{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_57150/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_57150","id":"gutenberg_57150","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/57150","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Archaeology & Anthropology","Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: History - Ancient","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Phallicism","Serpent worship","Totemism"],"text":"Produced by Chris Curnow, Les Galloway and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This\nfile was produced from images generously made available\nby The Internet Archive)\n\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber's Notes\n\nObvious typographical errors have been silently corrected. Hyphenation\nand accents have been standardised, but other variations remain\nunchanged.\n\nFootnotes are placed at the end of each chapter.\n\nAnchors for footnotes 144 and 369 have been added.\n\nItalics are represented thus _italic_.\n\n\n\n\n                           SERPENT-WORSHIP,\n\n                           AND OTHER ESSAYS\n\n                           WITH A CHAPTER ON\n\n                               TOTEMISM\n\n                                  BY\n\n                           C. STANILAND WAKE\n\n                                LONDON\n                             GEORGE REDWAY\n                       YORK STREET COVENT GARDEN\n                                 1888.\n\n\n\n\n                               CONTENTS.\n\n\n  CHAPTER I.                                                       PAGE.\n\n  RIVERS OF LIFE                                                       1\n\n\n  CHAPTER II.\n\n  PHALLISM IN ANCIENT RELIGIONS                                        8\n\n\n  CHAPTER III.\n\n  THE ORIGIN OF SERPENT-WORSHIP                                       81\n\n\n  CHAPTER IV.\n\n  THE ADAMITES                                                       107\n\n\n  CHAPTER V.\n\n  THE DESCENDANTS OF CAIN                                            128\n\n\n  CHAPTER VI.\n\n  SACRED PROSTITUTION                                                149\n\n\n  CHAPTER VII.\n\n  MARRIAGE AMONG PRIMITIVE PEOPLES                                   165\n\n\n  CHAPTER VIII.\n\n  MARRIAGE BY CAPTURE                                                180\n\n\n  CHAPTER IX.\n\n  DEVELOPMENT OF THE \u201cFAMILY\u201d                                        192\n\n\n  CHAPTER X.\n\n  THE SOCIAL POSITION OF WOMAN AS AFFECTED BY\n  \u201cCIVILISATION\u201d                                                     219\n\n\n  CHAPTER XI.\n\n  SPIRITISM AND MODERN SPIRITUALISM                                  233\n\n\n  CHAPTER XII.\n\n  TOTEMS AND TOTEMISM                                                247\n\n\n  CHAPTER XIII.\n\n  MAN AND THE APE                                                    278\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nRIVERS OF LIFE.\n\n\nThe lines of development of the religious faiths of mankind have been\naptly termed by Major-General Forlong \u201cRivers of Life.\u201d The streams\nof faiths are marvellously depicted by this writer in a chart which\nshows \u201cthe rise and fall of the various religious ideas, mythologies,\nand rites which have at any time prevailed among nations.\u201d This chart\ningeniously shows, moreover, \u201cthe degrees of intensity manifested at\nstated periods by any particular wave of doctrine or worship, and the\nmode in which the tributary streams of mythological or theological\nthought become in turn absorbed in the central River of Life.\u201d The\nviews adopted by General Forlong have much in common with those\nembodied in the works of Godfrey Higgins and some later writers, but\nthey have a special value as being based on personal observation. The\nauthor of \u201cRivers of Life\u201d had the inestimable advantage of being\nadmitted to shrines and of receiving instructions in sacred mysteries\nwhich are generally closed to European inquirers, and of having made\n\u201ca diligent exploration of ruined temples, pillars, and mounds, and\nall such traces of a primitive symbolism, which lie scattered over the\nEast and West, as religious fossils underlying the superficial crust of\ntheological strata.\u201d\n\nRivers of religious life have a beginning, like other streams, and what\nare the sources to which man\u2019s primitive faiths may be traced? The early\n\u201csymbolic objects of man\u2019s adoration\u201d are arranged by General Forlong\nin the following order: First, Tree; 2nd, Phallic; 3rd, Serpent; 4th,\nFire; 5th, Sun; 6th, Ancestral. The first \u201cbreathings of the human\nsoul\u201d were manifested under the sacred tree or grove, whose refreshing\nshade is so highly valued in the East. All nations, particularly the\nAryan peoples, have considered tree-planting a sacred duty, and the\ngrove was man\u2019s first temple, \u201cand became a sanctuary, asylum, or\nplace of refuge, and as time passed on, temples came to be built in\nthe sacred groves.\u201d If tree-worship had such an origin as this, its\norigin ought to be shown in the ideas associated with it. What, then,\nare those ideas? General Forlong, after referring to Dr. Fergusson\u2019s\nstatement that the tree and serpent are symbolised in every religious\nsystem which the world has known, says that the two together are\ntypical of the reproductive powers of vegetable and animal life. The\nconnection between tree and serpent-worship is often so intimate that\nwe may expect one to throw light on the other. The Aryans generally\nmay be called \u201ctree-worshippers,\u201d and according to Fergusson they as a\nrule destroyed serpents and serpent-worshipping races. Yet at Athens\nand near Rome both those faiths flourished together, as they appear\nto have done also in many parts of Western Asia. They are intimately\nassociated with religious notions of many Buddhist peoples. This is\nshown curiously in the early legends of Kambodia. These are said by\nGeneral Forlong to present two striking features. First, a holy tree,\nwhich the kingly race, who came to this serpent country, reposed under,\nor descended from heaven by; secondly, that this tree-loving race are\ncaptivated by the dragon princess of the land. It is the serpent king,\nhowever, who builds the city of _Nakon Thom_ for his daughter and her\nstranger husband. It is not improbable that Buddhism originated among a\npeople who were both tree and serpent-worshippers, although the former\nbecame more intimately and at an earlier period associated with its\nfounder.\n\nLet us now see what ideas are symbolised by the serpent. We are told\nthat he is \u201can emblem of the Sun, Time, Kronos, and Eternity.\u201d The\nserpent was, indeed, the Sun-God, or spirit of the sun, and therefore\nPower, Wisdom, Light, and a fit type of creation and generative power.\nDr. Donaldson came to the conclusion that the serpent has always a\nPhallic significance, a remark which exactly accords with General\nForlong\u2019s experience, \u201cfounded simply upon _close observation_ in\nEastern lands, and conclusions drawn by himself, unaided by books or\nteachers, from thousands of stories and conversations with Eastern\npriests and people.\u201d The testimony of a competent and honest observer\nis all important, and we must believe when we are told that the\nserpent, or the constant early attendant on the Lingam, is the special\nsymbol which veils the actual God. The same may be said, indeed, of\nTree Worship, and as tree-worship and serpent-worship embrace the\nPhallic faith, the first three streams of faiths are represented by\nthem. It is evident, however, that Phallic ideas are at the foundation\nof both tree and serpent-worship, and the Phallic stream of faith\nshould be given the first place as the actual source of the Rivers of\nLife. General Forlong does, indeed, affirm that Phallic worship enters\nso closely into union with _all_ faiths to the present hour that it\nis impossible to keep it out of view. We can well understand how this\nshould be as to the tree, serpent, and solar cults, but it is not\nso evident at first sight in relation to fire-worship. If fire was,\nhowever, regarded as the servant of Siva, and all creating gods, there\nis no difficulty in accepting the position. The object of the worship\noffered to the sacred fire is consistent with that view. Thus Greeks,\nRomans, and Hindoos \u201cbesought Agni by fervent prayers for increase of\nflocks and families, for happy lives and serene old age, for wisdom\nand pardon from sin.\u201d General Forlong appears to see in the worship\nof fire essentially a household faith, and this was undoubtedly so if\nhis explanation of the Lares and Penates is correct. These symbols\nrepresented \u201cthe _past_ vital fire or energy of the tribe, as the\npatriarch, his stalwart sons and daughters did that of the _present_\nliving fire the sacred hearth.\u201d General Forlong states, indeed, that\neverything relating to blood used to be connected with fire, and he\nsupposed, therefore, that _agnatio_ may have been _relation by fire_,\nfor the _agnati_ can only be those of the fire or father\u2019s side.\n\nIf the father derived his authority in the household from the sacred\nhearth-fire, we can understand why General Forlong has assigned to\nancestor-worship the last place in his scheme. He says, moreover, that\nancestor-worship is \u201ca development and sequence of that idiosyncracy\nof man which has led him to worship and deify even the living\u2014that\nwhich, according to the teaching of Euemerus, accounts for all the\nmythological tales of the gods and god-like men of Greece.\u201d The\nancestor was worshipped in the great chief, the Father of Fathers, each\nof whom was worshipped in the _Dii Gentiles_ of his own class, and this\nnot only during the comparatively modern Roman sway, but during the\nages of serpent, fire, and solar faiths. In the still earlier faiths\nhe was represented in the rude pillar, as well as in the little Lares\nand Penates of the hearths. In this case, however, ancestor-worship\nwould seem to be entitled to stand on the same level as tree-worship\nand serpent-worship as a phase of the Phallic faith. In fact, it is\nin a sense identified with serpent-worship. General Forlong remarks\nthat among the Greeks and Romans \u201cthe ancestor came to be honoured\nand worshipped only as the Generator, and so also the serpent as his\nsymbol.\u201d This agrees with the conclusion I have elsewhere endeavoured\nto establish, that the serpent is really regarded as the representative\nof the ancestor, in which case ancestor-worship is a very primitive\nfaith, although, in a specialised form, it may possibly, as asserted by\nGeneral Forlong, come later than fire-worship.\n\nIt can hardly now be doubted that the same ideas underlie all the early\nfaiths. This view is entertained by General Forlong, who says: \u201cSo\nimperceptibly arose the serpent on pure Phallic faiths, fire on these,\nand sun on all, and so intimately did all blend with one another, that\neven in the ages of true history it was often impossible to descry the\nexact God alluded to.\u201d The foundations of all those faiths, and of\nancestor-worship as allied to them, must therefore be sought in the\nideas entertained by mankind in the earliest times, \u201cwhen the races\nlived untaught, herded with their cattle, and had as their sole object\nin life the multiplication of these and of themselves.\u201d The question\narises, however, whether the simple faith which man then entertained\nwas the earliest he had evolved. General Forlong answers this question\nin the negative, for he says, then referring to the serpent Buddhism\nof Kambodia, that \u201cFetish worship was the _first_ worship, and to a\ngreat extent is still the _real_ faith of the ignorant, especially\nabout these parts.\u201d He finds that nearly one quarter of the world yet\ndeifies, or at least reverences, sticks and stones, rams\u2019 horns and\ncharms, a practice not unknown even to later faiths. The fundamental\nbelief which furnishes the key to those phenomena, as well as to the\nanimal-worship which is so closely associated with one or other of the\ngreat faith streams, should not be lost sight of. Jacob Grimm pointed\nout, in his \u201cTeutonic Mythology,\u201d[1] that all nature was thought of by\nthe heathen Germans as living. Gods and men transformed themselves into\ntrees, plants, or beasts; spirits and elements attained animal forms;\nand therefore we cannot wonder at the heavenly bodies, and even day and\nnight, summer and winter, being actually personified. These ideas lend\nthemselves as well to fetishism as to sun-worship, and all the ancient\nfaiths alike may justly, therefore, be regarded as phases of one\nuniversal nature-worship. Mankind prays only for that which is thought\ngood, and if one man seeks to obtain his desire through the agency of\na stick or a stone, and another through a serpent or planetary god, the\ndifference between them is purely objective. The prayers which were\noffered to the Vedic gods would be equally appropriate in the mouth of\na native of Western Africa. They had relation simply to temporal needs,\nand were, says Mr. Talboys Wheeler,[2] for plenty of rain, abundant\nharvests, and prolific cattle, for bodily vigour, long life, numerous\noffspring, and protection against all foes and robbers. Moreover,\nthe observances of the more advanced faiths have little practical\ndifference from the fetishist. All alike have for their object the\ncompelling the good countenance, or counteracting the evil designs,\nof the gods or spirits, and the real difference is to be sought in\nthe symbols under which they are represented. Thus the Vedic Aryans\nregarded their deified abstractions as personified with human wants,\nand invoked them with rites which \u201cmay have formed an accompaniment\nto every meal, and may have been regarded almost as a part of the\ncooking.\u201d Mr. Wheeler adds[3] that \u201cSometimes a deity is supposed to\nbe attracted by the grateful sound of the stone and mortar by which\nthe _soma_ juice was expressed from the plant, or by the musical noise\nof the churning sticks by which the wine was apparently stirred up and\nmixed with curds; and the eager invokers implore the god not to turn\naside to the dwelling of any other worshipper, but to come to them\nonly, and drink the libation which they had prepared, and reserve for\nthem all his favours and benefits.\u201d\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[1] Eng. Trans., vol. ii., p. 647.\n\n[2] \u201cThe History of India,\u201d vol. i., p. 8.\n\n[3] Ditto, p. 13.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nPHALLISM IN ANCIENT RELIGIONS.\n\n\nDr. Faber, when treating of the ancient mysteries in opposition to\nBishop Warburton\u2019s views of their original purity, says: \u201cLong before\nthe time of Apuleius, whom he (Warburton) would describe as quitting\nthe impure orgies of the Syrian Goddess for the blameless initiations\nof Isis, did the Phallic processions, if we may credit Herodotus and\nDiodorus, form a most conspicuous and essential part, not only of the\nmysteries in general, but of these identical Isiac or Osiric mysteries\nin particular. Nor is there any reason to doubt their accuracy on this\npoint. The same detestable rites prevailed in Palestine among the\nvotaries of Siton, or Adonis, or Baal-Peor, long before the exodus of\nIsrael from Egypt. The same also, anterior at least to the days of\nHerodotus, in Babylonia, Cyprus, and Lydia. The same likewise from\nthe most remote antiquity in the mountains of Armenia, among the\nworshippers of the great mother Anais; and the same, from the very\nfirst institution of their theological system, as we may fairly argue\nfrom the uniform general establishment of this peculiar superstition,\namong the Celtic Druids both of Britain and of Ireland. Nor do we find\nsuch orgies less prevalent in Hindostan. Every part of the theology of\nthat country ... is inseparably blended with them, and replete with\nallusions to their fictitious origin.\u201d[4] It will not be necessary\nfor me to give details of the rites by which the Phallic superstition\nis distinguished, as they may be found in the works of Dulaure,[5]\nRichard Payne Knight,[6] and many other writers. I shall refer to them,\ntherefore, only so far as may be required for the due understanding\nof the subject to be considered, the influence of the Phallic idea\nin the religions of antiquity. The first step in the inquiry is to\nascertain the origin of the superstition in question. Faber ingeniously\nreferred to a primitive universal belief in a Great Father, the curious\nconnection seen to exist between nearly all non-Christian mythologies,\nand he saw in Phallic worship a degradation of this belief. Such an\nexplanation as this, however, is not satisfactory, since not only does\nit require the assumption of a primitive divine revelation, but proof\nis still wanting that all peoples have, or ever had, any such notion\nof a great parent of mankind as that supposed to have been revealed.\nAnd yet there is a valuable germ of truth in this hypothesis. The\nPhallic superstition is founded essentially in the family idea. Captain\nRichard Burton recognised this truth when he asserted that \u201camongst\nall barbarians whose primal want is progeny, we observe a greater or\nless development of the Phallic worship.\u201d[7] This view, however, is\nimperfect. There must have been something more than a mere desire for\nprogeny to lead primitive man to view the generative process with the\npeculiar feelings embodied in this superstition. We are, in fact, here\ntaken to the root of all religions\u2014awe at the mysterious and unknown.\nThat which the uncultured mind cannot understand is viewed with dread\nor veneration, as it may be, and the object presenting the mysterious\nphenomenon may itself be worshipped as a fetish or the residence of\na presiding spirit. But there is nothing more mysterious than the\nphenomena of generation, and nothing more important than the final\nresult of the generative act. Reflection on this result would naturally\ncause that which led to it to be invested with a certain degree of\nsuperstitious significance. The feeling generated would have a double\nobject, as it had a double origin\u2014wonder at the phenomenon itself\nand a perception of the value of its consequences. The former, which\nis the most simple, would lead to a veneration for the organs whose\noperation conduced to the phenomena, hence the superstitious practices\nconnected with the phallus and the yoni among primitive peoples. In\nthis, moreover, we have the explanation of numerous curious facts\nobserved among Eastern nations. Such is the respect shown by women\nfor the generative organ of dervishes and fakirs. Such also is the\nSemitic custom referred to in the Hebrew Scriptures as the putting of\nthe hand under the thigh, which is explained by the Talmudists to be\nthe touching of that part of the body which is sealed and made holy by\ncircumcision; a custom which was, up to a recent date, still in use\namong the Arabs as the most solemn guarantee of truthfulness.[8]\n\nThe second phase of the Phallic superstition is that which arises from\na perception of the value of the consequences of the act of generation.\nThe distinction between this and the preceding phase is that, while\nthe one has relation to the organs engaged, the other refers more\nparticularly to the chief agent. Thus the father of the family is\nvenerated as the generator, and his authority is founded altogether on\nthe act and consequences of generation. We thus see the fundamental\nimportance, as well as the Phallic origin, of the family idea. From\nthis has sprung the social organisation of all primitive peoples. An\ninstance in point may be derived from Mr. Hunter\u2019s account of the\nSantals of Bengal. He says that the classification of this interesting\npeople among themselves depends \u201cnot upon social rank or occupation,\nbut upon the family basis.