an inferior divinity, Hermes. In India there is a\nwind-god (called Vaja); but the character is likewise divided among a\nplurality of minor divinities, the Ma_r_uts. Of Agni, the god of fire,\ncorresponding to Heph\u00e6stus and Vulcan, we have spoken; and in the North\nFire is not a god at all, but an evil being called Loki. This is enough\nto show that the worship of Agni rose into fervour after the separation\nof the Aryan folk.\n\nWe postpone to the next chapter the mention of the gods of the\nunder-world.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: The Zend religion.]\n\nThe religions of which we have been giving this slight sketch have been\nwhat we may call \u2018natural\u2019 religions, that is to say, the thoughts about\nGod and the Unseen world which without help of any special _vision_ seem\nto spring up simultaneously in the minds of the different Aryan peoples.\nBut one among the Aryan religions still in pre-historic times broke off\nabruptly from its relation with the others, and, under a teacher whom we\nmay fairly call god-taught, in beauty and moral purity passed far beyond\nthe rest.\n\nThis was the Zoroastrian, the faith of the Iranian (ancient Persian)\nbranch, or, as it is perhaps better called, the Zend or Mazdean\nreligion; a creed which holds a pre-eminence among all the religions of\nantiquity, excepting alone that of the Hebrews. And that there is no\nexaggeration in such a claim is sufficiently witnessed by the inspired\nwritings themselves, in which the Persian kings are frequently spoken\nof as if they as much as the Hebrews were worshippers of Jehovah.\n\u2018Cyrus the servant of God,\u2019 \u2018The Lord said unto my lord (Cyrus),\u2019 are\nconstantly recurring expressions in Isaiah.\n\nIn some respects this Zoroastrianism seems to stand in violent\nopposition to the Aryan religion. Nevertheless, at the back of the\nreligion of the Zend Avesta, which is the sacred book of the Iranian\ncreed, we can (as was before hinted) trace the outline of an earlier\nnatural religion essentially the same--so far as we can judge--with the\nreligion of the Vedas. And upon the whole we should be disposed to say\nthat Zoroastrianism appears to be not much else than a higher\ndevelopment of that earlier system. At any rate, we may feel sure that\nthe older system was before the coming of the \u2018gold bright\u2019[88]\nreformer, essentially a polytheism with only some yearnings towards\nmonotheism, and that Zoroaster settled it upon a firmly monotheistic\nbasis. This very fact leaves us little to say about the Iranian system\nconsidered strictly as a religion. For when once nations have risen to\nthe height of a monotheism there can be little essential difference in\ntheir beliefs; such difference as there is will be in the conception\nthey have of the character of their gods, whether it be a high, a\nrelatively high, or relatively low one; and this again is more perhaps a\nquestion of moral development than of religion. Their one god, since he\nmade all things and rules all things, cannot partake of the exclusive\nnature of any natural phenomenon; he cannot be a god of wind or water,\nof sun or sky. The Zoroastrian creed did afterwards introduce (then for\nthe first time in the world\u2019s history) a very important element of\nbelief, namely, of the distinct origin, and almost if not quite equal\npowers, of the good and evil principles. But this was later than the\ntime of Zarathustra.\n\nThe name which Zarathustra taught the people to give to the one god was\nunconnected with Aryan nature-names, Dy\u00e2us, or Varu_n_a, or Indra. He\nsimply called him the \u2018Great Spirit,\u2019 or, in the Zend, Ahura-mazda;[89]\nin later Persian, Hormuzd or Ormuzd. He is the all-perfect, all-wise,\nall-powerful, all-beautiful. He is the creator of all things. And--still\nnearer to the Christian belief--before the creation of the world, by\nmeans whereof the world itself was made, existed the _Word_. Some trace\nof this same doctrine of the pre-existing Word (_Hanover_, in the\nZoroastrian religion) is to be found in the Vedas, where he is called\n_Vach_. It would be here impossible to enter into an examination of the\nquestion how far these early religions seem to shadow forth the mystical\ndoctrine of the _Logos_. The evil principle opposed to Ormuzd is\nAngra-Mainyus (Ahrimanes), but in the true doctrine he is by no means\nthe equal of God, no more so than is Satan. The successive corruption of\npure Zoroastrianism after the time of its founder is marked by a\nconstant exaggeration of the power of the evil principle (suggested,\nperhaps, by intercourse with devil-worshipping nations of a lower type)\nuntil Ahrimanes becomes the rival of Ormuzd, coequal and co-eternal with\nhim.\n\nSuch is the simple creed of the Persians, accompanied of course by rites\nand ceremonies, part invented by the reformer, part inherited from the\ncommon Aryan parentage. It is well known that the Persians built no\ntemples, but worshipped Ormuzd chiefly upon the mountain-tops; that they\npaid great respect to all the elements--that is to air, water, and fire,\nthe latter most of all--a belief which they shared with their Indian\nbrethren, but stopped far short of worshipping any. That they held very\nstrongly the separate idea of the soul, so that when once a body had\nlost its life, they considered it to be a thing wholly corrupt and evil;\na doctrine which carried in the germ that of the inherent evil of\nmatter, as the philosophical reader will discern.\n\nIt remains to say something of their religious books. The _Zend Avesta_\nwas supposed to comprise the teaching of Zoroaster, and was believed to\nhave been written by him. Only one complete book has been preserved--it\nis called the _Vendid\u00e2d_. The _Zend_ language in which the _Avesta_ is\nwritten is the oldest known form of Persian, older than that in use at\nthe time of Darius the Great; but this is no proof that it dates back to\nthe days of Zarathustra. Part of it is in prose and part in verse, and\nas in every literature we find that the fragments of verse are they\nwhich survive the longest, it has been conjectured that the songs of the\n_Zend Avesta_ (G\u00e2th\u00e2s they are called) may even have been written by the\ngreat reformer himself.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nTHE OTHER WORLD.\n\n\n[Sidenote: The death of the sun-god.]\n\nIf the sun-god was so natural a type of a man-like divinity, a god\nsuffering some of the pains of humanity, a sort of type of man\u2019s own\nideal life here, it was natural that men should question this oracle\nconcerning their future life and their hopes beyond the grave. We have\nseen that the Egyptians did so; seen how they watched the course of the\nday-star, and, beholding him sink behind the sandy desert, pictured a\nhome of happiness beyond that waste, a place to be reached by the soul\nafter many trials and long wandering in the dim Amenti-land which lay\nbetween. The Aryans dwelt, we believe, upon the slopes of the\nHindoo-Koosh or in the level plain beneath; and, if the conjecture be\nreasonable that a great part of the land now a sandy desert was then\nfilled by an inland sea,[90] many of them must have dwelt upon its\nborders and seen the sun plunge in its wave each evening. Then or\nafterwards they saw this, and interpreted what they saw in the very\nthought of Milton:--\n\n    \u2018Weep no more, woeful shepherds, weep no more,\n     For Lycidas, your sorrow, is not dead,\n     Sunk though he be beneath the watery floor.\n     So sinks the day-star in the ocean-bed,\n     And yet anon repairs his drooping head,\n     And tricks his beams, and with new-spangled ore\n     Flames in the forehead of the morning sky.\u2019\n\nAnd thus a belief grew up among them that after death their souls would\nhave to cross this ocean to some happy paradise which lay beyond in the\n\u2018home of the sun.\u2019\n\n[Sidenote: Life in the tomb. The _double_.]\n\nBut there is another idea, more simple and material than this, and\ntherefore more natural to human nature in all its phases. This is the\nnotion that the dead man abides in his tomb, that he comes to life in it\nafter a certain fashion, and lives a new life there not greatly\ndifferent from his life on earth, only calmer and more stately--\n\n    \u2018Calm pleasures there abide, majestic pains.\u2019\n\nFirst of all, perhaps, the survivors are content to think of the dead\nman as simply living in his underground house. To prevent him coming out\nthence, the stone-age men, we noticed, scattered shards, flints, and\npebbles, before the mouth of the house. To that tomb they brought their\nofferings of meat and drink. The notion of the soul is not yet separated\nfrom that of the body. But that does not show that all the ideas of\nthose who confounded the two were purely materialistic. In common\nparlance we often confound spiritual and material things quite as much;\nand yet in our thoughts we have the power of separating them. We talk of\na good-hearted man, and yet we can distinguish between the purely\nimaginary or spiritual entity here meant by \u2018heart,\u2019 and the mere\nphysical organ. I do not say that early man could have distinguished\nbetween the idea of the dead body and the surviving soul. Probably he\ncould not. I only say that we are not to judge of his belief merely by\nhis rites and ceremonies.\n\nSo far as these ceremonies go, man began, we judge, by thinking first of\nsecuring for the dead an everlasting habitation. And so he covered his\ngrave with an immense pile of earth.[91] The pile grew greater and\ngreater, and at last, as we saw, it took the shape of the pyramid. Then\ncame the entrance-chamber or _porch_ to the tomb, in which the survivors\noffered sacrifices to the dead to keep him alive by the smell of the\nburnt offering.\n\nThe Egyptians had very little power of abstracting the idea of the\nimmaterial soul from the material dead body. At any rate, they did not\n(for a long time) conceive the soul as a purely immaterial being. They\nthought of the immortal part of man as a sort of _double_ of the mortal\npart. This double they called his _ka_. The _ka_ could not exist without\nsome material form, and therefore they took infinite pains to provide it\nwith a body of some kind. They mummified the dead body so as to make it\nlast as long as possible. But besides that, they made numerous images of\nthe dead; sometimes (if his state could afford it) large statues of\nwood[92] or stone. And in addition to these they made a vast number of\nsmaller images, generally of pottery--those little mummy figures in blue\nor green pottery,[93] of which we find such endless quantities buried in\nthe tombs. There was usually a secret chamber or passage practised in\nthe tomb to contain these mummied figures, and it was so arranged that\nthe scent of the sacrifice might come along it.[94]\n\nAll these ideas belong, we see, to the most _stationary_ notion of the\ndead. If they were followed out logically, the soul would be considered\nas tied for ever to the mummy, which lies below in a dark chamber, or to\nthe little images in their small passage within the wall of the tomb.\nBut the Egyptians did not carry out this idea logically. For we find\nprayers upon the walls of their earliest tombs, that Osiris should give\nto the dead, sheep, oxen, and farm-labourers, and \u2018sport,\u2019 or corn, and\nwine, and dancers, and jesters--all the pleasures, in fact, which he had\nhad in life. Therefore the dead must really have been thought to have\nthe power of life and motion as he had enjoyed it upon earth,\ninconsistent as such an idea is with the constant enchainment of the\n_ka_ to some material belonging, to the mummy or to the image of\npottery.\n\n[Sidenote: The journey of the dead.]\n\nWherefore it came about that the Egyptians began to have a sort of\nnotion of _two_ souls--one the half-material _ka_, which remained in the\ntomb; the other of an immaterial nature, which moved about.\n\nBut this notion of two souls arose because the Egyptians were _more_\nprecise and logical than most peoples have been in their speculations as\nto the future state. Among other races we see a constant confusion\nbetween the idea of resting in the tomb, and the idea of journeying to\nanother land generally in the wake of the sun. And the food and drink\nplaced on the tomb, instead of being the simple nourishment of the\ndead, were designed merely as a temporary provision for him _on his way_\nto the land of souls.\n\nThe expectation of a journey after death to reach the home of shades is\nall but universal; and the opinion that the home of the departed lies in\nthe west is of an almost equally wide extension. The Egyptian religion,\nwith its wonderful Book of the Dead, gives as much weight to this side\nof belief as to the other notion of resting in the tomb. To lengthen out\nthe soul\u2019s journey, which was fancied to last thousands of years, and\ngive incident where all must have been really imaginary, the actual\njourney of the mummy to its resting-place was lengthened after life to\nportray the more ghostly wanderings of the spirit. As a rule, the cities\nof the living in Egypt lay upon the eastern bank of the Nile; the tombs,\nthe cities of the dead, on the left or western bank, generally just\nwithin the borders of the desert. Wherefore, as the body was carried\nacross the Nile to be buried in the desert, so the soul was believed to\nbegin his journey in the dim twilight region of Apap, king of the\ndesert, to cross a river more than once, to advance _towards the sun_,\nlight gradually breaking upon him the while, until at last he enters the\n\u2018Palace of the Two Truths,\u2019 the judgment-hall of Osiris (the sun). Last\nof all, he walks into the sun itself, or is absorbed into the essence of\nthe deity.\n\nIn these two notions we have, I think, the germ of almost all the most\nancient belief touching the soul\u2019s future. A confusion between the two\nnotions would imagine the soul making a journey through the earth to an\nunderground land of shades. So far as we know, this was the prevailing\nfeeling among the Hebrews. Old Hebrew writers (with whom the hopes of\nimmortality were not strong) speak of going down into the grave,[95] a\nplace thought of as a misty, dull, unfeeling, almost unreal abode.\n\n[Sidenote: Journey to the sky.]\n\nFinally, a third element--if not universal, common certainly to the\nAryan races--will be the conception of the soul separating from the body\naltogether and mounting upwards to some home in the sky. All these\nelements are found to exist and coexist in early creeds, and the force\nof the component parts determines the colour of man\u2019s doctrine about the\nother world.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n[Sidenote: The other world of the Aryans.]\n\nAmong all the Aryan peoples the Greeks seem to have turned their\nthoughts farthest away from the contemplation of the grave; and though\nthe voice of wonder and imagination could not quite be silent upon so\nimportant a question, Hades and the kingdom of Hades filled a\ndisproportionately small space in their creed. They shrank from images\nof Death, and adorned their tombs or cinerary urns with wreaths of\nflowers and figures of the dancing Hours: it is doubtful if the god\nThanatos (Death) has ever been pictured by Greek art.[96] And from what\nthey have left on record concerning Hades and the realms of death, it is\nevident that they regarded it _chiefly_ from its merely negative side,\nin that aspect which corresponds most exactly to the notion of a dark\nsubterraneous kingdom, and not to that of a journey to some other\ndistant land. The etymology of their mythical King of Souls corresponds,\ntoo, with the same notions. Hades means nothing else than A-eid\u00eas, the\nunseen. And when it was said that the dead had gone to Hades, all that\nwas literally meant was that it had gone to the unseen place. But later\non, the place became personified into the grim deity whom we know in\nGreek mythology, the brother of Zeus and Poseidon, he to whose share\nfell, in the partition of the world, the land of perpetual night. The\nunderworld pictured by Homer is just of that voiceless, sightless\ncharacter which accords with the name of Hades. Even the great heroes\nlose almost their identity, and all the joy and interest they had in\nlife. To \u2018wander mid shadows a shadow, and wail by impassable streams,\u2019\nis henceforward their occupation.\n\nNot that the Greek had _no_ idea of another world of the more heavenly\nsort; ideas obtained as a joint inheritance with their brother nations;\nonly their thoughts and their poetry do not often centre round such\npictures. Their Elysian fields are a western sun\u2019s home, just after the\npattern of the Egyptian; and so are their Islands of the Blest, where,\naccording to one tradition, the just Rhadamanthus had been transported\nwhen he fled from the power of his brother Min\u00f4s.[97] Only, observe,\nthere is this difference between these Paradises and the Egyptian house\nof Osiris--the latter was reached across the sandy desert, the former\nare separated by the ocean from the abode of men. These are the\n_Heavens_ of the Greek mythology; while the realm of Hades--or later on\nthe realm Hades--might by contrast be called their Hell. Let us look a\nlittle nearer at this heaven-picture.\n\n[Sidenote: The River of Death.]\n\nThe Caspian Sea--or by whatever name we call the great mediterranean sea\nwhich lay before them--would be naturally, almost inevitably, considered\nby the Aryans from their home in Bactria to bound the habitable world.\nThe region beyond its borders would be a twilight-land like the land of\nApap (the desert-king) of the Egyptians; and still farther away would\nlie the bright region of the sun\u2019s proper home. And these ideas would be\nboth literal--cosmological conceptions, as we should call them--and\nfigurative, or at least mythical, referring to the future state of the\nsoul. The beautiful expression of the Hebrew for that twilight western\nregion, \u2018the valley of the shadow of death,\u2019 might be used for the\nApap-land in its figurative significance, and not the less justly\nbecause there creeps in here the other notion of death as of a\n_descending_ to the land of shades, for the two ideas of the western\nheaven and the subterraneous hell were never utterly separated, but,\namong the Aryans at any rate, constantly acted and reacted upon one\nanother. So with the Greeks we have as a cosmological conception--or let\nus say, more simply, a part of their world-theory--the encircling river\nOceanus, with the dim Cimmerian land beyond; and we have the Eylsian\nfields and the islands of the blest for the most happy dead. And then by\na natural transfer of ideas the bounding river becomes the river of\ndeath--Styx and Leth\u00ea--and is placed below the earth in the region of\ndeath. Even the Elysian fields at last suffer the same change: they too\npass below the earth.\n\nThe Indian religion, too, has its river of death. \u2018On the fearful road\nto Yama\u2019s door,\u2019 says a hymn, \u2018is the terrible stream Vaitara_n_\u00ee, in\norder to cross which I sacrifice a black cow.\u2019[98]\n\nThis river of death must be somehow crossed. The Greeks, we know, had\ntheir grim ferryman.\n\n    \u2018Portitor has horrendus aquas et flumina servat\n     Terribili squalore Charon: cui plurima mento\n     Canities inculta jacet; stant lumina flamma,\u2019 etc.\n\nThe Indians crossed their river of death by a bridge, which was guarded\nby two dogs, not less terrible to evildoers than Charon and Cerberus.\n\n\u2018A narrow path, an ancient one, stretches there, a path untrodden by\nmen, a path I know of.\n\n\u2018On it the wise, who had known Brahma, ascend to the dwellings of\nSvarga, when they have received their dismissal.\u2019[99] So sings a poet.\n\nSwarga is the Bright Land (_svar_, to shine), _i.e._ the Home of the\nSun. The names of the two guardian dogs, too, are interesting. They are\nthe sons of that Saram\u00e2 whom we have already seen sent by Indra to\nrecover his lost cattle, whose name signifies the breeze of morning.\nSaram\u00e2\u2019s two sons, the dogs of Yama, being so closely connected with the\ngod of the under-world--as Saram\u00e2 is with Indra the sun-god--might be\nguessed as the winds of evening or, more vaguely, the evening, as Saram\u00e2\nis the morning. They are so; and by their name of S\u00e2rameyas, are even\nmore closely related to Hermes than Saram\u00e2 was.[100] We now know why to\nHermes was allotted the office of Psychopomp, or leader of the shades to\nthe realm of Hades--or at least we partly know; for we see that he is\nthe same with the two dogs of Yama in the Indian myth. But they are also\nconnected by name with another much more infernal being, Cerberus. Their\nindividual names were _Cerbura_[101] the spotted, and Syama the black.\nThus the identity of nature is confirmed by the identity of name.\n\nDeath and Sleep are twin-brothers, and we need not be surprised to find\nthe S\u00e2rameyas, or rather _a_ god S\u00e2rameyas, addressed as a sort of god\nof sleep, a divine hound, the protector of the sleeping household, as we\ndo find in a very beautiful poem of the Rig-Vedas.[102]\n\n    \u2018Destroyer of sickness, guard of the house; oh, thou who\n        takest all shapes, be to us a peace-bringing friend.\n     Bay at the robber, S\u00e2rameyas, bay at the thief; why bayest\n        thou at the singer of Indra? why art thou angry with me?\n        sleep, S\u00e2rameyas.\n     The mother sleeps, the father sleeps, the dog sleeps, the\n        clan-father[103] sleeps, the whole clan sleeps; sleep thou, S\u00e2rameyas.\n     Those who sleep by the cattle, those who sleep by the wain,\n        the women who lie on the couches, the sweet-scented ones,\n        all these we bring to slumber.\u2019\n\nHow these verses breathe of the fragrant air of early pastoral life! In\ntheir names, again, of \u2018black\u2019 and \u2018spotted\u2019 it is very probable that\nthe dogs typified two appearances of night--black or starry.\n\n[Sidenote: The heavenward journey.]\n\nAnd yet we must remember that Hermes is not a god of night, or sleep,\nbut strictly and properly of the wind, and that his name, as that of\nS\u00e2rameyas, bears this meaning in its construction. The god who bore away\nthe souls to the other world, however connected with the night, \u2018the\nproper time for dying,\u2019 must have been originally the wind. And in this\nwe see an exquisite appropriateness. The soul is, in its original and\nliteral meaning, the breath[104]--\u2018the spirit does but mean the breath.\u2019\nWhat more natural, therefore, than that the spirit should be carried\naway by the wind-god? This was peculiarly an Aryan idea. Yet let it not\nbe laid to the Aryans\u2019 charge, as though their theories of the soul and\nfuture life were less spiritual than those of other nations: quite the\ncontrary was the case. So far as they abandoned the notion of the\nexistence of the _body_ in another state and transferred the future to\nthe soul, their ideas became higher, and their pictures of the other\nworld more amplified. But how, it may be asked, did the Aryans pass to\ntheir more spiritual conception of the soul? The more external causes of\nthis progress it is worth while briefly to trace.\n\nThe sun, it has been said, acted powerfully upon men\u2019s minds in pointing\nthe hopes of futurity. And in sketching the sun-myth which lay concealed\nin the story of the life of Heracles, we noticed one feature which\nsuggests thoughts about a not yet mentioned element in the funeral rites\nof the Aryans. The fiery setting of the sun would itself suggest a fiery\nfuneral, and pre-eminently so to a race who seem to have been addicted\nmore than any other to this form of interment. Balder, the Northern\nsun-god, likewise receives such a funeral, and this more even than the\ndeath of Heracles exemplifies the double significance of the sun\u2019s\nwestering course. For he sails away upon a burning ship. When,\ntherefore, this fire-burial was thoroughly established in custom as the\nmost heroic sort of end, it is not likely that men would longer rely\nupon their belief that the body continued in an after-life. The thought\nof the dead man living in his grave or travelling thence to regions\nbelow must, or should, by the consistent be definitely abandoned. In\nplace of it, a theory of the vital faculty residing in the breath,\nwhich almost amounts to a soul distinct from the body, is accepted. Or,\nif the doubting brethren still require some visible representation of\nthis vital power, the smoke[105] of the funeral pyre may typify the\nascending soul. Nay, it would appear as though inanimate things likewise\nhad some such essence, which by the fire could be separated from their\nmaterial form. For what would formerly have been placed with the dead in\nthe grave is now placed upon the pyre. In the funeral of Patroclus\n(_Il._ xxiii.) we have a complete picture of these reformed rites, which\nseems to be applicable to all the Aryan folk; nor surely could we wish\nfor anything more striking and impressive. The fat oxen and sheep are\nslain before the pyre, and with the fat from their bodies and with honey\nthe corpse is liberally anointed. Then twelve captives are sacrificed to\nthe manes of the hero; they and his twelve favourite dogs are burnt with\nhim upon the pile. We soon see the reason for the anointing of the\ncorpse with fat, and taking so much pains that it should be thoroughly\nconsumed. It was necessary for the peace of the shade that his body\nshould be thoroughly burned; for the funeral ceremony was looked upon as\nthe inevitable portal to Hades; without it the ghost still lingered upon\nearth unable to cross the Stygian stream. So afterwards, when the pile\nwill not burn, Achilles prays to the North and the West Winds and pours\nlibations to them that they may come and consummate the funeral rite.\nAll night as the flame springs up Achilles stands beside it, calling\nupon the name of his friend and watering the ground with libations from\na golden cup. Toward morning the flame sinks down; and then the two\nwinds, according to the beautiful language of mythology, return homeward\nacross the Thracian sea.\n\nAll the Aryan nationalities practised cremation in some form or other,\nor had practised it; most only gave it up upon the introduction of\nChristianity. The time is too remote, therefore, to say when this form\nof interment was in truth a novelty; and the fact that the bronze age in\nEurope is, as distinguished from that of stone, a corpse-burning age, is\none of the reasons which urge us to the conclusion that the bronze-using\ninvaders were of the Aryan family.[106] The Indians, owing to their\nexcessive reverence for Agni the fire-god, adhered to the practice most\nfaithfully; though the very same reason (namely, their regard for the\npurity of fire) made the reformed Iranian religion utterly repudiate\nit--a fact which might seem strange did we not know how Zoroastrianism\nwas sometimes governed by a spirit of opposition to the older\nfaith.[107] Among the Norsemen about the time of the introduction of\nChristianity into Scandinavia, Burn? or Bury? became a test-question,\nand a constant cause of dispute between the rival creeds.\n\n[Sidenote: Other world of the Norsemen.]\n\nIn the Northern religion, too, therefore, we have the same leading ideas\nwhich we have signalized in the Indian or Grecian systems. Especially\ndoes that notion of the breath of the body, or the smoke of the funeral\npyre representing the soul of the hero and carried upward under care of\nthe wind, come prominently forward. This might be expected because, it\nwill be remembered, the wind in the Northern mythology is not, as with\nthe Indians, a servant of Yama only, or as with the Greeks a lesser\ndivinity, but is the first of all the gods. To Odin is assigned the task\nof collecting the souls of heroes who had fallen in battle; and there\nare few myths more poetical than that which pictures him riding to\nbattle-fields to execute his mission. He is accompanied by his\nValkyriur, \u2018the choosers,\u2019 a sort of Amazonian houris, half human,\nhalf-godlike, who ride through the air in the form of swans; wherefore\nthey--who are originally, perhaps, the clouds--are often called in the\nEddas, Odin\u2019s swan-maidens. It has been said that this myth lived on in\nafter-ages in the form of the _Phantom Army_ and _Herne the Hunter_: and\nthe essential part of it, the myth of the soul carried away by the wind,\nlived on more obscurely in a hundred other tales, some of which we may\nglance at in our next chapter upon _Mythology_. But while this idea of\nthe mounting soul is often clearly expressed--as, for instance, where in\nBeowulf,[108] in the last scene, the hero is burnt by the seashore, it\nis said of him that he _wand to wolcum_, \u2018curled to the clouds,\u2019\nimaging well the curling smoke of the pyre--there still lingered on\nother ideas of the death-home, a subterraneous land (Helheim, Hel\u2019s\nhome) ruled over by the goddess Hel,[109] and an infernal Styx-like\nstream, with the bridge of Indian mythology transferred to the lower\nworld. And so much were the three distinct ideas interwoven, that in the\nmyth of Balder each one may be traced. For here the sun-god, who is the\nvery origin and prototype of the two more exalted elements of the creed\nof the heavenward journey,[110] has himself to stoop downward to the\ngates of Hel. If this legend sanctified for the heathens the practice of\nfire-burial, they had certainly so much excuse for their obstinate\nadherence to the older custom, as one of the most beautiful myths ever\ntold might plead for them. We may look upon the story of the death and\nburning of Balder in two aspects--first as an image of the setting sun,\nnext as an expression of men\u2019s thoughts concerning death, and the course\nof the soul to its future home. If in this latter respect the story\nseems to mix up two different myths concerning the other world, we need\nnot be surprised at that.\n\nBalder dies, as the sun dies each day, and as the summer dies into\nwinter. He falls, struck by a dart from the hand of his blind brother\nH\u00f6dr (the darkness), and the shadow of death appears for the first time\nin the homes of Asgard. At first the gods knew not what to make of it,\n\u2018they were struck dumb with horror,\u2019 says the Edda;[111] but seeing\nthat he is really dead, they prepare his funeral pyre. They took his\nship _Hringhorni_ (Ringhorn, the disk of the sun), and on it set a pile\nof wood, with Balder\u2019s horse and his armour, and all that he valued\nmost, to which each god added some worthy gift. And when Nanna, the wife\nof Balder, saw the preparations, her heart broke with grief, and she too\nwas laid upon the pile. Then they set fire to the ship, which sailed out\nburning into the sea.\n\nBut Balder himself had to go to Helheim, the dark abode beneath the\nearth, where reigns Hel,[112] the goddess of the dead. Then Odin sends\nhis messenger, Herm\u00f6dr, to the goddess, to pray her to let Balder return\nonce more to earth. For nine days and nine nights Herm\u00f6dr rode through\ndark glens, so dark that he could not discern anything until he came to\nthe river Gj\u00f6ll (\u2018the sounding\u2019--notice that here the Greek Cocytus\nreappears), over which he rode by Gj\u00f6ll\u2019s bridge, which was pleasant\nwith bright gold. A maiden sat there keeping the bridge; she inquired of\nhim his name and lineage--for, said she, \u2018Yestereve five bands of dead\nmen rid over the bridge, yet they did not shake it so much as thou hast\ndone. But thou hast not death\u2019s hue upon thee; why, then, ridest thou\nhere on the way to Hel?\u2019\n\n\u2018I ride to Hel,\u2019 answered Herm\u00f6dr, \u2018to seek Balder. Hast thou perchance\nseen him pass this way?\u2019\n\n\u2018Balder,\u2019 answered she, \u2018hath ridden over Gj\u00f6ll\u2019s bridge. But yonder,\nnorthward, lies the road to Hel.\u2019\n\nHerm\u00f6dr then rode into the palace, where he found his brother Balder\nfilling the highest place in the hall, and in his company he passed the\nnight. The next morning he besought Hel, that she would let Balder ride\nhome with him, assuring her how great the grief was among the gods.\n\nHel answered, \u2018It shall now be proved whether Balder be so much loved as\nthou sayest. If, therefore, all things both living and lifeless weep for\nhim, then shall he return. But if one thing speak against him or refuse\nto weep, he shall be kept in Helheim.\u2019\n\nAnd when Herm\u00f6dr had delivered this answer, the gods sent off messengers\nthroughout the whole world, to tell everything to weep, in order that\nBalder might be delivered out of Helheim. All things freely complied\nwith this request, both man and every other living thing, and earths,\nand stones, and trees, and metals, just as thou hast no doubt seen these\nthings weep when they are brought from a cold place into a hot one. As\nthe messengers were returning, and deemed that their mission had been\nsuccessful, they found an old hag, named Thokk,[113] sitting in a\ncavern, and her they begged to weep Balder out of Helheim. But she\nsaid:--\n\n    \u2018Thokk will wail          Nought quick or dead\n    With dry eyes             For carl\u2019s son care I.\n    Balder\u2019s bale-fire.       Let Hel hold her own.\u2019\n\nSo Balder remained in Helheim.\n\nSuch was the sad conclusion of the myth of which the memory is kept up\neven in these days. For in Norway and Sweden--nay, in some parts of\nScotland, the _bale-fires_ celebrating the bale or death of the sun-god\nare lighted on the day when the sun passes the highest point in the\necliptic. Balder will not, said tradition, remain for ever in Helheim. A\nday will come, the twilight of the gods, when the gods themselves will\nbe destroyed in a final victorious contest with the evil powers. And\nthen, when a new earth has arisen from the deluge which destroys the\nold, Balder, the god of Peace, will come from Death\u2019s home to rule over\nthis regenerate world. A sublime myth--if indeed it can be called a\n_myth_.