\u201d This is shown by the character of the six\ngreat ceremonies in a Santal\u2019s life, which are, \u201cadmission into the\nfamily; admission into the tribe; admission into the race; union of his\nown tribe with another by marriage; formal dismission from the living\nrace by incremation; lastly, a reunion with the departed fathers.\u201d[9]\nWe may judge from this of the character of certain customs which are\nwidespread among primitive peoples, and the Phallic origin of which\nhas long since been lost sight of. The value set on the results of the\ngenerative act would naturally make the arrival at the age of puberty\nan event of peculiar significance. Hence we find various ceremonies\nperformed among primitive, and even among civilised peoples, at this\nperiod of life. Often when the youth arrives at manhood other rites\nare performed to mark the significance of the event. Marriage, too,\nderives an importance which it would not otherwise possess. Thus, among\nmany peoples, it is attended with certain ceremonies denoting its\nobject, or at least marking it as an event of peculiar significance in\nthe life of the individual or even in the history of the tribe. The\nmarriage ceremonial is especially fitted for the use of Phallic rites\nor symbolism, the former among semi-civilised peoples often being\nsimply the act of consummation itself, which appears to be looked on\nas part of the ceremony. The symbolism we have ourselves retained to\nthe present day in the wedding-ring, which had undoubtedly a Phallic\norigin, if, as appears probable, it originated in the Samothracian\nmysteries.[10] Nor does the influence of the Phallic idea end with\nlife. The veneration entertained for the father of the family, as the\n\u201cgenerator,\u201d led in time to peculiar care being taken of the bodies of\nthe dead, and finally to the worship of ancestors, which, under one\nform or another, distinguished all the civilised nations of antiquity,\nas it does even now most of the peoples of the heathen world.\n\nThere is one Phallic rite which, from its wide range, is of peculiar\nimportance. I refer to circumcision. The origin of this custom has not\nyet, so far as I am aware, been satisfactorily explained. The idea\nthat, under certain climatic conditions, circumcision is necessary for\ncleanliness and comfort,[11] does not appear to be well founded, as the\ncustom is not universal, even within the tropics. Nor is the reason\ngiven by Captain Richard Burton, in his \u201cNotes connected with the\nDahoman,\u201d for both circumcision and excision, perfectly satisfactory.\nThe real origin of these customs has been forgotten by all peoples\npractising them, and therefore they have ceased to have their primitive\nsignificance. That circumcision at least had a superstitious origin\nmay be inferred from the traditional history of the Jews. The old\nHebrew writers, persistent in their idea that they were a peculiar\npeople, chosen by God for a special purpose, asserted that this rite\nwas instituted by Jehovah as a sign of the covenant between Him and\nAbraham. Although we cannot doubt that this rite was practised by the\nEgyptians and Ph\u0153nicians[12] long before the birth of Abraham, yet two\npoints connected with the Hebrew tradition are noticeable. These are,\nthe religious significance of the act of circumcision\u2014it is the sign\nof a covenant between God and man\u2014and its performance by the head of\nthe family. These two things are indeed intimately connected; since, in\nthe patriarchal age, the father was always the priest of the family,\nthe officer of the sacrifices. We have it on the authority of the Veda\nthat this was the case also among the primitive Aryan people.[13]\nAbraham, therefore, as the father and priest of the family, performed\nthe religious ceremony of circumcision on the males of his household.\n\nCircumcision, in its inception, is a purely Phallic rite,[14] having\nfor its aim the marking of that which from its associations is\nviewed with peculiar veneration, and it connects the two phases of\nthis superstition, which have for their objects respectively the\n_instrument_ of generation and the _agent_. We are thus brought back to\nthe consideration of the simplest form of Phallic worship, that which\nhas for its object the generative organs, viewed as the mysterious\ninstruments in the realisation of that keen desire for children\nwhich distinguishes all primitive peoples. This feeling is so nearly\nuniversal that it is a matter of surprise to find the act by which it\nis expressed stigmatised as sinful. Yet such is the case, although the\nincidents in which the fact is embodied are so veiled in figure that\ntheir true meaning has long been forgotten. Clemens Alexandrinus tells\nus that \u201cthe bacchanals hold their orgies in honour of the frenzied\nBacchus, celebrating their sacred frenzy by the eating of raw flesh,\nand go through the distribution of the parts of butchered victims,\ncrowned with snakes, shrieking out the name of that Eva by whom\nerror came into the world.\u201d He adds that \u201cthe symbol of the Bacchic\norgies is a consecrated serpent,\u201d and that, \u201caccording to the strict\ninterpretation of the Hebrew term, the name Hevia, aspirated, signifies\na _female serpent_.\u201d[15] We have here a reference to the supposed\nfall of man from pristine \u201cinnocence,\u201d Eve and the serpent being very\nsignificantly introduced in close conjunction, and indeed becoming\nin some sense identified with each other. In fact, the Arabic word\nfor serpent, _hayyat_, may be said also to mean \u201clife,\u201d and in this\nsense the legendary, first human mother is called Eve or _Chevvah_, in\nArabic _hawwa_. In its relations, as an asserted fact, the question\nof the fall has an important bearing on the subject before us. Quite\nirrespective of the impossibility of accepting the Mosaic Cosmogony\nas a divinely-inspired account of the origin of the world and man\u2014a\ncosmogony which, with those of all other Semitic peoples, has a purely\n\u201cPhallic\u201d basis[16]\u2014the whole transaction said to have taken place\nin the Garden of Eden is fraught with difficulties on the received\ninterpretation. The very idea on which it is founded\u2014the placing by\nGod in the way of Eve of a temptation which he knew she could not\nresist\u2014is sufficient to throw discredit on the ordinary reading of\nthe narrative. The effect, indeed, that was to follow the eating of\nthe forbidden fruit appears to an ordinary mind to furnish the most\npraiseworthy motive for not obeying the commandment to abstain. That\nthe \u201ceating of the forbidden fruit\u201d was simply a figurative mode of\nexpressing the performance of the act necessary to the perpetuation of\nthe human race\u2014an act which in its origin was thought to be the source\nof all evil\u2014is evident from the consequences which followed and from\nthe curse entailed.[17] As to the curse inflicted on Eve, it has always\nbeen a stumbling block in the way of commentators. For what connection\nis there between the eating of a fruit and sorrow in bringing forth\nchildren? The meaning is evident, however, when we know that conception\nand child-bearing were the direct consequences of the act forbidden.\nHow far this meaning was intended by the compiler of the Mosaic books\nwe shall see further on.\n\nThe central feature of the Mosaic legend of the \u201cfall\u201d is the reference\nto the tree of knowledge or wisdom. It is now generally supposed that\nthe forbidden fruit was a kind of _citrus_,[18] but certain facts\nconnected with _aborolatry_ clearly show this opinion to be erroneous.\nAmong peoples in the most opposite regions of the world various\nspecies of the fig-tree are considered sacred. In almost every part of\nAfrica the _banyan_ is viewed with a special veneration. Livingstone\nnoticed this among the tribes on the Zambesi and the Shire,[19] and\nhe says that the banyan is looked upon with veneration all the way\nfrom the Barotse to Loanda, and thought to be a preservative from\nevil.[20] Du Chaillu states that in almost every Ishogo and Ashango\nvillage he visited in Western Equatorial Africa there was a large\n_ficus_ \u201cstanding about the middle of the main street, and near the\nmbuiti or idol-house of the village.\u201d The tree is sacred, and if\nit dies the village is at once abandoned.[21] Captain Tuckey found\nthe same thing on the Congo, where he says the _ficus religiosa_ is\nconsidered sacred.[22] Again, according to Cailli\u00e9, at Mouriosso, in\nWestern Central Africa, the market was held under a tree, which, from\nhis description, must have been the banyan, and he noticed the same\nthing in other towns.[23] It is evident from Dr. Barth\u2019s \u201cTravels in\nCentral Africa,\u201d that superstitious regard for certain trees is found\nthroughout the whole of the region he traversed, and among some tribes\nthe fig-tree occupies this position. Thus, he says, \u201cthe sacred grove\nof the village of Isge was formed by magnificent trees, mostly of\nthe _ficus_ tribe.\u201d[24] Nor is this superstition unknown among other\ndark races of the Southern Hemisphere. A species of the fig-tree is\nplanted by the New Zealanders close to the temples of their gods. The\nsuperstition is traceable, according to Mr. Earle, even among the\naborigines of Northern Australia, certain peculiar notions connected\nwith the banyan tree being common to the inhabitants of the Coburg\nPeninsula and of the Indian Islands.[25] Mr. Marsden met with this\nsuperstition among the Sumatrans, and we learn from Mr. Wallace that\nin one of the towns of Eastern Java the market is held under the\nbranches of a tree allied to the sacred fig-tree.[26] If we turn to\nIndia, we find that while the banyan is venerated by the Brahmans,\nit is the bo-tree which is held sacred by many of the followers of\nGautama Buddha. This may be because, under the name of the _Pilpel_,\nit was the peculiar tree of the first recorded Buddha, of whom Gautama\nwas supposed by his disciples to be an incarnation. Both of these\ntrees belong to the genus _ficus_, and it is curious that, although\nprobably in consequence of Semitic influence, the _ficus sycamorus_\nwas the sacred tree in ancient Egypt, of which it was the symbol, its\nplace appears ultimately to have been taken by the banyan (_ficus\nindica_),[27] so highly venerated in other parts of Africa. Now,\nwhat is the explanation of the peculiar character ascribed to these\ntrees by peoples who must, on any hypothesis, have been separated for\nthousands of years? The bo-tree of the Buddhists itself derived a more\nsacred character from its encircling the palm\u2014the Palmyra Palm being\nthe _kalpa-tree_, or \u201ctree of life,\u201d of the Hindu paradise.[28] The\nBuddhists term this connection \u201cthe bo-tree united in marriage with the\npalm.\u201d The Phallic significance of the palm is well known, and in its\nconnection with the bo-tree we have the perfect idea of generative\nactivity, the combining of the male and female organs, a combination\nintended by the Hebrew legend when it speaks of the tree of life, and\nalso of \u201cthe knowledge of good and evil.\u201d[29] \u201cThe palm-tree,\u201d says\nDr. Inman, \u201cis figured on ancient coins alone, or associated with some\nfeminine emblem. It typified the male creator, who was represented as\nan upright stone, a pillar, a round tower, a tree stump, an oak-tree,\na pine-tree, a maypole, a spire, an obelisk, a minaret, and the\nlike.\u201d[30] As we have just seen, the Palmyra Palm is the _kalpa-tree_,\nor the \u201ctree of life\u201d of the Hindu paradise, and this was not the only\nkind of tree with which the idea of life was thus associated.\n\nIn the mythologies of more northern peoples the place of the palm is\nsupplied by the more stately, if less upright, oak. The patriarch Jacob\nhid the idols of his household under the oak near Shechem,[31] and his\ndescendants afterwards made burnt offerings under every thick oak.[32]\nAmong the Greeks and Romans this tree was sacred to Zeus, or Jupiter,\nthe Father of Gods and men. With the Russians, the Prussians, and the\nGermans, the oak was equally sacred. The sacred oak was the form under\nwhich the Druids worshipped the Supreme Being _H\u00e6sus_, or Mighty.\nAccording to Davies,[33] it was symbolised by the letter D, which\nforms the consonantal sound of the word denoting God in many languages,\nas it does of the name of the mythical father _Ad_, of the Adamic stock\nof mankind. In Teutonic mythology the great oak forms the roof-tree of\nthe Volsung\u2019s hall, spreading its branches far and wide in the upper\nair, being the counterpart, says Mr. Cox, of the mighty Yggdrasil.[34]\nThis is the gigantic ash-tree, whose branches embrace the whole world,\nand which is thought to be only another form of the colossal Irminsul.\nMr. Cox observes on this: \u201cThe tree and pillar are thus alike seen in\nthe columns, whether of Herakles or of Roland; while the cosmogonic\ncharacter of the myth is manifest in the legend of the primeval Askr,\nthe offspring of the ash-tree, of which Virgil, from the characteristic\nwhich probably led to its selection, speaks as stretching its roots as\nfar down into earth as its branches soar towards heaven.\u201d[35] The name\nof the Teutonic Askr is also that of the Iranian _Meschia_,[36] and the\nash, therefore, must be identified with the tree from which springs\nthe primeval man of the Zarathustrian cosmogony.[37] So Sigmund of the\nVolsung Tale is drawn from the trunk of a poplar tree,[38] which thus\noccupies the same position as the ash and the oak as a \u201ctree of life.\u201d\nThe poplar was, indeed, a sacred tree among many nations of antiquity.\nThis may, doubtless, be explained by reference to its \u201chabit,\u201d which\nmuch resembles that of the sacred Indian fig-tree, with which the\ntrembling movement, as well as the shape, of its leaves have caused it\nto be thus compared.\n\nThat the ideas symbolised by the various sacred trees of antiquity\noriginated, however, with the fig-tree is extremely probable. No\nother tree has been so widely venerated as this. The sycamore (_ficus\nsycamorus_) was sacred to Netpe, the mother of Osiris, whose statue\nwas generally made of its wood. In relation to that subject, Sir\nGardner Wilkinson says:[39] \u201cThe Athenians had a holy fig-tree, which\ngrew on the \u2018sacred road,\u2019 where, during the celebration of the\nEleusinian mysteries, the procession which went from Athens to Eleusis\nhalted. This was on the sixth day of the ceremony, called Jacchus, in\nhonour of the son of Jupiter and Ceres, who accompanied his mother\nin search of Proserpine; but the fig-tree of Athens does not appear\nto have been borrowed from the sycamore of Egypt, unless it were in\nconsequence of its connection with the mother of Osiris and Isis, whom\nthey supposed to correspond to Ceres and Bacchus.\u201d[40] According to\nPlutarch, a basket of figs formed one of the chief things carried in\nthe processions in honour of Bacchus, and the sacred phallus, like the\nstatue of Priapus, appears to have been generally made of the wood of\nthe fig-tree.[41] These facts well show the nature of the ideas which\nhad come to be connected with that tree. To what has been already\nsaid may, however, be added the testimony of a French writer, who,\nafter speaking of the _lotus_ as one of the many symbols anciently\nused to represent the productive forces of nature, continues: \u201cIl faut\ny joindre, pour le r\u00e8gne v\u00e9g\u00e9tal, le figuier indien, ou l\u2019arbre des\nBanians, le figuier sacr\u00e9 ou religieux (ficus indica, bengalensis,\nficus religiosa, &c.), _vata_, _aswatha_, _pipala_, et bien d\u2019autres,\nid\u00e9alis\u00e9s de bonne heure, dans le mythologie des Hindous, sous la\nfigure de l\u2019arbre de vie, arbre immense, colonne de feu, \u00e9norme et\norgueilleux phallus, l\u2019abord unique, mais depuis devis\u00e9 et dispers\u00e9,\net qui n\u2019est peut-\u00eatre pas sans rapport, soit avec l\u2019arbre de la\nconnaissance du bien et du mal, soit avec d\u2019autres symboles non moins\nfameux.\u201d[42]\n\nThat the _ficus_ was the symbolical tree \u201cin the midst of the garden\u201d\nof the Hebrew legend of the fall is extremely probable. That notion\nwould seem, indeed, to be required by reference to the fig leaves[43]\nas the covering used by Adam and Eve when, after eating the forbidden\nfruit, they found themselves to be naked. The fig-tree, moreover, meets\nthe difficulty in distinguishing between the tree of life and the\ntree of knowledge. These, according to the opinion above expressed,\nas to the meaning of the \u201cfall,\u201d would represent the male and female\nprinciples, as do the bo-tree and palm, \u201cunited in marriage,\u201d of the\nBuddhists, the palm deriving more sacredness from being encircled\nby the ficus. Probably, however, the double symbol was of later\nintroduction. The banyan of itself would be sufficient to represent\nthe dual idea, when to the primitive one of \u201cknowledge\u201d was added that\nof \u201clife.\u201d The stately trunk would answer to the \u201ctree of life,\u201d while\nits fruit was the symbol of that which was more especially affected by\nthe act of disobedience. This was the eating of the fruit, which, as\nconveying the forbidden wisdom, is evidently the essential feature of\nthe legend, and the _fig_ had anciently just that symbolical meaning\nwhich would be required for the purpose.[44] Throughout the East, from\nthe earliest historical period, the fruit of the fig-tree was the\nemblem of virginity. Dr. Inman says: \u201cThe fruit of the tree resembles\nin shape the virgin uterus; with its stem attached, it symbolises the\n_sistrum_ of Isis. Its form led to the idea that it would promote\nfertility. To this day, in Oriental countries, the hidden meaning of\nthe fig is almost as well known as its commercial value.\u201d[45]\n\nThat we have in the Mosaic account of the \u201cfall\u201d a Phallic legend,\nis evident also from the introduction of the serpent on the scene,\nand the position it takes as the inciting cause of the sinful act.\nWe are here reminded of the passage already quoted from Clemens\nAlexandrinus, who tells us that the serpent was the special symbol of\nthe worship of Bacchus. Now this animal holds a very curious place in\nthe religions of the civilised peoples of antiquity. Although, in\nconsequence of the influence of later thought, it came to be treated\nas the personification of evil, and as such appears in the Hebrew\nlegend of the fall, yet originally the serpent was the special symbol\nof wisdom and healing. In the latter capacity it appears even in\nconnection with the Exodus from Egypt. It is, however, in its character\nas a symbol of wisdom that it more especially claims our attention,\nalthough these ideas are intimately connected\u2014the power of healing\nbeing merely a phase of wisdom. From the earliest times of which we\nhave any historical notice the serpent has been connected with the\ngods of wisdom. This animal was the especial symbol of _Thoth_ or\n_Taaut_, a primeval deity of Syro-Egyptian mythology,[46] and of all\nthose gods, such as _Hermes_ and _Seth_, who can be connected with\nhim. This is true also of the 3rd member of the Chaldean triad, _H\u00e9a_\nor _Hoa_. According to Sir Henry Rawlinson, the most important titles\nof this deity refer \u201cto his functions as the source of all knowledge\nand science.\u201d Not only is he \u201cthe intelligent fish,\u201d but his name\nmay be read as signifying both \u201clife\u201d and a \u201cserpent,\u201d and he may\nbe considered as \u201cfigured by the great serpent which occupies so\nconspicuous a place among the symbols of the gods on the black stones\nrecording Babylonian benefactions.