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\nMYTHOLOGIES AND FOLK-TALES.\n\n\n[Sidenote: Diversity of myths.]\n\nIf we found it difficult to reduce to a consistent simplicity the\nreligious ideas of the Aryan races, what hope have we to find any thread\nthrough the labyrinth of their unbridled imagination in dealing with\nmore fanciful subjects? The world is all before them where to choose;\nnature, in her multitudinous works and ever-changing shows, is at hand\nto give breath to the faculty of myth-making, and lay the foundation of\nall the stories which have ever been told. The two elements concurrent\nto the manufacture of mythologies are the varying phenomena in nature,\nand that which is called the anthropomorphic (personifying) faculty in\nman. I do not mean by this that all myths represent natural appearances.\nSome simply relate events, real human experiences; all that is mythic\nabout such stories is that they are _misplaced_. Some one has gone\nthrough the adventures, but not the person of whom they are told. Other\ntales transfer in a like fashion human experiences to beings who are not\nhuman, to animals, to trees and streams, maybe even to implements, to\nspades and ploughs, to hatchets, swords, or ships. All these may be\nsubject of mere tale-telling. But what I understand by mythology are\nthe stories related of the gods--at all events, stories of supernatural\nbeings who are almost gods. And among the Aryan folk, as the gods are in\nalmost every instance the personifications of phenomena or powers of\nnature, the myths of widest extension were necessarily occupied with\nthese.\n\nReligion being the greatest concern of man, the myths which allied\nthemselves most closely to his religious ideas would be those which\nmaintained the longest life and most universal acceptance. In reviewing\nsome of the Aryan myths--in a hasty and general review as it must needs\nbe--the preceding chapter will serve to guide us to the myths most\nclosely connected with religious notions, which have a chief claim upon\nour attention. Indeed, reading in a converse manner, it was the fact\nthat so many myths clung around certain natural phenomena which allowed\nus, with proper reservation, to point these out as the phenomena which\nheld the most intimate place in men\u2019s minds and hearts. _With proper\nreservations_, because the highest, most abstracted god does not lend\nhimself as a subject for the myth-making faculty. He stands apart from\nthe polytheistic circle: below him stand the nature-gods who are also\nthe heroes of the mythologies.\n\nAnd now, with a backward glance to what has been already written, we may\nexpect the chief myth systems to divide themselves into certain classes\ncorresponding with the god--or natural phenomenon--that is their\nconcern. We may expect to find myths relating especially to the labours\nof the sun, like those of Heracles and Thorr, or to the wind, like that\nof Hermes stealing the cattle of Apollo, or to the earth sleeping in the\nembrace of winter, or sorrowing for the loss of her greenery, or joying\nagain in her recovered life. And again we may look to find myths more\nintimately concerned with death, and with the looked-for future of the\nsoul. These will mingle like mingling streams, but we shall often be\nable to trace their origin.\n\nBut, to begin with, do not suppose that, if I say that a natural\nphenomenon has given rise to a story, I mean to say that the story could\nnot have arisen except through this natural phenomenon. Or, to put it in\nplainer language, do not suppose that if I say that this or that\nadventure is related of the sun or of the wind, I mean that the\nadventure was never heard of before the sun or wind was worshipped as a\ngod or idealized as a hero. If Indra, or Apollo, is called the\nserpent-slayer, I do not mean that it is by the battle of the sun and\nthe clouds that men got the idea of slaying serpents. If the wind is\nsaid to ride a-horseback over hill and dale, if the thunder-god is said\nto hurl his hammer at the mountain-tops, I do not mean that men never\nthought of horses or battle-hammers till they began to make stories\nabout the wind and sun. What I do mean is that certain special forms of\nthe myths related, _as we now see them_, were told of the Aryan god who\nwas some phenomenon of nature--the sun or whatever he might be. It is\nnecessary to give this word of caution, because the relationship of\nmythology to religion has sometimes, by recent writings upon the\nsubject, been a good deal confused and obscured.\n\nThe diversity of the natural phenomena which give them rise will not in\nany way hinder the myths from reproducing the _human_ elements which\nhave, since the world began held their pre-eminence in romance and\nhistory. There will be love-stories, stories of battle and victory, of\nmagic and strange disguises, of suddenly acquired treasure, and, most\nattractive of all to the popular mind, stories of princes and princesses\nwhose princedom is hidden under a servile station or beggar\u2019s\ngaberdine, and of heroes who allow their heroism to rust for a while in\nstrange inaction, that\n\n                \u2018Imitate the sun,\n    Who doth permit the base contagious clouds\n    To smother up his beauty from the world,\n    That, when he please again to be himself,\n    Being wanted, he may be more wondered at.\u2019\n\nNot necessarily because such heroes _were_ the sun, but rather that the\ntales, appealing so intimately to the common sympathies of human nature,\nattach themselves pre-eminently to the great natural hero, the sun-god.\n\n[Sidenote: Sun-myths.]\n\nTo begin, then, with the sun-god. His love-stories relate most commonly\nthe pursuit of the dawn, a woman, by the god of day. She flies at the\napproach of the sun; or, if the two are married in early morning, when\nthe day advances, the dawn dies or the sun leaves her to pursue his\nallotted journey. We read how Apollo pursued Daphn\u00ea, while she still\nfled from him, and at last, praying to the gods, was changed into a\nlaurel, which ever afterwards remained sacred to the son of L\u00eat\u00f4. There\nis nothing new in the story; it might be related of any hero. Yet, as we\nfind Greek art so often busy with it, we might guess that it had\nobtained for some reason a hold more than commonly firm upon the popular\nimagination. And when we turn from the Greek to the Sanskrit we are able\nto unravel the myth and show it, so far as the names are concerned,\npeculiar to the sun-god. Daphn\u00ea (it is believed) is the Sanskrit Ahan\u00e2,\nthat is to say, the Dawn.\n\nA tenderer love-story is that which speaks of the sun and the dawn as\nunited at the opening of the day, but of the separation which follows\nwhen the sun reveals himself in his true splendour. The parting,\nhowever, will not be eternal, for the sun in the evening shall sink into\nthe arms of the west, as in the morning he left those of the east--all\nthe physical appearances at sundown will correspond with those of the\ndawn--so in poetical language he will be said to return to his love\nagain at the evening of life. In right accord with its natural origin\nand native attractiveness, we find this story repeated almost\nidentically as regards its chief incidents by all the branches of the\nAryan family. For an Indian version of it the reader may consult the\nstory of Urva_s_i and Pururavas, told by Mr. Max M\u00fcller from one of the\nVedas.[114] Urva_s_i is a fairy who falls in love with Pururavas, a\nmortal, and consents to become his wife, on condition that she should\nnever see him without his royal garment on, \u2018for this is the manner of\nwomen.\u2019 For a while they lived together happily; but the Gandhavas, the\nfairy beings to whom Urva_s_i belonged, were jealous of her love for a\nmortal, and they laid a plot to separate them. \u2018Now, there was a ewe\nwith two lambs tied to the couch of Urva_s_i and Pururavas, and the\nfairies stole one of them, so that Urva_s_i upbraided her husband and\nsaid, \u201cThey steal my darlings as though I lived in a land where there is\nno hero, and no man.\u201d And Pururavas said, \u201cHow can that be a land\nwithout heroes or men where I am?\u201d and naked he sprang up. Then the\nGandhavas sent a flash of lightning, and Urva_s_i saw her husband naked\nas by daylight. Then she vanished. \u201cI come back,\u201d she said; and went.\u2019\n\nCupid loves Psyche as Pururavas Urva_s_i, but here the story is so far\nchanged that the woman breaks the condition laid upon their union. Not\nthis time by accident, but from the evil counselling of her two sisters,\nPsyche disobeys her husband. They have long been married, but she has\nnever seen his face; and doubts begin to arise lest some horrid\nmonster, and not a god, may be the sharer of her couch. So she takes the\nlamp, and when she deems her husband is fast locked in sleep, gazes upon\nthe face of the god of love.\n\n                      \u2018But as she turned at last\n    To quench the lamp, there happed a little thing\n    That quenched her new delight, for flickering,\n    The treacherous flame cast on his shoulder fair\n    A burning drop; he woke, and seeing her there,\n    The meaning of that sad sight knew full well;\n    Nor was there need the piteous tale to tell.\u2019[115]\n\nHere, it is true, we have wandered away from the adventures of the sun.\nCupid or Eros is in no sense a sun-god; nor has Psyche any proved\nconnection with Ushas, the Dawn. Once a sun-myth does not mean always a\nsun-myth.[116] So much the contrary, that it is part of our business to\nshow how stories, first appropriated to Olympus or Asgard, may descend\nto take their place among the commonest collection of nursery tales. It\nis the case with this myth of the Dawn. The reader\u2019s acquaintance with\nnursery literature has probably already anticipated the kinship to be\nclaimed by one of the most familiar childish legends. But as one more\nlink to rivet the bond of union between _Urvasi and Pururavas_ and\n_Beauty and the Beast_, let us look at a story of Swedish origin called\n_Prince Hatt under the Earth_.\n\n\u2018There was once, very very long ago, a king who had three daughters, all\nexquisitely fair, and much more amiable than other maidens, so that\ntheir like was not to be found far or near. But the youngest princess\nexcelled her sisters, not only in beauty, but in goodness of heart and\nkindness of disposition. She was consequently greatly beloved by all,\nand the king himself was more fondly attached to her than to either of\nhis other daughters.\n\n\u2018It happened one autumn that there was a fair in a town not far from the\nking\u2019s residence, and the king himself resolved on going to it with his\nattendants. When on the eve of departure, he asked his three daughters\nwhat they would like for fairings, it being his constant custom to make\nthem some present on his return home. The two elder princesses began\ninstantly to enumerate precious things of curious kinds; one would have\nthis, the other that; but the youngest daughter asked for nothing. At\nthis the king was surprised, and asked her whether she would not like\nsome ornament or other; but she answered that she had plenty of gold and\njewels. When the king, however, would not desist from urging her, she at\nlength said, \u201cThere is one thing which I would gladly have, if only I\nmight venture to ask it of my father.\u201d \u201cWhat may that be?\u201d inquired the\nking; \u201csay what it is, and if it be in my power you shall have it.\u201d \u201cIt\nis this,\u201d replied the princess, \u201cI have heard talk of the _three singing\nleaves_, and them I wish to have before anything else in the world.\u201d The\nking laughed at her for making so trifling a request, and at length\nexclaimed, \u201cI cannot say that you are very covetous, and would rather by\nhalf that you had asked for some greater gift. You shall, however, have\nwhat you desire, though it should cost me half my realm.\u201d He then bade\nhis daughters farewell and rode away.\u2019\n\nOf course he goes to the fair, and on his way home happens to hear the\nthree singing leaves, \u2018which moved to and fro, and as they swayed there\ncame forth a sound such as it would be impossible to describe.\u2019 The king\nwas glad to have found what his daughter had wished for, and was about\nto pluck them, but the instant he stretched forth his hand towards them,\nthey withdrew from his grasp, and a powerful voice was heard from under\nthe earth saying, \u2018Touch not my leaves.\u2019 \u2018At this the king was somewhat\nsurprised, and asked who it was, and whether he could not purchase the\nleaves for gold or good words. The voice answered, \u201cI am _Prince Hatt\nunder the Earth_, and you will not get my leaves either with good or bad\nas you desire. Nevertheless I will propose to you one condition.\u201d \u201cWhat\ncondition is that?\u201d asked the king with eagerness. \u201cIt is,\u201d answered the\nvoice, \u201cthat you promise me the first living thing that you meet when\nyou return to your palace.\u201d\u2019 As we anticipate, the first thing which he\nmeets is his youngest daughter, who therefore is left with lamentation\nunder the hazel bush: and, as is its wont on such occasions, the ground\nopens, and she finds herself in a beautiful palace. Here she lives long\nand happily with Prince Hatt, upon condition that she shall never see\nhim. But at last she is permitted to pay a visit to her father and\nsisters; and her stepmother succeeds in awakening her curiosity and her\nfears, lest she should really be married to some horrid monster. The\nprincess thus allows herself to be persuaded to strike a light and gaze\non her husband while he is asleep. Of course, just as her eyes have\nlighted upon a beautiful youth he awakes, and as a consequence of her\ndisobedience--(here the story alters somewhat)--he is struck blind, and\nthe two are obliged to wander over the earth, and endure all manner of\nmisfortunes before Prince Hatt\u2019s sight is at last restored.\n\nThe sun is so apt to take the place of an almost super-human hero, that\nmost of the stories of such when they are purely mythical relate some\npart of the sun\u2019s daily course and labours. Thus in the Greek, Perseus,\nTheseus, Jason, are in the main sun-heroes, though they mingle with\ntheir histories tales of real human adventure. One of the most easily\ntraceable sun-stories is that of Perseus and the Gorgon. The later\nrepresentations of Medusa in Greek art give her a beautiful dead face\nshrouded by luxurious snaky tresses; but the earlier art presents us\nwith a round face, distorted by a hideous grin from ear to ear, broad\ncheeks, low forehead, over which curl a few flattened locks. We at once\nsee the likeness of this face to the full moon; a likeness which,\nwithout regard to mythology, forces itself upon us; and then the true\nstory of Perseus flashes upon us as the extinction of the moon by the\nsun\u2019s light. This is the baneful Gorgon\u2019s head, the full moon, which so\nmany nations superstitiously believed could exert a fatal power over the\nsleeper; and when slain by the son of Dana\u00ea, it is the pale ghostlike\ndisc which we see by day. It is very interesting to see how the Greeks\nmade a myth of the moon in its--one may say--literal unidealized aspect,\nin addition to the countless more poetical myths which spoke of the moon\nas a beautiful goddess, queen of the night, the virgin huntress\nsurrounded by her pack of dogs--the stars. In the instance of Medusa\nthese two aspects of one natural appearance are brought into close\nrelationship, for Ath\u00ean\u00ea--who is sometimes a moon-goddess--wears the\nGorgon\u2019s head upon her shield.\n\nAs we have passed on to speak of the moon, we may as\n\n[Sidenote: Moon-myths.]\n\nwell notice some of the other moon-myths: though in the case of these,\nas of the myths of the sun, our only object must be to show the\ncharacteristic forms which this order of tales assumes, so that the way\nmay be partly cleared for their detection; nothing like a complete list\nof the infinitely varied shapes which the same nature-story can assume\nbeing possible. One of the most beautiful of moon-myths is surely the\ntale of Artemis (Diana) and Endymion. This last, the beautiful shepherd\nof Latmos,[117] by his name \u2018He who enters,\u2019 is in origin the sun just\nentering the _cave_ of night.[118] The moon looking upon the setting sun\nis a signal for his long sleep, which in the myth becomes the sleep of\ndeath. The same myth reappears in the well-known German legend of\nTannh\u00e4user. He enters a mountain, the Venusberg, or Mount of Venus, and\nis not sent to sleep, but laid under an enchantment by the goddess\nwithin. In other versions of the legend the mountain is called not\nVenusberg but Horelberg, and from this name we trace the natural origin\nof the myth. For there was an old moon-goddess of the Teutons called\nHorel or Hursel. She therefore is the enchantress in this case; and the\nChristian knight falls a victim to the old German moon-goddess. It has\nbeen supposed that the story of the massacre of St. Ursula and her\neleven thousand virgins--whose bones they show to this day at\nCologne--arose out of the same nature-myth; and that this St. Ursula is\nalso none other than Hursel, followed by her myriad troop of stars.[119]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nThe northern religion, or say the old German creed its\n\n[Sidenote: Northern sun-myths, etc.]\n\nfirst cousin, has been fruitful in myths which were repeated all through\nthe Middle Ages and out of which the greater part of our popular tales\nhave sprung. Thor, originally the sun and now the god of thunder, the\nchampion of men, and the enemy of the J\u00f6tuns (giants), becomes in later\ndays Jack the Giant Killer; Odin, by a like descent, the Wandering Jew,\nor the Pied Piper of Hamelin. And thus through a hundred popular legends\nwe can detect the natural appearance out of which they originally\nsprang. Let us look at them first in their old heathen forms. Thor, the\nhero and sun-god, the northern Heracles, distinguishes himself as the\nimplacable enemy of the rime-giants and frost-giants, the powers of cold\nand darkness; and to carry on his hostilities, he makes constant\nexpeditions, \u2018farings\u2019 into giant-land, or J\u00f6tunheim, as it is called;\nand these expeditions generally end in the thorough discomfiture of the\nstrong but rude and foolish personifications of barren nature.\n\nOne of these, the adventure to the house of Thrym,[120] is to recover\nThor\u2019s hammer, which has been stolen by the giant and hidden many miles\nbeneath the earth. A spy is sent from Asgard (the city of the gods) into\nJ\u00f6tunheim, and brings back word that Thrym will not give up his prize\nunless Freyja--goddess of Spring and Beauty--be given to him as his\nbride; and at first Thor proposes this alternative to Freyja herself,\nlittle, as may be guessed, to her satisfaction.\n\n    \u2018Wroth was Freyja and with fury fumed,\n     All the \u00c6sir\u2019s hall under her trembled;\n     Broken flew the famed Brisinga necklace.\u2019[121]\n\nBut the wily Loki settles the difficulty. Thor shall to J\u00f6tunheim clad\nin Freyja\u2019s weeds,\n\n    \u2018Let by his side, keys jingle, and a neat coif set on his head.\u2019\n\nSo taking Loki with him clad as a serving-maid, the god fares to Thrym\u2019s\nhouse, as though he were the looked-for bride. It must, one would\nsuppose, have been an anxious time for Thor and Loki, while unarmed they\nsate in the hall of the giant; for the hero could not avoid raising some\nsuspicions by his unwomanly appearance and demeanour. He alone devoured,\nwe are told, an ox, eight salmon, \u2018and all the sweetmeats women should\nhave,\u2019 and he drank eight \u2018scalds\u2019 of mead. Thrym naturally exclaimed\nthat he never saw brides eat so greedily or drink so much mead. But the\n\u2018all-crafty\u2019 Loki sitting by, explained how this was owing to the hurry\nFreyja was in to behold her bridegroom, which left her no time to eat\nfor the eight nights during which she had been journeying there. And so\nagain when Thrym says--\n\n    \u2018Why are so piercing Freyja\u2019s glances?\n     Methinks that fire burns from her eyes,\u2019\n\nLoki explains that for the same reason she had not slept upon her\njourney; and the foolish, vain giant is gulled once more. At last the\ncoveted prize, the hammer, was brought in to consecrate the marriage,\nand \u2018Thor\u2019s soul laughed in his breast, when the fierce-hearted his\nhammer knew. He slew Thrym, the Thursar\u2019s (giant\u2019s) lord, and the\nJ\u00f6tun\u2019s race crushed he utterly.\u2019\n\nAt another time Thor engages Alv\u00ees, \u2018of the race of the Thursar,\u2019[122]\nin conversation upon all manner of topics, concerning the names which\ndifferent natural objects bear among men, among gods, among giants, and\namong dwarfs, until he guilefully keeps him above earth till after\nsunrise, which it is not possible for a dwarf or J\u00f6tun to do and live.\nSo Alv\u00ees bursts asunder.[123] This tale shows clearly enough how much\nThor\u2019s enemies are allied with darkness.\n\nThor is not always so successful. In another of his journeys[124] the\ngiants play a series of tricks upon him, quite suitable to the Teutonic\nconception of the cold north, as a place of magic, glamour, and\nillusion. One giant induces the thunderer to mistake a mountain for him,\nand to hurl at _it_ the death-dealing bolt--his hammer Mj\u00f6lnir.\nAfterwards he is set to drain a horn which he supposes he can finish at\na draught, but finds that after the third pull at it, scarcely more than\nthe rim has been left bare; at the same time Loki engages in an eating\nmatch with one Logi, and is utterly worsted. But in reality Thor\u2019s horn\nhas reached to the sea, and he has been draining at that; while the\nantagonist of Loki is the devouring fire itself. Next Thor is unable to\nlift a cat from the ground, for it is in truth the great Midgard serpent\nwhich girds the whole earth. Finally he is overcome in a wrestling match\nwith an old hag, whose name is Ella, that is Old Age or Death. Enough\nhas been said in these stories to show how directly the cloak of Thor\ndescends to the heroes of our nursery tales, Jack the Giant Killer and\nJack of the Bean-Stalk.\n\nNot unconnected with the sun-god are the mythical heroes of northern\npoetry, the Perseus or Theseus of Germany and Scandinavia. The famous\nSigurd the Volsung, the slayer of Fafnir, or his counterpart Siegfrid of\nthe Nibelung song, or again the hero of our own English poem\nBeowulf,[125] are especially at war with dragons--which represent the\npowers of darkness--or with beings of a J\u00f6tun-like character. They are\nall discoverers of treasure; and this so far corresponds with the\ncharacter of Thor that the thunderbolt is often spoken of as the\nrevealer of the treasures of the earth, and that the sign of it was\nemployed as a charm for that purpose. And when we read the account of\nthese adventures we see how entirely unhuman in character most of them\nwere, and how much the incidents in the drama bear a reminiscence of the\nnatural phenomena from which they sprang.\n\nThis is especially the case with Beowulf. The poem is weird and\nimaginative in the highest degree: the atmosphere into which we are\nthrown seems to be the misty delusive air of J\u00f6tunheim, and the\nunearthly beings whom Beowulf encounters must have had birth within the\nshadows of night and in the mystery which attached to the wild unvisited\ntracts of country. Grendel, a horrid ghoul who feasts on human beings,\nwhom Beowulf wrestles with (as Thor wrestles with Ella) and puts to\ndeath, is described as an \u2018inhabiter of the moors,\u2019 the \u2018fen and\nfastnesses;\u2019 he comes upon the scene \u2018like a cloud from the misty hills,\nthrough the wan night a shadow-walker stalking;\u2019 and of him and his\nmother it is said,\n\n    \u2018They a father know not,\n     Whether any of them was\n     Born before\n     Of the dark ghosts.\u2019\n\nThey inhabit, in a secret land, the wolves\u2019 retreat, and in \u2018windy\nways--\n\n    Where the mountain stream\n    Under the ness\u2019s mist\n    Downward flows.\u2019\n\n[Sidenote: Wind-myths.]\n\nOf the myths which spring from the wind, and which may therefore be\nreckoned the children of Odin, by far the most interesting are those\nwhich attach to him in his part of Psycopomp, or soul-leader, and which\nform a part, therefore, of an immense series of tales connected with the\nTeutonic ideas of death as they were detailed in the last chapter. There\nwere many reasons why these occupied a leading place in middle-age\nlegend. The German race is naturally a gloomy or at least a thoughtful\none: and upon this natural gloom and thoughtfulness the influence of\ntheir new faith acted with redoubled force, awaking men to thoughts not\nonly of a new life but of a new death. Popular religion took as strong a\nhold of the darker as of the brighter aspects of Catholicism, and was\nbusy grafting the older notions of the soul\u2019s future state upon the\nfresh stock of revealed religion. Thus many of the popular notions both\nof heaven and hell may be discovered in the beliefs of heathen Germany.\nLet us, therefore, abandoning the series of myths which belong properly\nto the Aryan religious beliefs as given in Chapter IX. (though upon\nthese, so numerous are they, we seem scarcely to have begun), turn to\nothers which illustrate our last chapter. Upon one we have already\ntouched; Odin, as chooser of the dead, hurrying through the air towards\na battle-field with his troop of shield-maidens, the Valkyriur;[126] or\nif we like to present the simpler nature-myth, the wind bearing away the\ndeparting breath of dying men, and the clouds which he carries on with\nhim in his course. For there is no doubt that these Valkyriur, these\nshield-or swan-maidens, who have the power of transforming themselves at\npleasure into birds, were originally none other than the clouds; perhaps\nlike the cattle of Indra, they were at first the clouds of sunrise. We\nmeet with such beings elsewhere than in northern mythology. The\nUrva_s_i, whose story we have been relating just now, after the\nseparation from her mortal husband changes herself into a bird and is\nfound by Pururavas in this disguise, sitting with her friends the\nGandhavas upon the water of a lake. This means the clouds of evening\nresting upon the wide blue sky. The Valkyriur themselves, when they have\nbeen married to men, often leave them, as the Indian fairy left her\nhusband; and lest they should do so it is not safe to restore them the\nswan\u2019s plumage which they wore as Valkyriur; should they again obtain\ntheir old equipment they will be almost sure to don it and desert their\nhome to return to their old life. The Valkyriur, then, are clouds; and\nin so far as they appear in the legends of other nations they have no\nintimate connection with Odin. But when they are the clouds of sunset,\nand when Odin in his character of soul-bearer becomes before all things\nthe wind of the _setting_ sun (that breeze which so often rises just as\nthe sun goes down, and which itself might stand for the escaping soul of\nthe dying day), then the Valkyriur make part of an ancient myth of\ndeath. And almost all the stories of swan-maidens, or transformations\ninto swans, which are so familiar to the ears of childhood, are related\nto Odin\u2019s warrior maidens. If we notice the plot of these stories, we\nshall see that in them too the transformation usually takes place at\nsun-setting or sunrising. For instance, in the tale of the six swans in\nGrimm\u2019s _Household Stories_,[127] the enchanted brothers of the princess\ncan only reappear in their true shapes just one hour before sunset.\n\nIn Christian legends the gods of Asgard, subjected to the changes which\ninevitably follow a change of belief, became demoniacal powers; and Odin\nthe chief god takes the place of the arch-fiend. For this part he is\nespecially suited by his character of conductor of the souls; if he\nformerly led them to heaven, he now thrusts them down to hell. But so\nmany elements came together to compose the medi\u00e6val idea of the devil\nthat in this character the individuality of Odin is scarcely preserved.\nAt times a wish to revive something of this personal character was felt,\nespecially when the frequent sound of the wind awoke old memories; then\nOdin re-emerges as some particular fiend or damned human soul. He is the\nWandering Jew, a being whose eternal restlessness well keeps up the\ncharacter of the wind blowing where it listeth: or he is, as we have\nsaid, the Wild Huntsman of the Harz, and of many other places.\n\nThe name of this last being, Hackelberg, or Hackelb\u00e4rend (cloak-bearer),\nsufficiently points him out as Odin, who in the heathen traditions had\nbeen wont to wander over the earth clad in a blue cloak,[128] and broad\nhat, and carrying a staff. Hackelberg, the huntsman to the Duke of\nBrunswick, had refused even on his death-bed the ministrations of a\npriest, and swore that the cry of his dogs was pleasanter to him than\nholy rites, and that he would rather hunt for ever upon earth than go to\nheaven. \u2018Then,\u2019 said the man of God, \u2018thou shalt hunt on until the Day\nof Judgment.\u2019 Another legend relates that Hackelberg was a wicked noble\nwho was wont to hunt on Sundays as on other days, and (here comes in the\n_popular_ version) to impress the poor peasants to aid him. One day he\nwas joined suddenly by two horsemen. One was mild of aspect, but the\nother was grim and fierce, and from his horse\u2019s mouth and nostril\nbreathed fire. Hackelberg turned then from his good angel, and went on\nwith his wild chase, and now, in company of the fiend, he hunts and will\nhunt till the last day. He is called in Germany the _hel-j\u00e4ger_,\n\u2018hell-hunter.\u2019 The peasants hear his \u2018hoto\u2019 \u2018hutu,\u2019 as the storm-wind\nrushes past their doors, and if they are alone upon the hillside they\nhide their faces while the hunt goes by. The white owl, Totosel, is a\nnun who broke her vows, and now mingles her \u2018tutu\u2019 (towhoo) with his\n\u2018holoa.\u2019 He hunts, accompanied by two dogs (the two dogs of Yama), in\nheaven, all the year round, save upon the twelve nights between\nChristmas and Twelfth-night.[129] If any door is left open upon the\nnight when Hackelberg goes by, one of the dogs will run in and lie down\nin the ashes of the hearth, nor will any power be able to make him stir.\nDuring all the ensuing year there will be trouble in that household, but\nwhen the year has gone round and the hunt comes again, the unbidden\nguest will rise from his couch, and, wildly howling, rush forth to join\nhis master. Strangely distorted, there lurks in this part of the story\na ray of the Vedic sleep-god S\u00e2rameyas.\n\n\u2018Destroyer of sickness, guard of the house, oh, thou who takest all\nshapes, be to us a peace-bringing friend.\u2019\n\nThe Valkyriur in their turn are changed by the medi\u00e6val spirit into\nwitches. The Witches\u2019 Sabbath, the old beldames on broomsticks riding\nthrough the air, to hold their revels on the Brocken, reproduce the\nswan-maidens hurrying to join the flight of Odin. And, again, changed\nonce more, \u2018Old Mother Goose\u2019 is but a more modern form of a middle-age\nwitch, when the thought of witches no longer strikes terror. And while\nwe are upon the subject of witches it may be well to recall how the\nbelief in witches has left its trace in our word \u2018nightmare.\u2019 _Mara_ was\nthroughout Europe believed to be the name of a very celebrated witch\nsomewhere in the North, though the exact place of her dwelling was\nvariously stated. It is highly probable that this name Mara was once a\nbyname of the death-goddess Hel, and it _may_ be etymologically\nconnected with the name of the sea (Meer), the sea being, as we have\nseen, according to one set of beliefs, the home of the soul.\n\nOdin, or a being closely analogous with him, reappears in the familiar\ntale of the Pied Piper of Hameln, he who, when the whole town of Hameln\nsuffered from a plague of rats and knew not how to get rid of them,\nappeared suddenly--no one knew from whence--and professed himself able\nto charm the pest away by means of the secret magic of his pipe. But it\nis a profanation to tell the enchanted legend otherwise than in the\nenchanted language of Browning:--\n\n    \u2018Into the street the piper stept,\n     Smiling first a little smile,\n     As if he knew what magic slept\n     In his quiet pipe the while;\n     Then like a musical adept\n     To blow the pipe his lips he wrinkled.\u2019\n\nThen the townsfolk, freed from their burden, refused the piper his\npromised reward, and scornfully chased him from the town. On the 26th of\nJune he was seen again, but this time (Mr. Browning has not incorporated\nthis little fact) fierce of aspect and dressed like a _huntsman_, yet\nstill blowing upon the magic pipe.\n\nNow it is not the rats who follow, but the children:--\n\n    \u2018All the little boys and girls,\n     With rosy cheeks and flaxen curls,\n     And sparkling eyes and teeth like pearls,\n     Tripping and skipping, ran merrily after\n     The wonderful music with shouting and laughter.\u2019\n\nAnd so he leads them away to Koppelberg Hill, and\n\n    \u2018Lo, as they reached the mountain side,\n     A wondrous portal opened wide,\n     As if a cavern were suddenly hollowed;\n     And the Piper advanced and the children followed.\n     And when all were in, to the very last,\n     The door in the mountain side shut fast.\u2019\n\n[Sidenote: Myths of death and the other world.]\n\nThis too is a myth of death. It is astonishing when we come to examine\ninto the origin of popular tales how many we find that had at first a\nfuneral character. This Piper hath indeed a magic music which none can\ndisobey, for it is the whisper of death; he himself is the soul-leading\nHermes (the wind, the piper), or at least Odin, in the same office. But\nthe legend is, in part at any rate, Slavonic; for it is a Slavonic\nnotion which likens the soul to a mouse.