\u201d[47] The serpent was also the symbol\nof the Egyptian _Kneph_, who resembled the _Sophia_ of the Gnostics,\nthe divine wisdom. This animal, moreover, was the _Agatho-d\u00e6mon_ of\nthe religions of antiquity\u2014the giver of happiness and good fortune.[48]\nIt was in these capacities, rather than as having a Phallic\nsignificance, that the serpent was associated with the sun-gods, the\nChaldean _Bel_, the Grecian _Apollo_, and the Semitic _Seth_.\n\nBut whence originated the idea of the wisdom of the serpent which led\nto its connection with the legend of the \u201cfall?\u201d This may, perhaps, be\nexplained by other facts, which show also the nature of the wisdom here\nintended. Thus, in the annals of the Mexicans, the first woman, whose\nname was translated by the old Spanish writers, \u201c_the woman of our\nflesh_,\u201d is always represented as accompanied by a great male serpent.\nThis serpent is the sun-god _Tonacatle-coatl_, the principal deity of\nthe Mexican Pantheon, while the goddess-mother of primitive man is\ncalled _Cihua-Cohuatl_, which signifies \u201c_woman of the serpent_.\u201d[49]\nAccording to this legend, which agrees with that of other American\ntribes, a serpent must have been the father of the human race. This\nnotion can be explained only on the supposition that the serpent was\nthought to have had at one time a human form. In the Hebrew legend\nthe tempter speaks, and \u201cthe old serpent having two feet,\u201d of Persian\nmythology, is none other than the evil spirit Ahriman himself.[50] The\nfact is that the serpent was only a symbol, or at most an embodiment of\nthe spirit which it represented, as we see from the belief of several\nAfrican and American tribes, which probably preserves the primitive\nform of this superstition. Serpents are looked upon by these peoples\nas embodiments of their departed ancestors,[51] and an analogous\nnotion is entertained by various Hindoo tribes. No doubt the noiseless\nmovement and the activity of the serpent, combined with its peculiar\ngaze and marvellous power of fascination, led to its being viewed as a\nspirit embodiment, and hence also as the possessor of wisdom.[52] In\nthe spirit character ascribed to the serpent, we have the explanation\nof the association of its worship with human sacrifice noted by Mr.\nFergusson\u2014this sacrifice being really connected with the worship of\nancestors.\n\nIt is evident, moreover, that we find here the origin of the idea of\nevil sometimes associated with the Serpent-God. The Kafir and the\nHindu, although he treats with respect any serpent which may visit his\ndwelling, yet entertains a suspicion of his visitant. It may perhaps\nbe the embodiment of an _evil_ spirit, or for some reason or other\nit may desire to injure _him_. Mr. Fergusson states that \u201cthe chief\ncharacteristic of the serpents throughout the East in all ages seems\nto have been their power over the wind and rain,\u201d which they gave or\nwithheld according to their good or ill-will towards man.[53] This\nnotion is curiously confirmed by the title given by the Egyptians to\nthe Semitic God _Seti_ or _Seth_\u2014_Typhon_, which was the name of the\nPh\u0153nician Evil principle, and also of a destructive wind, thus having\na curious analogy with the \u201cTyphoon\u201d of the Chinese Seas.[54] When\nthe notion of a duality in nature was developed, there would be no\ndifficulty in applying it to the symbols or embodiments by which the\nidea of wisdom was represented in the animal world. Thus, there came to\nbe not only good, but also bad serpents, both of which are referred to\nin the narrative of the Hebrew Exodus, but still more clearly in the\nstruggle between the good and the bad serpents of Persian mythology,\nwhich symbolised Ormuzd or Mithra and the Evil spirit Ahriman.[55] So\nfar as I can make out the serpent symbol has not a _direct_ Phallic\nreference, nor is its attribute of wisdom the most essential. The idea\nmost intimately associated with this animal was that of _life_, not\npresent merely but continued and probably everlasting.[56] Thus the\nsnake _Bai_ was figured as Guardian of the doorways of those chambers\nof Egyptian Tombs which represented the mansions of heaven.[57] A\nsacred serpent would seem to have been kept in all the Egyptian\ntemples, and we are told that \u201cmany of the subjects, in the tombs of\nthe kings at Thebes, in particular, show the importance it was thought\nto enjoy in a future state.\u201d[58] Crowns, formed of the asp, or sacred\n_Thermuthis_, were given to sovereigns and divinities, particularly\nto Isis,[59] and these, no doubt, were intended to symbolise eternal\nlife. Isis was a goddess of life and healing,[60] and the serpent\nevidently belonged to her in that character, seeing that it was the\nsymbol also of other deities with the like attributes. Thus, on papyri\nit encircles the figure of Harpocrates,[61] who was identified with\n\u00c6sculapius; while not only was a great serpent kept alive in the temple\nof Serapis, but on later monuments this god is represented by a great\nserpent with or without a human head.[62] Mr. Fergusson, in accordance\nwith his peculiar theory as to the origin of serpent-worship, thinks\nthat this superstition characterised the old Turanian (or let us\nrather say Akkadian) empire of Chaldea, while tree-worship was more a\ncharacteristic of the later Assyrian Empire.[63] This opinion is no\ndoubt correct, and it means really that the older race had that form of\nfaith with which the serpent was always indirectly connected\u2014adoration\nof the _male_ principle of generation, the principal phase of which was\nprobably ancestor-worship; while the latter race adored the _female_\nprinciple, symbolised by the sacred tree, the Assyrian \u201cgrove.\u201d The\n\u201c_tree_ of life,\u201d however, undoubtedly had reference to the _male_\nelement, and we may well imagine that originally the _fruit_ alone was\ntreated as symbolical of the opposite element.\n\nThere is still one important point connected with this legend which\nrequires consideration as throwing light on another very widespread\nsuperstition. Baron Bunsen says that the nature of the _Kerubim_\nwho were set to keep the way to the tree of life has not yet been\nsatisfactorily explained. He seems to think they have a volcanic\nreference, although the usual supposition is that they were angels\nbearing \u201cflaming swords.\u201d The latter opinion, however, could only have\narisen from the association, in other places, of kerubim with seraphim,\nwho are also popularly supposed to be angelic spirits, but whom Bunsen\nthinks have reference to flame. All these explanations, however, appear\nto me to be erroneous. According to one opinion, kerub is compounded\nof two words, _ke_ a particle of resemblance, and _rab_, signifying\ngreat, powerful. If this derivation be correct we may safely infer that\nthe _kerub_ was simply a representation of the strong deity himself,\nof whom the flaming sword was also an emblem. This notion is confirmed\nby the statement of the Jewish Targams that \u201cthe glory of God dwelt\nbetween the two cherubim at the gate of Eden, just as it rested upon\nthe two cherubim in the Tabernacle.\u201d[64] It is curious that in the\nanalogous Greek myth of the Garden of Hesperides, the golden apples\nwere guarded by a serpent. We have a closer resemblance to the Hebrew\nKerubim in Persian mythology. Delitzsch says \u201cthe kerubs appear here\nas guards of Paradise, just as in the Persian legend 99,999\u2014_i.e._,\ninnumerable attendants of the Holy One keep watch against the attempts\nof Ahriman over the tree H\u00f4m, which contains in itself the power of\nthe resurrection. Much closer, however, lies the comparison of the\nwinged lion-and-eagle-formed griffin,[65] which watch the gold-caves of\nthe Arimaspian metallic mountains, and of the sometimes more or less\nhawk-formed, sometimes only winged and otherwise man-formed-guardians,\nupon the Egyptian and Assyrian monuments. The resemblance of the\nsymbols is surprisingly great; and the comparison of the King of\nTyre,[66] to a protecting kerub with outspread wings, who, stationed\non the holy mountain, walked up and down in the midst of the stones of\nfire, justifies us in assuming such a connection.\u201d[67]\n\nThe real nature and origin of the Hebrew kerub is apparent on reference\nto the language used by Ezekiel in describing his vision of winged\ncreatures. Dr. Faber shows clearly that these were the same as the\nkerubim in the Holy of Holies of the Hebrew temple, and he argues,\nmoreover, with great justice, that the latter must have agreed with\nthose who were said to have been stationed before the tree of life in\nEden. In fact, the King of Tyre is styled by Ezekiel \u201cthe anointed\ncovering kerub of Eden, the garden of God.\u201d[68] Now, a curious\ndifference is made by Ezekiel in the two descriptions he gives of the\ncreatures which appeared in his vision. In the one case he describes\nthem as having each four faces\u2014that of a man, that of a lion, that\nof an ox, and that of an eagle.[69] Subsequently, however, they are\ndescribed as having each the faces of a _kerub_, of a man, of an eagle,\nand of a lion.[70] Judging from this discrepancy, the head of a kerub\nbeing substituted for that of an ox, it has been suggested that the\nkerub and the ox are synonymous. Dr. Faber very justly observes on this\ndifficulty, that Ezekiel \u201cwould scarcely have called the head of the ox\nby way of eminence the _head of a kerub_, unless the form of the ox so\ngreatly predominated in the compound form of the kerub as to warrant\nthe entire kerub being familiarly styled _an ox_.\u201d[71] This conclusion\nis the more probable when we consider that in the first vision the\ncreatures are represented with feet like those of a calf.[72] In\nfact, we have in this vision, as in the _kerubim_ of Genesis, animal\nrepresentations of deity, such as the Persians and other Eastern\npeoples delighted in, the most prominent being that of the ox\u2014or,\nrather _bull_, as it would be more properly rendered.\n\nBut what was the sacred bull of the religions of antiquity, or rather\nwhat its mythological value? Dr. Faber says expressly on this subject:\n\u201cThere is perhaps no part of the Gentile world in which the bull and\nthe cow were not highly reverenced and considered in the light of\nholy and mysterious symbols.\u201d[73] He cites the traditional founder of\nthe Chinese empire, Fohi, as having a son with a bull\u2019s head, this\npersonage being also venerated by the Japanese under the title of the\n\u201cox-headed prince of heaven.\u201d According to Mr. Doolittle, a paper image\nof a domestic buffalo, as large as life, with smaller images in clay of\nthis animal, are carried in procession at the Great Chinese Festival in\nhonour of spring, while a live buffalo accompanies the procession for\nsome distance.[74] It is curious to find that at the other side of the\nEuropo-Asiatic continent the bull was considered sacred by the Celtic\nDruids, it being reverenced by the ancient Britons as the symbol of\ntheir Great God Hu. Thus also the Kimbri \u201cadored their principal God\nunder the form of a brazen bull;\u201d as the ancient Colchians worshipped\nbrazen-footed bulls which were said to emit fire from their nostrils,\nwhich has reference to the sacrifices with which they were propitiated.\nDr. Faber says as to the Great Ph\u0153nician God, called by the Greek\ntranslator of Sanchoniatho Agruerus, from the circumstance of his being\nan agricultural God, that he \u201cwas worshipped by the Syrians and their\nneighbours the Canaanites, under the titles of _Baal_ and _Moloch_;\nand, as his shrine was drawn by oxen, so he himself was represented\nby the figure of a man having the head of a bull, and sometimes\nprobably by the simple figure of a bull alone\u201d. The Persian _Mithra_\nis also represented as a bull-god, and it is highly suggestive that\nin one of the carved grottos near the Campus Marjorum he is figured\nunder the symbol of the phallus surmounted by the head of a bull. Even\namong the Hebrews themselves the golden calf was, under the authority\nof Aaron, used as an object of worship, a form of idolatry which was\nre-established by Jeroboam, if it had ever been abandoned. Dr. Faber,\nindeed, thinks that the calves worshipped at Samaria were copies of\nthe kerubim in the Temple at Jerusalem. If we turn to peoples kindred\nto the Hebrews, we find that the Ph\u0153nician Adonis was sometimes\nrepresented as a horned deity, as were also Dionysos and Bacchus, who\nwere, in fact, merely the names under which Adonis was worshipped\nin Thrace and Greece. Plutarch says that \u201cthe women of Elis were\naccustomed to invite Bacchus to his temple on the seashore, under the\nname of \u2018the heifer-footed divinity,\u2019 the illustrious bull, the bull\nworthy of the highest veneration.\u201d Hence in the ceremonies, during the\ncelebration of the mysteries of Bacchus and Dionysos, the bull always\ntook a prominent place, as it did also during the festivals of the\nallied deity of Egypt\u2014the bull Apis being worshipped as an incarnation\nof Osiris. In India the bull is still held sacred by the Brahmans,\nand in Hindu mythology it is connected with both Siva and Menu.[75]\nA superstitious veneration for this animal is in fact entertained\nby all pastoral or agricultural peoples who possess it. To seek the\nexplanation of this curious phenomenon in the traditional remembrance\nof the kerubic representations of deity which guarded the tree of life\nwould be in the highest degree irrational. These representations were\nmerely copies of symbolical figures, which, like the story of the fall,\nwere borrowed from an Eastern source. The real explanation is found in\nthe fact that the bull was an emblem of the productive force in nature.\nThe Zend word _gaya_, which means \u201cbull,\u201d signifies also the \u201csoul\u201d or\n\u201clife,\u201d as the same Arabic word denotes both \u201clife\u201d and a \u201cserpent.\u201d A\nparallel case is that of the Zend word _orou\u00e9r\u00e9_, which means a \u201ctree\u201d\nas well as \u201clife\u201d or \u201csoul.\u201d[76] According to the cosmogany of the\nZend-Avesta, Ormuzd, after he had created the heavens and the earth,\nformed the first being, called by Zoroaster \u201cthe primeval bull.\u201d This\nbull was poisoned by Ahriman, but its seed was carried by the soul\nof the dying animal, represented as an _ized_, to the moon, \u201cwhere\nit is continually purified and fecundated by the warmth and light of\nthe sun, to become the germ of all creatures.\u201d At the same time the\nmaterial prototypes of all living things, except perhaps man himself,\nissued from the body of the bull.[77] This is but a developed form\nof the ideas which anciently were almost universally associated with\nthis animal, among those peoples who were addicted to sun-worship.\nThere is no doubt, however, that the superstitious veneration for the\nbull existed, as it still exists, quite independent of the worship of\nthe heavenly bodies.[78] The bull, like the goat, must have been a\nsacred animal in Egypt before it was declared to be an embodiment of\nthe sun-god Osiris. In some sense, indeed, the bull and the serpent,\nalthough both of them became associated with the solar deities, were\nantagonistic. The serpent was symbolical of the _personal_ male\nelement, or rather had especial reference to the man,[79] while the\nbull had relation to _nature_ as a whole, and was symbolical of the\n_general_ idea of fecundity. This antagonism was brought to an issue in\nthe struggle between Osiris and Seti (Seth), which ended in the triumph\nof the god of nature, although it was renewed even during the Exodus,\nwhen the golden calf of Osiris or Horus was set up in the Hebrew camp.\n\nThe reference made to the serpent, to the tree of wisdom, and to the\nbull, in the legend of the \u201cfall,\u201d sufficiently proves its Phallic\ncharacter, which was, indeed, recognised in the early Christian\nchurch.[80] Judging from the facts above referred to, however, we can\nhardly doubt that the legend was derived from a foreign source. That it\ncould not be original to the Hebrews may, I think, be proved by several\nconsiderations. The position occupied in the legend by the serpent is\nquite inconsistent with the use of this animal symbol by Moses.[81]\nLike Satan himself even, as the Rev. Dunbar Heath has shown,[82]\nthe serpent had not, indeed, a wholly evil character among the early\nHebrews. In the second place, the condemnation of the act of generation\nwas directly contrary to the central idea of patriarchal history. The\npromise to Abraham was that he should have seed \u201cnumerous as the stars\nof heaven for multitude,\u201d and to support this notion the descent of\nAbraham is traced up to the first created man, who is commanded to\nincrease and multiply.\n\nThe legend of the fall is not unknown to Hindu mythology, but here the\nsubject of the temptation is the divine Brahma, who, however, is not\nonly mankind collectively, but a man individually.[83] In human shape\nhe is Sivayambhuva, and to try this progenitor of mankind, Siva, as\nthe Supreme Being, \u201cdrops from heaven a blossom of the sacred _vata_,\nor Indian fig\u2014a tree which has been always venerated by the natives\non account of its gigantic size and grateful shadows, and invested\nalike by Brahman and by Buddhist with mysterious significations, as\nthe tree of knowledge or intelligence (_bodhidruma_).[84] Captivated\nby the beauty of the blossom, the first man (Brahma) is determined\nto possess it. He imagines that it will entitle him to occupy the\nplace of the Immortal, and hold converse with the Infinite; and on\ngathering up the blossom,[85] he at once becomes intoxicated by this\nfancy, and believes himself immortal and divine. But ere the flush\nof exultation has subsided, God Himself appears to him in terrible\nmajesty; and the astonished culprit, stricken by the curse of heaven,\nis banished far from Brahmapattana, and consigned to an abyss of misery\nand degradation. From this, however, adds the story, an escape is\nrendered possible on the expiration of some weary term of suffering and\nof penance. And the parallelism which it presents to sacred history\nis well-nigh completed when the legend tells us further that woman,\nhis own wife, whose being was derived from his, had instigated the\nambitious hopes which led to their expulsion, and entailed so many ills\non their posterity.\u201d[86] That parallelism cannot well be the result\nof mere coincidence, and the reference to the fig-tree in the Hindu\nlegend not only renders it highly probable that this was the tree of\nknowledge[87] of Hebrew legend, but confirms, by the symbolical ideas\nconnected with it, the explanation of the nature of the \u201cfall\u201d given in\nthe preceding pages. The real meaning of the legend was well understood\nby the Gnostics and Manicheans, and those Christian Fathers who were\nbrought into contact with Eastern ideas through them.[88]\n\nThe Persians, who were indebted to the Chaldeans for many of their\nreligious ideas, possessed the story of the fall in a form agreeing\nmore closely with that which may have been the original of the Hebrew\nlegend. According to the _Boundehesch_, one of the sacred books of the\nParsees, a tree gave birth to the primeval man _Meschia_. The body\nof this androgynous being afterwards became divided, one part being\nmale and the other female\u2014_Meschia_ and _Meschiana_,[89] as the man\nand woman were called\u2014were at first pure and holy, but seduced by\nAhriman, who had metamorphosed himself into a serpent, they rendered\nto the Prince of Darkness the worship which was due only to Ormuzd,\nthe God of Light. Meschia and Meschiana thus lost their primitive\npurity, which neither they nor their descendants could recover without\nthe assistance of Mithra, the god who presided at the mysteries or at\nthe initiations\u2014that is to say, at the way of rehabilitation which\nis opened before those who seek earnestly the salvation of their\nsouls.[90] At the instigation of Ahriman, the man and woman had, for\nthe first time, committed, in thought, word, and deed, the carnal sin,\nand thus tainted with original sin all their descendants.[91] Lajard,\nreferring to this legend, adds in a note: \u201cLe triple caract\u00e8re que\npresente ici le p\u00e9ch\u00e9 originel est tr\u00e8s nettement indiqu\u00e9 dans le\npassage cit\u00e9 du Boundehesch. Il y est accompagn\u00e9 de d\u00e9tails que font de\nce passage un des morceaux les plus curieux de ce trait\u00e9. Quelques-uns\nde ces d\u00e9tails ... rattache \u00e0 ce m\u00eame mot (serpent) ou \u00e0 sa racine la\nd\u00e9nomination des parties sexuelles de la homme et de la femme.\u201d The\nPersian account of the fall and its consequences agrees so closely\nwith the Hebrew story when stripped of its figurative language that we\ncannot doubt that they refer to the same legend,[92] and the use of\nfigurative language in the latter may well lead us to believe that it\nwas of later date than the former.[93] In Ahriman, who was known to\nPersian teaching as \u201cthe old serpent having two feet,\u201d we evidently\nhave the origin of the speaking serpent of Genesis, while in \u201cthe\nseed of the woman who shall bruise the serpent\u2019s head,\u201d the follower\nof Zarathustra would have seen a reference to Mithra, just as the\nChristian finds there a prophecy of Christ. Even the antagonism between\nthe Cherubim and the Serpent can be found in Persian teaching, for it\nwas to the malignant action of the Serpent Az that the death, not only\nof the first man, but of the \u201cprimeval bull,\u201d was due.[94] The latter\nwas formed by Ormuzd after the creation of the heavens and the earth,\nand that from which proceeded the material prototypes of all the beings\n\u201cwho live in the water, on the earth, and in the air.\u201d[95]\n\nIt is very probable, however, that when the legend was appropriated\nby the compiler of the Hebrew Scriptures it had a moral significance\nas well as a merely figurative sense. The legend is divisible into\ntwo parts\u2014the first of which is a mere statement of the imparting of\nwisdom by the serpent and by the eating of the fruit of a certain tree,\nthese ideas being synonymous, or at least consistent, as appears by the\nattributes of the Chaldean _H\u00e9a_.[96] The nature of this wisdom may be\nfound in the rites of the Hindu _Sacti Puja_.[97] The second part of\nthe legend, which is probably of much later date, is the condemnation\nof the act referred to, as being in itself evil and as leading to\nmisery, and even to death itself. The origin of this later notion must\nbe sought in the esoteric doctrine taught in the mysteries of Mithra,\nthe fundamental idea of which was the descent of the soul to earth\nand its re-ascent to the celestial abodes after it had overcome the\ntemptations and debasing influences of the material life.[98] Lajard\nshows that these mysteries were really taken from the secret worship of\nthe Chaldean _Mylitta_, but the reference to \u201cthe seed of the woman who\nshall bruise the serpent\u2019s head,\u201d is too Mithraic for us to seek for an\nearlier origin for the special form of the Hebrew myth. The object of\nthe myth evidently was to explain the origin of _death_,[99] from which\nman was to be delivered by a coming Saviour, and the whole idea is\nstrictly Mithraic, the Persian deity himself being a Saviour God.[100]\nThe importance attached to _virginity_ by the early Christians sprang\nfrom the same source. The Avesta is full of reference to \u201cpurity\u201d of\nlife, and there is reason to believe that in the secret initiations\nthe followers of Mithra were taught to regard marriage itself as\nimpure.[101]\n\nThe religious ideas which found expression in the legend of the fall\nwere undoubtedly of late development,[102] although derived from still\nearlier phases of religious thought. The simple worship in symbol of\nthe organs of generation, and of the ancestral head of the family,\nprompted by the desire for offspring and the veneration for him who\nproduced it, was extended to the generative force in nature. The bull\nwhich, as we have seen, symbolised this force, was not restricted\nto earth, but was in course of time transferred to the heavens, and\nas one of the constellations was thought to have a peculiar relation\nto certain of the planetary bodies. This astral phase of the Phallic\nsuperstition was not unknown to the Mosaic religion. A still earlier\nform of this superstition was, however, known to the Hebrews, probably\nforming a link between the worship of the symbol of personal generative\npower and that of the heavenly phallus; as the worship of the bull\nconnected the veneration for the human generator with that for the\nuniversal father. One of the primeval gods of antiquity was _Hermes_,\nthe Syro-Egyptian _Thoth_, and the Roman _Mercury_. Kircher identifies\nhim also with the god _Terminus_. This is doubtless true, as Hermes\nwas a god of boundaries, and appears, as Dulaure has well shown, to\nhave presided over the national frontiers. The meaning of the word\n\u201cThoth\u201d\u2014_erecting_\u2014associates it with this fact. The peculiar primitive\nform of Mercury or Hermes was \u201ca large stone, frequently square, and\nwithout either hands or feet. Sometimes the triangular shape was\npreferred, sometimes an upright pillar, and sometimes a heap of rude\nstones!\u201d[103] The pillars were called by the Greeks _Herm\u00e6_, and the\nheaps were known as _Herm\u00e8an_ heaps\u2014the latter being accumulated \u201cby\nthe custom of each passenger throwing a stone to the daily-increasing\nmass in honour of the god.\u201d Sometimes the pillar was represented with\nthe attributes of Priapus.[104]\n\nThe identification of Hermes or Mercury with Priapus is confirmed by\nthe offices which the latter deity fulfilled. One of the most important\nwas that of protector of gardens and orchards, and probably this was\nthe original office performed by Hermes in his character of \u201ca God of\nthe country.\u201d[105] Figures set up as charms to protect the produce of\nthe ground would, in course of time, be used not only for this purpose,\nbut also to mark the boundaries of the land protected, and these two\noffices being divided, two deities would finally be formed out of one.\nThe Greek Hermes was connected also with the Egyptian _Khem_, and no\nless, if we may judge from the symbols used in his worship, with the\nHebrew _Eloah_. Thus, in the history of the Hebrew patriarchs, we are\ntold that when Jacob entered into a covenant with his father-in-law,\nLaban, a pillar was set up and a heap of stones made, and Laban said\nto Jacob, \u201cBehold this heap and behold this pillar, which I have cast\nbetwixt me and thee; this heap be witness, and this pillar be witness,\nthat I will not pass over this heap to thee, and that thou shall not\npass over this heap and this pillar unto me for harm.\u201d[106] We have\nhere the _Herm\u00e6_ and _Herm\u00e8an_ heap, used by the Greeks as landmarks\nand placed by them on the public roads. In the _linga_ of India we have\nanother instance of the use of the pillar symbol. The form of this\nsymbol is sufficiently expressive of the idea which it embodies, an\nidea which is more explicitly shown when the Linga and the Yoni are, as\nis usually the case among the worshippers of the Hindu Siva, combined\nto form the _Lingam_. The stone figure is not, however, itself a god,\nbut only representative of a spirit,[107] who is thought to be able to\nsatisfy the yearning for children, so characteristic of many primitive\npeoples, this probably having been its original object and the source\nof its use as an amulet for the protection of children against the\ninfluence of the evil eye. In course of time, however, when other\nproperty came to be coveted equally with offspring, the power to give\nthis property would naturally be referred to the primitive Phallic\nspirit, and hence he became, not merely the protector, as above seen,\nof the produce of the fields, and the guardian of boundaries, but also\nthe God of wealth and traffic, and even the patron of thieves, as was\nthe case with the Mercury of the Romans. The Hebrew patriarchs desired\ngreat flocks as well as numerous descendants, and hence the symbolic\npillar was peculiarly fitted for their religious rites. It is related\neven of Abraham, the traditional founder of the Hebrew people, that\nhe \u201cplanted a grove[108] (_eshel_) in Beersheba, and called there on\nthe name of Jehovah, the everlasting _Elohim_.\u201d[109] From the Phallic\ncharacter of the \u201cgrove\u201d (_ashera_),[110] said to have been in the\nHouse of Jehovah, we must suppose that the _eshel_ of Abraham also had\na Phallic reference.[111] Most probably the so-called \u201cgrove\u201d of the\nearlier patriarch, though perhaps of wood, and the stone \u201c_bethel_\u201d\nof Jacob had the same form, and were simply the _betylus_,[112] the\nprimitive symbol of deity among all the Semitic and many Hamitic\npeoples.\n\nThe participation of the Hebrew patriarchs in the rites connected\nwith the \u201cpillar-worship\u201d of the ancient world, renders it extremely\nprobable that they were not strangers to the later planetary worship.\nMany of the old Phallic symbols were associated with the new\nsuperstition, and Abraham, being a Chaldean, it is natural to suppose\nthat he was one of its adherents. Tradition, indeed, affirms that\nAbraham was a great astronomer, and at one time at least a worshipper\nof the heavenly bodies, and that he and the other patriarchs continued\nto be affected by this superstition is shown by various incidents\nrelated in the Pentateuch. Thus, in the description given of the\nsacrificial covenant between Abraham and Jehovah, it is said that,\nafter Abraham had divided the sacrificial animals, a deep sleep fell\nupon him as the sun was going down, and Jehovah spoke with him. \u201cThen\nwhen the sun went down, and it was dark, behold a smoking furnace, and\na burning lamp, that passed between those pieces.\u201d The happening of\nthis event at the moment of the sun\u2019s setting reminds us of the Sab\u00e6an\ncustom of praying to the setting sun, still practised, according\nto Palgrave, among the nomads of central Arabia. That some great\n_religious_ movement, ascribed by tradition to Abraham, did take place\namong the Semites at an early date is undoubted. What the object of\nthis covenant was it is difficult to decide. It should be remembered\nthat the Chaldeans worshipped a plurality of gods, supposed to have\nbeen symbolised by the seven planets. Among these deities the sun-god\nheld a comparatively inferior position\u2014the moon-god _Hurki_ coming\nbefore him in the second triad.[113] It was at Ur, the special seat of\nthe worship of the moon-god,[114] that Abraham is said to have lived\nbefore he quitted it for Haran. This fact, considered in the light of\nthe traditions relating to the great patriarch, may perhaps justify\nus in inferring that the reformation he endeavoured to introduce was\nthe substitution of a simple sun-worship, for the planetary cultus\nof the Chaldeans, in which the worship of the moon must to him have\nappeared to occupy an important place. The new faith was, indeed,\na return to the old Phallic idea of a god of personal generation,\nworshipped through the symbolical _betylus_, but associated also with\nthe adoration of the sun as the especial representative of the deity.\nThat Abraham had higher notions of the relation of man to the divine\nbeing than his forerunners is very probable, but his sojourn in\nHaran proves that there was nothing fundamentally different between\nhis religious faith and that of his Syrian neighbours. I am inclined,\nindeed, to believe that to the traditional Abraham must be ascribed\nthe establishment of sun-worship throughout Ph\u0153nicia and Lower Egypt\nin connection with the symbols of an earlier and more simple Phallic\ndeity. Tradition, in fact, declares that he taught the Egyptians\nastronomy,[115] and we shall see that the religion of the Ph\u0153nicians,\nas, indeed, that of the Hebrews themselves, was the worship of Saturn,\nthe erect, pillar-god who, under different names, appears to have been\nat the head of the pantheons of most of the peoples of antiquity. The\nreference in Hebrew history to the _seraphim_ of Jacob\u2019s family recalls\nthe fact that Abraham\u2019s father was _Terah_, a \u201cmaker of images.\u201d The\n_teraphim_ were doubtless the same as the _seraphim_, which were\nserpent images,[116] and probably the household charms or idols of the\nSemitic worshippers of the sun-god, to whom the serpent was sacred.\n\nLittle is known of the religious habits of the Hebrews during their\nabode in Egypt. Probably they differed little from those of the\nEgyptians themselves, and even in the religion of Moses, so-called,\nwhich we may presume to have been a reformed faith, there are many\npoints of contact with the earlier cultus. The use of the ark of Osiris\nand Isis shows the influence of Egyptian ideas, and the introduction\nof the new name for God, _Jahve_, is evidence of contact with later\nPh\u0153nician thought. The ark was doubtless used to symbolise nature, as\ndistinguished from the serpent and pillar symbols, which had relation\nmore particularly to man. The latter, however, were by far the most\nimportant, as they were most intimately connected with the worship of\nthe national deity, who was the divine father, as Abraham was the human\nprogenitor, of the Hebrew people. That this deity, notwithstanding his\nchange of name, retained his character of a sun-god, is shown by the\nfact that he is repeatedly said to have appeared to Moses under the\nfigure of a flame. The pillar of fire which guided the Hebrews by night\nin the wilderness, the appearance of the cloudy pillar at the door of\nthe Tabernacle, and probably of a flame over the mercy seat to betoken\nthe presence of Jehovah, and the perpetual fire on the altar, all point\nto the same conclusion. The notion entertained by Ewald that the idea\nconnected with the Hebrew Jahve was that of a \u201cDeliverer\u201d or a \u201cHealer\u201d\n(Saviour)[117] is quite consistent with the fact I have stated. The\nprimeval Phenic deity El or Cronus was not only the preserver of the\nworld, for the benefit of which he offered a mystical sacrifice,[118]\nbut \u201cSaviour\u201d was a common title of the sun-gods of antiquity.\n\nThere is one remarkable incident which is said to have happened during\nthe wanderings of the Hebrews in the Sinaitic wilderness which appears\nto throw much light on the character of the Mosaic cultus and to\nconnect it with other religions. I refer to the use of the brazen\nserpent as a symbol for the healing of the people. The worship of the\ngolden calf may, perhaps, be said to be an idolatrous act in imitation\nof the rites of Egyptian Osiris worship, although probably suggested\nby the use of the ark. The other case, however, is far different, and\nit is worth while repeating the exact words in which the use of the\nserpent symbol is described. When the people were bitten by the \u201cfiery\u201d\nserpents,[119] Moses prayed for them, and we read that, therefore,\n\u201cJehovah said unto Moses, make thee a fiery serpent (literally, a\n_seraph_), and set it upon a pole; and it shall come to pass, that\nevery one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, shall live. And\nMoses made a serpent of brass, and put it upon a pole, and it came to\npass, that if a serpent had bitten any man, when he beheld the serpent\nof brass, he lived.\u201d[120] It would seem from this account that the\nHebrew seraph was, as before suggested, in the form of a serpent;\nbut what was the especial significance of this healing figure? At an\nearlier stage of our inquiry reference was made to the fact of the\nserpent being indirectly, through its attribute of wisdom, a Phallic\nsymbol, but also directly an emblem of \u201clife,\u201d and to the peculiar\nposition it held in nearly all the religions of antiquity. In later\nEgyptian mythology the contest between Osiris and the Evil Being, and\nafterwards that between Horus and Typhon, occupy an important place.\nTyphon, the adversary of Horus, was figured under the symbol of a\nserpent, called Aph\u00f4phis or the Giant,[121] and it cannot be doubted\nthat, if not a form of, he was identified with the god Seth. Professor\nReuvens refers to an invocation of Typhon-Seth,[122] and Bunsen quotes\nthe statement of Epiphanius that \u201cthe Egyptians celebrate the festivals\nof Typhon under the form of an ass, which they call Seth.\u201d[123]\nWhatever may be the explanation of the fact, it is undoubted that,\nnotwithstanding the hatred with which he was afterwards regarded, this\ngod Seth or Set was at one time highly venerated in Egypt. Bunsen\nsays that up to the thirteenth century B.C. Set \u201cwas a great god\nuniversally adored throughout Egypt, who confers on the sovereigns\nof the eighteenth and nineteenth dynasties the symbols of life and\npower. The most glorious monarch of the latter dynasty, Sethos, derives\nhis name from this deity.\u201d He adds: \u201cBut subsequently, in the course\nof the twentieth dynasty, he is suddenly treated as an evil demon,\ninasmuch as his effigies and name are obliterated on all the monuments\nand inscriptions that could be reached.\u201d Moreover, according to this\ndistinguished writer, Seth \u201cappears gradually among the Semites as the\nbackground of their religious consciousness;\u201d and not merely was he\n\u201cthe primitive god of Northern Egypt and Palestine,\u201d but his genealogy\nas \u201cthe Seth of Genesis, the father of Enoch (the man), must be\nconsidered as originally running parallel with that derived from the\nElohim, Adam\u2019s father.\u201d[124] That Seth _had_ some special connection\nwith the Hebrews is proved, among other things, by the peculiar\nposition occupied in their religious system by the _ass_\u2014the first-born\nof which alone of all animals was allowed to be redeemed[125]\u2014and\nthe _red heifer_, whose ashes were to be reserved as a \u201cwater of\nseparation\u201d for purification from sin.[126] Both of these animals were\nin Egypt sacred to Seth (Typhon), the ass being his symbol, and red\noxen being at one time sacrificed to him, although at a later date\nobjects of a red colour were disliked, owing to their association\nwith the dreaded Typhon.[127] That we have a reference to this deity\nin the name of the Hebrew lawgiver is very probable. No satisfactory\nderivation of this name, Moses, M\u00f4sheh (Heb.), has yet been given. Its\noriginal form was probably _Am-a-ses_ or _Am-sesa_,[128] which might\nbecome to the Hebrews Om-ses or Mo-ses, meaning only _the_ (god) Ses,\n_i.e._, Set or Seth.[129] On this hypothesis we may have preserved, in\nthe first book of Moses (so-called), some of the traditional history\nsaid to have been contained in the sacred books of the Egyptian Thoth,\nand of the records engraved on the pillars of Seth. It is somewhat\nremarkable that, according to a statement of Diodorus, when Antiochus\nEpiphanes entered the temple at Jerusalem, he found in the Holy of\nHolies a stone figure of Moses, represented as a man with a long beard,\nmounted on an ass, and having a book in his hand.[130] The Egyptian\nMythus of Typhon actually said that Set fled from Egypt riding on a\ngrey ass.