[130] When we have got this\nclue, which the modern folk-lore easily gives us, the Odinic character\nof the Piper becomes very apparent. Nay, in this particular myth we can\nalmost trace a history of the meeting of two peoples, Slavonic and\nGerman, and the junction of their legends. Let us suppose there had been\nsome great and long-remembered epidemic which had proved peculiarly\nfatal to the children[131] of Hameln and the country round about. The\nSlavonic dwellers there--and in prehistoric times some Slavs were to be\nfound as far west as the Weser--would speak of these deaths mythically\nas the departure of the mice (_i.e._ the souls), and perhaps, keeping\nthe tradition, which we know to be universally Aryan, of a\nwater-crossing, might tell of the mice as having gone to the water. Or\nfurther, they might feign that these souls were led there by a piping\nwind-god: he, too, is the common property of the Aryan folk. Then the\nGermans coming in, and wishing to express the legend in their\nmythological form, would tell how the same Piper had piped away all the\n_children_ from the town. So a double story would spring up about the\nsame event. The Weser represents one image of death, and might have\nserved for the children as well as for the mice: to make the legend\nfuller, however, another image is selected for them, the dark,\n\u2018concealed\u2019 place, namely, Hel, or the cave of Night and Death.\n\nThe two images of death which occur in the last story rival each other\nthrough the field of middle-age legend and romance. When we hear of a\nman being borne along in a boat, or lying deep in slumber beneath a\nmountain, we may let our minds wander back to Balder sailing across the\nocean in his burning ship _Hringhorni_, and to the same Balder in the\nhalls of Hel\u2019s palace. The third image of death is the blazing pyre\nunaccompanied by any sea-voyage. One or other of these three allegories\nmeets us at every turn. If the hero has been snatched away by fairy\npower to save him from dying, and the last thing seen of him was in a\nboat--as Arthur disappears upon the lake Avalon--the myth holds out the\nhope of his return, and sooner or later the story of this return will\nbreak off and become a separate legend. Hence the numerous\nhalf-unearthly heroes, such as Lohengrin, who come men know not whence,\nand are first seen sleeping in a boat upon a river. These are but broken\nhalves of complete myths, which should have told of the former\ndisappearance of the knight by the same route. Both portions really\nbelong to the tale of Lohengrin; he went away first in a ship in search\nof the holy grail, and in the truest version[132] returns in like manner\nin a boat drawn by a _swan_. In some tales he is called the Knight of\nthe Swan. He comes suddenly, in answer to a prayer to Heaven for help,\nuttered by the distressed Else of Brabant. But he does not return at\nonce again to the Paradise which has sent him to earth. He remains upon\nearth, and becomes the husband of Else, and a famous warrior; and part\nof another myth entwines itself with his story. Else must not ask his\nname; but she disobeys his imperative command, and this fault parts them\nfor ever. Here we have Cupid and Psyche, or Prince Hatt and his wife,\nover again. The boat appears once more drawn by the same swan; Lohengrin\nsteps into it, and disappears from the haunts of men. We have already\nseen how, through the Valkyriur, the swan is connected with ideas of\ndeath. It remains to notice how they are naturally so connected by the\nbeautiful legend that the swan sings once only in his life, namely, when\nhe is leaving it--that his first song is his own funeral melody. A much\nolder form of the Lohengrin myth is referred to in the opening lines of\n_Beowulf_, where an ancestor of that hero is said to have been found, a\nlittle child, lying asleep in an open boat which had drifted, no one\nknows whence, to the shore of Gothland.\n\nDeath being thus so universally symbolized by the River of Death, it is\neasy to see the origin of the myth that ghosts will not cross living\nwater. It meant nothing else than that a ghost cannot return again to\nlife. Even witches cannot do so, as we know in the case of Tam\nO\u2019Shanter, that when he reached the Brig\u2019 o\u2019 Doon the pursuit was\nbaffled.\n\nMany are the impressive stories connected with the myth of the soul\u2019s\ntransit over water--be it a River or a Sea of Death. In the dark days\nwhich followed the overthrow of the Western Empire, when all the\ncivilization of its remoter territories had melted away, there grew up\namong the fishermen of Northern Gaul a wild belief that the Channel\nopposite them was the mortal river, and that the shores of this island\nwere the asylum of dark ghosts. The myth went, that in the villages of\nthe Gaulish coast the fishermen were summoned by rotation to perform the\ndreadful task of ferrying over the departed spirits. At night a knocking\nwas heard on their doors, a signal of their duties, and when they\napproached the beach they saw boats lying deep in the water as though\nheavily freighted, but yet to _their_ eyes empty. Each stepping in, took\nhis rudder, and then by an unfelt wind the boat was wafted in one night\nacross a distance which, rowing and sailing, they could ordinarily\ncompass scarcely in eight. Arrived at the opposite shore (our coast),\nthey heard names called over, and voices answering as if by rota, and\nthey felt their boats becoming light. Then when all the ghosts had\nlanded they were wafted back to Gaul.[133]\n\nThe belief in the passage by the soul over a \u2018Bridge\u2019 which is the\nbridge over the River of Death is as universal almost as the notion of\nthat River of Death itself. Many creeds see that bridge in the Milky\nWay. The Vedic hymns do so. They call the Milky Way by many names, of\nwhich the most common is the path of Yama, the way to the house of Yama,\nand Yama is the ruler of the Dead--\u2018a narrow path,\u2019 as we have already\nquoted.\n\n\u2018A narrow path, an ancient one, stretches thither,[134] a path untrodden\nby men, a path I know of.\u2019\n\nThe Persians, too, knew the bridge under the name of Kinvad or Chinvad.\nAnd from the Persians the Mohammedans get the same notion, which is\nembodied in the Koran. There the Bridge of Death is called Es-Sirat. It\nis finer than a hair and sharper than the edge of a sword, along which,\nnevertheless, the soul of the good Moslem will be snatched across like\nlightning or like the wind; but the wicked man or the unbeliever will\nfall headlong thence into an abyss of fire beneath.\n\nThe Norsemen had their Bridge of Souls in the Gjallarbr\u00fb, \u2018The\nResounding Bridge,\u2019 over which Balder had to ride.[135] And when we read\nthe medi\u00e6val accounts of journeys to the other world, to Purgatory or\nHell, in almost every one we find that the passage over a Bridge--the\nBrig\u2019 o\u2019 Dread of the ballad--is a part of the journey.\n\nAmong the sleepers underground whose legend reproduces the image of\ndeath as simply a life within the tomb, the most celebrated are Kaiser\nKarl in the Unterberg--the under-hill, or hill leading to the\nunder-world; or, as another legend goes, in the N\u00fcrnberg, which is\nreally the Niederberg (_im niedern Berg_), the down-leading hill; and\nFrederick Red-Beard sleeping in like manner at Kaiserslautern, or under\nthe Rabenspurg (raven\u2019s hill). Deep below the earth the old Kaiser sits,\nhis knights around him, their armour on, the horses harnessed in the\nstable ready to come forth at Germany\u2019s hour of need. His long red beard\nhas grown through the table on which his head is resting. Once, it is\nsaid, a shepherd chanced upon the cave which leads down to the\nunder-ground palace, and awoke the Emperor from his slumber. \u2018Are the\nravens still flying round the hill?\u2019 asked Frederick. \u2018Yes.\u2019 \u2018Then must\nI sleep another hundred years.\u2019\n\nWe cannot speak of all the images of Death which reappear in the popular\ntales. Very many of these are taken from the funeral fire. We constantly\nmeet with stories of maidens who lie (asleep probably) surrounded by a\ncircle of flame, a hedge of fire. Through this the knight or hero must\nride to awaken his beloved. When Skirnir went down to woo the maiden\nGerda--the winter earth[136]--he found her house all surrounded by such\na hedge of fire. But oddly enough, there is another way of representing\nthe funeral fire symbolically as a circle of thorns, because thorns were\nconstantly used to form the funeral pyre of the Northmen. Thence a thorn\nhedge takes the place of a hedge of flame, and it, or even a single\nthorn, may become the symbol of the funeral fire, and so of death.\n\nHere are two stories in which we see how one image may pass into the\nother.\n\nIn the tale of Sigurd the Volsung both these symbols are used; when\nSigurd first finds Brynhild she has been pricked by Odin with a\nsleep-_thorn_, in revenge, because she took part against his favourite\nHialmgunnar; for she was a Valkyria. Sigurd awakes her. At another time\nhe rides to her through a circle of fire which she has set round her\nhouse, and which no other man dared face. In the myth of Sigurd, twice\nas it were riding through death to Brynhild, we see first of all a\nnature-myth precisely of the same kind as the myth of Freyr and Gerda\n(p. 230),[137] precisely the reverse of the myth of Persephone. Brynhild\nis the dead earth restored by the kiss of the sun, or of summer.\nAfterwards the part of Brynhild is taken by the Sleeping Beauty, and\nSigurd becomes the prince who breaks through the thorn-hedge. Observe\none thing in the last story. The prick from the sleep-thorn becomes a\nprick from a spinning-wheel, and thus loses all its original meaning,\nwhile the circle of fire is transformed into a thorn-hedge--proof\nsufficient that they were convertible ideas.\n\nLastly, it remains to say that the stories of glass mountains ascended\nby knights are probably allegories of death--heaven being spoken of to\nthis day by Russian and German peasants as a glass mountain.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\nPICTURE-WRITING.\n\n\n[Sidenote: Lateness of the discovery of letters.]\n\nThough it is true, as we have said before, that every manufactured\narticle involves a long chapter of unwritten history to account for its\npresent form, and the perfection of the material from which it is\nwrought, there is no one of them, not the most artistic, that will so\nwell repay an effort to hunt it through its metamorphoses in the ages to\nits first starting-point, as will the letters that rapidly drop from our\npen when we proceed to write its name. Each one of these is a\nmanufactured article at which a long, long series of unknown artists\nhave wrought, expanding, contracting, shaping, pruning, till at length,\nthe result of centuries of effort, our alphabet stands clear--a little\narmy of mute, unpretending signs, that are at once the least considered\nof our inherited riches--mere jots and tittles--and the spells by which\nall our great feats of genius are called into being. Does unwritten\nhistory or tradition tell us anything of the people to whose invention\nwe owe them? or, on the other hand, can we persuade the little shapes\nwith which we are familiar to so animate themselves, and give such an\naccount of the stages by which they grew into their present likeness, as\nwill help us to understand better than we did before the mental and\nsocial conditions of the times of their birth? One question, at least,\nthey answer clearly--we know that while in their earliest forms they\nmust have preceded the birth of History, they were the forerunners and\nheralds of his appearance, and if we are obliged to relegate their\ninvention to the dark period of unrecorded events, we must place it at\nleast in the last of the twilight hours, the one that preceded daybreak,\nfor they come leading sunlight and certainty behind them. It will be\nhard if these revealers of other births should prove to be entirely\nsilent about their own. Another point seems to grow clear as we think.\nAs letters are the elements by which records come to us, it is not in\nrecords, or at least not in early records, that we must look for a\nhistory of their invention. Like all other tools, they will have lent\nthemselves silently to the ends for which they were called into being.\nFor a long, long time, they will have been too busy giving the history\nof their employers to tell us consciously anything about themselves. We\nmust leave the substance of records, then, and look to their manner and\nform, if we would unravel the long story of the invention and growth of\nour alphabet; and as it is easiest to begin with the thing that is\nnearest to us, let us pause before one of our written words, and ask\nourselves exactly what it is to us.\n\n[Sidenote: Writing the art of picturing sound.]\n\nIn discussing the growth of language, we surmised that words were at\nfirst descriptive of the things they named, in fact, pictures to the\near. What, then, is a written word? Is it, too, a picture, and what does\nit picture, to the eye? When we have written the words _cat_, _man_,\n_lion_, what have we done? We have brought the images of certain things\ninto our minds, and that by a form presented to the eye; but is it the\nform of the object we immediately think of? No, it is the form of its\nname; it is, therefore, the picture of a sound. To picture _sound_ is,\nsurely, a very far-fetched notion, one that may have grown out of many\nprevious efforts to convey thought from mind to mind; but certainly not\nlikely to occur first to those who began the attempt to give permanent\nshape to the thoughts floating within them. So great and difficult a\ntask must have baffled the powers of many enterprisers, and been\napproached in many ways before the first steps towards accomplishing it\nwere securely taken. We shall find that the history of our alphabet is a\nrecord of slow stages of growth, through which the idea of sound-writing\nhas been evolved; the first attempts to record events were made in a\ndifferent direction. Since, as we have agreed, we are not likely to find\na record of how events were first recorded, and as the earliest attempts\nare likely to have been imperfect and little durable, we must be content\nto form our notions of the earliest stage in our grand invention, by\nobserving the methods used by savages now to aid their memories; and if\nwe wish to determine the period in the history of the human race when\nsuch efforts are likely to have been first made, we must recall what we\nhave already learned of the history of primitive man, and settle at what\nstage of his development the need for artificial aids to memory would\nfirst press upon him.\n\nStories and poetry are not likely to have been the first things written\ndown. While communities were small and young, there was no need to write\npainfully what it was so delightful to repeat from mouth to mouth, and\nso easy for memories to retain; and when the stock of tradition and the\ntreasure of song grew so large in any tribe as to exceed the capacity of\nordinary memories (stronger, in some respects, before the invention of\nwriting than now), men with unusual gifts would be chosen and set apart\nfor the purpose of remembering and reciting, and of handing down to\ndisciples in the next generation, the precious literature of the tribe.\nSuch an order of \u2018remembrancers\u2019 would soon come to be looked upon as\nsacred, or at least highly honourable, and would have privileges and\nimmunities bestowed on them which would make them jealous of an\ninvention that would lessen the worth of their special gift. The\ninvention of writing, then, is hardly likely to have come from the\nstory-tellers or bards. It was probably to aid the memory in recalling\nsomething less attractive and more secret than a story or a song that\nthe first record was made.\n\nSo early as the time of the cave-dwellers, there was a beginning of\ncommerce. Traces have been found of workshops belonging to that period,\nwhere flint weapons and tools were made in such quantities as evidently\nto have been designed for purposes of barter, and the presence of amber\nand shells in places far from the coast, speaks of trading journeys.\nWith bargains and exchange of commodities, aids to memory must surely\nhave come in; and when we think of the men of the Neolithic age as\ntraders, we can hardly be wrong in also believing them to have taken the\nnext step in civilization which trade seems to bring with it--the\ninvention of some system of mnemonics.\n\n[Sidenote: Tallies.]\n\nNo man or woman would be likely to trust their bargaining to another\nwithout giving him some little token or pledge by way of safeguard\nagainst mistake or forgetfulness. It would be a very trifling,\ntransitory thing at first; something in the nature of a tally, or a\nsuccession of knots or woven threads in a garment, allied to the knot\nwhich we tie on our handkerchief overnight to make us remember something\nin the morning. It seems hardly worthy of notice, and yet the invention\nof that artificial aid to memory is the germ of writing, the little\nseed from which such great things have come. Unfortunately, our\ndiscoveries of stone-age relics have not yet furnished us with any\nsuggestion as to how the men of that epoch arranged and carried out the\naids to memory they probably had; but we can trace the process of\ninvention among still extant races.\n\nSome tribes of Red Indians, for example, keep records on cords called\nwampum, by means of beads and knots. When an embassy is sent from one\nchieftain to another, the principal speaker carries one of these pieces\nof wampum, and from it reads off the articles of the proposed treaty,\nalmost as easily as if it were from a note-book.\n\nIn the Eastern Archipelago, and in Polynesia proper, cord-records of the\nsame kind were in use forty years ago, and by means of them the\ntax-gatherers in the island of Hawaii kept clear accounts of all\narticles collected from the inhabitants of the island. The revenue-book\nof Hawaii was a rope four hundred fathoms long, divided into portions\ncorresponding to districts in the island, and each portion was under the\ncare of a tax-gatherer, who by means of knots, loops, and tufts of\ndifferent shapes, colours, and sizes, managed to keep an accurate\naccount of the number of hogs, dogs, pieces of sandal-wood, etc., at\nwhich each inhabitant of his district was rated. The Chinese, again,\nhave a legend that in very early times their people used little cords\nmarked by knots of different sizes, instead of writing.\n\nBut the people who brought the cord system of mnemonics to the greatest\nperfection were the Peruvians. They were still following it at the time\nof their conquest by the Spaniards; but they had elaborated it with such\ncare as to make it available for the preservation of even minute details\nof the statistics of the country. The ropes on which they kept their\nrecords were called _quipus_, from _quipu_, a knot. They were often of\ngreat length and thickness, and from the main ropes depended smaller\nones, distinguished by colours appropriate to subjects of which their\nknots treated--as, white for silver, yellow for gold, red for soldiers,\ngreen for corn, parti-coloured when a subject that required division was\ntreated of. These dependent coloured strings had, again, other little\nstrings hanging from them, and on these exceptions were noted. For\ninstance, on the _quipus_ devoted to population--the coloured strings on\nwhich the number of men in each town and village was recorded had\ndepending from them little strings for the widowers, and no doubt the\nwidows and the old maids had their little strings from the coloured cord\nthat denoted women. One knot meant ten; a double knot, one hundred; two\nsingles, side by side, twenty; two doubles, two hundred; and the\nposition of the knots on their string and their form were also of\nimmense importance, each subject having its proper place on the quipus\nand its proper form of knot. The art of learning to read quipus must\nhave been difficult to acquire; it was practised by special\nfunctionaries, called quipucamayocuna, or knot-officers, who, however,\nseem only to have been able to expound their own records; for when a\nquipus was sent from a distant province to the capital, its own officer\nhad to travel with it to explain it; a clumsy and cumbrous way of\nsending a letter, it must be confessed.\n\nKnot-records were almost everywhere superseded by other methods of\nrecording events as civilization advanced; but still they continued to\nbe resorted to under special circumstances, and by people who had not\nthe pens of ready writers. Darius made a quipus when he took a thong,\nand tying sixty knots on it, gave it to the Ionian chiefs, that they\nmight untie a knot every day, and go back to their own land if he had\nnot returned when all the knots were undone. The Scythians, however,\nwho, about the same time, sent a message to Darius, afford us an example\nof another way of attaching special meanings to certain objects, and\nthereby giving a peculiar use as aids to memory,--writing letters with\nobjects instead of pen and ink, in fact. Here, however, symbolism comes\nin, and makes the mnemonics at once prettier and less trustworthy as\ncapable of more than one interpretation. The Scythian ambassadors\npresented Darius (as Herodotus tells us) with a mouse, a bird, a frog,\nand an arrow, and the message with which they had been intrusted was\nthat, unless he could hide in the earth like a mouse, or fly in the air\nlike a bird, or swim in water like a frog, he would never escape the\narrows of the Scythians.\n\nOf this last kind of mnemonic was the bow, too heavy for an ordinary man\nto bend, which the long-lived Ethiopians sent to Cambyses; and the\ntwelve memorial stones which Joshua was directed to place in the river\nJordan, in order that the sons might ask the fathers, and the fathers\ntell the sons what had happened in that place; and, again, such were the\nyokes and bonds which Jeremiah put round his neck when he testified\nagainst the alliance with Egypt before Zedekiah, and the earthen pot\nthat he broke in the presence of the elders of the people. Signs joined\nwith words and actions to convey a fuller or more exact meaning than\nwords alone could convey. Perhaps we ought hardly to call these last\nexamples helps to memory; they partake more of the nature of pictures,\nand were used to heighten the effect of words. But we may regard them as\na connecting link between the merely mechanical tally, wampum and\nquipus, and the effort to record ideas we must now consider--picturing.\nIt must, however, always be borne in mind that, though we shall speak of\nthese various methods of making records as stages of progress and\ndevelopment, it is not to be supposed that the later ones immediately,\nor indeed ever wholly, superseded the first any more than the\nintroduction of bronze and iron did away with the use of flint weapons.\nThe one method subsisted side by side with the other, and survived to\nquite late times, as we see in such usages as the bearing forth of the\nfiery cross to summon clansmen to the banner of their chieftain, and the\ncasting down of the knight\u2019s glove as a gage of battle, or, to come down\nto homely modern instances, the tallies and knots on handkerchiefs that\nunready writers carry to help their memories even now.\n\nHelps to memory of the kinds which we have been speaking of never get\nbeyond being _helps_. They cannot carry thought from one to another\nwithout the intervention of an interpreter, in whose memory they keep\nfast the words that have to be said; they strengthen tradition, but they\ncannot change tradition into history, and are always liable to become\nuseless by the death of the man, or order of men, to whom they have been\nintrusted.\n\n[Sidenote: Picturing.]\n\nA more independent and lasting method of recording events was sure to be\naimed at sooner or later; and we may conjecture that it usually took its\nrise among a people at the period when their national pride was so\ndeveloped as to make them anxious that the deeds of some conspicuous\nhero should be made known, not only to those interested in telling and\nhearing of them, but to strangers visiting their country, and to remote\ndescendants. Their first effort to record an event, so as to make it\nwidely known, would naturally be to draw a picture of it, such that all\nseeing the picture would understand it; and accordingly we find that\nthe earliest step beyond artificial helps to memory is the making of\nrude pictures which aim at showing a deed or event as it occurred\nwithout suggesting the words of a narrative; this is called \u2018picturing\u2019\nas distinguished from picture-writing. That this, too, was a very early\nart we may guess from the fact that rude pictures of animals have been\nfound among the relics of the earliest stone age. Whether or no we are\njustified in conjecturing that the pictures actually found are rough\nmemorials of real hunting scenes, at least we learn from them that the\nthought of depicting objects had come, and the skill to produce a\nlikeness been attained; and the idea of using this power to transmit\nevents lies so near to its possession, that we can hardly believe one to\nhave been long present without the other. To enable ourselves to imagine\nthe sort of picture-records with which the stone-age men may have\nornamented some of their knives, spears, and hammers, we must examine\nthe doings of people who have continued in a primitive stage of\ncivilization down to historic times.\n\nSome curious pictures done by North American Indians have been found on\nrocks and stones, and on the stems of pine-trees in America, which\nfurnish excellent examples of early picturing. Mr. Tylor, in his _Early\nHistory of Mankind_, gives engravings of several of these shadowy\nrecords of long-past events. One of these, which was found on the\nsmoothed surface of a pine-tree, consists merely of a rude outline of\ntwo canoes, one surmounted by a bear with a peculiar tail and the other\nby a fish, and beyond these a quantity of shapes meant for a particular\nkind of fish. The entire picture records the successes of two chieftains\nnamed Copper-tail Bear and Cat-fish, in a fishing excursion. Another\npicture found on the surface of a rock near Lake Superior is more\nelaborate, and interests us by showing a new element in picturing,\nthrough which it was destined to grow into the condition of\npicture-writing. This more elaborate picture shows an arch with three\nsuns in it--a tortoise, a man about to mount a horse, and several\ncanoes, one surmounted by the image of a bird. All this tells that the\nchief called King-fisher made an expedition of three days across a lake,\nand arriving safely on land, mounted his horse. The new element\nintroduced into this picture is symbolism, the same that transformed the\nhomely system of tallies into the Scythian\u2019s graceful living message to\nDarius. It shows the excess of thought over the power of expression,\nwhich will soon necessitate a new form. The tortoise is used as a symbol\nof dry land. The arch is, of course, the sky, and the three suns in it\nmean three days. The artist who devised these ways of expressing his\nthought was on the verge of picture-writing, which is the next stage in\nthe upward progress of the art of recording events, and the stage at\nwhich some nations have terminated their efforts.\n\n[Sidenote: Picture-writing.]\n\nPicture-writing differs from picturing in that it aims at conveying to\nthe mind, not a representation of an event, but a narrative of the event\nin words, each word being represented by a picture. The distinction is\nof immense importance. The step from the former to the latter is one of\nthe greatest which mankind has ever made in the course of its progress\nin civilization. When the step had been made the road toward the\nacquisition of a regular alphabet lay _comparatively_ open. It was still\nbeset with difficulties, but none so great as the difficulty of making\nthis particular step. Let us try and fully understand this. We will take\na sentence and see how it might be conveyed by the two methods. _A man\nslew a lion with a bow and arrows while the sun went down._ Picturing\nwould show the man with a drawn bow in his hand, the lion struck by the\narrow, the sun on the horizon. Picture-writing would present a series of\nlittle pictures and symbols dealing separately with each word--a man, a\nsymbol for \u2018slew,\u2019 say a hand smiting, a lion, a connecting symbol for\n\u2018with,\u2019 and so on. We see at once how much more elaborate and exact the\nsecond method is, and that it makes the telling of a continuous story\npossible. We also discover that these various stages of writing\ncorrespond to developments of language, and that as languages grow in\ncapacity to express nobler thoughts, a greater stress will be put upon\ninvention to render the more recondite words by pictures and symbols,\ntill at last language will outgrow all possibility of being so rendered,\nand another method of showing words to the eye will have to be thought\nof--for all languages at least that attain their full development. That\na great deal may be expressed by pictures and symbols, however, we learn\nfrom the picturing and picture-writing of past races that have come down\nto us, and from the present writing of the Chinese, who with their\nradical language have preserved the pictorial character that well\naccords with an early stage of language.\n\nThe Red Indians of North America have invented some very ingenious\nmethods of picturing time and numbers. They have names for the thirteen\nmoons or months into which they divide the year--Whirlwind moon, moon\nwhen the leaves fall off, moon when the fowls go to the south, etc., and\nwhen a hunter setting forth on a long expedition wished to leave a\nrecord of the time of his departure for a friend who should follow him\non the same track, he carved on the bark of a tree a picture of the name\nof the moon, accompanied with such an exact representation of the state\nof the moon in the heavens on the night when he set out, that his\nfriends had no difficulty in reading the date correctly. The Indians of\nVirginia kept a record of events in the form of a series of wheels of\nsixty spokes, each wheel representing the life of a man, sixty years\nbeing the average life of a man among the Indians. The spokes meant\nyears, and on each one a picture of the principal occurrences of the\nyear was drawn.\n\nA missionary who accompanied Penn to Pennsylvania says that he saw a\nwheel, on one spoke of which the first arrival of Europeans in America\nwas recorded. The history of this disastrous event for the Indians was\ngiven by a picture of a white swan spitting fire from its mouth. The\nswan, being a water-bird, told that the strangers came over the sea, its\nwhite plumage recalled the colour of their faces, and fire issuing from\nits mouth represented fire-arms, the possession of which had made them\nconquerors. The North American Indians also use rude little pictures,\nrough writing we may call it, to help them to remember songs and charms.\nEach verse of a song is concentrated into a little picture, the sight of\nwhich recalls the words to one who has once learned it. A drawing of a\nlittle man, with four marks on his legs and two on his breast, recalls\nthe adverse charm, \u2018Two days must you fast, my friend, four days must\nyou sit still.\u2019 A picture of a circle with a figure in the middle\nrepresents a verse of a love-song, and says to the initiated, \u2018Were she\non a distant island I could make her swim over.\u2019 This sort of picturing\nseems to be very _near_ writing, for it serves to recall words--but\nstill only to recall them--it would not suggest the words to those who\nhad never heard the song before; it is only an aid to memory, and its\nemployers have only as yet taken the first step in the great discovery\nwe are speaking of. The Mexicans, though they had attained to much\ngreater skill than this in the drawing and colouring of pictures, had\nnot progressed much further in the invention. Their picture-scrolls do\nnot seem ever to have been more than an elaborate system of mnemonics,\nwhich, hardly less than the Peruvian quipus, required a race of\ninterpreters to hand down their meaning from one generation to another.\nThis fact makes us regret somewhat less keenly the decision of the first\nSpanish archbishop sent to Mexico, who, on being informed of the great\nstore of vellum rolls, and folds on folds of cloth covered with\npaintings, that had been discovered at Anahuac, the chief seat of\nMexican learning, ordered the entire collection to be burnt in a heap--a\n_mountain_ heap, the chroniclers of the time call it--lest they should\ncontain incantations or instructions for the practice of magical arts.\nAs some excuse for this notion of the archbishop\u2019s, we will mention the\nsubjects treated of in the five books of picture-writing which Montezuma\ngave to Cortez:--the first book treated of years and seasons; the second\nof days and festivals; the third of dreams and omens; the fourth of the\nnaming of children; the fifth of ceremonies and prognostications.\n\nThe few specimens of Mexican writing which have come down to us, show\nthat, though the Aztecs had not used their picture-signs as skilfully as\nsome other nations have done, they had taken the first step towards\nphonetic, or sound-writing; a step which, if pursued, would have led\nthem through some such process as we shall afterwards see was followed\nby the Egyptians and Ph\u0153nicians, to the formation of a true alphabet.