[131] It is strange, to say the least, that Moses should not\nhave been allowed to enter the promised land, and that he should be\nso seldom referred to by later writers until long after the reign of\nDavid,[132] and above all that the name given to his successor was\nJoshua\u2014_i.e._, _Saviour_. It is worthy of notice that \u201cNun,\u201d the name\nof the father of Joshua, is the Semitic word for _fish_, the Phallic\ncharacter of the fish in Chaldean mythology being undoubted. _Nin_, the\nplanet Saturn, was the fish-god of Berosus, and, as may possibly be\nshown, he is really the same as the Assyrian national deity _Asshur_,\nwhose name and office have a curious resemblance to those of the Hebrew\nleader, _Joshua_.\n\nBut what was the character of the primitive Semitic deity? Bunsen\nseems to think that Plutarch in one passage alludes to the identity\nof Typhon (Seth) and Osiris.[133] This is a remarkable idea, and yet\ncuriously enough Sir Gardner Wilkinson says that Typhon-Seth may have\nbeen derived from the pigmy Pthath-Sokari-Osiris,[134] who was clearly\nonly another form of Osiris himself. In the Egyptian Book of the Dead,\nHorus, the son of Osiris, is declared to be at the same time Set, \u201cby\nthe distinction made between them by Thoth.\u201d[135] However that may\nbe, the Phallic origin of Seth can be shown from other data. Thus it\nappears that the word _Set_ means, in Hebrew as in Egyptian, pillar,\nand, in a general sense, the erect, elevated, high.[136] Moreover,\nin a passage of the Book of the Dead, Set, according to Bunsen, is\ncalled _Tet_, a fact which intimates that Thoth inherited many of the\nattributes of Set.[137] They were, however, in some sense the same\ndeities, it being through Thoth that Set was identified with Horus.\nWe have here an explanation of the statement that Tet, the Ph\u0153nician\n_Taaut_, was the snake-god, Esmun-Esculapius, the serpent being the\nsymbol of Tet, as we have seen it to have been that of Seth also. In\nthis we have a means of identifying the Semitic deity Seth with the\nSaturn of related deities of other peoples. Ewald says that \u201cthe common\nname for God, _Eloah_, among the Hebrews, as among all the Semites,\ngoes back into the earliest times.\u201d[138] Bryant goes further, and\ndeclares that El was originally the name of the supreme deity among all\nthe nations of the East.[139] This idea is confirmed, so far as Chaldea\nis concerned, by later researches, which show that Il or El was at the\nhead of the Babylonian Pantheon. With this deity must be identified the\nIl or Ilus of the Ph\u0153nicians, who was born the same as Cronus, who,\nagain, was none other than the primeval Saturn, whose worship appears\nto have been at one period almost universal among European and Asiatic\npeoples. Saturn and El were thus the same deity, the latter, like the\nSemitic Seth, being, as is well known, symbolised by the serpent.[140]\nA direct point of contact between Seth and Saturn is found in the\nHebrew idol _Kiyun_ mentioned by Amos, the planet Saturn being still\ncalled _Kevan_ by Eastern peoples. This idol was represented in the\nform of a pillar, the primeval symbol of deity, which was common\nundoubtedly to all the gods here mentioned.[141] These symbolical\npillars were called _betyli_ or _betulia_. Sometimes also the column\nwas called _Abaddir_, which, strangely enough, Bryant identifies with\nthe serpent-god.[142] There can be no doubt that both the pillar and\nthe serpent were associated with many of the sun-gods of antiquity.\n\nNotwithstanding what has been said it is undoubtedly true, however,\nthat all these deities, including the Semitic Seth, became at an\nearly date recognised as sun-gods, although in so doing they lost\nnothing of their primitive character. What this was is sufficiently\nshown by the significant names and titles they bore. Thus, as we have\nseen, _Set_ (Seth) itself meant the _erect_, _elevated_, _high_, his\nname on the Egyptian monuments being nearly always accompanied by a\nstone.[143] The name, _Kiyun_ or _Kevan_, of this deity, said by\nAmos to have been worshipped in the wilderness, signifies \u201cgod of the\npillar.\u201d The idea expressed by the title is shown by the name _Baal\nTamar_, which means \u201cBaal as a pillar,\u201d or \u201cPhallus,\u201d consequently\n\u201cthe fructifying god.\u201d The title \u201cerect,\u201d when given to a deity, seems\nalways to imply a Phallic idea, and hence we have the explanation of\nthe _S. mou_ used frequently in the \u201cBook of the Dead\u201d in relation\nto Thoth or to Set.[144] There is doubtless a reference of the same\nkind in the Ph\u0153nician myth, that \u201cMelekh taught men the special art\nof creating solid walls and buildings;\u201d although Bunsen finds in this\nmyth \u201cthe symbolical mode of expressing the value of the use of fire\nin building houses.\u201d[145] That these myths embody a Phallic notion\nmay be confirmed by reference to the Ph\u0153nician _Kabiri_. According\nto Bunsen, \u201cthe Kabiri and the divinities identified with them are\nexplained by the Greeks and Romans as \u2018the strong,\u2019 \u2018the great;\u2019\u201d while\nin the book of Job, _Kabb\u00eer_, the strong, is used as an epithet of God.\nAgain, _Sydyk_, the father of the Kabiri, is \u201cthe Just,\u201d or, in a more\noriginal sense, the Upright; and this deity, with his sons, correspond\nto Ptah, the father of the Ph\u0153nician Pataikoi. Ptah, however, seems to\nbe derived from a root which signifies in Hebrew \u201cto open,\u201d and Sydyk\nhimself, therefore, may, says Bunsen, be described as \u201cthe Opener\u201d of\nthe Cosmic Egg.[146] The Phallic meaning of this title is evident from\nits application to Esmun-Esculapius, the son of Sydyk, who, as the\nsnake-god, was identical with Tet, the Egyptian Thoth-Hermes.\n\nThe peculiar titles given to these deities, and their association\nwith the sun, led to their original Phallic character being somewhat\noverlooked, and instead of being the Father-Gods of human-kind, they\nbecame _Powerful_ Gods, _Lords_ of Heaven. This was not the special\nattribute taken by other sun-gods. As was before stated, Hermes and\nhis related deities were \u201cgods of the country,\u201d personifying the idea\nof general natural fecundity. Among the chief gods of this description\nwere the Ph\u0153nician _Sabazius_, the Greek _Bacchus-Dionysos_, the Roman\n_Priapus_, and the Egyptian _Khem_. All these deities agree also in\nbeing sun-gods, and as such they were symbolised by animals which\nwere noted either for their fecundity or for their salaciousness. The\nchief animals thus chosen were the _bull_ and the _goat_ (with which\nthe ram[147] was afterwards confounded), doubtless because they were\nalready sacred. The Sun appears to have been preceded by the Moon as an\nobject of worship, but the moon-god was probably only representative\nof the primeval Saturn,[148] who finally became the sun-god _El_ or\n_Il_ of the Syrian and Semites and the _Ra_ of the Babylonians. The\nlatter was the title also of the sun-god of Egypt, who was symbolised\nby the obelisk, and who, although his name was added to that of other\nEgyptian gods, is said to have been the tutelary deity of the stranger\nkings of the eighteenth dynasty,[149] whom Pleyte, however, declares\nto have been Set (Sutech).[150] We are reminded here of the opposition\nof Seth and Osiris, which has already been explained as arising from\nthe fact that these deities originally represented two different ideas,\n_human fecundity_ and the _fruitfulness of nature_. When, however, both\nof these principles became associated with the solar body, they were\nexpressed by the same symbols, and the distinction between them was in\ngreat measure lost sight of. A certain difference was, nevertheless,\nstill observable in the attributes of the deities, depending on the\npeculiar properties and associations of their solar representatives.\nThus the powerful deity of Ph\u0153nicia was naturally associated with the\nstrong, scorching, summer sun, whose _heat_ was the most prominent\nattribute. In countries such as Egypt, where the sun, acting on the\nmoist soil left by inundations, caused the earth to spring into renewed\nlife, the mild but energetic early sun was the chief deity.\n\nWhen, considering the sacred bull of antiquity, the symbol of the\nfecundating force in nature, Osiris, the national sun-god of the\nEgyptians, was referred to as distinguished from the Semitic Seth\n(Set), who was identified with the detested shepherd race. The\nassociation of Osiris with Khem shows his Phallic character,[151] and,\nin fact, Plutarch asserts that he was everywhere represented with\nthe phallus exposed.[152] The Phallic idea enters, moreover, into\nthe character of all the chief Egyptian deities. Bunsen says: \u201cThe\nmythological system obviously proceeded from \u2018the concealed god\u2019 Ammon\nto the creating god. The latter appears first of all as the generative\npower of nature in the Phallic god Khem, who is afterwards merged in\nAmmon-ra. Then sprung up the idea of the creative power in Kneph. He\nforms the divine limbs of Osiris (the primeval soul) in contradiction\nto Ptah, who as the strictly demiurgic principle, forms the visible\nworld. Neith is the creative principle, as nature represented under\na feminine form. Finally, her son Ra, Helios, appears as the last of\nthe series, in the character of father and nourisher of terrestrial\nbeings. It is he, whom an ancient monument represents as the demiurgic\nprinciple, creating the mundane egg.\u201d[153] The name of Ammon has\nled to the notion that he was an embodiment of the idea of wisdom.\nHe certainly was distinguished by having the human form, but his\nhieroglyphical symbol of the _obelisk_, and his connection with Khem,\nshow his true nature. He undoubtedly represented the primitive idea of\na generative god, probably at a time when this notion of fecundity had\nnot yet been extended to nature as distinguished from man, and thus he\nwould form a point of contact between the later Egyptian sun-gods and\nthe pillar gods of the Semites and Ph\u0153nicians.[154] To the Egyptians,\nas to these other peoples, the sun became the great source of deity.\nHis fecundating warmth or his fiery destroying heat were, however,\nnot the only attributes deified. These were the most important,\nbut the Egyptians, especially, made gods out of many of the solar\ncharacters,[155] although the association of the idea of \u201cintellect\u201d\nwith Amun-re must have been of late date, if the original nature of\nAmun was what has been above suggested.\n\nAs man, however, began to read nature aright, and as his moral and\nintellectual faculties were developed, it was necessary that the solar\ndeities themselves should become invested with co-relative attributes,\nor that other gods should be formed to embody them. The perception\nof _light_, as distinguished from heat, was a fertile source of such\nattributes. In the Chaldean mythology, _Vul_, the son of _Anu_, was the\ngod of the air, but his power had relation to the purely atmospheric\nphenomena rather than to light.[156] The only reference to light found\nin the titles of the early deities is in the character ascribed to\n_Va-lua_, the later _Bur_ or _Nin-ip_, who is said to \u201cirradiate the\nnations like the sun, the light of the gods.\u201d[157] But this deity was\napparently the distant planet Saturn, if not originally the moon,\nand the perception of light as a divine attribute must be referred\nto the Aryan mind.[158] Thus the Hindu _Dyaus_ (the Greek _Zeus_) is\nthe shining deity, the god of the bright sky. As such the sun-gods\nnow also become the gods of intellectual wisdom, an attribute which\nalso appears to have originated with the Aryan peoples, among whom\nthe Brahmans were possessors of the highest wisdom, as children of\nthe sun, and whose Apollo and Athen\u00e9 were noble embodiments of this\nattribute. The Chaldean gods, _H\u00e9a_ and _Nebo_, were undoubtedly\nsymbolised by the wedge or arrow-head, which had especial reference to\nlearning. In reality, however, this symbol merely shows that they were\nthe patrons of letters or writing, and not of wisdom, in its purely\nintellectual aspect. If the form of the Assyrian alphabetical character\nwas of Phallic origin,[159] we may have here the source of the idea\nof a connection between physical and mental knowledge embodied in the\nlegend of the \u201cfall.\u201d In the Persian _Ahur\u00f4-mazd\u00e2o_ (the wise spirit)\nwe have the purest representation of intellectual wisdom. The book of\nZoroaster, the Avesta, is literally the \u201cword,\u201d the word or wisdom\nwhich was revealed in creation and embodied in the divine Mithra, who\nwas himself the luminous sun-god.\n\nThe similarity between the symbols of the sun-gods of antiquity and the\nnatural objects introduced into the Mosaic myth of the fall has been\nalready referred to, and it is necessary now to consider shortly what\ninfluence the Phallic principle there embodied had over other portions\nof Hebraic theology. The inquiries of Dr. Faber have thrown great light\non this question, although the explanation given by him of the myth of\nOsiris and of the kindred myths of antiquity is by no means the correct\none. Finding a universal prevalence of Phallic ideas and symbolism,\nDr. Faber refers it to the degradation of a primitive revelation of\nthe Great Father of the Universe. The truth thus taught was lost sight\nof, and was replaced by the dual notion of a Great Father and a Great\nMother\u2014\u201cthe transmigrating Noah and the mundane Ark\u201d of the universal\nDeluge. Noah was, however, only a reappearance of Adam, and the ark\nfloating on the waters of the Deluge was an analogue of the earth\nswimming in the ocean of space.[160] There is undoubtedly a parallelism\nbetween the Adam and Noah of the Hebrew legends, as there is between\nthe analogous personages of other phases of these legends, yet it is\nevident that, if the Deluge never happened, a totally different origin\nfrom the one supposed by Dr. Faber must be assigned to the great\nPhallic myth of antiquity. It is absolutely necessary, therefore, to\nany explanation (other than the Phallic one) of the origin of this\nmyth, to establish the truth of the Noahic Deluge.[161] Accordingly, an\nAmerican writer has framed an elaborate system of \u201cArkite symbolism,\u201d\nfounded on the supposed influence of the great Deluge over the minds\nof the posterity of those who survived its horrors. Mr. Lesley sees in\nthis catastrophe the explanation of \u201cphallism,\u201d which, \u201cconverting all\nthe older Arkite symbols into illustrations of its own philosophical\nconceptions of the mystery of generation, gave to the various parts\nand members of the human body those names which constitute the special\nvocabulary of obscenity of the present day.\u201d[162]\n\nBut the priority of these symbols or conceptions is the question\nat issue. Did the development of \u201cArkism\u201d precede or follow the\nsuperstitions referred to by Mr. Lesley as _Ophism_, _Mithraism_, and\n_Phallism_, all of which have been shown to embody analogous ideas?\nIf the question of priority is to be determined by reference to the\nwritten tradition which furnishes the real ground of belief in a\ngreat Deluge, it must clearly be given to the Phallic superstition;\nfor it is shown conclusively, as I think, that almost the first event\nin the life of man there related is purely Phallic in its symbolism.\nNor is the account of the fall the only portion of the Mosaic history\nof primitive man which belongs to this category. The Garden of Eden,\nwith its tree of life and the river which divided into four streams,\nalthough it may have had a secondary reference to the traditional place\nof Semitic origin to which the Hebrews looked back with a regretful\nlonging, has undoubtedly a recondite Phallic meaning. It must be so, if\nthe explanation I have given of the myth of the fall be right, since\nthe two are intimately connected, and the Garden[163] is essential\nto the succeeding catastrophe. That this opinion is correct can be\nproved moreover by reference to Hindu mythology. \u201cThe Hindu,\u201d says\nDr. Creuzer, \u201ccontemplates with love his mysterious Merou, a sacred\nmountain from whence the source of life spreads itself in the valleys\nand over the plains, which separates day from night, reunites heaven\nand earth, and finally on which the sun, the moon, and the stars each\nrepose.\u201d[164] But what is this mysterious mountain, the sacred Merou?\nIt is shown by Dr. Creuzer\u2019s own explanation. He says: \u201cIt is on the\nMount Merou, the central point of the earth (which elevates itself\nas an immense phallus from the centre of an immense yoni amongst the\nislands with which the sea is sown), that the grand popular deity who\npresides over the Lingam, _Siva_ or Mahadeva, the father and master\nof nature, makes his cherished abode, spreading life to every part\nunder a thousand diverse forms which he incessantly renews. Near him\nis _Bhavani_ or _Parvati_, his sister and his wife, the Queen of the\nmountains, the goddess of the Yoni, who carries in her bosom the germ\nof all things, and brings forth the beings whom she has conceived by\nMahadeva. We have here the two great principles of nature, the one\nmale and the other female, generators and regenerators, creators and\nat the same time destroyers; but they destroy only to renew; they\nonly change the forms; life and death succeed in a perfect circle,\nand the substance remains in the midst of all these changes.\u201d The\nsacred mountain is wanting to the Mosaic legend, but Dr. Faber justly\nsees[165] in the Mount Merou, where resides Siva and Bhavani, the\nHebrew Paradise, and we find that the Hindu myth affirms that the\nsacred river not only sprang from the roots of Jambu, a tree of a most\nextravagant size, which is thought to convey knowledge and to effect\nthe accomplishment of every human wish, but also that, after passing\nthrough \u201cthe circle of the moon,\u201d it divides it into \u201cfour streams,\nflowing towards the four cardinal points.\u201d\n\nThe priority of the Phallic superstition over \u201cArkism\u201d is further\nproved by the undoubted fact that, even in the traditions of the race\nto whom we are indebted for the precise details of the incidents\naccompanying the Deluge, the Phallic deities of the Hamitico-Semites\nare genealogically placed long before the occurrence of this event.\nThe Semitic deity Seth is, according to one fable, the semi-divine\nfirst ancestor of the Semites. Bunsen has shown clearly also that\nseveral of the antediluvian descendants of the Semitic Adam were\namong the Ph\u0153nician deities. Thus, the Carthaginians had a god Yubal,\nJubal, who would appear to have been the sun-god \u00c6sculapius, called\n\u201cthe fairest of the gods and so, we read in a Ph\u0153nician inscription\nJu-Baal\u2014_i.e._, beauty of Baal, which Movers ingeniously interprets\n\u00c6sculapius\u2014Asmun-Jubal.\u201d Here, then, adds Bunsen, \u201cis another old\nSemitic name attached to a descendant of Lamekh, together with Adah,\nZillah, and Naamah.\u201d[166] Hadah, the wife of Lamekh, as well of Esau,\nthe Ph\u0153nician Usov, is identified with the goddess, worshipped at\nBabylon as Hera (Juno), and, notwithstanding Sir Gardner Wilkinson\u2019s\ndictum to the contrary, her names, Hera, Hadah, point to a connection\nwith the Egyptian _Her Her_, or _Hathor_, who was the daughter of Seb\nand Netpe, as Hera was the daughter of Chronos and Rhea. The name of\nthe god _Kiyun_, or Kevan, who was worshipped by the Hebrews, and\nwho in Syria was said to devour children, seems, from its connection\nwith the root _kun_, to erect, to point to the antediluvian Kain or\nKevan. _Kon_, derived from the same root, was, according to Bunsen,\na Ph\u0153nician designation of Saturn.[167] Even the great Carthaginian\nsun-god _Melekh_, who was also \u201cheld in universal honour throughout\nPh\u0153nicia,\u201d seems, although Bunsen does not thus identify him, to be\nno other than Lamekh, the father of Noah, in one of the genealogies\nof Genesis. We may, perhaps, have in the sacrifices to the Ph\u0153nician\ndeities, when the first-born sons of the people were offered on his\naltars, an explanation[168] of the passage in Genesis which has so\nmuch puzzled commentators, where Lamekh is made to declare that he\nhas \u201cslain a man for his wound, and a youth for his hurt,\u201d for which,\nwhile Cain was avenged seven times, Lamekh should be avenged seventy\ntimes seven times.[169] The Ph\u0153nicians had a tradition that Kronos\n(Saturn) had sacrificed his own beloved son Yadid, and some ancient\nwriters said that the human sacrifices to Moloch were in imitation of\nthis act.[170] This reason may not be the correct one for the use of\nhuman sacrifices, but the seventy times seven times in which Lamekh was\navenged may well refer to the abundance of the victims offered on the\naltar of the Ph\u0153nician deity.\n\nThe priority of the Phallic superstition over \u201cArkism,\u201d or rather the\nexistence of that superstition before the formation of the Deluge\nlegend, is proved, moreover, by its agreement with the myth of Osiris\nand Isis. This agreement forms the central idea of the explanation of\npagan idolatry given by Faber, and yet it conclusively proves that\nthe Noachian Deluge was simply a myth, having, like that of Osiris, a\nPhallic basis. Bunsen says \u201cthe myth of Osiris and Typhon, heretofore\nconsidered as primeval, can now be authoritatively proved to be of\nmodern date in Egypt\u2014that is to say, about the thirteenth or fourteenth\ncentury B.C.\u201d[171] But it is _this_ version of the Osirian myth which\nis said to be founded on the Noachian catastrophe, Typhon or The Evil\nBeing, the persecutor of Osiris, being the Waters of the Deluge. The\nvery foundation of the Hebrew legend is thus cut away, and from the\nfact, moreover, that the Egyptians had no tradition of a great flood,\nwe must seek for another origin for the legend of which different\nphases were held by so many of the peoples of antiquity. The fact of\nTyphon (Seth) having been venerated in Egypt to so late a date as the\nthirteenth century B.C. is a proof that the myth, according to which\nhe was the cruel persecutor of his brother Osiris, must have been of\na later origin. The primitive form of the myth is easily recognised\nwhen it is known that both Osiris and Typhon (Seth) were sun-gods.\nThus, according to Bunsen, \u201cthe myth of Osiris typifies the solar\nyear, the power of Osiris is the sun of the lower hemisphere, the\nwinter solstice. The birth of Horus typifies the vernal equinox\u2014the\nvictory of Horus, the summer equinox\u2014the inundation of the Nile.\nTyphon is the autumnal equinox\u2014Osiris is slain on the seventeenth\nof Athyr (November).... The rule of Typhon lasts from the autumnal\nequinox to the middle of December. He reigns twenty-eight years, or\nlives as long.\u201d[172] Thus the history of Osiris is \u201cthe history of the\ncircle of the year,\u201d and in his resurrection as Horus we see the sun\nresuscitating itself after its temporary eclipse during the winter\nsolstice. Here Typhon is also a sun-god, his rule being at the autumnal\nequinox when the sun has its full power. This was the deity of the\nSemites and of the inhabitants of Lower Egypt, and his scorching force,\ndoubtless, prepared the Egyptians, who venerated the milder Osiris,\nto look with abhorrence on Typhon-Seth, who had already, probably\nunder the same influence, become a savage deity, delighting in burnt\nofferings and human sacrifices.[173] No wonder, therefore, that when\nthe worshippers of the Semitic god were driven out of Egypt, the god\nhimself was treated as an enemy. Thus we are told that the enemies\nof Egypt and their gods contended with the gods of Egypt, who veiled\nthemselves under the heads of animals in order to save themselves\nfrom Typhon. Moreover, when this Semitic god was thus degraded and\ntransformed into an Evil Being, he would naturally come to be looked\nupon as the enemy of Osiris, seeing that he was already identified\nwith the autumn sun, which during the autumnal equinox triumphs over\nthe sun of Osiris; and we can easily understand how, if the myth of a\nDeluge, and the consequent destruction of all mankind but the father of\nthe renewed human race, was introduced, Typhon would be the destroying\nenemy and Osiris the suffering and restored man-god.\n\nIf, as Dr. Faber supposes, the Egyptian myth was a form of that which\nrelates to the Noachian Deluge, we can only suppose them to have had\na similar basis, a basis which, from the very circumstances of the\ncase, must be purely \u201cPhallic.\u201d This explanation is the only one\nwhich is consistent with a peculiarity in the Hebrew legend which is\nan insurmountable objection to its reception as the expression of a\nliteral fact. We are told by the Mosaic narrative that Jehovah directed\nNoah to take with him into the ark \u201cof fowls after their kind, and of\ncattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his\nkind, two of every sort.\u201d Now, according to the ordinary acceptation\nof the legend, this passage expresses a simple absurdity, even on the\nhypothesis of a partial Deluge. If, however, we read the narrative in\na Phallic sense, and by the ark understand the sacred _Argha_ of Hindu\nmythology, the _Yoni_ of Parvati, which, like the moon in Zoroastrian\nteaching, carries in _itself_ the \u201cgerms of all things,\u201d we see the\nfull propriety of what otherwise is incomprehensible. The Elohim\n\u201ccreated\u201d the heavens and the earth, and on its destruction the seeds\nof all things were preserved in the ark to again cover the earth. Taken\nin this sense, we see the reason of the curious analogy which exists in\nvarious points between the Hebrew legends of the Creation and of the\nDeluge, this analogy being one of the grounds on which the hypothesis\nof the Great Father as the central idea of all mythologies has been\nbased. Thus, the primeval ship, the navigation of which is ascribed\nto the mythological being, is not the ark of Noah or Osiris, or the\nvessel of the Ph\u0153nician Kabiri. It was the moon, the ship of the sun,\nin which his seed is supposed to be hidden until it bursts forth in\nnew life and power. The fact that the moon was, in early mythologies,\na male deity, almost necessitates, however, that there should have\nbeen another origin for the sacred vessel of Osiris. This we have in\nthe Hastoreth-_karnaim_, the cow-goddess, whose horns represent the\nlunar ark, and who, without doubt, was a more primitive deity than the\nmoon-goddess herself.[174] The most primitive type of all, however,\nis that of the _Argha_ or _Yoni_ of the Indian Iswara, which from its\nname was supposed to have been turned into a dove.[175] Thus, in Noah\nand the ark, as in Osiris and the moon, we see simply the combination\nof the male and female elements as they are still represented in the\nHindu lingam. The introduction of the dove into the myth is a curious\nconfirmation of this view. For this bird, which, as \u201cthe emblem of love\nand fruitfulness,\u201d was \u201cconsecrated to Venus, under all her different\nnames, at Babylon, in Syria, Palestine, and Greece;[176] which was the\nnational banner-sign of the Assyrians, as of the earlier Sythic empire,\nwhose founders, according to Hindu tradition, took the name of _Jonim_\nor _Yoniyas_, and which attended on Janus, a diluvian \u2018god of opening\nand shutting;\u2019 was simply a type of \u2018the Yoni\u2019 or Jonah, or Navicular\nfeminine principle,\u201d which was said to have assumed the form of a ship\nand a dove.[177]\n\nIn bringing this essay to a close, some mention should be made of\nwhat may be called the _modern_ religions, Brahminism, Buddhism, and\nChristianity, seeing that these still exist as the faiths of great\npeoples. As to the first of these, it may be thought that its real\ncharacter cannot be ascertained from the present condition of Hindu\nbelief. It is said that the religion of the _Vedas_ is very different\nfrom that of the _Puranas_, which have taken their place. It should\nbe remembered, however, that these books profess to reproduce old\ndoctrine, the word \u201cPurana\u201d itself meaning _old_, and that Puranas\nare referred to in one of the Upanishads, while the _Tantras_, which\ncontain the principles of the _Sacti Puja_, and which are as yet\nalmost unknown to Europeans, are considered by the Brahmins to be\nmore ancient than the Puranas themselves.[178] The origin of the\nideas contained in these books is a difficult question. The germs\nof both Vishnu-worship and Siva-worship appear to be found in the\nVedas,[179] and the worship of the linga is undoubtedly referred to\nthe Mahabharata.[180] It is more probable, as thought by Mr. Fergusson\nand other late writers, that they are only indirectly sprung from\nthe primitive Hinduism. The similarity between Siva-ism and the\nSantal-worship of the Great Mountain pointed out by Dr. Hunter is\nvery remarkable, and this analogy is strengthened by intermixture\nin both cases with river-worship.[181] There is no doubt that the\nGreat Mountain is simply a name for the Phallic emblem, which is the\nchief form under which Siva is represented in the numerous temples at\nBenares dedicated to his honour. Considering the position occupied by\nthe serpent as a symbol of life and indirectly of the male power, we\nshould expect to find its worship connected to some extent with that\nof Siva. Mr. Fergusson, however, declares that it is not so, and,\nalthough this statement requires some qualification,[182] yet it is\ncertain that the serpent is also intimately associated with Vishnu.\nIn explanation of this fact, Mr. Fergusson remarks: \u201cThe Vaishnava\nreligion is derived from a group of faiths in which the serpent always\nplayed an important part. The eldest branch of the family was the Naga\nworship, pure and simple; out of that arose Buddhism, ... and on its\ndecline two faiths\u2014at first very similar to one another\u2014rose from its\nashes, the Jaina and the Vaishnava.\u201d The serpent is almost always found\nin Jaina temples as an object of worship, while it appears everywhere\nin Vaishnava tradition.[183] But elsewhere Mr. Fergusson tells us\nthat, although Buddhism owed its establishment to Naga tribes, yet its\nsupporters repressed the worship of the serpent, elevating tree-worship\nin its place.[184] It is difficult to understand how the Vaishnavas,\nwho are worshippers of the female power,[185] and who hate the\n_lingam_, can yet so highly esteem the serpent which has indirectly,\nat least, reference to the male principle. Perhaps, however, we may\nfind an explanation in Mr. Fergusson\u2019s own remarks as to the character\nand development of Buddhism. According to him, Buddhism was chiefly\ninfluential among Naga tribes, and \u201cwas little more than a revival of\nthe coarser superstitions of the aboriginal races,[186] purified and\nrefined by the application of Aryan morality, and elevated by doctrines\nborrowed from the intellectual superiority of the Aryan races.[187]\u201d\nAs to its development, the sculptures on the Sanchi Tope show that at\nabout the beginning of the Christian era, although the _dagoba_, the\n_chakra_ or wheel, the _tree_, and other emblems, were worshipped, the\nserpent hardly appears; while at Amravati, three centuries later, this\nanimal had become equal to Buddha himself.[188] Moreover, there can be\nno doubt that the _lingam_ was an emblem of Buddha, as was also the\n_lotus_, which represents the same idea\u2014the conjunction of the male\nand female elements, although in a higher sense perfect wisdom.[189]\nThe association of the same ideas is seen in the noted prayer _Om mani\npadmi hum_ (\u201cOh, the Jewel in the Lotus\u201d), which refers to the birth\nof Padmipani from the sacred lotus flower,[190] but also, there can be\nlittle doubt, to the phallus and the yoni. We may suppose, therefore,\nthat whatever the moral doctrine taught by Gautama, he used the old\nPhallic symbols, although it may be with a peculiar application. If the\nopinion expressed by Mr. Fergusson as to the introduction into India\nof the Vaishnava faith by an early immigrant race be correct, it must\nhave existed in the time of Gautama, and indeed the Ion-ism of Western\nAsia is traditionally connected with India itself at a very early\ndate,[191] although probably the early centre of Ion-ism, the worship\nof the Dove or Yoni, was, as Bryant supposes, in Chaldea.[192] We see\nno trace, however, in Buddhism proper of _Sacti Puja_, and I would\nsuggest that, instead of abolishing either, Gautama substituted for the\nseparate symbols of the linga and the yoni, the association of the two\nin the _lingam_. If this were so, we can well understand how, on the\nfall of Buddhism, Siva-worship[193] may have retained this compound\nsymbol, with many of the old Naga ideas, although with little actual\nreference to the serpent itself, other than as a symbol of life and\npower; while, on the other hand, the Vaishnavas may have reverted to\nthe primitive worship of the female principle, retaining a remembrance\nof the early serpent associations in the use of the _Sesha_, the\nheavenly naga with seven heads[194] figured on the Amravati sculptures.\nIt is possible, however, that there may be another ground of opposition\nbetween the followers of Vishnu and Siva. Mr. Fergusson points out\nthat, notwithstanding the peculiarly Phallic symbolism of the latter\ndeity, \u201cthe worship of Siva is too severe, too stern for the softer\nemotions of love, and all his temples are quite free from any allusion\nto it.\u201d It is far different with the Vaishnavas, whose temples\n\u201care full of sexual feelings generally expressed in the grossest\nterms.\u201d[195] Siva, in fact, is specially a god of intellect, typified\nby his being three-eyed, and although terrible as the resistless\ndestroyer, yet the recreator of all things in perfect wisdom;[196]\nwhile Vishnu has relation rather to the lower type of wisdom which was\ndistinctive of the Assyrians, among ancient peoples, and which has so\ncurious a connection with the female principle. Hence the _shell_ or\n_conch_ is peculiar to Vishnu, while the _linga_ belongs to Siva.[197]\nGautama combined the simpler feminine phase of religion with the more\nmasculine intellectual type, symbolising this union by the lingam and\nother analogous emblems. The followers of Siva have, however, adopted\nthe combined symbol in the place of the linga alone, thus approaching\nmore nearly than the Vaishnavas to the idea of the founder of modern\nBuddhism. Gautama himself, nevertheless, was most probably only the\nrestorer of an older faith, according to which perfect wisdom was to be\nfound only in the typical combination of the male and female principles\nin nature. The real explanation of the connection between Buddhism\nand Siva-ism has perhaps, however, yet to be given[198]. The worship\nof the serpent-god is not unknown, even at the present day, in the\nvery stronghold of Siva-ism,[199] reminding us of the early spread of\nBuddhism among Naga tribes. In the \u201ccrescent surmounted by a pinnacle\nsimilar to the pointed end of a spear,\u201d which decorates the roofs of\nthe Tibetan monasteries,[200] we undoubtedly have a reproduction of the\nso-called trident of Siva. This instrument is given also to _Sani_, the\nHindu Saturn, who is represented as encompassed by two serpents,[201]\nand hence the pillar symbol of this primeval deity we may well suppose\nto be reproduced in the linga of the Indian Phallic god.[202] But the\npillar symbol is not wanting to Buddhism itself. The columns said to\nhave been raised by Asoka have a reference to the pillars of Seth. The\nremains of an ancient pillar supposed to be a Buddhist _Lat_ is still\nto be seen at Benares,[203] the word _Lat_ being merely another form\nof the name _Tet_, _Set_, or _Sat_, given to the Ph\u0153nician Semitic or\ndeity. In the central pillar of the so-called Druidical circles we have\ndoubtless a reference to the same primitive superstition, the idea\nintended to be represented being the combination of the male and female\nprinciples.[204]\n\nIn conclusion, it must be said that Christianity itself is certainly\nnot without the Phallic element. Reference may be made to the important\nplace taken in Christian dogma by the \u201cfall,\u201d which has been shown to\nhave had a purely Phallic foundation, and to the peculiar position\nassigned to Mary, as the Virgin Mother of God.[205] It must not be\nforgotten, however, that, whatever may have been the primitive idea\non which these dogmas are based, it had received a totally fresh\naspect at the hands of those from whom the founders of Christianity\nreceived it.[206] As to symbols, too, these were employed by the\nChristians in the later signification given to them by the followers\nof the ancient faiths. Thus the fish and the cross symbols originally\nembodied the idea of _generation_, but afterwards that of _life_, and\nit was in this sense that they were applied to Christ.[207] The most\nevidently Phallic representation used by the Christian Iconographers is\nundoubtedly the _aureole_, or _vesica piscis_, which is elliptical in\nform and contained the figure of Christ\u2014Mary herself, however, being\nsometimes represented in the aureole, glorified as Jesus Christ.[208]\nProbably the _nimbus_ also is of Phallic significance, for, although\ngenerally circular, it was sometimes triangular, square, &c.[209] The\nname of Jehovah is inscribed within a radiating triangle.[210] Didron\ngives an illustration of St. John the Evangelist with a circular\nnimbus, surmounted by two sun-flowers, emblems of the sun, an idea\nwhich, says Didron, \u201creminds us of the Egyptian figures, from the\nheads of which two lotus-flowers rise in a similar manner.\u201d[211] There\nis also a curious representation in the same work of the _Divine\nhand_ with the thumb and two forefingers outstretched, resting on\na cruciform nimbus.[212] In Egypt the hand having the fingers thus\nplaced was a symbol of Isis, and, from its accompaniments, there can\nbe no doubt, notwithstanding the mesmeric character ascribed to it by\nEnnemoser,[213] that it had an essentially Phallic origin, although\nit may ultimately have been used to signify life. There can be no\nquestion, however, that, whatever may be thought as to the nature\nof its symbols,[214] the basis of Christianity is more emotional\nthan that of any other religion now existing. Reference has been\nmade to the presence in Hebraic theology of an idea of God\u2014that of a\nFather\u2014antagonistic to the Ph\u0153nician notion of the \u201cLord of Heaven.\u201d\nWe have the same idea repeated in Christ\u2019s teaching, its distinctive\ncharacteristic being the recognition of God as the Universal Father\u2014the\nGreat Parent of mankind, who had sent His son into the world that\nhe might reconcile it unto Himself. It is in the character of a\nforgiving parent that Christians are taught to view God, when He is\nnot lost sight of in the presence of Christ, of whom the church is\ndeclared to be the bride. In Christianity we see the final expression\nof the primitive worship of the father as the head of the family\u2014the\ngenerator\u2014as the result of an instinctive reasoning process leading\nup from the particular to the universal\u2014with which, however, the\ndogma of the \u201cfall\u201d and its consequences\u2014deduced so strangely from\na Phallic legend\u2014have been incorporated.[215] As a religion of the\nemotions, the position of Christianity is perfectly unassailable.