\nThey had begun to write proper names of chiefs and towns by pictures of\nthings that recalled the _sound_ of their names, instead of by a symbol\nsuggestive of the appearance or quality of the place or chieftain, or of\nthe _meaning_ of the names. It is difficult to explain this without\npictures; but as this change of method involves a most important step in\nthe discovery of the art of writing, we had better pause upon it a\nlittle, and get it clear to our minds. There was a king whose name\noccurs in a chronicle now existing, called Itz-co-atle, Knife-snake; his\nname is generally written by a picture of a snake, with flint knives\nstuck in it; but in one place it is indicated in a different manner. The\nfirst syllable is still _pictured_ by a knife; but for the second,\ninstead of a snake, we find an earthen pot and a sign for water. Now the\nMexican name for pot is \u2018co-mitle,\u2019 for water \u2018atle;\u2019 read literally the\nname thus pictured would read \u2018Itz-comitle-atle,\u2019 but it is clear, since\nthe name intended was \u2018Itz-co-atle,\u2019 that the pot is drawn to suggest\nonly the first syllable of its name, _co_, and by this change it has\nbecome no longer a picture, but a phonetic, syllabic sign, the next step\nbut one before a true letter. What great results can be elaborated from\nthis change we shall see when we begin to speak of Egyptian writing.\n\nWe must not leave picture-writing till we have said something about the\nChinese character, in which we find the highest development of which\n_direct_ representation of things appears capable. Though we should not\nthink it, while looking at the characters on a Chinese tea-paper or box,\nevery one of those groups of black strokes and dots which seem so\nshapeless to our eyes is a picture of an object; not a picture of the\nsound of its name, as our written words are, but a representation real\nor symbolic of the thing itself. Early specimens of Chinese writing show\nthese groups of strokes in a stage when a greater degree of resemblance\nto the thing signified is preserved; but the exigencies of quick\nwriting, among a people who write and read a great deal, have gradually\nreduced the pictures more and more to the condition of arbitrary signs,\nwhose connection with the things signified must be a matter of habit and\nmemory. The task of learning a sign for every word of the language in\nplace of conquering the art of spelling does seem, at first sight, to\nput Chinese children in a pitiable condition, as compared with\nourselves. To lessen our compassion, we may recall that the Chinese\nlanguage is still in a primitive condition, and therefore comprehends\nvery much fewer distinct sounds than do the languages we know, the same\nsound being used to express meanings by a difference in intonation. This\ndifference could not easily be given in writing; it is therefore, with\nthe Chinese, almost a necessity to recall to the mind the thing itself\ninstead of its name.\n\n[Sidenote: Ideographs.]\n\nBeside the ordinary pictorial signs which convey a direct and simple\nidea to the mind, men must in pictorial writing need a great number of\nsigns for ideas which cannot be pictured. All abstract ideas, for\ninstance, come under this head. But even some things which could\nthemselves be drawn are not always so portrayed. When a symbol, and not\na direct picture, is used for the thing or idea represented we call the\nsymbol an _ideograph_. We see, then, that pictorial signs may be used in\nseveral different ways, sometimes as real pictures, sometimes as\nideographs, which again may be divided into groups as they are used--(1)\nmetaphorically, as a bee for industry; (2) enigmatically, as, among the\nEgyptians, an ostrich feather is used as a symbol of justice, because\nall the plumes in the wing of this bird were supposed to be of equal\nlength; (3) by syndoche--putting a part for the whole,--as two eyeballs\nfor eyes; (4) by metonomy--putting cause for effect,--as a tree for\nshadow; the disk of the sun for a day, etc. This system of writing in\npictures and symbols requires so much ingenuity, such hosts of pretty\npoetic inventions, that perhaps there is less dulness than would at\nfirst appear in getting the Chinese alphabet of some six thousand signs\nor so by heart. We will mention a few Chinese ideographs in\nillustration. The sign for a man placed over the sign for a mountain\npeak signifies a hermit; the sign for a mouth and that for a bird placed\nside by side signify the act of singing; a hand holding a sweeping-brush\nis a woman; a man seated on the ground, a son (showing the respectful\nposition assigned to children in China); an ear at the opening of a door\nmeans curiosity; two eyes squinting towards the nose mean to observe\ncarefully; one eye squinting symbolises the colour white, because so\nmuch of the white of the eye is shown when the ball is in that position;\na mouth at an open door is a note of interrogation, and also the verb to\nquestion.\n\n[Sidenote: Determinative signs.]\n\nEven Chinese writing, however, has not remained purely ideographic. Some\nof the signs are used phonetically to picture sound, and this use must\nnecessarily grow now that intercourse with Western nations introduces\nnew names, new inventions, and new ideas, which, somehow or other, must\nget themselves represented in the Chinese language and writing.\n\nThe invention of determinative signs--characters put beside the word to\nshow what class of objects a word belongs to--helps the Chinese to\novercome some of the difficulties which their radical language offers to\nthe introduction of sound-writing. For example, the word \u2018Pa\u2019 has eight\ndifferent meanings, and when it is written phonetically, a reader would\nhave to choose between eight objects to which he might apply it, if\nthere were not a determinative sign by its side which gives him a hint\nhow to read it. This is as if when we wrote the word \u2018vessel\u2019 we were to\nadd \u2018navigation\u2019 when we intended a ship; and \u2018household\u2019 when we meant\na jug or puncheon. The Chinese determinative signs are not, however,\nleft to each writer\u2019s fancy. Two hundred and fourteen signs (originally\nthemselves pictures, remember) have been chosen out, and are always used\nin this way. The classes into which objects are divided by these\nnumerous signs are minute, and do not appear to follow any scientific\nmethod or arrangement. There is a sign to show that a written word\nbelongs to the class noses, another for rats, another for frogs, another\nfor tortoises. One is inclined to think that the helpful signs must be\nas hard to remember as the words themselves, and that they can only be\nanother element in the general confusion. Probably their frequent\nrecurrence makes them soon become familiar to Chinese readers, and they\nact as finger-posts to guide the thoughts into the right direction.\nDeterminative signs have always come in to help in the transitional\nstage between purely ideographic and purely phonetic writing, and were\nused by both Egyptians and Assyrians in their elaborate systems as soon\nas the phonetic principle began to be employed among their ideographs.\n\nIt is an interesting fact that the Japanese have dealt with the Chinese\nsystem of writing precisely as did the Ph\u0153nicians with the Egyptian\nhieroglyphics. They have chosen forty-seven signs from the many\nthousands employed by the Chinese, and they use them phonetically only;\nthat is to say, as true sound-carrying letters.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII.\n\nPHONETIC WRITING.\n\n\n[Sidenote: Transition to phonetic writing.]\n\nThe step from picturing or picture-drawing to writing by pictures is, as\nwe have said, an immense one. But now we have to record one more step,\nalmost as great, which is the transition from the picturing of single\nthings--or, if you wish, single _ideas_--to the picturing, not of ideas\nat all, but of sounds merely. This is the step we have now to follow\nout, to trace the process through which picture-writing passed into\nsound-writing, and to find out how signs (for we shall see they are the\nsame signs) which were originally meant to recall objects to the eye,\nhave ended in being used to suggest, or, shall we say, _picture_, sounds\nto the ear. This is what we mean by _phonetic_ writing. A written word,\nlet us remember, is the picture of a sound, and it is our business to\nhunt the letters of which it is formed through the changes they must\nhave undergone while they were taking upon themselves the new office of\nsuggesting sound. We said, too, that we must not expect to find any\nwritten account of this change, and that it is only by examining the\n_forms_ of the records of other events that this greatest event of\nliterature can be made out. What we want is to see the pictorial signs,\nwhile busy in telling us other history, beginning to perform their new\nduties side by side with the old, so that we may be sure of their\nidentity; and this opportunity is afforded us by the hieroglyphic\nwriting of the ancient Egyptians, who, being people disposed to cling to\neverything that had once been done, never altogether left off employing\ntheir first methods, even after they had taken another and yet another\nstep towards a more perfect system of writing; but carried on the old\nways and the new improvements side by side. The nature of their\nlanguage, which was in part radical and in part inflexional, was one\ncause of this intermixture of methods in their writing; it had partly\nbut not entirely outgrown the stage in which picture-signs are most\nuseful. Ideograph is the proper name for a picture-sign, which, as soon\nas picture-writing supersedes picturing, becomes the sign for a thought\nquite as often as it is the sign for an object. Very ancient as are the\nearliest Egyptian records, we have none which belong to the time when\nthe invention of writing was in the stage of picturing; we only\nconjecture that it passed through this earliest stage by finding\nexamples of picturing mixed with their other kinds of writing. Each\nchapter of the _Ritual_, the oldest of Egyptian books, has one or more\ndesigns at its head, in which the contents of the chapter are very\ncarefully and ingeniously pictured; and the records of royal triumphs\nand progresses which are cut out on temple and palace walls in\nideographic and phonetic signs, are always prefaced by a large picture\nwhich tells the same story in the primitive method of picturing without\nwords.\n\n[Sidenote: Egyptian writing.]\n\nThe next stage of the invention, ideographic writing, the ancient\nEgyptians carried to great perfection, and reduced to a careful system.\nThe signs for ideas became fixed, and were not chosen according to each\nwriter\u2019s fancy. Every picture had its settled value, and was always\nused in the same way. A sort of alphabet of ideographs was thus formed.\nA heart drawn in a certain way always meant \u2018love,\u2019 an eye with a tear\non the lash meant \u2018grief,\u2019 two hands holding a shield and spear meant\nthe verb \u2018to fight,\u2019 a tongue meant \u2018to speak,\u2019 a footprint \u2018to travel,\u2019\na man kneeling on the ground signified \u2018a conquered enemy,\u2019 etc.\nConjunctions and prepositions had their fixed pictures, as well as verbs\nand nouns; \u2018also\u2019 was pictured by a coil of rope with a _second_ band\nacross it, \u2018and\u2019 by a coil of rope with an arm across it, \u2018over\u2019 by a\ncircle surmounting a square, \u2018at\u2019 by the picture of a hart reposing near\nthe sign for water--a significant picture for such a little word, which\nrecalls to our minds the Psalm, \u2018As the hart panteth after the\nwater-brooks,\u2019 and leads us to wonder whether the writer were familiar\nwith the Egyptian hieroglyph.\n\nSo much was done in this way, that we almost wonder how the need for\nanother method came to be felt; perhaps a peculiarity of the Egyptian\nlanguage helped the splendid thought of picturing _sound_ to flash one\nhappy day into the mind of some priest, when he was laboriously cutting\nhis sacred sentence into a temple wall. The language of ancient Egypt,\nlike that of China, had a great many words alike in sound but different\nin meaning, and it could not fail to happen that some of these words\nwith two meanings would indicate a thing easy to draw, and a thought\ndifficult to symbolize; for example, the ancient Egyptian word _neb_\nmeans a basket and a ruler; and _nefer_ means a lute and goodness. There\nwould come a day when a clever priest, cutting a record on a wall, would\nbethink him of putting a lute instead of the more elaborate symbol that\nhad hitherto been used for goodness. It was a simple change, and might\nnot have struck any one at the time as involving more than the saving\nof a little trouble to hieroglyphists, but it was the germ out of which\nour system of writing sprang. The priest who did _that_ had taken the\nfirst step towards picturing sound, and cut a true phonetic sign--the\ntrue if remote parent, in fact, of one of the twenty-four letters of our\nown alphabet.\n\nLet us consider how the thought would probably grow. The writers once\nstarted on the road of making signs stand for sounds would observe how\nmuch fewer sounds there are than objects and ideas, and that words even\nwhen unlike are composed of the same sounds pronounced in different\nsuccession. If we were employed in painting up a notice on a wall, and\nintended to use ideographs instead of letters, and moreover if the words\nmanage, mansion, manly, mantles, came into our sentence, should we not\nbegin each of these words by a figure of a man? and again, if we had to\nwrite treacle, treason, treaty, we should begin each with a picture of a\ntree; we should find it easier to use the same sign often for part of a\nword, than to invent a fresh symbol for each entire word as we wrote it.\nFor the remaining syllables of the words we had so successfully begun we\nshould have to invent other signs, and we should perhaps soon discover\nthat in each syllable there were in fact several sounds, or movements of\nlips or tongue, and that the same sounds differently combined came over\nand over again in all our words. Then we might go on to discover exactly\nhow many movements of the speaking organs occurred in ordinary speech,\nand the thought of choosing a particular picture to represent each\nmovement might occur; we should then have invented an alphabet in its\nearliest form. That was the road along which the ancient Egyptians\ntravelled, but they progressed very slowly, and never quite reached its\nend. They began by having syllabic signs for proper names. Osiri was a\nname that occurred frequently in their sacred writings, and they\nhappened to have two words in their language which made up its\nsound--_Os_ a throne, _iri_ an eye. Hence a small picture of a throne\ncame to be the syllabic sign for the sound _os_, the oval of an eye for\nthe sound _iri_; in like manner Totro, the name of an early king, was\nwritten by a hand _Tot_ and a circle _ro_, and thus a system of spelling\nby syllables was established. Later they began to divide syllables into\nmovements of the speaking organs, and to represent these movements by\ndrawing objects whose name began with the movement intended. For\nexample, a picture of a lion (_labo_) was drawn, not for the whole sound\n(_labo_), but for the liquid _l_; an owl (_mulag_) stood for the labial\n_m_; a water-jug (_nem_) for _n_. They had now, in fact, invented\nletters; but though they had made the great discovery they did not use\nit in the best way. They could not make up their minds to keep to\nphonetic writing, and throw away their pictures and ideographs. They\ncontinued to mix all these methods together, so that when they painted a\nlion--it might be a picture and mean _lion_, it might be a symbolic sign\nand mean _pre-eminence_, or it might be a true letter and stand for the\nliquid _l_. The Egyptians were obliged to invent a whole army of\ndeterminative signs, like those now employed by the Chinese, which they\nplaced before their pictures to show when a group was to be read\naccording to its sound, when it was used symbolically, and when it was a\nsimple representation of the object intended.\n\nWe have already pointed out how among the Egyptian monuments, the\nsculptures on the tombs and temples, and in many of the more important\n_papyri_--as, for example, their Book of the Dead itself--we have\nspecimens of all the three methods by which ideas may be conveyed to\nthe _eye_. We have first the picture of some event--the king, say,\noffering sacrifice to a god,--then we have each separate word of the\nsentence first recorded by ideographs, then spelled by ordinary letters.\n\nAnother source of difficulty in deciphering the writing of the ancient\nEgyptians, is that they were not content with a single sign for a single\nsound; they had a great many different pictures for each letter, and\nused them in fanciful ways. For example, if _l_ occurred in the name of\na king or god, they would use the lion-picture to express it, thinking\nit appropriate; but if the same sound occurred in the name of a queen,\nthey would use a lotus-lily as more feminine and elegant. They had as\nmany as twenty different pictures which could be used for the first\nletter of our alphabet _a_, and thirty for the letter _h_, one of which\nclosely resembles our capital H in form, being two upright palm-branches\nheld by two arms which make the cross of the H. No letter had fewer than\nfive pictures to express its sound, from which the writer might choose\naccording to his fancy; or perhaps, sometimes, according to the space he\nhad to fill up on the wall, or obelisk, where he was writing, and the\neffect in form and colour he wished his sentence to produce. Then again,\nall their letters were not quite true letters (single breathings). The\nEgyptians never got quite clear about vowels and consonants, and\ngenerally spelt words (unless they _began_ with a vowel sound) by\nconsonants only, the consonants carrying a vowel breathing as well as\ntheir own sound, and thus being syllabic signs instead of true letters.\n\nSince much of the writing of the ancient Egyptians was used ornamentally\nas decoration for the walls of their houses and temples, and took with\nthem the place of the tapestry of later times, the space required to\ncarry out their complex system of writing was no objection to it in\ntheir eyes; neither did they care much about the difficulty of learning\nso elaborate an array of signs, as for many centuries the art of reading\nand writing was almost entirely confined to an order of priests whose\noccupation and glory it was. When writing became more common, and was\nused for ordinary as well as sacred purposes, the pictorial element\ndisappeared from some of their styles of writing, and quick ways of\nmaking the pictures were invented, which reduced them to as completely\narbitrary signs, with no resemblance to the objects intended, as the\nChinese signs now are.\n\n[Sidenote: Hieratic and Demotic writing.]\n\nThe ancient Egyptians had two ways of quick writing, the Hieratic (or\npriestly), which was employed for the sacred writings only, and the\nDemotic, used by the people, which was employed for law-papers, letters,\nand all writing that did not touch on religious matter or enter into the\nprovince of the priest. Yet, though literature increased and writing was\nmuch practised by people engaged in the ordinary business of life (we\nsee pictures on the tombs of the great man\u2019s upper servant seated before\nhis desk and recording with reed-pen and ink-horn the numbers of the\nflocks and herds belonging to the farm), little was done to simplify the\nart of writing by the ancient Egyptians. Down to the latest times when\nHieroglyphics were cut, and Demotic and Hieratic characters written, the\nsame confusing variety of signs were employed--pictorial, ideographic,\nsymbolic, phonetic--all mixed up together, with nothing to distinguish\nthem but the determinative signs before spoken of, which themselves\nadded a new element to the complexity.\n\nIt was left for a less conservative and more enterprising people than\nthe ancient Egyptians to take the last and greatest step in perfecting\nthe invention which the ancient\n\n[Sidenote: The Ph\u0153nician alphabet.]\n\nEgyptians had brought so far on its road, and by throwing away all the\nfirst attempts, to allow the serviceable, successful parts of the system\nto stand out clear. The Ph\u0153nicians, to whom tradition points as the\nintroducers of our alphabet into Europe, and who, during early ages,\nwere in very close political and trading connection with the ancient\nEgyptians, are now believed to be the authors of the improvement by\nwhich we benefit. They did not invent the alphabet which the Greeks\nlearned from them; they could have had no reason to invent signs, when\nthey must have been well acquainted with the superabundance that had\nbeen in use for centuries before they began to build their cities by the\nsea-shore. What they probably did was to choose from the Egyptian\ncharacters, with which all the traders of the world must have been\nfamiliar, just so many phonemes or sound-carrying signs as represented\nthe sounds of which their speech was made up; and rejecting all others,\nthey kept strictly to these chosen ones in all their future writings.\nThis was a great work to have accomplished, and we must not suppose that\nit was done by one man, or even in one generation; as probably it took a\nvery long time to perfect the separation between vowels and consonants:\na distinction which had already been made by the ancient Egyptians, for\nthey had vowel signs, though, as before remarked, they constantly made\ntheir consonants carry the vowels, and spelt words with consonants\nalone. You will remember that consonants are the most important elements\nof language, and constitute, as we have said before, the bones of words;\nbut also that distinctions of time, person, and case depend in an early\nstage of language very much on vowels; and you will therefore understand\nhow important to clearness of expression it was to have clearly defined\nseparate signs for the vowels and diphthongs that had, so to speak, all\nthe exactitude of meaning in their keeping. The Ph\u0153nicians, of all\nthe people in the early world, were most in need of a clear and precise\nmethod of writing: for, being the great traders and settlers of ancient\ntimes, one of its principal uses would be to enable them to communicate\nwith friends at a distance by means of writings which should convey the\nthoughts of the absent ones, or the private instructions of a trader to\nhis partner without need of an interpreter.\n\nThe advantages of simplicity and clearness had been less felt by\nEgyptian priests while inscribing their stately records on walls of\ntemples and palaces, and on the tapering sides of obelisks which were\nmeant to lift sacred words up to the eye of Heaven rather than to expose\nthem to those of men. They believed that a race of priests would\ncontinue, as long as the temples and obelisks continued, who could\nexplain the writing to those worthy to enter into its mysteries; and\nthey were not sorry, perhaps, to keep the distinction of understanding\nthe art of letters to their own caste.\n\nIt was not till letters were needed by busy people, who had other things\nto do besides studying, that the necessity for making them easy to\nlearn, and really effective as carriers of thought across distances, was\nsincerely felt. Two conjectures as to the method pursued by the\nPh\u0153nicians in choosing their letters and adapting them to their own\nlanguage have been made by the learned. One is, that while they took the\nforms of their letters from the Egyptian system of signs, and adopted\nthe principle of making each picture of an object stand for the first\nsound of its name, as _labo_ for _l_, they did not give to each letter\nthe value it had in the Egyptian alphabet, but allowed it to mean for\nthem the first sound of its name in their own language. For example,\nthey took the sign for an ox\u2019s head and made it stand for the sound\n_a_, not because it was one of the Egyptian signs for \u2018_a_\u2019 but because\nAleph was the name for an ox and \u2018_a_\u2019 was its first syllable. This,\nwhich seems a natural method enough, is, however, not the method which\nwas followed by the Japanese in choosing their alphabet from signs; and\nmore recent investigations prove such a close resemblance between the\nearliest forms of Ph\u0153nician letters, and early forms of signs for the\nsame sounds in Hieratic character, that a complete descent in\nsound-bearing power, as well as in form, is now claimed for our letters\nfrom those hieroglyphics, which, in our ignorance of the relationship,\nwe used to consider a synonymous term for something unintelligible. The\nSemitic language spoken by the Ph\u0153nicians was richer in sounds than\nthe less developed language spoken by the ancient Egyptians; but as the\nEgyptians used several signs for each letter, the Ph\u0153nicians easily\nfell into the habit of giving a slightly different value to two forms\noriginally identical, and thus provided for all the more delicate\ndistinctions of their tongue. A close comparison of the forms of the\nletters of the earliest known Canaanite inscriptions with Hieratic\nwriting of the time of the Old Empire reveals a resemblance so striking\nbetween fifteen of the Ph\u0153nician letters and Hieratic characters\ncarrying the same sounds, that a conviction of the derivation of one\nfrom the other impresses itself on even a careless observer. The\ncorrespondence of the other five Canaanite letters with their Hieratic\ncounterparts is less obvious to the uneducated eye, but experts in such\ninvestigations see sufficient likeness even there to confirm the theory.\n\nThe gradual divergence of the Ph\u0153nician characters from their\nHieratic parents is easily accounted for by the difference of the\nmaterial and the instrument employed by the Ph\u0153nicians and Egyptians\nin writing. The Hieratic charracter was painted by Egyptian priests on\nsmooth papyrus leaves with a brush or broad pointed reed pen. The\nCanaanite inscriptions are graven with a sharp instrument on hard stone,\nand as a natural consequence the round curves of the Hieratic character\nbecome sharp points, and there is a general simplification of form and a\nthrowing aside of useless lines and dots, the last remnants of the\npicture from which each Hieratic character originally sprang. The\n_names_ given later to the Ph\u0153nician letters, Aleph, an \u2018ox;\u2019 Beth, a\n\u2018house;\u2019 Gimel, a \u2018camel;\u2019 Daleth, a \u2018door;\u2019 are not the names of the\nobjects from which the forms of these letters were originally taken. The\nHieratic \u2018A\u2019 was taken from the picture of an eagle, which stood for \u2018A\u2019\nin hieroglyphics; \u2018B\u2019 was originally a sort of heron; \u2018D,\u2019 a hand with\nthe fingers spread out. New names were given by the Ph\u0153nicians to the\nforms they had borrowed, from fancied resemblances to objects which, in\ntheir language, began with the sound intended, when the original\nEgyptian names had been forgotten. It is hard for us to see a likeness\nbetween our letter \u2018A\u2019 and an ox\u2019s horns with a yoke across; or between\n\u2018B\u2019 and the ground-plan of a house; \u2018G\u2019 and a camel\u2019s head and neck; \u2018M\u2019\nand water; \u2018W\u2019 and a set of teeth; \u2018P\u2019 and the back of a head set on the\nneck; but our letters have gone through a great deal of straightening\nand putting into order since they came into Europe and were sent out on\ntheir further westward travels. The reader who has an opportunity of\nexamining early specimens of letters on Greek coins will find a freedom\nof treatment which makes them much more suggestive of resemblances, and\nthe earlier Ph\u0153nician letters were, no doubt, more pictorial still.\nThe interesting and important thing to be remembered concerning our\nletters is that each one of them was, without doubt, a picture once, and\ngets its shape in no other way than by having once stood for an object,\nwhose name in the ancient people\u2019s language began with the sound it\nconveys to us.\n\nThese Ph\u0153nician letters, born on the walls of Egyptian tombs older\nthan Abraham, and selected by Ph\u0153nician traders who took their boats\nup to Memphis at or before Joseph\u2019s time, are the parents of all the\nalphabets now used in the world, with the exception of that one which\nthe Japanese have taken from Chinese picture-writing. The Ph\u0153nicians\ncarried their alphabet about with them to all the countries where they\nplanted trading settlements, and it was adopted by Greeks, and by the\nLatins from the Greeks, and then gradually modified to suit the\nlanguages of all the civilized peoples of east and west.[138] The Hebrew\nsquare letters are a form of divergence from the original type, and even\nthe Sanskrit character in all its various styles can be traced back to\nthe same source by experts who have studied the transformations through\nwhich it has passed in the course of ages. It is, of course, easy to\nunderstand that these ubiquitous little shapes which through so many\ncenturies have had the task laid on them of spelling words in so many\ndifferent languages must have undergone some variations in their values\nto suit the tongues that interpreted them.\n\nThe original family of twenty letters have not always kept together, or\navoided the intrusion of new comers. Some of the languages they have had\nto express, being in an early\n\n[Sidenote: Runes.]\n\nstage of development, have not wanted even so many as twenty letters,\nand have gradually allowed some of them to fall into disuse and be\nforgotten; an instance of this we find in the alphabet of the northern\nnations--the Gothic--which consisted only of sixteen _runes_--called by\nnew names; they have been handed down either directly from the Greek, or\nfrom the Greek through the Roman alphabet, and furnished with mystic\nmeanings and with names peculiar to themselves.\n\n[Sidenote: Additional letters.]\n\nIn languages where nicer distinctions of sound were called for than the\noriginal twenty Ph\u0153nician signs carried, a few fresh letters were\nadded, but in no case has any quite new form been invented. The added\nletters have always been a modification of one of the older\nforms--either a letter cut in half, or one modified by an additional\nstroke or dot. In this way the Romans made _G_ out of _C_, by adding a\nstroke to one of its horns. _V_ and _U_, _I_ and _J_ were originally\nslightly different ways of writing one letter, which have been taken\nadvantage of to express a new sound when the necessity for a greater\nnumber of sound-signs arose; _W_, as its very name shows, is only a\ndoubled form of _V_. At first sight it seems a simple thing enough to\ninvent a letter, but let us remember that such a thing as an arbitrarily\ninvented letter does not exist anywhere. To create one out of nothing is\na feat of which human ingenuity does not seem capable. Every single\nletter in use anywhere (we can hardly dwell on this thought too long)\nhas descended in regular steps from the pictured object in whose name\nthe sound it represents originally dwelt. Shape and sound were wedded\ntogether in early days by the first beginners of writing, and all the\nlabour bestowed on them since has only been in the way of modification\nand adaptation to changed circumstances. No wonder that, when people\nbelieved a whole alphabet to have been invented straight off, they also\nthought that it took a god to do it. Thoth, the Great-and-great, with\nhis emblems of justice and his recording pencil; Oannes, the\nSea-monster, to whom all the wonders of the under-world lay open; Swift\nHermes, with his cap of invisibility and his magic staff; One-eyed Odin,\nwhile his dearly purchased draught of wisdom-water was inspiring him\nstill. No one indeed--as we see plainly enough now--but a hero like one\nof these, was equal to the task of inventing an alphabet.\n\n[Sidenote: Cuneiform writing.]\n\nBefore we have quite done with alphabets, we ought to speak of another\nsystem of ancient writing, the cuneiform; which, though it has left no\ntrace of itself on modern alphabets, is the vehicle which preserves some\nof the most interesting and ancient records in the world. The cuneiform\nor arrow-shaped character used by the ancient Chaldeans, Assyrians,\nBabylonians, and Persians, is supposed to owe its peculiar form to the\nmaterial on which it was habitually graven by those who employed it. It\narose in a country where the temples were built of unburned brick\ninstead of stone, and the wedge-shaped form of the lines composing the\nletters is precisely what would be most easily produced on wet clay by\nthe insertion and rapid withdrawal of a blunt-pointed stick or reed.\nLike all other systems, it began in rude pictures, which gradually came\nto have a phonetic value, in the same manner as did the Egyptian\nhieroglyphics. The earliest records in this character are graven on the\nunburned bricks of pyramidal-shaped temples, which a little before the\ntime of Abraham began to be built by a nation composed of mixed Shemite,\nCushite, and Scythian (_i.e._ Turanian) peoples round the shores of the\nPersian Gulf. The invention of the character is ascribed in the records\nto the Turanian race, the Accadians, who are always designated by the\nsign of a wedge, which was equivalent to calling them the writers, or\nthe literary people. The Accadians discovered this writing; but it was\ntaken up and wrought to much greater perfection by their successors, the\nShemites. In their hands it became the vehicle in which the history of\nthe two great empires of Babylon and Nineveh, and the achievements of\nancient Persian kings, have come down to us. For when Nineveh fell\nbefore the Persians, they adopted the cuneiform writing of the\nAssyrians.\n\nWe have all seen and wondered at the minute writing on the Assyrian\nmarbles and tablets in the British Museum, and stood in awe before the\nhuman-headed monster gods--\n\n    \u2018Their flanks with dark runes fretted o\u2019er,\u2019\n\nwhose fate, in surviving the ruin of so many empires, and being brought\nfrom so far to enlighten us on the history of past ages, can never cease\nto astonish us. When we look at them again, let us spare a thought to\nthe history of the character itself. Its mysteries have cost even\ngreater labour to unravel than hieroglyphics themselves. To the latest\ntimes of the use of cuneiform by the Ach\u00e6menid\u00e6, pictorial, symbolic,\nand phonetic groups continued to be mixed together, and a system of\ndeterminative signs was employed to show the reader in what sense each\nword was to be taken. But this system of writing never reached the\nperfection attained by the Egyptian hieroglyphs. It never advanced to\nthe use of what may be called true letters, never beyond the use of\nsyllabic signs. So that in time it was superseded by alphabets descended\nfrom the Egyptian. The symbolism, too, of the cuneiform writing is very\ncomplex, and the difficulty of reading the signs used phonetically is\ngreatly increased by the fact of the language from which they acquired\ntheir values (a Turanian one) being different from the Semitic tongue,\nin which the most important records are written.\n\nOf other systems of writing, chiefly pictorial, known in the ancient\nworld, such as the Hittite and the Cypriot--or, again, of the\npicture-writing of many other savage tribes beside the North American\nIndians, it is not necessary to speak. For we are not writing a history\nof alphabets, but of the acquisition of the _art_ of writing by\nmankind.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV.\n\nCONCLUSION.\n\n\n[Sidenote: Vortices of national life.]\n\nAt this point, where we are bringing our inquiries to a conclusion, we\nwould fain look a little nearer into the mists which shroud the past,\nand descry, were it possible, the actual dawn of history for the\nindividual nations; would see, not only how the larger bodies of men\nhave travelled through the prehistoric stages of their journey, but how,\nhaving reached its settled home, each people begins to emerge from the\nobscurity that surrounds its early days. What were the exact means, we\nask, whereby a collection of nomadic or half-nomadic tribes separated,\nreunited, separated again, and developed upon different soils the\nqualities which distinguish them from all others? What _is_, in fact,\nthe beginning of real national life?\n\nThe worlds which circle round the sun, or rather, the multitudinous\nsystems of orbs which fill space, might pose a like inquiry. There was a\ntime when _these_ which are now distinct worlds were confounded as a\ncontinuous nebula, a thin vapour of matter whirling round in one\nunchanging circle. In time, their motion became less uniform,\nvortices--as the word is--set in, smaller bodies of vaporous matter\nwhich, still obeying the universal movement, set up internal motions\namong themselves, and cooling, separated into separate orbs. How like is\nall this process to the history of nations! These, confounded once\ntogether in one unstable mass of wandering tribes, have in like manner\nseparated from their nebulous brethren, and, setting up their internal\nvortices, have coalesced into nations. And yet as a system of planets,\nalbeit with their own distinctive motions, do all revolve in one\ndirection round one central force, so the different families of nations,\nwhich we may call the planets of a system, seem in like manner compelled\nby a power external to themselves in one particular course to play a\nparticular part in the world\u2019s history. The early stone-age Turanians,\nthe Cushite civilizers of Egypt and Chald\u00e6a, the Semitic people, may all\nbe looked upon as different systems of nations, each with its mission to\nthe human race. Thus, too, the Aryan people, after they had once become\nso separated as to lose all family remembrance, are found working\ntogether to accomplish an assigned destiny, migrating in every\ndirection, and carrying with them everywhere the seeds of a higher\ncivilization.\n\nThe rays of history are seen gradually spreading from Egypt up through\nMesopotamia to the nations of Palestine--not yet the land of the\nHebrews--then to Asia Minor, and so to Greece. That is the land-root of\ncivilization. We are speaking rather of succession in time than of\nactual succession by inheritance. We cannot tell, at any rate, that\nChald\u00e6a was in any way indebted to Egypt for its early civilization, or\nEgypt to Chald\u00e6a. But with the exception of that blank, the rest of the\nprogress of civilization by inheritance does follow pretty clearly. The\nAssyrian Empire inherited from the old Babylonian Empire. And the\nnations of Palestine inherited from Egypt and Assyria both. On the\nborders of Asia Minor were two peoples who commanded--for a time, at\nany rate--the trade routes from Palestine and Mesopotamia into Asia\nMinor. These two peoples were the Hittites[139] and the Ph\u0153nicians.\nOne commanded the trade route by land, the other commanded it by sea. Of\nthe first we know at present very little--little more than that they had\na capital at Karkemish; that they commanded the navigation of the\nOrontes and the Upper Euphrates; and that they were at one time strong\nenough to stand at the head of a confederation of peoples who made war\nupon Egypt when at the summit of her power. There can be little doubt\nthat the Hittites passed on to the peoples of Asia Minor, who were in\nblood nearly allied to the Greeks, some of the civilization of the\nSemitic peoples farther south, and that these peoples passed the same on\nto the Greeks of Asia Minor.\n\nBut of course the Ph\u0153nicians must still be reckoned as the great\ntransporters of civilization from Egypt and from Asia to the rest of the\nworld. They could hardly be said to possess a country; but they\npossessed cities of vast importance and no small magnificence along the\ncoast of Palestine--Lamyra, Aradus, Byblos, Sydon, Tyre. From these\ncentres went out that boundless maritime enterprise which made the\nPh\u0153nicians the trading people of the world. Very early--in\npre-historic ages--the Ph\u0153nicians had possessed themselves of Cyprus.\nFrom that point to the Grecian coast of Asia Minor, or to the coasts and\nislands on either side of the \u00c6gean, was an easy transition; then on to\nthe Mediterranean, to Sicily and Italy, but more especially to the\nisland of Sardinia; or again to Egypt and the farther coasts of Africa\non to Spain, and finally, through the Pillars of Heracles, to the\nfar-off \u2018tin islands\u2019 of the west, which were, it is likely enough, the\nBritish Isles. This is, in brief, the picture of the doings of the\nPh\u0153nicians long before the days of history had begun to dawn upon the\nAryan nations of the Mediterranean.\n\nIf we desire to get any idea of the process by which the separation of\nthe Aryan peoples became completed, we must put quite upon one side the\nidea of a nation as we see it now. Now, when we speak the word, we think\nof a political unit subject to one government, stationary, and confined\nwithin pretty exact limits of space. But very different were the nations\nduring the process of their formation; there was scarcely any political\nunity among them, their homes were unfixed, their members constantly\nshifting and changing combinations, like those heaps of sand we see\ncarried along in a cyclone. Let us, then, forget our political atlases,\nwith their different colours and well-marked boundaries, and think not\nof the inanimate adjunct of a nation, the soil on which it happens to\ndwell, but of the nation as the men of whom it is made up. The earliest\nthings we discern are those vortices set up in the midst of a\nhomogeneous people, an attractive power somewhere in the midst of them\nwhich draws them into closer fellowship. It acts like the attractive\npower of a crystal in selecting from any of the surrounding matters the\nfragments most suited to its proper formation. Thus the earliest\ntraditions of a people are generally the history of some individual\ntribe from which the whole nation feigns itself descended; either\nbecause of its actual pre-eminence from the beginning, the power it had\nof drawing other tribes to share its fortunes, or because, out of many\ntribes drawn together by some common interest or sentiment, the bards of\nlater days selected this one tribe from among the others, and adopted\nits traditions for their own. If we remember this, much that would\notherwise appear a hopeless mass of contradiction and ambiguity is\ncapable of receiving a definite meaning.\n\n[Sidenote: The Greeks.]\n\nThe first rays of European history shine upon the island-dotted sea and\nbounding coasts of the \u00c6gean. Here sprang into life the Greek people,\nwho have left behind so splendid a legacy of art and philosophy. These,\nas has been already said, made their entry into Europe traversing the\nsouthern shores of the Euxine, along which passed, still as one people,\nthe ancestors of the Greeks and the Italians. The former, at all events,\nseem to have delayed long upon their route, and it was upon these\nshores, or perhaps rather in the tableland of ancient Phrygia, that\nfirst began the separation of two races who reunited to form the Greek\nnation. Some, the older race, the Pelasgi, made their way to the\nHellespont, and by that route into European Greece; the others, the\nIonians as they subsequently became, passed onward to the sea-shore of\nAsia Minor, and, tempted no doubt by the facilities of the voyage,\ncrossed from this mainland to the neighbouring islands, which lie so\nthickly scattered over the \u00c6gean that the mariner passing from shore to\nshore of Asiatic and European Greece need never on his voyage lose sight\nof land. They did not, however, find these islands deserted, or occupied\nby savages only. The Ph\u0153nicians had been there beforehand, as they\nwere beforehand upon almost every coast in Europe, and had made\nmercantile stations and established small colonies for the purposes of\ntrading with the Pelasgi of Greece. The adventurous Ionians were thus\nbrought early into contact with the advanced civilization of Asia, and\nfrom this source gained in all probability a knowledge of navigation,\nletters, and some of the Semitic mythical legends. Thus while the\nmainland Greeks had altered little of the primitive culture, the germs\nof a Hellenic civilization, of a Hellenic life, were being fostered in\nthe islands of the \u00c6gean. We see this reflected in many Greek myths--in\nthe legend, for example, of Min\u00f4s and his early Cretan kingdom; in the\nmyth of Aphrodit\u00ea springing from the sea by Cythera; and in the worship\nof Ph\u0153bus Apollo which sprang up in Delos. Legend spoke of two\nMin\u00f4ses--one, the legislator of Crete, representative of all that was\nmost ancient in national policy, and for that reason transferred to be\nthe judge of souls in Hell; the second, he who made war against the\nAthenians, and compelled them to pay their dreadful yearly tribute of\nseven youths and seven maidens to be devoured of the Minotaur in the\nCretan labyrinth. Until Theseus came. No doubt the two Min\u00f4ses are but\namplifications of one being, who, whether mythical or historical, is an\necho in the memory of Greeks of the still older Cretan kingdom. In both\ntales Min\u00f4s has a dreadful aspect; perhaps because this \u2018Lord of the\nIsles\u2019 had been inimical to the early growing communities of the\nmainland.\n\nThe myths of Aphrodit\u00ea and Apollo have been already commented upon as\nenfolding within them the history of their origin. Aphrodit\u00ea is\nessentially an Asiatic divinity; she springs to life in a Ph\u0153nician\ncolony. But Ph\u0153bus Apollo is before all things the god of the Ionian\nGreeks; and as _their_ first national life begins in the islands, _his_\nbirth too takes place in one of these, the central one of all, Delos. In\nHomer, Delos, or Ortygia, is feigned to be the central spot of the\nearth.\n\nThus the Greeks were from the beginning a commercial people. Before\ntheir history began, there is proof that they had established a colony\nin the Delta of the Nile; and the frequent use of the word _Javan_[140]\nin the Bible--which here stands for Ionians--shows how familiar was\ntheir name to the dwellers in Asia. Wherever these mariners came in\ncontact with their brethren of the continent, they excited in them the\nlove of adventure, and planted the germs of a new life, so that it was\nunder their paramount influence that these primitive Greeks began to\ncoalesce from mutually hostile tribes into nations. In Northern Greece\nit was that the gathering together of tribes and cities first began.\nThese confederations were always based primarily upon religious union,\nthe protection of a common deity, a union to protect and support a\ncommon shrine. They were called Amphictyonies, confederations of\nneighbours, a name which lived long in the history of Greece. These\namphictyonies seem first to have arisen in the north. Here too the words\n_Hellenic_, _Hellenes_, first spring up as national epithets. Hellas\nnever extended farther north than the north of Thessaly, and was\nnaturally marked off from foreign countries by Olympia and Pierus. But\nthe term spread southwards till it embraced all Greek-speaking lands to\nthe extremity of the peninsula, and over the islands of the \u00c6gean, and\nthe coast of Asia Minor, on to the countless colonies which issued from\nGreek shores; for Hellas was not a geographical term, it included all\nthe peoples of true Hellenic speech, and distinguished them from the\n_barbaroi_, the \u2018babblers,\u2019 of other lands.\n\nThe two great nations of the Gr\u00e6co-Italic family kept up some knowledge\nof each other after they had forgotten the days of their common life,\nand, strange to say, in days before either of the two races had come to\nregard itself as a distinct people, each was so regarded by the other.\nThe Italians classed the Greeks in the common name of Gr\u00e6ci or Graii,\nand the Greeks bestowed the name of \u1f48\u03c0\u03b9\u03ba\u03cc\u03c2 upon the nation of\nthe Italians. It is curious to reflect upon the different destinies\nwhich lay ahead of these two races, who came under such similar\nconditions into their new homes. Whether it were through some\npeculiarity in their national character, or a too-rapid civilization, or\nthe two great influences of a changeful character and adventurous life,\nthe Greeks never cemented properly together the units of their race; the\nItalians, through a much slower process of integration, lived to weld\ntheir scattered fragments into the most powerful nation the world has\never seen.\n\n[Sidenote: The Romans.]\n\nThis second half, then, of the Gr\u00e6co-Italic family, crossing the\nHellespont like (or with) the first dwellers in Greece proper, proceeded\nonwards until, skirting the shores of the Adriatic, they found out a\nsecond peninsula, whose fertile plains tempted them to dispute the\npossession of the land with the older inhabitants. Who were these older\ninhabitants? In part they must have been those lake-dwellers of northern\nItaly to whom reference was made in our second chapter, and who were\nevidently closely allied to the stone-age men of Switzerland; but\nbesides these we have almost no trace of the men who were dispossessed\nby the Italic tribes, and these last, who pushed to the farthest\nextremity of the peninsula, must have completely absorbed, or completely\nexterminated, the aborigines. The process by which the Italians spread\nover the land is altogether hidden from us. Doubtless their several\nseats were not assigned to the different branches at once, or without\nbloodshed. Though still no more than separate tribes, we are able to\ndivide the primitive Italians into stocks of which the southern most\nresembled the ancient type of the Pelasgic family; those in the centre\nformed the Latin group; while north of these (assuming that they, too,\nwere Aryans) lay the Etruscans, the most civilized of all the three. At\nthis time the tribes seem to have acknowledged no common bond, nothing\ncorresponding to the word Hellenic had sprung up to unite their\ninterests: existence was as yet to the strongest only. And while the\nland was in this chaotic state, one tribe, or small confederacy of\ntribes, among the Latin people began to assert its pre-eminence. We see\nthem dimly looming through a cloud of fable, daring, warlike,\nunscrupulous in their dealings with their neighbours, firm in their\nallegiance to each other. This tribe gradually increased in strength and\nproportions till, from being a mere band of robbers defending themselves\nwithin their rude fortifications, they grew in the traditions of their\ndescendants, and of the other tribes whom in course of time they either\nsubdued or absorbed, to be regarded as the founders of Rome. They did\nnot accomplish their high destiny without trials and reverses. More\npowerful neighbouring kingdoms looked on askance during the days of\ntheir rise, and found opportunity more than once to overthrow their city\nand all but subdue their state. Their former brethren, the Celts,[141]\nwho had been beforehand of all the Aryan races in entering Europe, and\nnow formed the most powerful people in this quarter of the globe,\nseveral times swept down upon them like a devastating storm. But after\neach reverse the infant colony arose with renewed Ant\u00e6an vigour.\n\nThus in Italy, the development from the tribal to the national state was\ninternal. No precocious maritime race awoke in many different centres\nthe seeds of nationality; rather this nationality was a gradual growth\nfrom one root, the slow response to a central attractive force. The\nenergy of Rome did not go out in sea adventure, or in the colonization\nof distant lands; but it was firmly bent to absorb the different people\nof her own peninsula, people of like blood with herself, but in every\nearly stage of culture from an almost nomadic condition to one of\nconsiderable advancement in the arts of peace.\n\n[Sidenote: The Celts.]\n\nWhen from the Greeks and Romans we turn to the Celts and Teutons, we\nmust descend much lower in the records of history before we can get any\nclear glimpse at these. The Celts, who were probably the first Aryans in\nEurope, seem gradually to have been forced farther and farther west by\nthe incursions of other peoples. At one time, however, we have evidence\nthat they extended eastward, at least as far as the Rhine, and over all\nthat northern portion of Italy--now Lombardy and part of Sardinia--which\nto the Romans went by the name of Cisalpine Gaul. The long period of\nsubjection to the Roman rule which Gaul experienced, obliterated in that\ncountry all traces of its early Celtic manners, and we are reduced for\nour information concerning these to the pages of Roman historians, or to\nthe remains of Celtic laws and customs preserved in the western homes of\nthe race. The last have only lately received a proper attention. The\nmost primitive Irish code--the Brehon laws--has been searched for traces\nof the primitive Celtic life. From both our sources we gather that the\nCelts were divided into tribes regarded as members of one family. These\nclans were ruled over by chiefs, whose offices were hereditary, or very\nearly became so. They were thus but slightly advanced out of the most\nprimitive conditions,--they cannot be described as a nation. Had they\nbeen so, extensive and warlike as they were, they would have been\ncapable of subduing all the other infant nationalities of Aryan folk. As\nit was, as mere combinations of tribes under some powerful chieftain\n(C\u00e6sar describes just such), they gave trouble to the Roman armies even\nunder a C\u00e6sar, and were in early days the most dreadful enemies of the\nRepublic. Under Brennus, they besieged and took Rome, sacked the city,\nand were only induced to retire on the payment of a heavy ransom. A\nhundred years later, under another Brennus, they made their way into\nThrace, ravaged the whole country, and from Nicomedes, King of Bithynia,\nobtained a settlement in Asia Minor in the district which from them\nreceived the name of Galatia. The occurrence of those two chiefs named\nBrennus shows us that this could hardly have been a mere personal name.\nIt is undoubtedly the Celtic Brain, a king or chieftain, the same from\nwhich we get the mythic Bran,[142] and in all probability the Irish\nO\u2019Brien. The recognition of the Celtic fighting capacity in the ancient\nworld is illustrated by another circumstance, and this is more\nespecially interesting to us of the modern world, whose army is so\nlargely made up of Celts from Ireland and Scotland (Highlanders). Hier\u00f4n\nI., the powerful tyrant of Syracuse, founded his despotism, as he\nafterwards confessed, chiefly upon his standing army of thirty thousand\nGaulish mercenaries whom he kept always in his pay.\n\nFor the rest, we know little of the internal Celtic life and of the\nextent of its culture. Probably this differed considerably in different\nparts, in Gaul for instance, and in Ireland. The slight notices of\nGaulish religion which C\u00e6sar and Pliny give refer chiefly to its\nexternal belongings, to the hereditary sacerdotal class, who seem also\nto have been the bardic class; of its myths and of their real\nsignificance we know little more than what can be gathered by analogy of\nother nations. We may assert that their nature-worship approached most\nnearly to the Teutonic form among those of all the Aryan peoples.\n\nPeculiarly interesting to us are such traces as can be\n\n[Sidenote: The Teutons.]\n\ngleaned of the Teutonic race. The first time we have seen that they show\nthemselves upon the stage of history is possibly in company with the\nCelts, supposing for a moment that the Cimbri, who in company with the\nTeutones, the Tigurini, and the Ambrones were defeated by Marius (B.C.\n101), were Celts.[143] What branch of the German family (if any) the\nTeutones were, is quite uncertain. Again, in the pages of C\u00e6sar we meet\nwith several names of tribes evidently of German origin. The Treviri,\nthe Marcomanni (Mark men, men of the march or boundary), Allemanni\n(all-men, or men of the great or the mixed[144] nation), the Suevi\n(Suabians), the Cherusci--men of the sword, perhaps the same as\n_Saxons_, whose name has the same meaning.\n\nIt is not till after the death of Theodosius at the end of the fourth\ncentury of our era that the Germans fill a conspicuous place on the\nhistorical canvas. By this time they had come to be divided into a\nnumber of different nations, similar in most of the elements of their\ncivilization and barbarism, closely allied in languages, but politically\nunconnected, or even opposed. Most of these Teutonic peoples grew into\nmighty nations and deeply influenced the future of European history. It\nis therefore right that we pass them rapidly in review. 1. The Goths had\nbeen long settled in the region of the Lower Danube, chiefly in the\ncountry called M\u0153sia, where Ulfilas, a Gothic prince who had been\nconverted to Christianity, returned to preach to his countrymen, became\na bishop among them, and by his translation of the Bible into their\ntongue, the M\u0153so-Gothic, has left a perpetual memorial of the\nlanguage. During the reign of Honorius, the son of Theodosius, a\nportion of this nation, the West-or Visi-goths, quitted their home and\nundertook under Alaric (All-king) their march into Italy, thrice\nbesieged and finally took Rome. Then turning aside, they founded a\npowerful kingdom in the south of Gaul and in Spain. A century later the\nEast-Goths (Ostro-Goths), under the great Theodoric (People\u2019s-king)\nagain invaded Italy and founded an Ostrogothic kingdom upon the ruins of\nthe Western Empire. 2, 3, 4, 5. The Suevi, Alani, Burgundians, and\nVandals crossed the Rhine in 405, and entered Roman territory, never\nagain to return to whence they came. The Burgundians (City-men) fixed\ntheir abode in East-Central Gaul (Burgundy and Switzerland), where their\nkingdom lasted till it was subdued by the Franks; but the other three\npassed on into Spain, and the Vandals (Wends[145]) from Spain into\nAfrica, where they founded a kingdom. 6. The Franks (Free-men), having\nbeen for nearly a century settled between the Meuse and the Scheldt,\nbegan under Clovis (Chlodvig, Hludwig, Lewis) (A.D. 480) their career of\nvictory, from which they did not rest until the whole of Gaul owned the\nsway of Merovingian kings. 7. The Longobardi (Long-beards, or men of the\nlong borde, long stretch of alluvial land), who after the Ostrogoths had\nbeen driven out of Italy by the Emperor of the East, founded in defiance\nof his power a second Teutonic kingdom in that country--a kingdom which\nlasted till the days of Charlemagne. 8. And last, but we may safely say\nnot least, the Saxons (Sword-men, from _seaxa_, a sword), who invaded\nBritain, and under the name of Angles (Engle) founded the nation to\nwhich we belong, the longest-lived of all those which rose upon the\nruins of the Roman Empire.\n\nThe condition of the German people, even so late as the time when they\nbegan their invasion of the Roman territory, was far behind that of the\nmajority of their Aryan fellows. It is likely that they were little more\ncivilized than the Greeks and Romans were, in days when they lived\ntogether as one collection of tribes. For the moment when we catch sight\nof these--the Greeks and Romans--in their new homes, we see them settled\nagriculturists, with no trace left of their wandering habits. It was not\nso with the Teutons: they knew agriculture certainly, they had known it\nbefore they separated from the other peoples of the European family (for\nthe Greek and Latin words for plough reappear in Teutonic speech[146]);\nbut they had not altogether bid adieu to their migratory life--we see\nthem still flowing in a nebulous condition into the Roman lands. Even\nthe Tartars of our day--the very picture of a nomadic people--practise\nsome form of agriculture. They plant buckwheat, which, growing up in a\nfew months, allows them to reap the fruits of their industry without\ntying them long to a particular spot. The Teutons were more stationary\nthan the Tartars, but doubtless they too were constantly shifting their\nhomes--choosing fresh homesteads, as Tacitus says they did, wherever any\nspot, or grove, or stream attracted them. The condition of society\ncalled the village community, which has been described in a former\nchapter, though long abandoned by the cultivated Greeks and Romans, was\nstill suitable to the exigencies of _their_ life; but these exigencies\nimposed upon it some fresh conditions. Their situation, the situation of\nthose who made their way into the western countries of Europe, was\nessentially that of conquerors; for they must keep in subjection the\noriginal inhabitants, whether Romans or Celts; and so all their social\narrangements bent before the primary necessity of maintaining an\neffective war equipment. Age and wisdom were of less value to the\ncommunity than youthful vigour. The patriarchal chief, chosen for his\nreputation for wisdom and swaying by his mature counsels the free\nassemblies of the states, gives place with them to the leader, famous\nfor his valour and fortunes in the field, by virtue of which he exacts a\nmore implicit obedience than would be accorded in unwarlike times, until\nby degrees his office becomes hereditary; the partition of the conquered\nsoil among the victors, and the holding of it upon conditions of\nmilitary service, conditions which led so easily to the assertion of a\nprinciple of primogeniture, and thence, by slow but natural stages, to\nthe conditions of tenure known as _feudal_; these are the marks of the\nearly Teutonic society.\n\nSuch germs of literary life as the Teutons possessed were enshrined in\nballads, such as all nations possess in some form. The re-echoes of\nthese have come down to us in the earliest known poems by men of\nTeutonic race, all of which are unfortunately of very recent date. All\nare distinguished by the principle of versifying which is essentially\nTeutonic; the trusting of the cadence, not to an exact measurement of\nsyllables or quantities, but to the pauses or beats of the voice in\nrepetition, the effect of these beats being heightened by the use of\nalliteration. Poems of this true Teutonic character, though many of them\nin their present shape are late in date, are the well-known old German\nlay of _Hadubrand and Hildebrand_, the old Scandinavian poems which we\ncall Eddic poems, our old English poem _Beowulf_, and the _Bard\u2019s Tale_\nand the _Fight of Finnesburg_, and finally that long German poem called\nthe _Nibelungen_, or say the poem out of which this long one has been\nmade. These poems repeat old mythic legends, many of which have for\ncenturies been handed down from father to son, and display the mythology\nand religion of our German ancestors, such as in a former chapter we\nendeavoured to sketch them out. Slight as they are, they are of\ninestimable value, in that they help us to read the mind of heathen\nGermany, and to weigh the significance of the last great revolution in\nEurope\u2019s history--a revolution wherein we, through our ancestors, have\ntaken and through ourselves are still taking part, and in which we have\ntherefore so close an interest.\n\nBut having carried the reader down to this point, our task comes to an\nend. Even for Europe, the youngest born as it were in the world\u2019s\nhistory, when we have passed the epoch of Teutonic invasion, the star of\nhistory _sera rubens_ has definitely risen. Nations from this time\nforward emerge more and more into the light, and little or nothing falls\nto the part of pre-historic study.\n\n\n\n\nAPPENDIX.\n\nNOTES AND AUTHORITIES.\n\n     \u2042 For the convenience of the reader, authorities are cited\n     whenever it is possible in an English form, and if not in an\n     English, in a French.\n\n\nCHAPTERS I. AND II.\n\n  Christy and Lartet, _Reliqui\u00e6 Aquitanic\u00e6_.\n  Davis and Thurnam, _Crania Britannica_.\n  Dawkins, _Cave Hunting_.\n  Dawkins, _Early Man in Britain_.\n  Evans, _Stone Implements of Great Britain_.\n  Evans, _Bronze Implements of Great Britain_.\n  Geikie, _The Great Ice Age_.\n  Greenwell, _British Barrows_.\n  Keller, _The Lake-Dwellings of Switzerland_ (trs. Lee).\n  Lyell, _Antiquity of Man_.\n  Lubbock, _Pre-historic Times_.\n  Mortillet, _Origine de la Navigation et de la P\u00eache_.\n  Mortillet, _Promenades Pr\u00e9historiques \u00e0 l\u2019Exposition_.\n  Mortillet, _Le Pr\u00e9historique, L\u2019Antiquit\u00e9 de l\u2019homme_.\n  Montelius, _La Su\u00e8de Pr\u00e9historique_.\n  Tylor, _Anthropology_.\n  Tylor, _Early History of Mankind_.\n  Tylor, _Primitive Culture_.\n  Troyon, _Habitations Lacustres_.\n  Worsaae, _The Pre-history of the North_ (trs. Simpson).\n\nAnd numerous articles in the Arch\u00e6ological and Anthropological journals\nof England, France, and Germany.\n\n\nPp. 8, and 14-15. _Antiquity of Man._--The question concerning the\nhistory of Pal\u00e6olithic man which presses the most immediately for\nsolution, is that which has been just touched upon here: whether the\nvariety of animal remains with which the remains of men are found\nassociated, do really point to an immensely lengthened period of his\nexistence, in this primitive state. We have said that human bones are\nfound associated with those of the mammoth (_Elephas primigenius_),\nthose of the woolly rhinoceros, and with the remains of other animals\nwhose existence seems to imply a cold-temperate, or almost frigid,\nclimate; at another place, or a little lower in the same river bed (the\nhigher gravel beds are the oldest), we may find the bones of the\nhippopotamus, an animal which in these days is never found far away from\nthe tropics. The conclusion seems obvious: man must have lived through\nthe epoch of change--enormously long though it was--from a cold to an\nalmost tropical climate. Some writers have freely accepted this view,\nand even gone beyond it to argue the possibility of man having lived\nthrough one of the great climatic revolutions which produced an Ice Age.\n(See the arguments on this head in Mr. Geikie\u2019s _Ice Age_.) And in a\nprivate letter, written from the West Indies, Kingsley says that he sees\nreason for thinking that man existed in the Miocene Era. (See _Life of\nKingsley_.)\n\nOn the other hand, these rather startling theories have not yet received\ntheir _imprimatur_ from the highest scientific authorities. There are\nmany ways in which they clash with the story which the stone-age remains\nseem to tell of man\u2019s primitive life. For instance, the civilization of\nthe caves is to all appearance in advance of that of the drift-beds; and\nyet, as we have seen (p. 18), the cave men must have existed during the\nearlier part of the stone age, that of the mammoth. Here we see\nevidences of a decided improvement, an advance; whereas between the\ndrift-remains associated with the mammoth and those associated with the\nhippopotamus are seen few or none.\n\n\nP. 9. _Cave-drawings or carvings._--The best representations of these\nare to be found in the work of Christy and Lartet given above.\n\n\nP. 19. The ideas which savages or primitive men associate with drawings\nor representations of things (as also with the _names_ of things) are\nsometimes exceedingly complex and difficult of apprehension--for us.\nThis the following example may show:--\n\nIn the earliest Egyptian tombs the beautiful and realistic drawings have\nlong attracted the attention of arch\u00e6ologists, both on account of their\nintrinsic merit, and from the curious contrast which they present to the\nmore conventional religious drawing and sculpture of a later date.\nThough the drawings of the first class are found exclusively upon the\nwalls of tombs, they have apparently no connection either with ideas of\ndeath or with religious observances. They seem to represent merely the\nearthly and secular life of the entombed man: here he is superintending\nhis labourers at their work, here he is hunting, here he is reclining at\nthe banquet and watching the performances of fools or dancing-girls.