\nAs a system of rational faith, however, it is otherwise; and the\ntendency of the present age is just the reverse of that which took\nplace among the Hebrews\u2014the substitution of a Heavenly King for a\nDivine Father. In fact, modern science is doing its best to effect for\nprimitive fetishism, or demon-worship, what Christianity has done for\nPhallic-worship\u2014generalise the powers of nature and make of God a Great\nUnknowable Being, who, like the Elohim, of the Mosaic Cosmogony, in\nsome mysterious manner, causes all things to appear at a word. This\ncannot, however, be the real religion of the future. If God is to be\nworshipped at all, the Heavenly King and the Divine Father must be\ncombined as a single term, and He must be viewed, not as the unknowable\ncause of being, but as the great source of all being, who may be known\nin nature\u2014the expression of his life and energy, and in man who was\n\u201ccreated\u201d in his own image.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_Note._\u2014M. Fran\u00e7ois Lenormant, in the seventh edition of his \u201cHistoire\nancienne de l\u2019Orient\u201d (T. i., p. 91), after considering the traditions\nof a great deluge preserved by various peoples, concludes that \u201cthe\nbiblical deluge, far from being a myth, has been a real and historical\nfact, which has struck the ancestors of at least the Aryan or\nIndo-European, the Semitic or Syro-Arab, and the Hamitic or Kouschite\nraces\u2014that is, the three great civilised races of the ancient world,\nbefore the ancestors of these races were separated, and in the Asiatic\ncountry which they inhabited together.\u201d The authority of M. Lenormant\nis great, but preference must be given on this point to the arguments\nof M. Dupuis, who, in his \u201cOrigine de tous des Cultes\u201d (T. iii., p.\n176, _et seq._), has almost certainly proved the astronomical character\nof what he terms the \u201cfiction sacerdotale,\u201d which, however, may have\noriginated with the common ancestors of the three races referred to by\nM. Lenormant.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[4] \u201cOrigin of Pagan Idolatry,\u201d vol. iii., p. 117.\n\n[5] \u201cHistoire abr\u00e9g\u00e9e de differens Cultes,\u201d vol. ii.\n\n[6] \u201cA Discourse on the Worship of Priapus.\u201d\n\n[7] \u201cMemoirs of the Anthropological Society of London,\u201d vol. i., p. 320.\n\n[8] Dulaure, _op. cit._, vol. ii., 219.\n\n[9] \u201cRural Bengal,\u201d p. 203.\n\n[10] Ennemoser\u2019s \u201cHistory of Magic\u201d (Bohn), vol. ii., p. 33.\n\n[11] Dr. Fernand Castelain, in his work, \u201cLa Circoncision est-elle\nutile?\u201d comes to the conclusion (p. 14) that it is both hygienic and\nmoral. The value of circumcision may be admitted, without ascribing its\norigin to a sanitary motive.\n\n[12] Herodotus, \u201cEuterpe,\u201d sec. 104.\n\n[13] De Coulanges, \u201cLa Cit\u00e9 antique,\u201d 6th ed., pp. 36, 100.\n\n[14] M. Elie Reclus, in a remarkable paper presented in 1879 to the\nAnthropological Institute, affirms (p. 16, _et seq._) that circumcision\nis derived from the custom of emasculation practised on captives,\nwhich is equivalent to death, and that it is a substitute for human\nsacrifices. He admits, however (p. 32), that, among the Semites at\nleast, circumcision was a \u201cconsecration of the sexual organ to a\nPhallic divinity.\u201d\n\n[15] \u201cAnte-Nicene Christian Library,\u201d vol. iv. (Clement of Alexandria),\np. 27.\n\n[16] The Hebrew word _bara_ translated \u201ccreated\u201d can be used in a\ndifferent sense.\n\n[17] \u201cJashar,\u201d by Dr. Donaldson, 2nd ed. (1860), p. 45, _et seq._\n\n[18] Smith\u2019s \u201cDictionary of the Bible\u201d\u2014Art., \u201cApple-tree.\u201d Inman\u2019s\n\u201cAncient Faiths,\u201d vol. i., p. 274.\n\n[19] \u201cZambesi and its Tribes,\u201d p. 188.\n\n[20] \u201cMissionary Travels in South Africa,\u201d p. 495.\n\n[21] \u201cJourney to Ashango Land,\u201d p. 295.\n\n[22] \u201cRiver Zaire,\u201d p. 181.\n\n[23] \u201cTravels through Central Africa,\u201d p. 394, 407.\n\n[24] \u201cTravels,\u201d vol. ii., p. 391; and vol. iii., p. 665.\n\n[25] Journal of R. Geog. Society, vol. xvi., p. 240.\n\n[26] \u201cThe Malayan Archipelago,\u201d vol. i., p. 158.\n\n[27] Wilkinson, vol. iv., p. 260, 313.\n\n[28] Tennent\u2019s \u201cCeylon,\u201d vol. ii., p. 520.\n\n[29] M. Littr\u00e9 sees in the two trees of Genesis only the soma, which\nwas introduced into the Brahmanical Sacrifices, which, with the\nIranians, was transformed into _two_ mystic trees.\u2014_La Philosophie\nPositive_, 3rd vol., p. 341, _et seq._\n\n[30] _Op. cit._, vol. ii., p. 448.\n\n[31] Gen., xxxv. 4.\n\n[32] Ezek., vi. 13.\n\n[33] \u201cCeltic Researches,\u201d p. 446.\n\n[34] \u201cAryan Mythology,\u201d vol. i., p. 274_n._\n\n[35] Ditto, vol. ii., p. 19.\n\n[36] See Grimm\u2019s \u201cTeutonic Mythology,\u201d p. 571, _et seq._\n\n[37] Cox, _op. cit._, vol. i., p. 274_n._\n\n[38] According to Gen., ii. 23, the name isha (woman) was bestowed by\nAdam on the first woman, because she was taken out of man (_Ish_)\u2014terms\nwhich were used in reference to man and wife. This is shewn by the\nsubsequent reference to marriage (v. 24). See Smith\u2019s \u201cDictionary of\nthe Bible\u201d\u2014Art. \u201cMarriage.\u201d\n\n[39] \u201cAncient Egyptians,\u201d vol. iv., p. 313.\n\n[40] Ditto, p. 313.\n\n[41] Dulaure\u2019s \u201cHistoire abreg\u00e9e de differens Cultes,\u201d vol. ii., p. 169.\n\n[42] See Guigniaut\u2019s \u201cReligions de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9\u201d (1825), vol. i., p. 149.\n\n[43] See on this, Inman, _op. cit._, vol. ii., p. 462.\n\n[44] The Hindu legend expressly mentions the fig. See _infr\u00e0_.\n\n[45] _Op. cit._, vol. i., p. 108, 527. In the East the pomegranate\nsymbolises the full womb.\n\n[46] See Bunsen\u2019s \u201cEgypt,\u201d vol. iv., p. 225, 255, 288.\n\n[47] \u201cHistory of Herodotus,\u201d vol. i., p. 600.\n\n[48] Wilkinson\u2019s \u201cAncient Egyptians,\u201d vol. iv., p. 412, 413; and King\u2019s\n\u201cGnostics,\u201d p. 31. See also Bryant\u2019s \u201cAncient Mythology,\u201d vol. iv., p.\n201. The last-named work contains most curious information as to the\nextension of serpent-worship.\n\n[49] See \u201cThe Serpent Symbol in America,\u201d by E.G. Squier,\nM.A.\u2014\u201cAmerican Arch\u00e6ological Researches,\u201d No. 1 (1851), p. 161, _et\nseq._; \u201cPalenqu\u00e9,\u201d by M. de Waldeck and M. Brasseur de Bourbourg\n(1866), p. 48.\n\n[50] Lajard\u2014\u201cM\u00e9moires de l\u2019Institut Royal de France\u201d (Acad. des\nInscriptions et Belles Lettres), T. xiv., p. 89.\n\n[51] Wood\u2019s \u201cNatural History of Man,\u201d vol. i., p. 185; also Squier\u2019s\n\u201cSerpent Symbol,\u201d p. 222, _et seq._\n\n[52] I have a strong suspicion that in the primitive shape of the\nHebrew legend, as in that of the Mexicans, both the father and mother\nof the human race had the serpent form.\n\n[53] _Op. cit._, p. 46. Rudra, the Vedic form of Siva, the \u201cKing of\nSerpents,\u201d is called the father of the Maruts (winds). See _infr\u00e0_ as\nto identification of Siva with Saturn.\n\n[54] The idea of _circularity_ appears to be associated with both these\nnames. See Bryant, _op. cit._, vol. iii., p. 164, and vol. ii., p. 191,\nas to derivation of Typhon.\n\n[55] Lajard. _Op. cit._, p. 182, \u201cCulte de Mithra,\u201d p. 45; also\n\u201cM\u00e9moire sur l\u2019Hercule Assyrien de M. Raoul-Rochette.\u201d\n\n[56] Mr. J. H. Rivett-Carnac suggests that the snake is a \u201csymbol of\nthe phallus.\u201d He adds, \u201cThe sun, the invigorating power of nature,\nhas ever, I believe, been considered to represent the same idea,\nnot necessarily obscene, but the great mystery of nature, the life\ntransmitted from generation to generation, or, as Professor Stephens\nputs it, \u2018life out of death, life everlasting.\u2019\u201d\u2014_Snake Symbol in\nIndia_ (reprinted from. \u201cJournal of As. Soc. of Bengal\u201d), 1879, p. 13.\n\n[57] Wilkinson, _op. cit._, vol. v., p. 65\n\n[58] Ditto, p. 243.\n\n[59] Ditto, p. 239.\n\n[60] See Ennemoser\u2019s \u201cHistory of Magic\u201d (Bohn), vol. i., p. 253.\n\n[61] Ditto, p. 243.\n\n[62] Guigniaut\u2019s \u201cLe Dieu Serapis,\u201d p. 19.\n\n[63] _Op. cit._, p. 12.\n\n[64] Faber\u2019s \u201cPagan Idolatry,\u201d vol. 1, p. 424_n._\n\n[65] Prof. Max M\u00fcller derives cherubim from [Greek: gryphes], griffins,\nthe guardians of the Soma in the Veda and Avesta. \u201cChips from a German\nWorkshop,\u201d 2nd ed., i. 157.\n\n[66] Ez., c. 28, v. 14-16.\n\n[67] See Colenzo\u2019s \u201cPentateuch\u201d (1865), p. 341.\n\n[68] See Faber\u2019s \u201cPagan Idolatry,\u201d vol. iii., p. 606.\n\n[69] C. i., v. 10.\n\n[70] C. x., v. 14.\n\n[71] _Op. cit._, vol. i., p. 422.\n\n[72] Ez., c. i., v. 7.\n\n[73] _Op. cit._, vol. i., p. 404.\n\n[74] \u201cChinese,\u201d p. 376.\n\n[75] See Faber, _op. cit._, vol. i., pp. 404-410.\n\n[76] Lajard, \u201cLe culte de Mithra,\u201d pp. 56, 59.\n\n[77] Lajard, _op. cit._, p. 50; _infr\u00e0_, p. 39.\n\n[78] This superstition is found among peoples\u2014the Kafirs, for\ninstance\u2014who do not appear to possess any trace of planetary worship.\n\n[79] This is evident from the facts mentioned above, notwithstanding\nthe use of this animal as a symbol of _wisdom_.\n\n[80] In connection with this subject, see St. Jerome, in his letter on\n\u201cVirginity\u201d to Eustachia.\n\n[81] The turning of Aaron\u2019s rod into a serpent had, no doubt, a\nreference to the idea of _wisdom_ associated with that animal.\n\n[82] \u201cThe Fallen Angels\u201d (1857).\n\n[83] Moor\u2019s \u201cHindu Pantheon,\u201d p. 101.\n\n[84] The Bo-tree. See _supr\u00e0_, p. 18.\n\n[85] Probably the _fruit_ is really intended. Higgins refers to \u201ca\npeculiar property which the fig has of producing its fruit from its\nflowers, contained within its own bosom, and concealed from profane\neyes,\u201d as a reason why the leaves of the fig-tree were selected by Adam\nand Eve to cover their nakedness. _Anacalypsis_, vol. ii., p. 253.\n\n[86] Hardwicke\u2019s \u201cChrist and other Masters,\u201d vol. i., p. 305-6.\n\n[87] Mr. Hardwicke states that the sacred Indian fig is endowed by the\nBrahmans and Buddhists with mysterious significance, as the tree of\nknowledge or intelligence.\n\n[88] See Beausobre\u2019s curious and learned work, \u201cHistoire de Manich\u00e9e et\ndu Manich\u00e9isme,\u201d Liv. vii., ch. iii.; Gibbon\u2019s \u201cFall and Decline of the\nRoman Empire,\u201d vol. ii., p. 186.\n\n[89] As already suggested, these may be the _ish_ and _isha_ of Genesis.\n\n[90] Lajard, \u201cLe culte de Mithra,\u201d p. 52.\n\n[91] Ditto, p. 60.\n\n[92] This is shown by Mr. Gerald Massey in his remarkable work, \u201cThe\nNatural Genesis,\u201d and particularly the chapter entitled \u201cTypology of\nthe Fall in Heaven and on Earth.\u201d\n\n[93] Lajard, _op. cit._, p. 49.\n\n[94] \u201cOrmazd et Ahriman,\u201d by James Darmesteter, pp. 154, 159.\n\n[95] It may be objected that the \u201cBoundehesch,\u201d which gives the above\ndetails, is comparatively a modern work. It must be noted, however,\nthat the destruction of purity in the world by the serpent _Dah\u00e2ka_ is\nmentioned in the 9th Ya\u00e7na, v. 27, which is much earlier, and that Dr.\nHaug supposes the \u201cBoundehesch\u201d to have had a Zend original (\u201cEssays on\nthe Sacred Language, &c., of the Parsees,\u201d p. 29). Windischmann, also,\nsays that \u201ca closer study of this remarkable and venerable book, and\ncomparing it with the original text preserved to us, will induce us to\nform a much more favourable opinion of its antiquity and contents.\u201d\n(\u201cZoroastrische Studien,\u201d p. 282). The opinion of this latter writer is\nthat, notwithstanding the striking resemblance between the narrative\nof the fall of man contained in the \u201cBoundehesch\u201d and that in Genesis,\nthe former is original, although inferior in simplicity to the Hebrew\ntradition (_idem_, p. 212). The narratives are so much alike, however,\nthat they can hardly have had independent origins, and the very\nsimplicity of the latter is a very strong argument against its priority.\n\n[96] See _supr\u00e0_, p. 24.\n\n[97] Memoirs of the Anthropological Society of London, vol. ii.,\np. 264, _et seq._, and compare with the Gnostic personification of\n\u201cTruth,\u201d for which see King\u2019s \u201cGnostics and their Remains,\u201d p. 39.\n\n[98] Lajard, _op. cit._, p. 96.\n\n[99] Jehovah threatens _death_, but the Serpent impliedly promises\n_life_, the former having relation to the _individual_, the latter to\nthe _race_.\n\n[100] Lajard, _op. cit._, p. 60, _note_.\n\n[101] Some of the Essenes, who appear to have had connection with\nMithraism, taught this doctrine.\n\n[102] It is well known to Biblical writers that this legend formed no\npart of the earlier Mosaic narrative.\n\n[103] Faber\u2019s \u201cPagan Idolatry.\u201d\n\n[104] See Dulaure, _op. cit._, vol. i., as to the primeval Hermes.\n\n[105] Smith\u2019s \u201cDictionary of Mythology\u201d\u2014Art., \u201cHermes.\u201d\n\n[106] Gen., xxxi. 45-53.\n\n[107] _Linga_ means a \u201csign\u201d or \u201ctoken.\u201d The truth of the statement in\nthe text would seem to follow, moreover, from the fact that the figure\nis sacred only after it has undergone certain ceremonies at the hands\nof a priest.\n\n[108] Or tamarisk tree.\n\n[109] Gen., xxi. 33.\n\n[110] Dr. Inman suggests that ashera is the female counterpart of\n_Asher_. See under these names in \u201cAncient Faiths,\u201d vol. i.\n\n[111] Even if the statement of this event be an interpolation, the\nargument in the text is not affected. The statement is not inconsistent\nwith the form of worship traditionally assigned to Abraham.\n\n[112] B\u00e6tylia were \u201cstones having souls.\u201d\n\n[113] Rawlinson\u2019s \u201cFive Ancient Monarchies,\u201d vol. i., p. 617; vol. ii.,\np. 247.\n\n[114] Dr. Alexander Wilder says: \u201cThe later Hebrews affected the\nPersian religion, in which the sun was the emblem of worship. Abraham\nevidently had a like preference, being a reputed iconoclast. The lunar\nreligionists employed images in their worship.\u201d\n\n[115] Josephus\u2019 \u201cAntiquities of the Jews,\u201d ch. viii. 2.\n\n[116] The Serpent-symbol of the Exodus is called \u201cSeraph.\u201d\n\n[117] \u201cThe History of Israel\u201d (Eng. Trans.), vol i., p. 532.\n\n[118] See \u201cSanchoniatho\u201d (Cory, _op. cit._)\n\n[119] Much discussion has taken place as to the nature of these\nanimals. For an explanation of the epithet \u201cfiery,\u201d see Sanchoniatho,\n\u201c_Of the Serpent_\u201d (Cory, _op. cit._)\n\n[120] Numbers, xxi. 8, 9.\n\n[121] Wilkinson\u2019s \u201cAncient Egyptians,\u201d vol. iv., p. 435.\n\n[122] Ditto, p. 434.\n\n[123] Egypt, vol. iii., p. 426.\n\n[124] \u201cGod in History,\u201d vol. i., pp. 233-4.\n\n[125] Exodus, xxxiv. 20.\n\n[126] Numbers, xix. 1-10.\n\n[127] As to the god Seth, see Pleyte\u2019s \u201cLa Religion des Pr\u00e9-Israelites\u201d\n(1862).\n\n[128] F\u00fcrst renders the name Mo-cese, \u201cSon of Isis,\u201d _Inman\u2019s_ \u201cAncient\nFaiths,\u201d vol. ii., p. 338.\n\n[129] According to Pleyte, the Cabalists thought that the soul of Seth\nhad passed into Moses (_op. cit._, p. 124). It is strange that the\nname of the Egyptian princess who is said to have brought up Moses is\ngiven by Josephus as _Thermuthis_, this being the name of the sacred\nasp of Egypt (see \u201c_supr\u00e0_\u201d). We appear also to have a reference to\nthe serpent in the name Levi, one of the sons of Jacob, from whom the\ndescent of Moses was traced.\n\n[130] \u201cFragments.\u201d Book xxxiv. (See also in connection with this\nsubject, \u201cKing\u2019s Gnostics,\u201d p. 91.)\n\n[131] Bunsen\u2019s \u201cGod in History,\u201d vol. i., p. 234.\n\n[132] Ewald notices the fact. (See \u201c_op. cit._, vol. i., 454.\u201d)\n\n[133] \u201cEgypt,\u201d vol. iii., p. 433.\n\n[134] _Op. cit._, vol. iv., p. 434.\n\n[135] \u201cLe Livre des Morts,\u201d par Paul Pierret, p. 259.\n\n[136] Bunsen\u2019s \u201cEgypt,\u201d vol. iv., p. 208.\n\n[137] Ditto, vol. iii., p. 427.\n\n[138] _Op. cit._, p. 319.\n\n[139] _Op. cit._, vol. vi., p. 328.\n\n[140] As to the use of this symbol generally, see Pleyte, _op. cit._,\npp. 109, 157.\n\n[141] On these points, see M. Raoul-Rochette\u2019s Memoir on the Assyrian\nand Ph\u0153nician Hercules, in his \u201cM\u00e9moires de l\u2019Institut National de\nFrance. Acad\u00e9mie des Inscriptions,\u201d tom. xvii., p. 47, _et seq._\n\n[142] _Op. cit._, vol. i., p. 60; vol. ii., p. 201.\n\n[143] Pleyte, _op. cit._, p. 172.\n\n[144] Bunsen\u2019s \u201cEgypt,\u201d vol. iv., p. 249.\n\n[145] Ditto, p. 217.\n\n[146] See ditto, pp. 226-9.\n\n[147] The ram appears to have been the first month of the Akkadian\ncalendar. \u201cLaw of Kosmic Order,\u201d by Mr. Rob. Brown, jun., 1882, p. 36.\n\n[148] Rawlinson\u2019s \u201cHistory of Herodotus,\u201d vol. i., p. 620.\n\n[149] Rawlinson\u2019s \u201cHistory of Herodotus,\u201d vol. ii., p. 291.\n\n[150] _Op. cit._, p. 89, _et seq._\n\n[151] Wilkinson, _op. cit._, vol. iv., pp. 342, 260.\n\n[152] Bunsen\u2019s \u201cEgypt,\u201d vol. i., p. 423.\n\n[153] _Op. cit._, vol. i., p. 388.\n\n[154] In the temple of Hercules at Tyre were two symbolical _steles_,\none a pillar and the other an obelisk. See Raoul-Rochette, _op. cit._,\np. 51, where is a reference to a curious tradition, preserved by\nJosephus, connecting Moses with the erection of columns at Heliopolis.\n\n[155] Wilkinson, _op. cit._, vol. iv., p. 299.\n\n[156] Rawlinson\u2019s \u201cHerodotus,\u201d vol. i., p. 608.\n\n[157] Ditto, p. 620.\n\n[158] _Mau_, the name of the Egyptian God of Truth, certainly signifies\n\u201clight,\u201d but probably only in a figurative sense.\n\n[159] The importance ascribed to the mechanical arts may perhaps lead\nus to look for the formal origin of this character in the \u201cwedge,\u201d\nwhich was the chief mechanical power the ancients possessed.\n\n[160] Faber, _op. cit._, vol, ii., p. 20.\n\n[161] Bryant, in his \u201cAncient Mythology,\u201d has brought together a great\nmass of materials bearing on this question. The facts, however, are\ncapable of quite a different interpretation from that which he has\ngiven to them.\n\n[162] \u201cOrigin and Destiny of Man,\u201d p. 339.\n\n[163] Dr. Inman points out that, in the ancient languages, the term for\n\u201cgarden\u201d is used as a metaphor for woman. \u201cAncient Faiths,\u201d i. 52; ii.\n553.\n\n[164] Guigniaut\u2019s \u201cReligions de l\u2019Antiquit\u00e9,\u201d vol. i., p. 146.\n\n[165] _Op. cit._, i. 315.\n\n[166] \u201cEgypt,\u201d vol. iv., p. 257.\n\n[167] \u201cEgypt,\u201d vol. iv., p. 209.\n\n[168] Mr. Gerald Massey appears to regard the crime of Lamekh as the\npractice of abortion, men not desiring to have children. _Op. cit._,\nii. 119.\n\n[169] Gen., iv. 23, 24.\n\n[170] Bunsen\u2019s \u201cEgypt,\u201d vol. iv., pp. 285-6.\n\n[171] Bunsen\u2019s \u201cEgypt,\u201d vol. iii., p. 413.\n\n[172] Bunsen\u2019s \u201cEgypt,\u201d vol. iii., p. 437.\n\n[173] Ditto, vol. iv., p. 286.\n\n[174] If space permitted, we might trace to their source the\ndevelopments which the primeval goddess of fecundity underwent. To the\nideas embodied in her may be referred nearly all the feminine deities\nof antiquity.\n\n[175] Faber, _op. cit._, vol. ii., p. 246.\n\n[176] Kenrick\u2019s \u201cPh\u0153nicia,\u201d p. 307.\n\n[177] See Faber, _op. cit._; also Note at the end of this chapter.\n\n[178] On this question, see the \u201cMemoirs of the Anthropological Society\nof London,\u201d vol. ii., p. 265; also \u201cSketch of the Religious Sects of\nthe Hindus,\u201d in the \u201cAsiatic Researches,\u201d vol. xvii. (1832), p. 216,\n_et seq._\n\n[179] This question is fully considered by Dr. Muir in his Sanscrit\nTexts, part iv., p. 54, _et seq._\n\n[180] Ditto, pp. 161, 343.