\nThis is what a mere study of the drawings suggests. A more complete\nstudy of the inscriptions which accompany them have, however, convinced\nEgyptian arch\u00e6ologists that the object of these wall-paintings is not\nmerely decorative or representative, in the sense in which drawings are\nrepresentative to us. Their essential use is what we may call magical.\nThey are believed to contain (and this is a universal savage belief as\ntouching drawings or sculptures of any kind) some elements of the things\nthey represent. Thus the tomb-paintings would be a kind of _doubles_ of\nthe things which the deceased enjoyed in this life. And they would be\nplaced in the tomb in order that the _double_ of the deceased (what the\nEgyptians called his _ka_) might enjoy the usufruct of them in the new\nstate.\n\nThis is the simplest _magic_ use of the copies or representation of\nthings in early Egyptian tombs. But the idea of the makers of these\ndrawings seems often to be more complicated than this. The drawings by\nbeing placed in the tombs are supposed to give the _ka_ of the deceased\n(_not_ in the tomb, but far away in the land of shades) the enjoyment of\nthe doubles of the things which he enjoyed in life. In this instance the\ndrawings are not the actual possessions which the dead man has, but they\ncorrespond to, or influence, or in a certain sense create in the land of\nshades new possessions, the doubles of the old.\n\nThese subtle and complex notions are by no means to be expressed by the\nconventional words _magic_, _animism_, etc., loosely thrown about by\nanthropologists.\n\n\nPp. 47 and 52. _Weaving._--The art of platting, which carries in it the\ngerm of the art of weaving, is of immemorial, undiscoverable antiquity.\nThere can hardly have been a time when men did not weave together twigs\nor reeds to form a rude tent covering--a primitive house. And one proof\nof the immense antiquity of this practice is given by the numerous names\nfor twigs, reeds, etc., in different languages which are derived from\nwords signifying to twist or weave. The word _weave_ itself (Ger.\n_weben_) is connected with a Sanskrit root _v\u00ea_, meaning much the same\nthing; and we find this same root _v\u00ea_ appearing again in the Latin,\n_vimen_ a twig, and _vitis_, a vine, the last so named from its\ntendrils, which we should judge were used for platting before they were\nused for producing grapes. From the same root, again, and for the same\nreason, are derived the Latin _viburnum_, briony; the Slavonic _wetle_,\nwillow; the Sanskrit _vetra_, reed. The Latin _scirpus_, reed, and the\nGreek \u03b3\u03c1\u1fd6\u03c6\u03bf\u03c2, a net, are allied; but these may not be\ninstances quite in point.\n\nSuch rude platting as this is a very different thing from the\nelaborately woven cloths found among the remains of the lake-villages,\nwhose construction involves also the art of _spinning_.\n\n\nP. 54. The view put forward in this chapter concerning the race of the\nneolithic men in Europe, is that which seems to the writer most\nconsistent with _all_ the facts known, concerning the distribution of\npre-historic man. As was said in the Preface, the students in different\nbranches of pre-historic inquiry have not begun yet to collate\nsufficiently the results of their researches, and their opinions\nsometimes clash. We have to reconcile the pre-historic anthropologist\nand the ethnologist with the student of comparative philology. Most of\nthe former are agreed that the earliest inhabitants of this quarter of\nthe globe were most allied in character to the Lapps and Finns; and were\nconsequently of what we have distinguished (Chapter V.) as the\nyellow-skinned family. But they are far from agreed that the\nbronze-using men were not of the same race; and some (Keller for\ninstance) are violently opposed to the notion that the substitution of\nmetal for stone was a sudden transition, and due to foreign importation.\nIn some instances there is evidence that the change was gradual.\n\nBut the evidence on the other side is stronger. The human remains found\nwith the bronze weapons are generally clearly distinguishable (in\nformation of skull, etc.) from those associated with the implements of\nstone. The funeral rites of the bronze-age men were as a rule different\nfrom those of the stone-age men; for while the former generally buried\ntheir dead, the latter seem generally to have burnt theirs (see Grimm,\n_Ueber das Verbrennen der Leichen_). Now we have strong reason for\nbelieving that the Aryan races (see Chapters IV., V.) practised this\nsort of interment; and we have further reason for thinking that the use\nof metals was known to them before their entry into Europe (see Pictet,\n_Les Origines Indo-Europ\u00e9ennes_ and Grimm, _Geschichte der deut.\nSprache_). Moreover, these Aryans unless their original home were in\nEurope (see p. 99, _note_), must have come in at some time, and when\nthey did come, they must have produced an entire revolution in the life\nof its inhabitants. No time seems so appropriate for their appearance as\nthat which closes the age of stone.\n\nThis theory does not preclude the possibility of, in many places, a\nside-by-side existence of stone users and bronze users, or even a\ngradual extension of the art of metallurgy; and these conditions would\nbe especially likely to arise in such secluded spots as the\nlake-dwellings. Therefore, Dr. Keller\u2019s arguments are not impeached by\nthe theory that the Aryans were the introducers of bronze into Europe.\n\n\nCHAPTERS III. AND IV.\n\n  Bopp, _Comparative Grammar of the Sanskrit Zend, etc._ (trs.).\n  Br\u00e9al, _Principes de Philologie Compar\u00e9e_.\n  Geiger, _Contributions to the History of the Development\n        of the Race_ (trs.).\n  Grimm, _Geschichte der deutschen Sprache_.\n  Grimm, _Ueber den Ursprung der Sprache_.\n  Kuhn, _Zeitschrift f\u00fcr vergleichende Sprachforschung_.\n  M\u00fcller, Max, _Lectures on the Science of Language_.\n  M\u00fcller, Max, _Sanskrit Literature_.\n  Peile, _Introduction to Greek and Latin Etymology_.\n  Pictet, _Les Origines Indo-Europ\u00e9ennes_.\n  Sayce, _Introduction to the Science of Language_.\n  Wilson, _Introduction to the Rig Veda Sanhita_.\n\nAgreeably to the plan enunciated in the first chapter (pp. 4-6) I have\nused up all the more generally admitted facts and theories to form what\nseemed to me a reasonable account of the growth of language; to form an\naccount too which should subserve one great end of this volume, by\nstimulating the thoughts of the reader at the same time that it pointed\nout the nature of the evidence upon which conclusions are founded,\nthereby preparing the reader to pursue the enquiry upon his own account.\n\nThe science of Comparative Philology is, however, in too unripe a\ncondition to allow us to speak with dogmatic assurance with regard to\nits inferences; even those which seem fundamental have been, and may\nagain, be called in question. It is right here, therefore, to remind the\nreader that it is quite upon the cards that further research may end by\nupsetting the generally accepted theory of the growth of inflexions in\nlanguage. Even now there is a school of philologists and anthropologists\nthat denies the premise upon which this theory rests--the _radical_\norigin of all language. This school maintains that, instead of speech\nbeginning in monosyllabic root-sounds, as is generally supposed, it\nbegins in extremely elaborate and complicated sounds which are in fact\nnothing else than sentences; that it is only by the wear and tear of use\nthat the sentence has got split up into its component sounds, which have\nthen taken the character of monosyllabic roots.\n\nThis theory was first set on foot by a writer (Waitz) who is an\nanthropologist rather than a student of language, and it might be\ndistinguished as the anthropological theory of the origin of speech. We\nhave no space here for a full discussion of its merits. It will be\nenough to indicate some _\u00e0 priori_ arguments in its favour.\n\n1. It would make the language of primitive man analogous to a state of\nthings which many people think they have discovered as typical of the\nmost primitive savages--namely, a state of society which, in its\ncustoms, marriage laws, etc., differs from modern society in being not\nmore simple, but infinitely more complex.\n\n2. This supposed original expressive sentence and its subsequent\nanalysis would have considerable analogy to what we ourselves have just\nseen is the history of writing, which begins with a more or less\nelaborate picture; then the parts of the picture are split up, and by\nthe wear and tear of frequent use these parts are added together in\nseparate items to form picture-_writing_, which is quite a different\nthing from picturing, and which is the immediate parent of writing as we\nknow it. An analogy of this kind cannot be without weight.\n\nOn the other hand, it must be pointed out that the strongest arguments\nin favour of this view are the _\u00e0 priori_ arguments. True, we do not\nknow enough of the languages of the world to speak with dogmatic\nassurance. But the history of all the languages which have been closely\nstudied points away from the anthropological theory.\n\nAgain, the first argument in favour of Waitz\u2019s theory is itself clearly\nfounded upon a paradox. It can scarcely be seriously maintained that\nwhile we can trace the growth of implements, such as spears and knives,\nfrom the simplest possible form upwards, such implements as speech and\nsocial laws have been ready made in a highly complex form. Argument\nnumber two serves to expose the grossness of this paradox. It would be\nas reasonable to maintain that mankind had begun by drawing pictures\nbefore they learnt to draw the elements out of which the pictures were\ncomposed.\n\nThe whole theory, therefore, belongs to the category of theories which\nexplain _obscurum per obscurius_. It may be, and no doubt is,\npractically impossible to explain in any _natural_ way how speech arose.\nBut at all events it is easier to understand how it may have arisen in a\nsimple form and grown to one more complex, than to imagine it beginning\nin a complex state and by detrition resolving into simple elements.\n\n\nP. 68. _Consonantal and vowel sounds._--The fact that even in Aryan\nroots the consonants have more weight than the vowel sounds will be\nevident merely from the instances given in the course of this and the\nfollowing chapter--_fly_, _flee_, _flew_ (_w_ is here a vowel sound);\n_night_, _Nacht_; _knight_, _Knecht_; _Raum_, _room_; _asmi_, _esmi_\n(_eimi_), _sum_, etc. This general rule holds good for almost all\nlanguages, and seems necessarily to do so from the stronger character of\nthe consonantal and the weaker character of the vowel sounds.\n\nBut the _relative_ importance of vowels and consonants is very different\nin different classes of language. In the Aryan tongues the essential\nroot is made up of vowels and consonants, and the variations upon the\nroot idea are _generally_ expressed by additions to the root and not by\ninternal changes in it. In this way, as we saw, most grammatical\ninflexions are made: hom-o, hom-inis, am-o, am-abam, \u03c4\u03cd\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9, \u1f12\u03c4\u03c5\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd,\n\u1f12\u03c4\u03c5\u03c8\u03bf\u03bd, etc. But in Semitic languages the root consists of\nthe consonants only, and the inflexions are produced by internal\nchanges, changes of the vowels which belong to a consonant. For example,\nin Arabic the three consonants _k-t-l_ (_katl_) represent the abstract\nnotion of the act of killing. From them we get _k\u00e1til_, one who kills;\n_kitl_ (pl. _aktal_), an enemy; _katala_, he slew; _kutila_, he was\nslain. From _z-r-b_ (_zarb_), the act of striking; _zarbun_, a striking\n(in concrete sense); _zar\u00e1bun_, a striker; _zaraba_, he struck;\n_zuriba_, he was struck. Compare these with occido, occidi, occisor, or\nwith \u03c4\u03cd\u03c0\u03c4\u03c9, \u03c4\u03ad\u03c4\u03c5\u03c6\u03b1, etc., and we see that in the Aryan tongues\nthe radical remains almost unchanged, and the inflexions are made _ab\nextra_; but in the Semitic language the inflexions are made by changes\nof vowel sound within the framework of the root consonants.\n\nThe usual grammatical root in Arabic is composed of three consonants, as\nin the examples given above. Most of the Semitic languages are in too\nfully formed a state to allow us to see whether or no these roots, which\nare of course at the least dissyllabic, grew up out of single sounds;\nbut a comparison with some languages of the Semitic family (_e.g._\nEgyptian) which are still near to their early radical state, show us\nthat they have probably done so.\n\nThe Coptic language, which is the nearest we can get to the tongue of\nthe ancient Egyptians, is extremely interesting in that it displays the\nprocesses of grammar formation, as has just been said, in a more\nintelligible shape than we find in the higher Semitic tongues.\n\n\nP. 98. We are here speaking, be it remembered, of families of\n_language_. The ethnology of a people is not necessarily the same as its\nlanguage; so that when we speak of a family of language including the\ntongues of a certain number of races, we do not imply that they were\nwholly of the same ethnic family. This caution is especially necessary\nas regards the earliest great pre-historic nations who seem to have been\nwhat are called Cushites--anything but pure Semites (see Chapter\nV.)--but whose languages may properly be ranged in the Semitic family.\nThe Egyptian, for instance, was more nearly monosyllabic than any other\nSemitic tongue (Chapter XIII.); yet such inflexions as it has show an\nevident relationship with Hebrew and other Semitic languages (see\nAppendix to Bunsen\u2019s _Egypt\u2019s Place in Universal History_).\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\n  Brugsch, _Recueils de Monuments \u00c9gyptiens_.\n  Brugsch, _Histoire d\u2019\u00c9gypt_.\n  Brugsch, _Mat\u00e9riaux pour servir_, etc.\n  Bunsen, _Egypt\u2019s Place_, etc. (ed. Dr. Birch).\n  Ebers, _Egyptian History_.\n  Flower, W. H., _Races of Men_.\n  Legge, _Chinese Classics, with Introduction, etc._\n  Lenormant, _Manual of the Ancient History of the East_ (trs.).\n  Lepsius, _Chronologie der Egypten_.\n  Mariette Pasha, _Abr\u00e9g\u00e9 de l\u2019Histoire d\u2019\u00c9gypte_.\n  Maspero, _Histoire Ancienne des Peuples de l\u2019Orient_.\n  Maury, _Le Livre et l\u2019Homme_.\n  Rawlinson, _Herodotus, with Notes_.\n  Rawlinson, _Five Great Monarchies_, etc.\n  Roug\u00e9 (Vte. de), _Examen de l\u2019Ouvrage de M. Bunsen_.\n  Sayce, _Ancient Empires of the East_.\n  Tylor, _Anthropology_.\n\n\nP. 119. The word Turanian is untenable as an ethnic term. It can be\nused--though with a somewhat loose signification--to distinguish those\nlanguages which are in the agglutinative stage. But the reader must be\ncareful not to suppose that it comprises a class of nearly allied\npeoples, as the Aryan and Semitic families of language, upon the whole,\ndo. The only race which includes the Turanian peoples of Europe and Asia\nincludes also those who speak monosyllabic languages: this is the yellow\nrace, and is of course a division of the widest possible kind.\n\n\nP. 122. Touching the relationship of the Egyptians to the negroes a\nvariety of opinions are held. There can be no question that their types\nof face forbid us to doubt that there was some relationship between\nthem; while the representations of negroes upon the ancient monuments of\nEgypt show that from the remotest historical period there was a marked\ndistinction between the peoples, and that from that early time till now\nthe negroes have not changed in the smallest particular of ethnical\ncharacter. On the other hand, many people consider the Egyptians and the\nAccadians to have been essentially the same people, the Cushites--or as\nsome call them Hamites--a race which perhaps anciently spread from\nSusiana across Arabia and the Red Sea to Abyssinia and Egypt.\n\n\nP. 123. The names _Chald\u00e6an_ and _Assyrian_ are used with a variety of\nsignifications by Orientalists, and in a way likely to be confusing to\nthe general reader. He will do well, therefore, to bear the following\nfacts in mind:--\n\n1. The Tigris and the Euphrates, after both taking their rise in the\nCalesh\u00een Dagh mountain in the Armenian highlands, soon separate by a\nwide sweep, the Euphrates flowing south-west and towards the\nMediterranean, the Tigris flowing south-east towards the Persian Gulf.\nBut instead of flowing _into_ the Mediterranean, the Euphrates again\nturns first due south, then south-east, so that it thenceforward flows\nparallel with the Tigris. They approach nearer and nearer, until about\nBagdad they are separated by some twenty miles only; but here they once\nmore begin to increase the distance between them, and do not again\napproach until just before they unite to fall into the Persian Gulf. In\nancient days they never united, as the Persian Gulf spread more than a\nhundred miles farther inland than it does to-day.\n\nThe territory enclosed between these two great streams, with the\naddition of some territory to the east of the Tigris and west of the\nEuphrates, is that which the Greeks called Mesopotamia. Lower\nMesopotamia begins about the point where the streams approach the\nnearest, and this Lower Mesopotamia is the territory distinguished by\nthe name _Chald\u00e6a_.\n\nTerritorially this Chald\u00e6a was in ancient days divided into two\ndistricts--Sh\u00fbmir in the south, and Accad in the north.\n\nThe earliest known inhabitants of these districts were a Turanian race,\nwho from their territorial possessions should properly be called the\nSh\u00fbmir-Accadians or Sh\u00fbmiro-Accadians. But it is common to call them\nsimply Accadians (or Accad), and their language, an agglutinative or\nTuranian one, Accadian likewise.\n\nHere therefore is the first element of confusion--between the smaller\nterritorial division, Accadia, and the larger ethnic division, which\nincludes all the primitive inhabitants of Chald\u00e6a.\n\n2. But there mingled with these primitive Accadians a Semitic race, and\ngradually transformed them, so that the speech of the country changed\nfrom being a Turanian or agglutinative, to being a Semitic and inflected\nlanguage.\n\nNow, these Semitic people are probably the Chald\u00e6ans of the Bible; at\nany rate the Bible seems to take no account of the primitive Turanian\nstock. Its Chald\u00e6ans are a people allied by nationality to the Shemites,\nthough perhaps so far mixed with an earlier stock as to be what we may\ncall proto-Semitic.\n\nHere is the second element of confusion, a confusion between the\nunchanged land of Chald\u00e6a and the two races who in succession inhabited\nit.\n\n3. Finally, the language of the Semitic (or proto-Semitic) Chald\u00e6ans was\npractically the same as that of the people who rose into a nation in\nUpper Mesopotamia, viz. the Assyrians. The Assyrians, as is said in\nChapter V., founded an empire which overthrew the ancient Chald\u00e6an or\nBabylonian empire,--for from its largest town the empire is also called\nthe Babylonian--and was in its turn overthrown by an alliance between\nthe revolted Babylon and the King of Media.\n\nThe third element of confusion then arises from applying to the language\nof the Semitic Chald\u00e6ans the name Assyrian, which involves no\nparticipation in the empire of the Assyrians.\n\nIt is probable that these elements of confusion have not always been\navoided in the preceding chapters. But with the aid of this note they\nwill no longer present difficulties to the reader.\n\nIt will be seen that both the Egyptians and Chald\u00e6ans of Genesis, chap.\nx., are a Semitic people so far as regards the character of their\nlanguage, and belong in the main to the white race. So far as regards\ntheir ethnic character, they were probably more mixed than the peoples\n(Hebrews, Assyrians proper, etc.) who are called the children of Shem,\nand therefore we may call them proto-Semitic.\n\nThe term Hamitic is altogether misleading, and had better be unused in\nethnical classifications. The real meaning, if we follow the intention\nof its use in the Bible, is to distinguish from the purer Semites\n(Hebrews, Moabites, etc.) what we may call the proto-Semites; that is, a\nnumber of races, such as the Egyptians and Chald\u00e6ans, as well as the\nCanaanites generally, who spoke Semitic languages, but were very\nprobably of impure blood, very likely of Semitic and Turanian\nintermixture. If the word Hamitic be used to include the rest of the\ninhabitants of the world who were not Semitic or Aryan, then, though it\nwill not be very useful, no objection can be taken to its employment.\nBut in that case we shall be obliged, forming our classification by the\nknown rather than by the unknown, to include the Canaanites (who spoke\nSemitic languages) in the Semitic family; and this will be in direct\ncontradiction to the use of Hamitic in the Bible narrative.\n\n\nCHAPTERS VI. AND VII.\n\n  Coulanges, _La Cit\u00e9 Antique_.\n  Grimm, _Deutsche Rechts-Alterth\u00fcmer_.\n  Lavalaye, _La Propri\u00e9t\u00e9 et ses Formes Primitives_.\n  Maine, _Ancient Law_.\n  Maine, _Village Communities_.\n  Maine, _Early Institutions_.\n  Maurer, _Geschichte der Dorf-Verfassung_.\n  Nasse, _Agricultural Communities of the Middle Ages_ (translated by Ouvry).\n  Pictet, _Les Origines Indo-Europ\u00e9ennes_.\n\nIn the account here given of the two most important social forms, the\npatriarchal family and the village community, the endeavour has been\nrather to present such a picture of them as may exhibit their chief\npeculiarities in a sufficiently clear and striking manner, than to enter\ninto a minute examination of the various remains from which the picture\nhas been constructed. It must not be supposed, however, that the\nrepresentations here given can be completely verified from existing\ninformation. They are rather to be looked upon as typical of what these\nforms may have been in their earliest stage and under favourable\ncircumstances. We only meet with traces of them when undergoing decay.\nAlthough the writer fully recognizes the importance of the researches of\nMcLellan and others concerning the earlier conditions of society, no\nattempt has been made to give an account of the results which have been\narrived at in this field of inquiry. Two reasons may be assigned for\nthis omission. Firstly, the intrinsic difficulties of treating the\nsubject in a manner suitable to the \u2018general reader\u2019 are, it is\nconceived, a sufficient excuse for the omission. Secondly, the results\nat present attained are so vague that the mere statement of them would\nbe valueless without entering into great detail. All that can as yet\nfairly be regarded as established is either that the Aryan and Semitic\nraces have at one time possessed social customs and practices similar to\nthose which are found in the most barbarous people; or that they have\nduring some period of their history so far amalgamated with, or been\ninfluenced by, other races that had just emerged from this state, as to\nabsorb into their traditions and customs traces of a social condition of\na much lower and more primitive kind than that in which we first find\nthem. If we try to form any conception of what the earlier state may\nhave been, we at once see that the results at present attained are\nalmost purely negative. All that can be predicated is that at one time a\nlarge proportion of the human race did _not_ possess the notions of the\nfamily and the marriage tie which were entertained by people in the\npatriarchal state; that they did _not_ trace blood relationship in the\nsame way. What particular customs immediately preceded or led to the\npatriarchal family, whether this latter is to be considered as the\noriginal social type, and the lower forms are to be regarded as derived\nfrom it, or _vice vers\u00e2_--to these questions no satisfactory answer can\nat present be given.\n\nEach step indeed in social change is to be looked upon, to a great\nextent, as simply a phenomenon to be noted, the causes for which it is\nimpossible to determine accurately. This is especially the case with the\nvillage community. The extent of its distribution would incline one to\nthe belief that it is a natural or necessary result of a certain stage\nof social development; while the elaborate and artificial nature of its\nconstruction points to the probability of some common origin from which\nits developments might be traced. The greatest difficulty, however, lies\nin trying to assign to this institution its due effect on civilization:\nfor it is frequently found in close combination with institutions to\nwhich its spirit seems most strongly opposed. Thus while we find it\nflourishing among the Germanic tribes, we also discover among them a\ntendency to the custom of primogeniture much more marked than is\ndiscoverable among other Aryan races. Yet this custom scarcely seems to\nfind a place in the pure village community beyond the limits of each\nindividual household. At the same time the patriarchal power was\ncertainly less among the Germans than among the early Romans, and\nprobably also less than among the Slavs.\n\n\nCHAPTERS VIII.-XI.\n\n  Bournouf, _Commentaire sur le Ya\u00e7na_.\n  Bugge, _S\u00e6mundar Edda_.\n  Bunsen, _God in History_ (trs.).\n  Bunsen, _Egypt\u2019s Place_, etc.\n  Busching, _Nibelungen Lied_.\n  Cox, _Mythology of the Aryan Nations_.\n  Edda den \u00e6ldra ok Snorra.\n  Grimm, Deutsche Mythologie.\n  Grimm, Ueber das Verbr. der Leichen.\n  Grimm, Heldenbuch.\n  Keary, Outlines of Primitive Belief.\n  Kuhn, Herabkunft des Feuers.\n  Kuhn, _Sagen, Gebr\u00e4uche u. M\u00e4hrchen_.\n  Kuhn, in _Zeitsch f. v. Sp._ and _Z. f. deut. Alt_.\n  Lang, _Myth, Ritual, and Religion_.\n  Lepsius, _Todtenbuch_.\n  Maspero, _Histoire Ancienne_, etc.\n  M\u00fcller, Op. cit.\n  M\u00fcller, _Lectures on the Science of Religion_.\n  M\u00fcller, _Chips from a German Workshop_.\n  M\u00fcller, _Origin and Growth of Religion_ (Hibbert Lectures).\n  M\u00fcller, _Sacred Books of the East_, vol. iv. Zend Avesta (Darmesteter).\n  Preller, _Griechische Mythologie_.\n  Ralston, _Songs of the Russian People_.\n  Ralston, _Russian Folk-tales_.\n  Rawlinson, Op. cit.\n  Roug\u00e9 (Vte. de), _\u00c9tudes sur le Rituel des \u00c9gypt_.\n  Sayce, _Religion of the Ancient Babylonians_.\n  Simrock, _Handbuch der. d. Myth_.\n  Tiele, _Outlines of the History of Religion_ (trs.).\n  Vigfusson and Powell, _Corpus Poeticum Boreale_.\n  Welcker, _Griechische G\u00f6tterlehre_.\n  Wuttke, _Deutsche Volksaberglaube_.\n\nThe origin and history of religion and mythology is (as we might expect)\na matter of keen controversy; and I cannot anticipate that the reader\nwould rise from the perusal of all the books given in the above list\nwith his mind not confused upon many points on which they touch. To\nexplain the position taken up in Chapters VIII.-XI., I will add the\nfollowing notes, which may help the reader over some difficult and\ndisputed questions.\n\n1. In the first place, we have confined our attention altogether to the\nessential framework of the religious system or the myth-system with\nwhich we were concerned. The _irrational element_ is omitted, and the\nmere process of omitting this relieves us from entering upon many points\nwhich are strongly controverted at this moment. For instance, the work\nof Mr. A. Lang cited above (and which I specially mention here, as it is\na good deal upon the _tapis_ at the present moment) is altogether\noccupied in combating a certain theory of Mr. Max M\u00fcller\u2019s, that the\nirrational element in Aryan mythologies (Greek and Sanskrit especially)\ncould be shown to have arisen in most instances from _an abuse of\nlanguage_, or, more exactly, from an oblivion of the true meaning of\nsome essential word or name contained in the myth, whereby a wholly\nmistaken and wholly irrational element has been incorporated into the\nhistory of the god or hero.\n\nThis theory Mr. A. Lang combats by adducing the evidence that these\nirrational parts in mythology may be _survivals_ of thought from an\nearlier age in the history of the people, when what seemed irrational\n(and often disgusting) to their literary successors, and seems\nirrational and disgusting to us, seemed neither one nor the other.\n\nInto this controversy we are not required to enter. But it is important\nto point out to the reader how completely this lies outside the sphere\nof study which we have chosen; the more so because, through some\ncriticisms of Mr. Lang\u2019s book, a notion has gained currency (among those\npresumably who have not read the book in question) that Mr. Lang has\nrevolutionized the whole study of religion and mythology, whereas he\nonly proposes to deal with one section, and that a small one, of it.\n\nNor can it fairly be said that we are bound in these chapters to pay\nmuch attention to the _irrational element_ in belief. If we were writing\na complete treatise upon flint implements, we should be bound to include\nnot only those flints which had been clearly chipped with a definite\ndesign, and which followed well-established forms, but with pieces of\nabnormal shape, and even with flakes and cores, the _detritus_, so to\nsay, which had been left aside when the more available flints had been\nchosen. If, again, we were dealing completely with the history of\nvillage communities or systems of land tenure, we should be bound in\nlike fashion to treat of abnormal as well as normal forms. But obviously\nthat is not what is expected in the chapters of this book. We only\nprofess to treat of early civilization under its more usual aspects and\nin its completest form. So with early beliefs; we only profess to\nconcern ourselves with what is rational and normal in the creeds with\nwhich we are dealing.\n\nThere are always certain drawbacks, certain new liabilities to error,\nwhich follow the step of each fresh advance in science. The shadow of\nthis kind which attends the comparative method which had been adopted\nwith such splendid results, not only in many natural sciences, but in\nalmost all branches of pre-historic study--the comparative study of\nlaws, institutions, language, myths, and creeds--is a tendency to\nconfound the condition of these things with which we are actually\nconcerned with their condition at some previous time. As Mr. Tylor\nadmirably says about language, that, interesting as it is to trace the\nhistory of words, our understanding of their actual meaning is not\nalways facilitated by a misty sense that at some previous time they\nmeant something else, so we may say of many other things--laws, for\nexample, and customs, or, still more, myths and religions.\n\nIt will be obvious, for instance, that our appreciation of the place in\nhistory of certain personages will be very little affected by tracing\nsome of the stories told about them to quite different countries and\nperiods in the history of the world. Suppose (for example) that we\nshould find in New Zealand legends a story closely analogous to the\nstory of Harold\u2019s oath to William the Bastard. It would be by no means\nsafe to affirm that, if we sifted the multitudinous legends of the\nworld, we should not be able to find some pretty close analogy to\nWilliam\u2019s celebrated trick of concealing the venerated relics beneath\nthe altar. How, it may be asked, would such a discovery affect our\nestimate of the parts which William and Harold played as the rival\nclaimants for the English throne? If the reader can answer that question\nhe can decide the influence which studies into the religion of the\nMaoris or Andaman Islanders are likely to have over his estimate of the\n_rational_ parts of an historic creed. Such a discovery as we have\nimagined would suggest the possibility that some remote channel of\ntradition had fathered an old myth upon Harold and William. But it would\ngive us no clue as to how well it fitted upon their characters, how far\nit gained general currency at the time. Upon these questions alone\ndepends our estimate of the position which the two historic personages\noccupied in the world of their day. For a story which is generally\nbelieved is almost the same as a story which is true.\n\nOr, if the reader prefers a story which is really a myth, take the\nhistory of Hasting at the siege of Luna, with which most readers will be\nacquainted, and how he gained an entry into the town by feigning death\nand obtaining that his body should be carried within the walls for\nChristian burial. _That_ is undoubtedly a myth; it is found to be\nsporadic among the histories of the Vikings and of the Normans, their\ndescendants. Should we discover that a very similar story has been\ncurrent among the Incas of Peru, how far could that discovery affect our\nestimate of the supposed character of Hasting?\n\nWhen the reader has made up his mind upon this subject he will be in a\nposition, we have said, to estimate the weight which we ought to attach\nto discoveries of this kind in reference to historic creeds; because the\nheroes of these creeds are evidently in the position of historic\npersonages for those who hold the belief. As long as the Norsemen think\nthat they hear Odin rushing along at night upon his horse Sleipnir, Odin\nis for them an historic personage; as long as Greeks think that it is\nZeus who is \u2018thundering from Ida,\u2019 Zeus is as real to them as William\nthe Bastard was to the English nation--more real than Hasting was to\nDudo. And I maintain that an understanding of what the Greeks thought\nabout Zeus, or the Norsemen about Odin, is very little furthered by (in\nMr. Tylor\u2019s words) a vague notion that at some other time they thought\nsomething quite different.\n\nWe may, however, legitimately go a little way behind the date of our\ndocuments. Our comprehension of the feudal system of land tenure is not\nmuch assisted by comparing it with systems in use among the Zulus; but\nit is useful to study the land tenure prevalent among the German\nnationalities before the feudal system properly so called was\nintroduced. In the same way, behind the actual religious ideas shadowed\nforth in the Vedic hymns, in Homer, or in the Eddaic poems, we may, I\nmaintain, legitimately go back to a time when the divine beings of these\ncreeds were more nearly identified with natural phenomena out of which\nthey sprang. It is just this condition of the Aryan creeds which I have\nsought to portray in the chapters devoted to the subject. In the actual\ndocuments before us the gods of Greece or Scandinavia do not take the\nguise of the heaven, or the sun, or the wind. But enough remains in\ntheir natures to show that it was out of these phenomena that they\nemerged to become the independent personalities which we know. This is\nwhat is meant by the _nature_ or _origins_ of Indra, Zeus, Odin, etc.,\nas the expressions are used above.\n\n\nP. 195. I take the liberty of transcribing a passage from Mr. Max\nM\u00fcller\u2019s Lectures on the Science of Religion.\n\n\u2018One of the oldest names of the deity, among the Semitic nations, was\nEl. It meant strong. It occurs in the Babylonian inscriptures as Ilu,\nGod, and in the very name of Bab-il, the gate or temple of Il. In\nHebrew, it occurs both in its general sense, as strong, or hero, and as\na name of God. We have it in _Beth-el_, the House of God, and in many\nother names. If used with the article as ha-El, the Strong One, or the\nGod, it always is meant in the Old Testament for Jehovah, the true God.\nEl, however, always retained its appellative power, and we find it\napplied therefore, in parts of the Old Testament, to the God of the\nGentiles also.\n\n\u2018The same El was worshipped at Byblus, by the Ph\u0153nicians, and he was\ncalled there the Son of Heaven and Earth. His father was the son of\nEliun, the most high god, who had been killed by wild animals. The son\nof Eliun who succeeded him was dethroned, and at last slain by his own\nson _El_, whom Philo identifies with the Greek Kronos, and represents as\nthe presiding deity of the planet Saturn. In the Himyaritic inscriptions\ntoo the name of El has been discovered.\n\n\u2018With the name of El, Philo connected the name of Elohim, the plural of\nEloah. In the battle between _El_ and his father, the allies of El, he\nsays, were called Eloeim, as those who were with Kronos were called\nKronioi. This is no doubt a very tempting etymology of _Eloah_; but as\nthe best Semitic scholars, and particularly Professor Fleischer, have\ndeclared against it, we shall have, however reluctantly, to surrender\nit.\n\n\u2018Eloah is the same word as the Arabic Il\u00e2h, God. In the singular,\n_Eloah_ is used synonymously with El; in the plural, it may mean gods in\ngeneral, or false gods: but it becomes in the Old Testament the\nrecognized name for the true God, plural in form but singular in\nmeaning. In Arabic Il\u00e2h without the article means a god in general; with\nthe article Al-Il\u00e2h, or All\u00e2h, becomes the name of the God of Abraham\nand Moses.\u2019\n\n\nP. 197. _Nature-Worship._--The part which the phenomena of nature play\nin training the thoughts of uncultivated men toward religion, and\npoetry, and hero-worship, and legendary lore, has been made the subject\nof warm controversy. And it may not be altogether amiss if we bestow a\nlittle thought upon the question, and upon the character of evidence by\nwhich this nature-worship is thought to be established.\n\nThat it is in no sense a degradation of our estimate of man to suppose\nthat his thoughts were led upward from the contemplation of the objects\nof sense which lay around to the contemplation of a Higher Being beyond\nthe region of sensible things, will become, it is to be hoped, clear\nupon a little reflection, and upon a candid examination of what has been\nsaid in pp. 173-176. But still it may fairly be asked, Did this process\nof deifying the powers of nature take place? Why should not the human\nmind have come independently by the direct revelation of God\u2019s voice\nspeaking in the hearts of men to a notion of a God ruler of the world,\nand then, by a natural process of decay, proceed thence to a polytheism,\na pantheon of beings who were supposed to rule over the different\nphenomena of nature, just as the different members of a cabinet hold\nsway over the various branches of national government?\n\nThis was, until comparatively recent years, the received opinion\nconcerning mythology, and it is one which tacitly keeps its place in the\nwritings of many scholars, especially of those who have been brought up\nalmost exclusively upon the study of classical languages and classical\nreligions: for it is only after a wide study, and a comparison of many\ndifferent religions in many different stages, that the conviction of the\nopposite truth forces itself upon one. It is obvious that for the\npurpose of a scientific knowledge of the formation of religious systems,\nwe must not observe them in their fullest development, but rather turn\nto such of their brother-religions as have remained in a more stunted\ncondition. Nor, again, should we deal, except very cautiously, with an\nextremely imaginative people, like the Greeks; for with them changes\nfrom any primitive form will be much more rapid and more complete than\nthe changes in some more meagre systems. The fragmentary Teutonic myths,\nand the relics of these in medi\u00e6val superstition, are for this purpose\nsometimes more trustworthy than those of Greece; and partly on this\naccount, partly because they are less familiar to the reader, we have\ndrawn largely upon them for illustration in our chapters upon Aryan\nreligion and Folk-tales.\n\nThe most useful of all, however, is the religion of the Vedas, in so far\nas the Vedas give us an insight into the earliest faith of the people of\nIndia. Here we may often detect the etymology of a name which would be\ninexplicable if we only knew it in Greek or Latin and Norse. We have\nseen how this is the case in respect of the word Dy\u00e2us; and how the\netymology of this word clearly shows, what from themselves we should\nnever discover, that Zeus and Jupiter and Tyr are names which had\noriginally the same meaning as a natural phenomenon. We say\n_originally_, because the Sanskrit is found by numberless examples\n(whereof we gave one, _duhitar_) to show an origin for many words whose\norigin is lost in other Aryan languages, and therefore to stand nearest\nto the primitive tongue of the Aryans. In this lies the whole force of\nthe argument. If the old Aryans once used the same word for \u2018heaven\u2019 and\nfor \u2018god,\u2019 it is impossible to believe that they had the power of\nseparating at will the two ideas which we receive from these two words:\nfor an examination of formal logic shows us that notions do not become\ncompletely distinguishable until they receive individual names. The\ninference is obvious that a considerable number, at any rate, of the\ngods of our Aryan ancestors were nature-gods in the strictest sense.\n\nIt is equally true, however, that such divinities tend to fall into\ncertain forms, and accommodate themselves to ideals which, or the germs\nof which, we may believe pre-existed in the human mind. It is thus that\nwe have noticed the sun-gods and the heaven-gods fulfilling their\nseparate functions, and answering to certain defined needs in the human\nheart.\n\n\nP. 230. _Persephon\u00ea and Balder._--The true _tragedy_ of the death of\nsummer is in the Norse religion portrayed in the myth of Balder, the\nsun-god, which in respect of its force and intention fully answers to\nthe Persephon\u00ea myth. It has often been a subject of surprise that\nBalder\u2019s-bale, Balder\u2019s death, was not celebrated at a time of year\nappropriate to mourning for the loss of the sun-god, but at the summer\nsolstice, when Balder attains his fullest might and brightest splendour.\nWhy choose such a day as that to think of his mournful bedimming in the\nwintry months? It seems to show a strange, gloomy, and forecasting\nnature on the part of our Norse ancestors to be always reflecting that\nin the midst of life--in the midst of our brightest, fullest life--we\nare in death.\n\nI imagine that the custom of celebrating Balder\u2019s-bale in this way arose\nnot entirely from the desire to preach this melancholy sermon; though in\npart no doubt this desire was the cause of it. It arose also from a\ndramatic instinct inducing men for the sake of a strong contrast to\nsurround the sun-god with all the images of summer at the time when they\nwere thinking of his death. It gives a dramatic intensity to the moment;\nand thus it corresponds exactly with the picture of Persephon\u00ea playing\nin the meadows in spring-time surrounded by all the attributes of\nspring, just as Hades rises from the earth to bear her for ever from the\nlight of day.\n\n\nP. 241. _Thanatos._--Thanatos and Hypnos belong to the region of\nallegory rather than pure mythology. For in pure mythology the place of\nthe first is taken by Hades. In Vedic mythology their part is played by\nthe two S\u00e2ramayas; one probably chiefly a divinity of Death, the other\nof Sleep, and the two being brothers, as of course Death and Sleep are.\n\nIt has been suggested that among a group of figures sculptured upon the\ndrum of a column brought from the Artemesium (Temple of Diana) at\nEphesus, one is a representation of Thanatos, Death. The figure is that\nof a boy, as young and comely as Love, but of a somewhat passive\nexpression, and with a sword girt upon his thigh, which Eros never\nwears. His right hand is raised as though he were beckoning: and with\nhim stand D\u00eam\u00eat\u00ear and Hermes, both divinities connected with the rites\nof the dead. Save in this instance--if it be an instance--Thanatos is\nunknown to early Greek art. Hypnos when he appears wears a fair womanish\nface with closed eyes, scarcely distinguishable from the artistic\nrepresentation of the Gorgon. As the moon, this last is in some sense a\nbeing of sleep and death.\n\n\nP. 255. Myths and the rules of their interpretation have been made of\nlate years the subject of controversy almost as keen as that which has\nraged round that primary question concerning the existence of\n_nature-worship_ which we have discussed above. In this (XI.) and the\nprevious chapters the writers have endeavoured to keep before the reader\nonly those features in a myth which are essential towards the\ninformation we are seeking. For instance, the number of myths which can\nin any system be traced to the phenomena of the sun is a matter of the\nhighest importance, as showing the influence which a certain set of\nphenomena had upon the national mind: but of much less significance is\nthe question of the exact origin of the different features in these\nlegendary tales. If any given tale be found to originate _solely_ in a\nconfusion of language, a mistaken, misinterpreted epithet, then it has\nalmost no interest for us as an interpreter of the popular thought and\nfeeling: unless indeed the shape which the story takes should reproduce\n(as it probably will) some one of the universal forms which seem to\nstand ready in the human mind for the moulding of its legends.\n\nWith regard to the particular question of sun (and other nature) myths\nand their occurrence, the question which stands between rival disputants\nis something of this sort: \u2018All myths, that is, all primitive legends,\u2019\nsays one party which may be regarded as the philological school, \u2018are\nfound, if we examine closely enough into the meaning of the proper names\nwhich occur in them, to represent originally some natural phenomenon,\nwhich is in nine cases out of ten (at least for southern nations) a\nstory of some part of the sun\u2019s daily course, some one of his\ninnumerable aspects.\u2019 \u2018Is it conceivable,\u2019 say their opponents (we may\ncall these the anthropologists) \u2018that man could ever have been in such a\ncondition that all his attention was turned upon the workings of nature\nor upon the heavenly bodies? Far more probable is it, that these stories\narose from a variety of natural causes, real traditions of some hero,\nreminiscences of historical events transformed in the mist of\nexaggeration, or the legacy of days when men had strange and almost\ninconceivable ideas about the world they live in, when they thought\nanimals spoke and had histories like men, that men could and frequently\ndid become trees, and trees men, etc., etc. Indeed, so strange and\nsenseless are the notions of primitive men, that it is wasted labour to\ntry and interpret them.\u2019 This is a rough statement of the two heads of\nargument. The second, so far as merely negative, must fall before\npositive proof, as that the nature-myth hidden in an immense number of\nstories can be by philology satisfactorily unravelled. There is,\nhowever, also positive proof on the other side, when many stories, which\nas nature-myths interpreted on philological principles should only have\nexisted among the people of a particular linguistic family, are found\namong other races who have no real relation whatever to the first.\n\nBoth these sets of facts can be adduced, and to reconcile them in every\ncase would no doubt be hard. On the whole, however, it will perhaps be\nfound that, as has just been said, certain moulds for the construction\nof stories seem to exist already in the human mind, obeying some natural\ncraving, and into these, as into a Procrustean bed, the myth more or\nless easily must fit. These primitive forms do not, however, preclude\nthe undoubted existence--strange as such a phenomenon may appear--of an\nespecial mythop\u00e6ic age connected with man\u2019s observations of the\nphenomena of nature--an age in which natural religions gained their\nfoundation, and when the doings of the external world had a much deeper\neffect upon man\u2019s imagination than in later times they have ever had.\n\n\nP. 266. Thor\u2019s journey to the house of giant Utgardloki (out-world\nfire--fire of the under-world of Chapter X., and Chapter XI., p.\n278)--is not told in the elder Edda, but appears at some length in the\nEdda of Snorro (Daemis\u00f6gur 44-48). There can be little question of the\nantiquity of the tale, closely connected as it is with the labours of\nHercules as well as with all the most important elements in the Norse\nmythology. But it may very easily be that it has undergone some\nmodifications before appearing in its present form; and we should be\nnaturally inclined to signalise as modern additions those parts of the\nstory which have an allegorical rather than a truly mythical character.\nAllegory is a thing altogether distinct from real myth, and when it\nsprings up shows that the mythical character of the story is falling\ninto oblivion. The former is a growth of self-conscious fancy, while the\nlatter is the child of genuine belief. For instance--as an illustration\nof the difference between allegory and mythology--I should be inclined\nto signalise the appearance of the beings Logi (fire) and Elli (old age)\nas a fanciful, an invented element in the story. Logi and Elli are not\nimportant enough to be genuine deities of Fire and Age. In fact, the\nformer element has already received its personification in the person of\nLoki. Yet the incidents with which they are associated may well have\nformed an integral character of the older legend; and in the case of\nElli I feel pretty sure they must have done so.\n\nWhat I imagine to have been the real case is this. Thor\u2019s journey to\nUtgardloki is a story closely parallel to the myth of the Death of\nBalder, and tells once more the story of the sun-god descending to the\nunder-world. This fact is clearly shown by the name of the giant, who is\nnothing else than a personification of the funeral fire, the fire which\nsurrounds the abode of souls (pp. 275, 278). All the powers with whom\nThor strives are personifications in some way of death--all, or almost\nall. He tugs as he thinks at a cat and cannot lift it from the ground;\nbut the cat is Jormundgandr, the great mid-earth serpent, in part the\npersonification of the sea, but also (by reason of this) the\npersonification of the devouring hell \u2018rapax Orcus\u2019 (compare Cerberus\nand the S\u00e2rameyas, and notice the middle age change of Orcus to Ogre).\nHe (or, in the story as we now have it, Loki) contends with a\npersonification of the death-fire, not with a mere allegorical\nrepresentation of fire in its common aspect. And again he contends not\nwith Elli, old age, but with Hel, the goddess of the under-world.\n\nThis is the original form into which I read back the mythical journey to\nUtgardloki. It is easy to see how the story got changed. Loki is made to\naccompany Thor instead of to fight against him; the later mythologists\nnot being able to understand how Loki could sometimes be a god and dwell\nin Asgard, sometimes be a giant of Jotunheim. With this change the\nothers would easily creep in. Logi is invented to fight with Loki, and\nElli in place of Hel appears in obedience to a desire for allegory in\nthe place of true myth.\n\n\nCHAPTERS XII. AND XIII.\n\n  Edkins, _Introduction to Study of the Chinese Characters_.\n  Lenormant, _Essai sur la Propagation de l\u2019Alphabet Ph\u00e9nicien_.\n  Mahaffy, _Prolegomena to History_.\n  Rawlinson, _Five Monarchies_.\n  Roug\u00e9 (Vte de), _Origine \u00c9gyptienne de l\u2019Alphabet Ph\u00e9nicien_.\n  Taylor, _The Alphabet_.\n  Tylor, _Early History of Mankind_.\n\nNone of the Semitic alphabets can be considered as quite complete; as a\ncomplete alphabet requires a subdivision of sounds into their smallest\ndivisions, and an appropriate sign for each of these. But none of the\nSemitic alphabets in their original forms seem to have possessed these\nqualifications. They never get nearer to the expression of vowel sounds\nthan by letters which may be considered half vowels. Each of their\nconsonants (in Ph\u0153nician, Hebrew, Arabic) carried a vowel sound with\nit, and was therefore a syllabic sign and not a true letter.\n\nNo account is here given of the theory that the Chinese and the\nBabylonian writing are derived from the same source, as this new and\nstartling theory is not sufficiently upon the _tapis_ to be treated of\nin a book of this kind. The reader who is desirous of informing himself\nupon the subject may do so (as far as is yet possible) by obtaining the\npamphlet by M. Terrien de la Couperie, _Early History of Chinese\nCivilization_, wherein this theory was first expounded, as also another\nand subsequent _brochure_, _History of Archaic Chinese Writing_.\n\n\nCHAPTER XIV.\n\n  Curtius, _History of Greece_ (trs.).\n  Gibbon, with notes by Milman, etc.\n  Latham, _Germania of Tacitus_.\n  Latham, _Nationalities of Europe_.\n  Von Maurer, Op. cit.\n  Mommsen, _Die unterital. Dialekten_.\n  Mommsen, _Roman History_ (trs.).\n\n\nP. 320. Following Mommsen, the Etruscans are here spoken of as though\nbelonging to the Italic family. This is liable to grave doubts; but the\nquestion is at present too unsettled to admit of satisfactory discussion\nin this place.\n\nTHE END.\n\n\n\n\nINDEX.\n\n\n\u201c_Abant_,\u201d the word, 154.\n\nAbraham, Bible history begins with, 113, 129;\n  and Lot, 126, 155.\n\nAccad, 125.\n\nAccadians, 124, 128;\n  the inventors of cuneiform writing, 311.\n\nAdoption, ceremony of, among the Aryans, 146.\n\nAgglutinative languages, 79, 81, 83, 88 _et seq._;\n  spoken by the yellow race, 118.\n\nAgni, 210; hymn to, 211;\n  the Indian fire-god, 248.\n\nAgricultural life, the, gives rise to new relations, 156.\n\nAhan\u00e2, 257.\n\nAhura-mazda, the god of Zoroastrianism, 234.\n\nAir-god of the Egyptians, 188.\n\nAlani, the, 104, 325.\n\nAlaric, 325.\n\nAlphabet, the Ph\u0153nician, 304 _et seq._\n\nAmenti, 179.\n\nAmun, 181, 201.\n\nAna, 193.\n\nAncestor worship, 143;\n  of the Aryans, 147.\n\nAngles, the, 325.\n\nAnimal gods of the Egyptians, 191.\n\nAnimal worship of the Egyptians, 123.\n\nAnubis, 192.\n\nAphrodit\u00ea, 206, 224;\n  an Asiatic divinity, 318.\n\nApollo, 202, 209, 214;\n  the god of the Dorians and Ionians, 216;\n  shrines of, 216;\n  the sun-god pursuing Daphne, 257;\n  found in the mythology of all branches of the Aryan family, 258.\n\nAral, lake, the region of, the home of the Turanians, 120.\n\nAram\u00e6ans, 124.\n\n_Aratrum_, the word, 108.\n\nAres, the national divinity of the Thracians, 220.\n\nArmenians, 99.\n\nArt, the earliest rudiments of, 17.\n\nArtemis, 204, 223 _et seq._;\n  and Endymion, the story of, a moon myth, 263.\n\n\u201cArthur\u2019s Chase,\u201d 226.\n\nAryans, 98;\n  the origin of, 99;\n  evidence of language concerning, 108;\n  the early, a pastoral people, 132;\n  their entry into Europe, 133;\n  their social system, 140;\n  their faculty for abstract thought, 201;\n  the other world of, 241 _et seq._;\n  possessed a spiritual conception of the soul, 246;\n  separation of, 316;\n  their languages, 90;\n  two main divisions of, 91;\n  their mythology, remarkable for diversity of its legends, 199;\n  their religion contrasted with Semitic, 197;\n  the sky-god in, 199.\n\nAshara, the, 195.\n\nAshtoreth, 194.\n\nAssyrians, the, 98, 129;\n  their gods, 193 _et seq._\n\nAthene, 204 _et seq._, 222.\n\nAttila, 119.\n\nAustralians, the, 118.\n\nAvars, the, 119.\n\nAztec picture writing, 292.\n\nAztecs of Mexico, the, 116.\n\n\nBaal, 193.\n\nBaal Chemosh, 194.\n\nBaal Zebub, 194.\n\nBabel, 124.\n\nBabylon, 127.\n\nBabylonians, the, 98.\n\nB\u00e6da, quotation from, 1.\n\nBalder, 203;\n  a sun-god, 229, 246;\n  the myth of his death, 250 _et seq._\n\nBarbarians, origin of word, 105.\n\nBarbarossa, legend of, 278.\n\nBarter in the stone age, 139.\n\nBavarians, the, 104.\n\n\u201cBeauty and the Beast,\u201d 259.\n\nBel Merodoch, 194.\n\nBeowulf, 327; the poem of, 267;\n  the Lohengrin myth in, 276.\n\nBible narrative, an aid to prehistoric study, 2;\n  itself corrected and enlarged by prehistoric inquiry, 5;\n  continuous history begins with Abraham, 113.\n\nBil, Assyrian sun-god, 193.\n\nBlack races, the, 115.\n\nBow, earliest use of the, 50.\n\nBrahma, 202.\n\nBrehon laws, the, 322.\n\nBrennus, 322.\n\nBridge of death, the, 277.\n\nBronze age, the, 54;\n  domestication of animals in, 148.\n\nBronze introduced into Europe by the Aryans, 140.\n\nBronze weapons, found throughout Europe, 149.\n\nBrowning\u2019s \u201cPied Piper of Hameln,\u201d 272.\n\nBulgarians, the, 106.\n\nBurgundians, the, 104, 325.\n\nBurial customs, 40.\n\nBurial mounds. See TUMULI.\n\n\nCanaanites, the, 98; their gods, 195.\n\nCarinthians, the, 105.\n\nCase endings, origin of, 75.\n\nCaspian Sea, the boundary of the Aryan home, 243.\n\nCattle, place of, in Aryan mythology, 151.\n\nCave-dwellers, 49;\n  implements of, 15;\n  drawings of, 18;\n  used fire, 20;\n  skeletons of, 21.\n\nCelts, the, 101, 322;\n  their fighting capacity, 323.\n\nCerberus, 245.\n\nChald\u00e6a, 123.\n\nChald\u00e6ans, 98;\n  a mixed people, 124;\n  their buildings, 125;\n  their civilization, traces of, found in that of Mexico and Peru, 128;\n  their religion, 193.\n\nCherdorlaomer, 126.\n\nChina, 127.\n\nChinese, 117;\n  kept in a primitive condition by the early invention of writing;\n  their characters, symbolic, 293 _et seq._;\n  determinitive signs of, 295;\n  their civilization connected with that of the Accadians, 128.\n\nCimbri, the, 103.\n\nCivilization, successive steps in the earliest, 135.\n\nClovis, 325.\n\nCommerce of Cave-dwellers, 52;\n  among the Aryans, 152.\n\nConfucius, 127.\n\nCord records, 284.\n\nCrab, the word, 68.\n\nCromlechs, 42.\n\nCuneiform writing, 310.\n\nCupid and Psyche, the myth of, 258.\n\nCushites, the, 119.\n\nCybele, 205.\n\nCzechs, the, 105.\n\n\nDagon, 194.\n\nDaphne, the dawn, 257.\n\nDaughter, signification of the word, 108, 110, 132, 200.\n\nDawn and evening in the Veda, 212.\n\nDeath, the region of, 236 _et seq._;\n  Aryan idea of, 237;\n  Egyptian idea of, 238;\n  a journey to the sky, 241;\n  the Indian conception of, 244;\n  the river of, 243;\n  and sleep, 243; myths of, 273;\n  the various images of, in popular tales, 278.\n\nDelphi, 216.\n\nDemeter, 204, 205;\n  and Persephone, 220 _et seq._\n\nDeterminitive signs, 295.\n\n_dic_ the Latin root, 70.\n\nDomestication of animals in second stone age, 50;\n  in the bronze age, 148.\n\nDrift implements, 10;\n  form a class apart, 11;\n  types of, 13.\n\nDrift period, men of the, 49.\n\nDruid circles, so-called, 42.\n\nDutch, 99, 104.\n\nDy\u00e2us, 199, 202, 207.\n\n\nEadwine, King, 1.\n\nEarth-goddess of the Aryans, 204.\n\nEddic poems, 327.\n\nEgypt, history begins in, 52, 121;\n  peculiar features of nature in, 178;\n  the land-root of civilization, 314.\n\nEgyptians, 97.\n\nEgyptian civilization, the continuation of that of the stone age, 121;\n  intellectual character of, 122.\n\n---- idea of death and the soul, 238 _et seq._\n\n---- life and thought, two elements in the character of, 122.\n\n---- religion, 176;\n  how distinguished from that of other nations, 178;\n  influence of nature on, 178;\n  nature gods of, 181;\n  distinctive feature of, 181;\n  divinities of, 181 _et seq._\n\n---- writing, 298 _et seq._;\n  mixed character of, 301;\n  difficulty in deciphering, 302;\n  Hieratic and Demotic, 303.\n\nEl. See IL.\n\nElamites, 125.\n\nElysian Fields, 242.\n\nEnglish, the, 104.\n\n_Erde_ and _Herde_, 94.\n\nErech, 125.\n\nEskimo, the, 117.\n\nEtruscans, the, 320.\n\n\nFee, the word, 151.\n\n\u201cFight of Finnsburg,\u201d 327.\n\nFinnish tongues, 90.\n\nFinns, the, 117.\n\nFlemings, the, 104.\n\nFlint weapons of Presigny, 139.\n\nFranks, 104, 325.\n\nFrench, the, 99.\n\nFrey, 203, 204.\n\nFreyja, 204;\n  the goddess of spring, beauty, and love, 230.\n\nFreyr, 230.\n\nFrigg, 204, 205, 230.\n\n\nGaedhill, 101.\n\nGaels, 101.\n\nGaulish myth of a sea of death, 276.\n\nGauls, the, 101.\n\nGenghis Khan, 119.\n\nGeological periods, length of, 7.\n\nGerda, 231.\n\nGerman and English, kinship of, 92.\n\nGermans, the, 99.\n\nGesture language gives no insight into the origin of language, 62.\n\n_Gewiss_, the word, 66.\n\nGipsies, 159.\n\nGlass mountains, the stories of, allegories of death, 279.\n\nGoths, the, 324.\n\nGovernment, an extensive scheme of, impossible to a people\n        ignorant of social arts, 167.\n\nGr\u00e6co-Italic family, the, 319.\n\nGrammatical terminations accounted for, 74.\n\nGreek conception of the realms of death, 241 _et seq._\n\nGreeks, 99, 102;\n  appearance of in Europe, 133;\n  their religion, 214;\n  the first European nation, 317;\n  from the beginning a commercial people, 318.\n\nGrimm\u2019s laws, 107.\n\n\nHackelberg, the wild huntsman of the Harz, 270.\n\nHades, 241.\n\nHadubrand and Hildebrand, the lay of, 327.\n\nHamites, the, 119.\n\nHapi, 192.\n\nHathor, 188.\n\nHel, 250.\n\nHellenes, 102;\n  first use of the word as a national epithet, 319.\n\nHera, 204.\n\nHeracles, 202, 209;\n  life and labors of, 218.\n\nHermes, 217 _et seq._;\n  the wind god, 232, 244.\n\nHerne the Hunter, 226, 249.\n\nHieratic and Demotic writing of the Egyptians, 303.\n\nHieroglyphic writing of the Egyptians, 298.\n\nHindoos, 98.\n\nHistory, prerequisite conditions of, 3.\n\nHittites, the, 315.\n\nHoa, 193.\n\nHormuzd, 234.\n\nHorus, 184, 196, 201.\n\nHouse-fire, the sacred, among the Aryans, 144.\n\nHouseholders, assembly of, in the village community, 163.\n\nHuman victims found in tumuli, 37.\n\nHuns, the, 119.\n\nHunter, life of the primitive, 137.\n\n\nIberians, the, 101.\n\nIdeographs, groups of, 294.\n\nIl, the most ancient conception of God known to the Semites, 195.\n\nImplements of later stone age, 39.\n\nIncas of Peru, 116.\n\nIndians, the North American, 159;\n  \u201cpicturing\u201d of, 288, 290 _et seq._\n\nIndra, 202, 206;\n  hymn to, 208;\n  character of, 209;\n  resembles Apollo, 217.\n\nInflected language, 79, 81, 83;\n  spoken by the white race, 118;\n  divisions of, 118.\n\nInflections, growth of, 70;\n  the third stage in the formation of language, 72.\n\nIshtar, 194.\n\nIsis, 189, 195, 196.\n\nIsrael, the children of a nomadic people, 130.\n\nItalians, 99; the primitive, 320.\n\n\n\u201cJack the Giant Killer,\u201d 264.\n\nJapanese use of Chinese characters, 296.\n\n\u201c_Javan_\u201d in the Bible for Ionians, 318.\n\nJupiter, 199, 202, 206, 207.\n\n\nKaiser Karl in the Unterberg, 278.\n\nKarkemish, 315.\n\nKinship in languages, 91.\n\nKitchen-Middens. See SHELL MOUNDS.\n\nKneph, 188.\n\nKurdur-Nankunty, a king of Susa, 126.\n\n\nLake dwellings, bronze weapons found in the later, 150.\n\nLake villages, the, 44;\n  construction of, 45;\n  object of 46;\n  civilization of, 47, 52.\n\nLanguage, the growth of, 55;\n  five stages in, 81;\n  arrested by the invention of writing, 84;\n  change in, resolved into two forces, 85;\n  classification by, 106;\n  holds the records of past times, 106;\n  the key to the early Aryan civilization, 141.\n\n_Langue d\u2019oil_ and _langue d\u2019oc_, 66.\n\nLapps, the, 117.\n\nLetters, invention and growth of, 280 _et seq._;\n  invention of, by the Egyptians, 301.\n\nLaw first connected with religion, 166.\n\n_Leiche_, the word, 93.\n\nLithuanians, the, 99, 105.\n\nLohengrin, myth, 275, 276.\n\nLoki, 210.\n\nLombards, the, 104.\n\nLongobardi, the, 325.\n\nLot, 126.\n\n\nM\u00e2, the Sanskrit root, 68.\n\nMagyars, the, 119.\n\nMammoth age, the, 10.\n\nMammoth, drawing of a, by a prehistoric man, 18.\n\nMan, the earliest traces of, 6;\n  his first stages of life, 16.\n\n\u201cMan,\u201d the one who measures, 68.\n\nMankind, progress of, in the stone ages, 48 _et seq._\n\nMaoris, the, 118.\n\nMara, the name, 272.\n\nMark, the word, 153.\n\nMarriage ceremony among the Aryans, 145.\n\nMaruts, the hymn to, 209.\n\nMaut, an Egyptian divinity, 187\n\nMelanesia, 115.\n\nMenes, 121.\n\nMesopotamia, 123.\n\nMilky Way, the, a river of death, 277.\n\nMin\u00f4s, 318.\n\nMir, the Russian, 162.\n\nMitra, 211.\n\nMnemonics, different systems of, 284 _et seq._\n\nMoloch, 194.\n\nMonger, the word, 153.\n\nMongolians, marks of the, 120.\n\nMonosyllabic language, 78, 81, 83.\n\nMontenegrins, the, 106.\n\nMoon, \u201cthe measurer,\u201d 68.\n\nMoon-gods of the Egyptians, 185.\n\nMoon myths, 262 _et seq._\n\nMoravians, the, 105.\n\nMoses receives the law, 166.\n\nMound-builders, their religion, 40.\n\nMythologies, the relationship between different, 173;\n  of the different Aryan nations, 176.\n\nMythology explained through the study of language, 172, 173;\n  the earliest, 177;\n  of the Shemites barren in incident and character, 195;\n  the stories related of the gods, 255.\n\nMyths, diversity of, 254;\n  of death and the other world, 273.\n\n\nNation, the beginnings of, 313, 316.\n\nNations of the prehistoric world, 133.\n\nNature worship at the bottom of most mythologies, 173;\n  this does not imply an absence of spirituality, 176;\n  the objects of, everywhere the same, 177;\n  in Aryan religions, 197.\n\nNeanderthal, 15;\n  skeleton discovered in, 22.\n\nNebo, 194.\n\nNegroes of Africa and Melanesia, 115.\n\nNeit, 187.\n\nNeolithic era, 13, 29.\n\nNephthys, 190.\n\nNergal, 194.\n\nNerthus, 204.\n\nNew Guinea, 115.\n\nNibelungen, the, 327.\n\nNile, the, significance of to the Egyptians, 180;\n  the personification of, 192.\n\nNimrod, 125.\n\nNin, 194.\n\nNoah, 118.\n\nNorsemen, the other world of the, 249.\n\n\n_Obotriti_, the, 105.\n\nO\u2019Brien, origin of the name, 323.\n\nOdin, 204, 224 _et seq._;\n  the heaven god, 227;\n  collects the souls of heroes slain in battle, 249, 268;\n  as the Wandering Jew, etc., 264;\n  as the \u201cPied Piper\u201d of Hameln, 264, 272;\n  as the arch fiend, 270.\n\n\u201cOld Mother Goose,\u201d 272.\n\nOsiri, the name, how written by the Egyptians, 301.\n\nOsiris, 182, 193, 196, 201.\n\nOstro-Goths, the, 104.\n\nOuse, the, prolific in drift implements, 11.\n\nOxus, the, 99.\n\n\nPal\u00e6olithic era, 13, 25.\n\nPan, 215.\n\nPastoral life, qualities involved in, 150;\n  a nomadic one, 151.\n\nPatriarch, the authority of a, part of Aryan religion, 167.\n\nPatriarchal family, the, 141.\n\nPatriarchal customs, 142.\n\nPatroclus, funeral of, a picture of Aryan rites, 247.\n\n_Pecunia_, the word, 151.\n\nPelasgi, 102, 320;\n  the worshippers of pure nature, 215.\n\nPersephone, 204, 221 _et seq._\n\nPerseus and the Gorgon, a sun story, 262.\n\nPersians, 98.\n\nPerthes, M. Boucher de, 11.\n\nPeruvian system of mnemonics, 284.\n\nPhantom army, the legend of, 225, 249.\n\nPh\u0153bus Apollo, the god of the younger Greeks, 318.\n\nPh\u0153nicians, 98, 129;\n  commercial needs gave rise to their alphabet, 305;\n  the transporters of civilization, 315;\n  in Europe, 317.\n\nPh\u0153nician alphabet, 304;\n  how formed, 305;\n  resemblance to Hieratic writing of Egyptians, 306;\n  the parent of all existing alphabets except Japanese, 308;\n  how modified, 309.\n\nPhonetic signs, origin of, 299 _et seq._\n\nPhonetic writing, transition to, 297.\n\nPicture records, 287.\n\nPicture writing, 289 _et seq._\n\nPicturing, 287;\n  distinguished from picture-writing, 290.\n\n\u201cPied Piper of Hameln,\u201d the, 264, 272;\n  a Slavonic legend, 273.\n\nPoles, the, 99, 105.\n\nPolynesian islands, 118.\n\nPomeranians, the, 105.\n\nPottery, broken, strewed at the grave\u2019s mouth, 40.\n\nPrehistoric conditions, our knowledge of, uncertain, 4.\n\nPrehistoric studies, aids to, 2;\n  of events, rather than chronological, 6.\n\nPrince Hatt under the earth, the Swedish story of, 260.\n\nPrithvi, 205, 220.\n\nProper names, researches into, 111;\n  in the Bible often stand for races, 114.\n\nPrussians, the, 105.\n\nPtah, 184.\n\nPyramids, a sort of tumuli, 53.\n\nPython, the, 202.\n\n\nQuipus, the Peruvian cord records, 285.\n\n\nRa, 184.\n\nRed races, 116;\n  considered by some a variety of the yellow race, 118.\n\nReligion of the mound-builders, 40;\n  first signs of, 51.\n\nReligious rites hard to trace back, 172.\n\nRents, the three, 152.\n\nRex, the, 95, 109.\n\nRivers, English, the names of, Keltic, 111.\n\nRomans, the, 99, 102, 320;\n  development as a nation, internal, 321.\n\nRome, her proficiency in the arts\nof government, 168.\n\nRoot sounds, 67.\n\nRunes, Gothic, 309.\n\nRussians, the, 99, 105.\n\nRussian village communities, 169.\n\n\nSabh\u00e2, the, 144.\n\nSt. Ursula, the myth of, 263.\n\nSan, 194.\n\nSarama, 218; the Sons of, 244.\n\nSargon I., 125.\n\n_Sarrasin_, the word, 159.\n\nSati, 188.\n\nSavitar, hymn to, 213.\n\nSaxons, 325.\n\nScandinavians, 99, 104.\n\nSea coast, gradual protrusion of, 34.\n\nSea of death, the, mythical, 276.\n\nSekhet-Pasht, 185.\n\nSemitic languages. See ARYAN.\n\nSemitic races, 97.\n\nSemitic religion infused with awe, 198.\n\nServians, the, 106.\n\nShell mounds, 29, 34;\n  proofs of their antiquity, 35, 136.\n\n_Sheol_, 241, note.\n\nSiamese, the, 117.\n\nSigurd the Volsung, 267;\n  fire and thorn hedge used in the tale of, 278.\n\nSilesians, 105.\n\nSin, 194.\n\nSkirnir, 231.\n\nSky-divinities of the Egyptians, 187.\n\nSky-god of the Aryans, 200.\n\nSlavonians, the, 103, 104;\n  pushing back the Tartars, 119.\n\nSocial life, early, 135.\n\nSoil-deity of the Egyptians, 189.\n\nSomme, the, drift implements first discovered in the bed of, 11.\n\n\u201cSon of,\u201d how used in the Bible, 114.\n\nSorabians, the, 105.\n\nSothis, 192.\n\nSound and sense, connection of, 61.\n\nSpanish, the, 99.\n\nSpeech, the origin of, indiscoverable, 59.\n\nStone age, the two periods of, 12.\n\nStone age, the old, man\u2019s life in, 24;\n  animals of, 26.\n\nStone age, the later, 28;\n  theories to account for the transition to, 28;\n  continuous history begins with, 29;\n  man of, in Denmark, 30;\n  navigation of, 30;\n  domestic animals in, 32, 36;\n  men of, not cannibals, 32;\n  burial mounds of, 36;\n  human victims in, 37;\n  classes of implements of, 38;\n  pottery of, 39;\n  ornaments, 41;\n  burial customs of, 40;\n  tumuli, the truest existing representatives of, 43;\n  also called the polished stone age, 43;\n  duration of, in Europe, 44;\n  civilization of, 47 _et seq._;\n  successive steps in, 49 _et seq._;\n  first signs of religion in, 51;\n  civilization of, 52;\n  implements of, different materials of, 50;\n  people, little known of their social state, 136.\n\nStone ages, progress of mankind in, 48 _et seq._\n\nStonehenge, 36, 42.\n\nSuevi, the, 104, 325.\n\nSun, supreme god of the Semitic nations, 200;\n  hopes of futurity suggested by, 246.\n\nSun-god, the death of, 236.\n\nSun-gods of the Egyptians, 181 _et seq._;\n  how regarded by the Indo-European nations, 202.\n\nSun-heroes, the different, 262.\n\nSun-myths, 257.\n\nSurya, 211.\n\nSusa, 126.\n\nSwan, the, connected with ideas of death, 275.\n\nSwarga, 244.\n\nSymbolical teaching of the Egyptians, 191.\n\n\nTallies, the invention of, the germ of writing, 283.\n\nTannh\u00e4user, the legend of, 263.\n\nTartar class of languages, 89.\n\nTartar races, invasion of the, 119.\n\nTasmania, 114.\n\nTellus, 205.\n\nTeutonic family of nations, 103, 104.\n\nTeutons, village history of the, 169;\n  divisions of, 324;\n  an agricultural people, 326;\n  conquerors, 326;\n  feudal, 327;\n  poems of, 327.\n\nTew, 199.\n\nThanatos, 241.\n\nThammuz, 194.\n\nThibetans, the, 117.\n\nThmei, 192.\n\nThor, 202;\n  labors of, 228;\n  as \u201cJack the Giant Killer,\u201d 264;\n  the recovery of his hammer, 264.\n\nThoth, 185, 194.\n\n\u201cTime and Tide,\u201d 94.\n\nTim\u00fbr Link (Tamerlaine), 119.\n\nTomb-builders, the, 36.\n\nTowns, English, the names of Teutonic, etc., 111.\n\nTumuli, 36; contents of, 37;\n  pottery found in, 52, 125;\n  civilization of the builders of the, 138.\n\nTuranian languages, 88.\n\nTuranians of Central Asia, 119;\n  the early inhabitants of India were, 120.\n\nTurks, the, 119.\n\nTyphon, 196, 202.\n\nTyr, 228.\n\n\nUlfilas, 324.\n\nUr of the Chaldees, 125.\n\nUrki, 194.\n\nUrvasi and Pururaras, the story of, 258.\n\nUshas, 205.\n\n\nVandals, 104, 325.\n\nVan der Decken, 226.\n\nValkyriur, the, 249, 269;\n  changed into witches, 272, 275.\n\nVaruna, 203; corresponds to Ouranos, 231.\n\nVedic religion of India, 207.\n\nVerb endings, origin of, 75.\n\nVillage community, the, 159;\n  features and regulations of, 160;\n  relation of the members to each other, 161;\n  correspondence of the Russian _Mir_ to, 162;\n  source of authority in, 162;\n  essentials of a true, 163;\n  assembly of householders, 163;\n  origin of, 163;\n  the ideas of personal and communal property arise in, 165;\n  origin of, distinction between\ndivine and human law, in, 167;\n  changes resulting from the adoption of, 68;\n  chief of the Teuton, possessed of but little power, 170.\n\nVisi-Goths, 104.\n\nVortices of national life, 313.\n\nVritra, 209.\n\nVul, 194.\n\n\nWampum, 284.\n\n\u201cWandering Jew,\u201d the, 264, 270.\n\nWhite races, 118.\n\n_Wiltzi_, 105.\n\nWind-myths, 268.\n\nWords, significant and _in_-significant, 57 _et seq._;\n  formation of, by joining others, 72.\n\nWriting, the art of picturing sound, 281;\n  the invention of, 282.\n\nYaranas, 100, 132.\n\nYellow races, 117.\n\n_Yes_, origin of the word, 65.\n\n\nZend Avesta, 207, 233, 235.\n\nZend language, the, 235.\n\nZend religion, the, pre-eminence of, 232.\n\nZeus, 199, 202, 206;\n  the Olympic and Pelasgic, 214;\n  shrines of, at Dodona and in Elis, 215, 227.\n\nZio, 199.\n\nZoroaster, 166.\n\nZoroastrianism, 233.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n [1] B\u00e6da, ii. 13.\n\n [2] See Appendix.\n\n [3] Mr. Evans in his _Stone Implements of Great Britain_ divides those\n of the River Drift into Flakes, Pointed Implements, and Sharp-rimmed\n Implements.\n\n [4] Most of these carved implements were discovered by Mr. Christy and\n M. Lartet, and left by the former to the French Museum of Prehistoric\n Antiquities at St. Germains. Exact copies of these in plaster, as well\n as several carved bones, may however be seen at the British Museum;\n and during the last year the national collection has been greatly\n enriched by the acquisition of several beautiful specimens of cave\n carvings from the collection of M. Pecadeau de l\u2019Isle.\n\n [5] See Appendix.\n\n [6] It is curious that there are no remains in Scandinavia which can\n with certainty be called pal\u00e6olithic. It would seem as though during\n this era the countries remained too cold for habitation.\n\n [7] Both in Switzerland and in the neighbourhood of the Pyrenees.\n\n [8] _In height_, that is. The distance of coast-line which disappears\n owing to the mere volcanic depression, or the distance of coast-line\n which appears on the other shore from volcanic upheaval (independently\n of river deposits, etc.), depends of course upon the level of the\n coast. It would not, however, be generally more than a yard or two.\n\n [9] Probably as altars or perhaps as gods themselves. I desire to\n speak with great caution of the rude stone monuments of Europe; for of\n all branches of prehistoric study this has been the least developed by\n modern research.\n\n [10] It seems highly probable that the invention of some sort of malt\n liquor followed upon the growth of corn. Tacitus mentions such a\n liquor as having been drunk by the Germans of his day. He is doubtless\n describing a sort of beer.\n\n [11] But not sheep apparently; at least not in Western Europe. In\n these islands the sheep did not appear before the time of Julius C\u00e6sar.\n\n [12] _Hamlet_, act v., sc. 1.\n\n [13] M. Troyon has started the idea that the crouched attitude of the\n dead--_repli\u00e9e_, as he describes it: he declares that it does not\n in the least resemble the crouched attitude which men of some races\n assume when sleeping--was imposed upon the dead with a symbolical\n meaning, viz. that it was meant to imitate the position of the\n child in the womb of its parent, and as such to enfold the hope of\n resurrection in the act of entombment. The idea is a poetical one, but\n I much doubt whether it has pre-existed in other minds before finding\n a place in that of M. Troyon. The author, however, should be heard in\n defence of his own theory, and may be so in the _Revue Arch._, ix. 289.\n\n [14] Some of the varieties of grain found in these lake-dwellings are\n not otherwise known to botanists.\n\n [15] The Ph\u0153nicians are said by tradition to have invented the\n manufacture of glass. But there is no proof of this.\n\n [16] Of course the making of very rude huts of branches and leaves may\n have been practised by these--such huts as formed the only shelter of\n the Tasmanians down to our day. For an imaginative description of the\n most primitive house, see Violet de Duc, _The Houses of Men in all\n Ages_, ch. i.\n\n [17] The simile is Mr. Max M\u00fcller\u2019s.\n\n [18] In English we have _grind_, _grate_, (_s_)_cra_(_pe_), _grave_\n (German _graben_, \u2018to dig;\u2019 Eng. \u2018grub.\u2019) All words for writing mean\n cutting, because all writing was originally graving on a stone: thus\n the Latin _scribo_ (corrupted in the French to _\u00e9cris_), in the Greek\n is _grapho_, in the German _schreibe_. These words, as well as the\n English _write_, are known to be all from the same root; it is not\n pretended that they are _proofs_ of a natural selection of sound; but\n they may be instances of it.\n\n [19] The reader, however, may be referred to Tylor\u2019s _Early History of\n Mankind_, ch. iv., for much interesting information on the subject.\n\n [20] _Yes_ is probably not the same word as the German _ja_ (whose\n significant form is lost), though our _yea_ is.\n\n [21] See below, pp. 70-80.\n\n [22] These two words have, it is true, quite changed their meanings;\n but our _knight_ rose to its honourable sense from having come to be\n used only for the servants or attendants of the king (in battle),\n while the German word retained its older sense of servant, groom, only.\n\n [23] See above, p. 66.\n\n [24] The reader who does not know Latin may easily recognize the\n kindred forms in French, Italian, Spanish, etc.\n\n [25] Mr. Max M\u00fcller calls it the _terminational_ stage.\n\n [26] _Agone_ is possibly from a stronger form _\u00e2gan_, \u2018to pass away.\u2019\n\n [27] To get the full sound of the _th_, this should be said not as we\n pronounce our article _the_ (which really has the sound _dhe_), but\n like the first part of Thebes, theme, etc.\n\n [28] Cf. the Greek _klutos_.\n\n [29] Stephen, _Lectures on the History of France_.\n\n [30] This is the theory of Aryan origins still most generally\n accepted. It has, however, been maintained by several philologists\n that there is no evidence of an Asiatic origin of the European nations.\n\n [31] See Chapter I.\n\n [32] Among the Iberians, however, the Celtic blood was much diluted\n with an infusion of that of an earlier Turanian race allied to the\n modern Basques.\n\n [33] Or say, rather, the people of Italy. Only the Etruscans\n must probably be excepted from the category, and the Gauls, who\n subsequently settled themselves in Cisalpine Gaul.\n\n [34] The principal among these laws were elaborated by Jacob Grimm,\n and hence called \u2018Grimm\u2019s Laws.\u2019 They may be seen in his _Teutonic\n Grammar_, and also in his _History of the German Tongue_.\n\n [35] Because they would be hardly likely to give a fresh name to such\n an intimate relationship as the daughter. On the other hand, it seems\n necessary that the Aryan race must have been in the hunter state at\n some period, and equally necessary that they must _then_ have had a\n word for daughter. Milking, it may be urged, might be practised before\n the domestication of animals. See also Chapter VI.\n\n [36] Supreme, because his title became a supreme title among these\n _different_ Aryan stocks.\n\n [37] And this without any reproach to the industry of those at work.\n The volumes of K\u00fchn\u2019s _Zeitschr. f\u00fcr vergleichende Sprachforschung_,\n Lazarus and Steinthal\u2019s _Zeitsch. f. V\u00f6lkerpsychologie_, M. Pictet\u2019s\n fascinating _Origines indo-europ\u00e9ennes_, etc., are storehouses which\n display the treasures already obtained.\n\n [38] Such a book as we have imagined would form a natural sequel to\n the principles of comparative grammar as laid down by Bopp, etc. It\n would differ from a mere comparative dictionary in the arrangement,\n showing the nature and extent of modification which each word had\n undergone--where, for instance, Grimm\u2019s laws of change hold good,\n where not; the cases of the survival of archaic forms (agreeable to\n Grimm\u2019s _second law_); and, if they could be discovered as the result\n of such a classification, the determining causes of such survival\n among any of the different races.\n\n [39] I have been told that the late Lord Strangford, a great linguist,\n and a comparative philologist to boot, could always find amusement\n for an idle half-hour in a book which the reader would probably think\n of, if asked to name the most uninteresting of created things--I mean\n Bradshaw, English or foreign; and his interest lay in extracting the\n hidden meaning and history which lay concealed in these lists of\n geographical names.\n\n [40] It is found that the peculiarity of curling or not curling in\n hair depends upon the form, the form in _section_, of the individual\n hairs. The woolly hairs are oval in section, the straight ones round.\n\n [41] Lenormant, _Manual of the Ancient History of the East_, vol. i.,\n p. 55.\n\n [42] Not that this particular foothold has descended to the Turks from\n early times. See the next paragraph.\n\n [43] Lenormant, _Manual_, i. 343. It should be remarked that the\n authority of Justin on such a point is not high.\n\n [44] Mariette\u2019s date is B.C. 5004, Lepsius\u2019s 3892,\n Wilkinson\u2019s only 2700. Wilkinson\u2019s chronology, however, founded upon\n the theory of _contemporaneous dynasties_ in the lists of Manetho, has\n now been generally rejected.\n\n [45] Sh\u00fbm\u00eer was a portion of the country inhabited by the Accadians.\n\n [46] See Chapter XIII.\n\n [47] Gen. xi. 2.\n\n [48] Gen. xiv.\n\n [49] Kung-foo-tse was his real name.\n\n [50] \u2018Fool! why journeyest thou wearisomely in thy antiquarian\n fervour to gaze on the stone pyramids of Geeza, or the clay stones\n of Sacchara? These stand there, as I can tell thee, idle and inert,\n looking over the desert, foolishly enough, for the last three thousand\n years; but canst thou not open thy Hebrew BIBLE, or even\n Luther\u2019s version thereof?\u2019 _Sartor Resartus._\n\n [51] For example, the Hindee _rupee_, the Latin _pecunia_, and our\n _fee_.\n\n [52] As the Sanskrit _g\u00f4pa_, \u2018a prince,\u2019 the Slavonic _hospodar_ (from\n _g\u00f4spada_) contains the word _g\u00f4_, our \u2018cow,\u2019 and means the protector\n of the cattle; from the same root, Sanskrit _gavya_, \u2018pasturage,\u2019\n Saxon _g\u00ea_, \u2018county,\u2019 Greek _gaia_, or _g\u00ea_, \u2018earth.\u2019\n\n [53] See above, page 94.\n\n [54] Cattle were probably originally communal property: and were\n appropriated to individuals at a later stage than other movable goods.\n In the Roman law we find that they could only be transferred by the\n same forms as were required for the conveyance of land: being classed\n amongst the \u2018res mancipi.\u2019\n\n [55] The same connection between \u2018mother\u2019 and \u2018daughter\u2019 villages also\n once existed to a large extent in Germany.\n\n [56] That is to say, the stories themselves may be old enough; the\n application of them to some special members of a pantheon marks the\n condition of the creed.\n\n [57] The etymology of Indra\u2019s name is uncertain. It cannot therefore\n be said whether or no he was originally a sun-god, though he has many\n of the attributes of one. In the Vedas he is also a god of storms.\n\n [58] Welcker maintains (_Griech. G\u00f6tterlehre_) that the title, Son\n of Time, belonged to Zeus before Kronos (Chronos) was invented as a\n personality to be the father of Zeus.\n\n [59] I purposely leave out Aphrodite (Venus) from this category, as\n she partakes so much of the nature of an Oriental goddess.\n\n [60] Not directly, however; see Grimm, D. M., vol. i., p. 252.\n\n [61] Soma was the mystic (and no doubt intoxicating) drink used in the\n sacrifices, and poured as libation to the gods. It was personified as\n a divinity.\n\n [62] The _flash_, the father of the Maruts (?).\n\n [63] The dew? (=Prokris?) imaged here as a cow. She is the mother of\n the Maruts.\n\n [64] Though the character of this has been a good deal exaggerated in\n the popular notions of the religion of the ancient Persians.\n\n [65] Mitra is associated with the idea of the sun. But I incline to\n think that originally he was rather the wind of morning, or even the\n morning _sky_. He is almost always linked in the hymns with Varuna,\n who most certainly was at one time the sky (\u03bf\u03cd\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2), and once a\n supreme god. See what is said below of Surya.\n\n [66] The Dawn. See p. 205.\n\n [67] The fish.\n\n [68] Literally, \u2018the egg\u2019s son.\u2019\n\n [69] It has been already said that the Latin mythology, _as we know\n it_, is almost all borrowed directly from the Greek. It is obviously\n right, therefore, to call the deities by their Greek, and not, as was\n till recently always done, by their Latin names. The Latin gods had\n no doubt much of the character of their Greek brethren; but it is to\n the Greek poets that we are really indebted for what we know about\n them. In this chapter, for the sake of clearness, the Latin name is\n generally given in parentheses after the Greek one.\n\n [70] To appreciate this we must compare the representations of Apollo\n with those of Helios, who was simply and frankly a sun-god even to\n the later Greeks, and we see that they are essentially the same\n personality. Even in the very early statues of Apollo, where the\n artist had not the skill to make wide, flowing locks, the hair is\n always indicated with great care and some elaboration of detail.\n\n [71] A word allied to our _fen_.\n\n [72] Homeric hymn to D\u00eam\u00eat\u00ear.\n\n [73] See Appendix. _Persephone and Balder._\n\n [74] Albeit that Aphrodit\u00ea like Athen\u00ea is likewise a goddess sprung\n from water--from the sea.\n\n [75] As she springs from the head of Zeus, the storm-cloud.\n\n [76] Our knowledge of Teutonic mythology is chiefly gathered from the\n Norsemen, and in fact almost exclusively from Icelandic literature.\n The most valuable source of all is the collection of sacred songs\n which generally goes by the name of _Edda den \u00c6ldra_, the Elder Edda.\n\n [77] Odhinn is the Norse, Wuotan the German, Wodan or Wodin the\n English name.\n\n [78] Or else the god who inspires. (See _Corp. Poet Bor._, Introd., p.\n civ.)\n\n [79] Literally, \u2018The Hall of the Slain,\u2019 _i.e._ the hall of heroes.\n\n [80] \u00c6sir, pl. of As or Ans, the general Norse name for a god.\n\n [81] One of the last appearances of such a phantom army is graphically\n described by Mr. Motley in his _History of the Dutch Republic_.\n The occasion was a short time before the battle of Mookerhyde, in\n which the army of Prince Louis of Nassau was defeated, and himself\n slain:--\u2018Early in February five soldiers of the burgher guard at\n Utrecht, being on their midnight watch, beheld in the sky above them\n the representation of a furious battle. The sky was extremely dark\n except directly over their heads, where for a space equal in extent\n to the length of the city, and in breadth to that of an ordinary\n chamber, two armies in battle array were seen advancing upon each\n other. The one moved rapidly up from the north-west, with banners\n waving, spears flashing, trumpets sounding, accompanied by heavy\n artillery and by squadrons of cavalry. The other came slowly forward\n from the south-east, as if from an entrenched camp, to encounter\n their assailants. There was a fierce action for a few moments, the\n shouts of the combatants, the heavy discharge of cannon, the rattle\n of musketry, the tramp of heavy-armed foot-soldiers, and the rush of\n cavalry being distinctly heard. The firmament trembled with the shock\n of the contending hosts, and was lurid with the rapid discharges of\n their artillery.... The struggle seemed but short. The lances of the\n south-eastern army seemed to snap \u2018like hempstalks,\u2019 while their firm\n columns all went down together in mass beneath the onset of their\n enemies. The overthrow was complete--victors and vanquished had faded;\n the clear blue space, surrounded by black clouds, was empty, when\n suddenly its whole extent where the conflict had so lately raged was\n streaked with blood, flowing athwart the sky in broad crimson streaks;\n nor was it till the five witnesses had fully watched and pondered over\n these portents that the vision entirely vanished.\u2019 (Vol. ii., p. 526.)\n\n [82] The story of Van der Decken, the Flying Dutchman, is surely (more\n especially since its dramatization by Wagner) too well known to need\n relation. Van der Decken, or Dekken, seems to mean \u2018the man with the\n cloak;\u2019 he too is probably a changed form of Odin.\n\n [83] It may be as well to say here that every detail of the legend is\n found upon a critical inquiry to be significant. His name Hackelb\u00e4rend\n (cloak-bearer) connects him with Odin, the wind-god. His two dogs\n connect him with two dogs of Sanskrit mythology, also signifying the\n wind.\n\n [84] See Uhland, _Der Mythus von Thor_.\n\n [85] _Baldur; a Song of Divine Death_, by Robert Buchanan.\n\n [86] This scarcely holds as a simile, for in fact the light _is_ the\n aurora. It need hardly be said, therefore, that the comparison is not\n found in the original story.\n\n [87] _I.e._ Gar\u00f0r a general name for earth, expanded from the confined\n meaning of inclosure, _yard_ (allied to \u03bf\u1f36\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2, _hortus_); just as \u03b3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03b1\n is connected with a cow-inclosure.\n\n [88] The meaning of Zoroaster, or rather Zarathustra, his true name.\n The reader may usefully consult M. James Darmesteter\u2019s _Zend Avesta_\n (_Sacred Books of the East_, vol. iv.), in which he will see how much\n of this religion is (in the opinion of M. Darmesteter) simply an early\n nature-religion parallel to that of the Vedas.\n\n [89] Hence the name Mazdean applied to this creed.\n\n [90] See Chapter IV., p. 100.\n\n [91] Or the graves of those whom he desired specially to honour. We\n can guess at the process of his thought pretty well. First, the body\n is buried deep, or earth is thrown over it in a heap, to keep it from\n being torn up by wild beasts. Then as the covering of the body gets to\n be thought a special insurance of vitality to the soul, the practice\n is exaggerated more and more until we get the great grave-mounds and\n the pyramids.\n\n [92] Wooden statues were very common in the earliest Egyptian\n dynasties. But they belong to these only.\n\n [93] Blue or green is the colour of Osiris, who represents the soul.\n (See Chapter VII.)\n\n [94] The Egyptian tombs having generally an upper chamber for the\n sacrifices or funeral feasts, and a chamber in the earth beneath for\n the mummy.\n\n [95] _Sheol_ is the Hebrew word generally translated \u2018grave\u2019 in our\n version. Very different from the teaching of modern religion is the\n following passage:--\n\n    \u2018_Sheol_ shall not praise the Jehovah,\n     The dead shall not celebrate Thee:\n     They that go down into the pit shall not hope for Thy truth.\n     The living, the living, shall praise Thee as I do this day.\u2019\n                       (Isa. xxxviii. 18, 19.)\n\n\n [96] Still, this effect of their art on us may arise from the\n disappearance of some monuments which had a very different character,\n _e.g._ the _campo santo_ pictures, as we may call them, of Polygnotus\n at Delphi. (See Pausanias, x. 28.)\n\n [97] The reason why the \u2018blameless Ethiopians\u2019 were honoured by name\n and by the company of the gods, is most likely to be found in the fact\n of their living, as Homer thought, so near the western border of the\n world.\n\n [98] Weber, in Chamb. 1020.\n\n [99] V_r_had\u00e2ra_n_yaka, _Ed. Pol._, iii. 4-7.\n\n [100] According to the proper laws of change from Sanskrit to Greek,\n S\u00e2rameyas = \u0388\u03c1\u03bc\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, \u0388\u03c1\u03bc\u03ae\u03c2\n\n [101] Wilson, _As. Res._, iii. 409.\n\n [102] vii. 6, 15.\n\n [103] Father of the \u2018family\u2019 in its larger sense. (See the chapter on\n Early Social Life.)\n\n [104] \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae, _spiritus_, Geist, ghost, all from the notion of breathing.\n\n [105]\n\n    \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u03ae \u03b4\u1f10 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f00 \u03c7\u03b8\u03bf\u03bd\u1f40\u03c2, \u1f20\u03b0\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c0\u03bd\u03cc\u03c2, \u1fa4\u03c7\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf\n             (_Il._ xxiii, 100.)\n\n    \u2018And to its home beneath the earth like _smoke_\n     His soul went down.\u2019\n\n\n [106] The suggestion of Grimm (_Ueber das Verb. der Leichen_), that\n burying may have been used by an agricultural people, by those who\n were wont to watch the sown seed spring into new life, whereas burning\n is the custom of shepherd races, is not supported by a wide survey\n of the facts. The Aryans were not essentially pastoral, on the whole\n less so than the Turanian people who buried (see Herod., I. 4, for the\n Scythians), and less so again than the Semites, who did the same.\n\n [107] The Vendid\u00e2d relates how after that Auramazda had created\n sixteen perfect localities upon earth, Ahrimanes came after (like the\n sower of tares), and did what in him lay to spoil the paradises, by\n introducing all sorts of noxious animals and other abominations, such\n as the practice of burning the dead body or giving it to the water.\n The Iranians, as is well known, suspended their dead upon a sort of\n grating, and left them to be devoured of wild birds.\n\n [108] _Beowulf_, the oldest poem in our language (in Early English),\n is considered to have been written somewhere about A.D.\n 700. It relates the adventures of a prince of Jutland or of Southern\n Sweden. Though made and sung in a Christian country, it breathes the\n spirit of an earlier (heathen) time, as the instance of the burning of\n Beowulf alone would testify.\n\n [109] Hel, from _helja_, \u2018to conceal,\u2019 answered identically to Hades.\n\n [110] This heavenward journey may be described as at first a\n haven-ward one (_i.e._ across the sea); later as a really heavenward\n one through the air, with the wind-god.\n\n [111] This is the Younger, or Prose Edda, of Snorro (D\u00e6misaga 49), not\n that called the Edda of S\u00e6mund--the _Elder_ Edda. Undoubtedly the myth\n of Balder is largely infused with Christian elements.\n\n [112] Hel, in Norse mythology, is a person, the regent of Helheim.\n Just in the same way Hades is in Homer always a god, never a place.\n The idea concerning Helheim seems to have been that all who were not\n slain in battle went to its dark shore.\n\n [113] _i.e._ Dokkr, _dark_. She sits in a cave, because both day and\n night are imagined as coming from a cave. So Shelley sings--\n\n    \u2018Swiftly walk over the western cave,\n            Spirit of Night,\n     Out of thy misty eastern cave.\u2019\n\n\n [114] Or, strictly speaking, the Brahmana of the Yagur Veda. The\n Brahmana is the scholiast (as it were) or _targum_ of the original\n text. Urva_s_i is Ushas, the Dawn.\n\n [115] Morris, _Earthly Paradise_: Cupid and Psyche.\n\n [116] I have no doubt there is another element in all these stories,\n not inconsistent with but complementary to the first--namely, what I\n will call a _mystery_ element connected with a descent to the world of\n shades, such as formed the staple of the Eleusinian mysteries. Thus\n I think Pururavas is the hidden sun (the dark Osiris as it were).\n He might call himself Pururavas _under the earth_ as Prince Hatt is\n Prince Hatt _under the earth_. This would explain how the story got\n to be connected with Psyche (the Soul). It may be said, too, that\n there is often a _mystery_ element connected with such notions as the\n concealment of names, etc.\n\n [117] Connected with L\u00eath\u00ea, _concealment_ or _forgetfulness_, as with\n L\u00eato, the mother of Apollo. All signify the darkness.\n\n [118] See last chapter, p. 252. Endymion is found by Artemis sleeping\n in a cave of Latmos.\n\n [119] See Baring-Gould, _Curious Myths_, etc.\n\n [120] He is actually a reduplication of Thor; for his name means\n _thunder_, as does Thor\u2019s. Thor is of course much more than a god of\n thunder only; but his hammer is undoubtedly the thunder-bolt. Thrym\n represents the same power associated with beings of frost and snow,\n the winter thunder, in fact. This stealing Thor\u2019s hammer is merely a\n repetition of the idea implied by his name and character.\n\n [121] Which Freyja wore.\n\n [122] Giant does not really translate Thurs. Most of the Thursar\n were giants as opposed to the Dvargar, the dwarfs. But this Alv\u00ees\n (all-wise) is spoken of as a dwarf.\n\n [123] There is a clear recollection of this in the end of\n Rumpelstiltskin.\n\n [124] This story, be it said, comes only from the younger Edda. No\n hint of it in the older.\n\n [125] \u2018Beowulf,\u2019 we have said, is thought to have been first composed\n in English at the end of the seventh century. There was probably an\n earlier and more simple version of the poem which has come down to\n us. I do not mean to say that either Beowulf or Sigurd are simply\n personifications of the sun; only that some of their belongings and\n adventures have descended to them from sun-heroes.\n\n [126] Valkyria, sing.; Valkyriur, pl.\n\n [127] _Kinder-u. Hausm\u00e4rchen._\n\n [128] _I.e._ the sky. See Grimm, _Deutsche Myth._, s.v. (Hackelberg);\n and also two very interesting articles by A. K\u00fchn, _Zeitsch. f\u00fcr\n deutsch. Alterth._, v. 379, vi. 117, showing relationship of\n Hackelb\u00e4rend and the S\u00e2rameyas.\n\n [129] These twelve nights occupy in the middle-age legends the place\n of a sort of battle-ground between the powers of light and darkness.\n One obvious reason of this is that they lie in midwinter, when the\n infernal powers are the strongest. Another reason, perhaps, is that\n they lie between the great Christian feast and the great heathen one,\n the feast of Yule. Each party might be expected to put forth its full\n power.\n\n [130] Perhaps for a reason like that which made the beetle a symbol of\n the soul or immortality among the Egyptians, namely, because the mouse\n hibernates like the sleeping earth. It is worth noticing that Anubis,\n the Egyptian psychopomp, is also a wind-god.--A. K.\n\n [131] The appearance of _children_ in the story need not, however,\n necessarily mean that the mortality had specially affected the\n children. It may only have been an expression like the Latin\n _manes_--the little ones--used for the souls of the departed. We know\n how constantly in medi\u00e6val art the soul is represented as drawn out of\n the body in the form of a child.\n\n [132] There are at least six different versions of the same legend\n given in Grimm\u2019s _Deutsche Sagen_.\n\n [133] This myth is related by Procopius (_B. G._, iv.). There is\n little doubt that this island, which _he_ calls Brittia (and of course\n distinguishes from Britannia), is really identical with it. The _wall_\n which he speaks of as dividing it is proof sufficient.\n\n [134] To the house of Yama.\n\n [135] See above, p. 251.\n\n [136] See above, p. 231.\n\n [137] The fortune which accompanies a myth is very curious. That\n of Freyr and Gerda is by no means conspicuous in the Edda, and I\n should not have been justified in comparing it in importance with the\n Persephone myth, _but_ that precisely the same story forms a leading\n feature in _the_ great Norse and Teuton epic, the Volsung and Nibelung\n songs.\n\n [138] It is interesting to note that _one_ of the proofs that the\n Greek _alphabet_ is derived from the Ph\u0153nician is precisely similar\n to the proof that the Sanskrit _Dy\u00e2us_ or _duhitar_ are earlier\n forms than Zeus or _daughter_. Because in Greek _alphabet_ means\n only _alpha_ (\u03b1) _beta_ (\u03b2), but in Ph\u0153nician _alpha_ or _aleph_ and\n _beta_ or _beth_ have distinct meanings--\u2018ox\u2019 and \u2018house\u2019--the objects\n supposed to be symbolized by the first two Ph\u0153nician letters. See\n above.\n\n [139] Or Khita.\n\n [140] The word would be more correctly spelt _Yaw\u00e2n_. It is known that\n I\u00f4n has been changed from Iv\u00f4n, or rather Iw\u00f4n, by the elision of the\n digamma.\n\n [141] _i.e._ the Gauls.\n\n [142] For the story of Bran\u2019s head, which spoke after it was cut off,\n and which is in its natural interpretation probably the sun, see Mr.\n M. Arnold\u2019s _Celtic Literature_.\n\n [143] Or if the Teutones were really Germans. Some have denied this\n (see Latham\u2019s _Germania_, Appendix). But, I think, without sufficient\n reason.\n\n [144] Latham\u2019s _Germania_.\n\n [145] And therefore possibly Slaves, Wend being a name applied by\n Teutons to Slaves.\n\n [146] _e.g._ Old German, _aran_, to plough = _arare_, etc.\n\n\nTypographical errors corrected by the etext transcriber:\n\nparty exterminated=> partly exterminated {pg 101}\n\ncertain among the the islands=> certain among the islands {pg 115}\n\nof the Semitic=> of the Semetic {pg 118}\n\nthe Ayran people=> the Aryan people {pg 199}\n\nhave the Elsyian fields=> have the Elysian fields {pg 243}\n\nthe Egyptian heiroglyphics=> the Egyptian hieroglyphics {pg 311}\n\nclosely alied to=> closely allied to {pg 320}\n\nthe ancient Egptian=> the ancient Egyptian {pg 339}\n\ncase in repect of=> case in respect of {pg 351}\n\nin Phenician=> in Ph\u0153nician {pg 357}\n\nto the Eyptians=> to the Egyptians {pg 364}","title":"The Dawn of History: An Introduction to Pre-Historic Study","tradition":"myth-cosmogony","translated_text":null,"word_count":116589}