\n\n[181] \u201cRural Bengal,\u201d p. 187, _et seq._, 152. This association of the\nmountain and the river is found also in the Persian Khordah-Avesta. See\n(5) Abun-yasht, v. 1-3.\n\n[182] See \u201cTree and Serpent Worship,\u201d p. 70; also Sherring\u2019s \u201cBenares,\u201d\npp. 75-89. Here the serpent is evidently symbolical of _life_. In the\nMahabharata, Mahadeva is described as having \u201ca girdle of serpents,\near-rings of serpents, a sacrificial cord of serpents, and an outer\ngarment of serpent\u2019s skin.\u201d Dr. Muir, _op. cit._, part iv., p. 160.\n\n[183] _Op. cit._, p. 70.\n\n[184] Ditto, p. 62.\n\n[185] Mr. Sellon, in the \u201cMemoirs of the Anthropological Society of\nLondon,\u201d vol. ii., p. 273.\n\n[186] It should not be forgotten that the Vedic religion was not that\nof all the Aryan tribes of India (see Muir, _op. cit._, part ii.,\npp. 377, 368, 383), and it is by no means improbable that some of\nthem retained a more primitive faith\u2014\u201cBuddhism\u201d or \u201cRudraism\u201d\u2014_i.e._,\n_Siva-ism_.\n\n[187] _Op. cit._, p. 62. To come to a proper conclusion on this\nimportant point, it is necessary to consider the real position occupied\nby Gautama in relation to Brahmanism. Burnoux says that he differed\nfrom his adversaries only in the definition he gives of salvation (_du\nsalut_). \u201cIntroduction \u00e0 l\u2019Histoire du Buddhisme Indien,\u201d p. 155.\n\n[188] Fergusson, _op. cit._, pp. 67, 222, 223.\n\n[189] See Guigniaut, _op. cit._, vol. i., pp. 293, 160 _n._\n\n[190] Schlagenweit, \u201cBuddhism in Tibet,\u201d p. 120.\n\n[191] Higgins\u2019 \u201cAnacalypsis,\u201d vol. i., p. 332, _et seq._ See also p.\n342, _et seq._\n\n[192] _Op. cit._, vol. i., p. 1, _et seq._, 25.\n\n[193] Dr. Hunter points out a connection between Siva-ism and Buddhism.\n_Op. cit._, p. 194.\n\n[194] Mr. Fergusson, _op. cit._, p. 70. The serpent is connected with\nVishnuism as a symbol of _wisdom_ rather than of life.\n\n[195] _Op. cit._, p. 71.\n\n[196] Hence Siva, as _Sambhu_, is the patron deity of the Brahman\norder, and the most intellectual Hindus of the present day are to be\nfound among his followers. See Wilson, _op. cit._, p. 171. Sherring\u2019s\n\u201cSacred City of the Hindus,\u201d p. 146, _et seq._\n\n[197] The _bull_ of Siva has reference to strength and speed rather\nthan to fecundity, while the Rig-veda refers to Vishnu as the former\nof the _womb_, although elsewhere he is described as the _fecundator_.\nMuir, _op. cit._, part iv., pp. 244, 292, 83, 64.\n\n[198] This question has been considered by Burnoux, _op. cit._, p. 547,\n_et seq._ But see also Hodgson\u2019s \u201cBuddhism in Nepaul,\u201d and paper in the\n\u201cJournal of the Royal Asiatic Society,\u201d vol. xviii. (1860), p. 395, _et\nseq._\n\n[199] See Herring, _op. cit._, p. 89.\n\n[200] Schlagenweit, _op. cit._, p. 181.\n\n[201] Maurice\u2019s \u201cIndian Antiquities,\u201d vol. vii., p. 566.\n\n[202] As to the identity of Siva and Saturn, see Guigniaut, _op. cit._,\nvol. i., p. 167 _n._\n\n[203] Sherring, _op cit._, p. 305, _et seq._\n\n[204] It should be noted that many of the so-called \u201ccircles\u201d are in\nreality _elliptical_.\n\n[205] See, on this subject, Higgins\u2019 \u201cAnacalypsis,\u201d vol. i., p. 315,\n_et seq._\n\n[206] We must look to the esoteric teaching of Mithraism for the\norigin and explanation of much of primitive Christian dogma. The\ndoctrine of \u201cregeneration,\u201d which is a spiritual application of the\nidea of physical generation, was known to all the religious systems\nof antiquity, and probably the Phallic emblems generally used were\nregarded by the initiated as having a hidden meaning. I may, perhaps,\nbe allowed to refer to the second volume of my \u201cEvolution of Morality\u201d\nfor information on the subject of the \u201cre-birth.\u201d\n\n[207] The serpent elevated in the wilderness is said to be typical of\nChrist. A Gnostic sect taught that Christ was Seth.\n\n[208] Didron\u2019s \u201cChristian Iconography\u201d (Bohn), pp. 272-286.\n\n[209] It is a curious fact that Buddhist saints are often represented\nin the _Vesica_ and with the _nimbus_. See Hodgson\u2019s figures (Plates v.\nand vi.) in the \u201cJournal of the Royal Asiatic Society,\u201d vol. xvi.\n\n[210] Didron, pp. 27, 231.\n\n[211] Ditto, p. 29.\n\n[212] Ditto, p. 215.\n\n[213] \u201cHistory of Magic\u201d (Bohn), vol. i., p. 253, _et seq._\n\n[214] As to these, see King\u2019s \u201cGnostics and their Remains,\u201d p. 72.\n\n[215] In the philosophy of St. Paul, the death of Christ was rendered\nnecessary by the fall. By the first man, Adam, came death, and in\nChrist the second Adam are all made alive. Mankind reverts to the\nposition occupied by Adam before he sinned; and as in the New Jerusalem\nthere is no marriage, so in the earthly paradise of the Hebrew legend\nman was at first intended to live alone.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nTHE ORIGIN OF SERPENT-WORSHIP.\n\n\nThe subject to be discussed in the present chapter is one of the\nmost fascinating that can engage the attention of anthropologists.\nIt is remarkable, however, that although so much has been written in\nrelation to it, we are still almost in the dark as to the origin of the\nsuperstition in question. The student of mythology knows that certain\nideas were associated by the peoples of antiquity with the serpent,\nand that it was the favourite symbol of particular deities; but why\nthat animal rather than any other was chosen for the purpose is yet\nuncertain. The facts being well known, however, I shall dwell on them\nonly so far as may be necessary to support the conclusions based upon\nthem.\n\nWe are indebted to Mr. Fergusson for bringing together a large array\nof facts, showing the extraordinary range which serpent-worship had\namong ancient nations. It is true that he supposes it not to have been\nadopted by any nation belonging to the Semitic or Aryan stock; the\nserpent-worship of India and Greece originating, as he believes, with\nolder peoples. However this may be, the superstition was certainly not\nunknown to either Aryans or Semites. The brazen serpent of the Hebrew\nexodus was destroyed in the reign of Hezekiah, owing to the idolatry to\nwhich it gave rise. In the mythology of the Chaldeans, from whom the\nAssyrians seem to have sprung, the serpent occupied a most important\nposition. Among the allied Ph\u0153nicians and Egyptians it was one of the\nmost divine symbols. In Greece, Hercules was said \u201cto have been the\nprogenitor of the whole race of serpent-worshipping Scythians, through\nhis intercourse with the serpent Echidna;\u201d and when Minerva planted\nthe sacred olive on the Acropolis of Athens, she placed it under the\ncare of the serpent-deity Erechthonios. As to the Latins, Mr. Fergusson\nremarks that \u201cOvid\u2019s \u2018Metamorphoses\u2019 are full of passages referring to\nthe important part which the serpent performed in all the traditions\nof classic mythology.\u201d The superstitions connected with that animal\nare supposed not to have existed among the ancient Gauls and Germans;\nbut this is extremely improbable, considering that it appears to\nhave been known to the British Celts and to the Gothic inhabitants\nof Scandinavia. In Eastern Europe there is no doubt that the serpent\nsuperstition was anciently prevalent, and Mr. Fergusson refers to\nevidence proving that \u201cboth trees and serpents were worshipped by the\npeasantry in Esthonia and Finland within the limits of the present\ncentury, and even with all the characteristics possessed by the old\nfaith when we first became acquainted with it.\u201d\n\nThe serpent entered largely into the mythology of the ancient Persians,\nas it does into that of the Hindus. In India it is associated with\nboth Siva-ism and Vishnuism, although its actual worship perhaps\nbelonged rather to the aboriginal tribes among whom Buddhism is\nthought by recent writers to have originated. The modern home of the\nsuperstition, however, is Western Africa, where the serpent is not\nmerely considered sacred, but is actually worshipped as divine. On the\nother side of the Indian Ocean traces of the same superstition are met\nwith among the peoples of the Indian islands and of Polynesia, and also\nin China. The evidences of serpent-worship on the American Continent\nhave long engaged the attention of arch\u00e6ologists, who have found it to\nbe almost universal, under one form or another, among the aboriginal\ntribes. That animal was sculptured on the temples of Mexico and Peru,\nand its form is said by Mr. Squier to be of frequent occurrence among\nthe mounds of Wisconsin. The most remarkable of the symbolic earthworks\nof North America is the great serpent mound of Adam\u2019s county, Ohio,\nthe convolutions of which extend to a length of 1,000 feet. At the\nEdinburgh meeting of the British Association, in 1871, Mr. Phen\u00e9\ngave an account of his discovery in Argyllshire of a similar mound\nseveral hundred feet long, and about fifteen feet high by thirty feet\nbroad, tapering gradually to the tail, the head being surmounted by a\ncircular cairn, which he supposes to answer to the solar disc above the\nhead of the Egyptian ur\u00e6us, the position of which, with head erect,\nanswers to the form of the Oban serpent-mound. This discovery is of\ngreat interest, and its author is probably justified in assuming that\nthe mound was connected with serpent-worship. It may be remarked, in\nevidence of the existence of such structures in other parts of the old\nworld, that the hero of one of the Ya\u00e7nas of the Zend Avesta is made\nto rest on what he thinks is a bank, but which he finds to be a great\ngreen snake, doubtless a serpent-mound. Another ancient reference\nto these structures is made by Iphicrates, who, according to Bryant,\n\u201crelated that in Mauritania there were dragons of such extent, that\ngrass grew upon their backs.\u201d\n\nLet us now see what ideas have been associated with the serpent by\nvarious peoples. Mr. Fergusson mentions the curious fact that \u201cthe\nchief characteristic of the serpent throughout the East in all ages\nseems to have been their power over the wind and rain.\u201d According to\nColonel Meadows Taylor, in the Indian Deccan, at the present day,\nofferings are made to the village divinities (of whom the n\u00e2g, or\nsnake, is always one) at spring time and harvest for rain or fine\nweather, and also in time of cholera or other diseases or pestilence.\nSo, among the Chinese, the dragon is regarded as the giver of rain, and\nin time of drought offerings are made to it. In the spring and fall\nof the year it is one of the objects worshipped, by command of the\nEmperor, by certain mandarins. The Chinese notion of the serpent or\ndragon dwelling above the clouds in spring to give rain reminds us of\nthe Aryan myth of Vritra, or Ahi, the throttling snake, or dragon with\nthree heads, who hides away the rain-clouds, but who is slain by Indra,\nthe beneficent giver of rain. \u201cWhenever,\u201d says Mr. Cox, \u201cthe rain is\nshut up in the clouds, the dark power is in revolt against Dyaus and\nIndra. In the rumblings of the thunder, while the drought still sucks\nout the life of the earth, are heard the mutterings of their hateful\nenemy. In the lightning flashes which precede the outburst of the\npent-up waters are seen the irresistible spears of the god, who is\nattacking the throttling serpent in his den; and in the serene heaven\nwhich shone out when the deluging clouds are passed away, men beheld\nthe face of the mighty deity who was their friend.\u201d Mr. Cox elsewhere\nremarks that Vritra, \u201cthe enemy of Indra, reappears in all the dragons,\nsnakes, or worms slain by all the heroes of Aryan mythology.\u201d\n\nWhether the great serpent be the giver or the storer of rain, the\nAryans, like all Eastern peoples, suppose it to have power over the\nclouds. This, however, is only one of its attributes. It is thought\nto have power over the wind as well as the rain, and this also is\nconfirmed by reference to Aryan mythology. Mr. Cox has well shown that\nHermes is \u201cthe air in motion, or wind, varying in degree from the\nsoft breath of a summer breeze to the rage of the growing hurricane.\u201d\nIn these more violent moods he is represented by the Maruts, the\n\u201ccrushers\u201d or \u201cgrinders,\u201d who are also the children of Rudra, the\n\u201cFather of the Winds,\u201d and himself the \u201cwielder of the thunderbolt\u201d and\nthe \u201cmightiest of the mighty.\u201d Rudra is also \u201cthe robber, the cheat,\nthe deceiver, the master thief,\u201d and in this character both he and\nHermes agree with the cloud-thief Vritra.\n\nNotwithstanding the fact that in the Mahabharata, Rudra, like Hercules,\nis described as the \u201cdestroyer of serpents,\u201d he is in the same poem\nidentified with Mahadeva, and hence he is evidently the same as Siva,\nwho has the title of King of Serpents. The primitive character of\nSiva, as the Vedic Rudra, is now almost lost, but the identity of the\ntwo deities may be supported by reference to an incident related in\nthe myth of Hermes and Apollo. It is said that, in return for the\nsweet-sounding lyre, Apollo gave to Hermes the magical \u201cthree-leafed\nrod of wealth and happiness.\u201d Sometimes this rod was entwined with\nserpents instead of fillets, and there is no difficulty in recognising\nin it the well-known emblem of Siva, which also is sometimes encircled\nby serpents. It can be shown that the Hindu deity is a form of\nSaturn, one of the Semitic names for whom was Set or Seth. It was the\nserpent-symbol of this God[216] which was said to have been elevated\nin the wilderness for the healing of the people bitten by serpents,\nand curiously enough Rudra (Siva) was called not only the _bountiful_,\nthe _strong_, but the _healer_. The later Egyptian title of the god\nSet was Typhon, of whom Mr. Breal says that \u201cTyphon is the monster who\nobscures the heaven, a sort of Greek V\u0103ritra.\u201d The myth of Indra and\nVritra is reproduced in Latin mythology as that of Hercules and C\u0103cus.\nC\u0103cus also is analogous to Typhon, and as the former is supposed to\nhave taken his name from, or given it to, a certain wind which had the\npower of clothing itself with clouds, so the latter bore the same name\nas a very destructive wind which was much dreaded by the Ph\u0153nicians\nand Egyptians. Moreover, the name Typhon was given by the Egyptians to\nanything tempestuous, and hence to the ocean; and in Hebrew the allied\nword \u201cSuph\u201d denotes a \u201cwhirlwind.\u201d There is another point of contact,\nhowever, between Siva and the god Set or Typhon, who was known to\nthe Egyptians also as the serpent Aph\u00f4phis, or the giant. An ancient\nwriter states that one of the names of El, or Chronos, was Typhon,\nand the serpent and pillar symbols of the Ph\u0153nician deity confirm\nthe identification between Set or Saturn, and the Siva of the Hindu\nPantheon.\n\nOne of the leading ideas connected with the serpent was, as we have\nseen, its power over the rain, but another equally influential was\nits connection with health. Mr. Fergusson remarks that \u201cwhen we first\nmeet with serpent-worship, either in the wilderness of Sinai, the\ngroves of Epidaurus, or in the Sarmatian huts, the serpent is always\nthe Agatho-d\u00e6mon, the bringer of health and good fortune.\u201d[217] The\nAgatho-d\u00e6mon, which in ancient Egypt presided over the affairs of men\nas the guardian spirit of their houses,[218] was the Asp of R\u00e2nno, the\nsnake-headed goddess who is represented as nursing the young princes.\nThat the idea of health was intimately associated with the serpent is\nshown by the crown formed of the asp, or sacred _Thermuthis_, having\nbeen given particularly to Isis, a goddess of life and healing. It was\nalso the symbol of other deities with the like attributes. Thus on\na papyri it encircles the figure of Harpocrates, who was identified\nwith the serpent god \u00c6sculapius; while not only was a great serpent\nkept alive in the temple of Serapis, but on later monuments this\ndeity is represented by a great serpent, with or without a human\nhead. Sanchoniathon says of that animal\u2014\u201cIt is long-lived, and has\nthe quality not only of putting off its old age and assuming a second\nyouth, but of receiving at the same time an augmentation of its size\nand strength.\u201d The serpent, therefore, was a fit emblem of Rudra,\n\u201cthe healer;\u201d and the gift which Apollo presented to Mercury could\nbe entwined by no more appropriate object than the animal which was\nsupposed to be able to give the health without which even Mercury\u2019s\nmagic-staff could not confer wealth and happiness. It is remarkable\nthat a Moslem saint of Upper Egypt is still thought to appear under the\nform of a serpent, and to cure the diseases which afflict the pilgrims\nto his shrine.\n\nRamahavaly, one of the four national idols of the Malagasy, bears a\ncurious analogy to the serpent gods of wisdom and healing. One of his\ntitles is _Rabiby_, signifying \u201canimal,\u201d and denoting \u201cthe god of\nbeasts;\u201d and his emissaries are the serpents which abide in Madagascar,\nand are looked upon with superstitious fear by the inhabitants.\nRamahavaly is, moreover, regarded as the Physician of Imerina, and\nis thought to preserve from, or expel, epidemic diseases. Mr. Ellis\nsays that he is sometimes described \u201cas god, sacred, powerful, and\nalmighty; who kills and makes alive; who heals the sick, and prevents\ndiseases and pestilence; who can cause thunder and lightning to strike\ntheir victims or prevent their fatality; can cause rain in abundance\nwhen wanted, or can withhold it so as to ruin the crops of rice. He is\nalso celebrated for his knowledge of the past and future, and for his\ncapacity of discovering whatever is hidden or concealed.\u201d\n\nIt is probable that the association with the serpent of the idea of\nhealing arose from the still earlier recognition of that animal as a\nsymbol of life. We have already referred to the representations in\nthe Egyptian temples of the young princes being nursed by a woman\nhaving the head of an asp. It is interesting to find that in India at\nthe present day serpent-worship is expressly resorted to on behalf\nof children, and \u201cthe first hair of a child which is shaved off when\nit has passed teething and other infantine ailments is frequently\ndedicated to a serpent.\u201d This animal in both cases is treated as the\nguardian of life, and therefore the crown given to Egyptian sovereigns\nand divinities was very properly formed of the asp of R\u00e2nno. Another\nsnake-headed Egyptian goddess has the name _Hih_ or _Hoh_, and Sir\nGardner Wilkinson mentions that the Coptic word _Hof_ signifies the\nviper, analogous to the _hye_ of the Arabs. The Arabic word _hiya_,\nindeed, means both life and a serpent. This connection is supported by\nthe association, already pointed out, between the serpent and the gods\nof the life-giving wind, and by the fact that these also possess the\npillar symbol of life. This belongs as well to Siva the destroyer, the\npreserver, and the creator, as to Set or Saturn, to Thoth-Hermes, and\nEl or Chronos. Both the serpent and the pillar were assigned also to\nmany of the personifications of the sun, the deified source of earthly\nlife. Probably the well-known figure representing the serpent with\nits tail in its mouth was intended to symbolise endless life rather\nthan eternity, an idea which does not appear to have been associated\nwith that animal by the Egyptians. Agreeably with this view, Horapollo\naffirms that Kneph-Agatho-d\u00e6mon denoted immortality.\n\nOne of the best-known attributes of the serpent is wisdom. The Hebrew\ntradition of the fall speaks of that animal as the most subtle of\nthe beasts of the field; and the founder of Christianity tells his\ndisciples to be as wise as serpents, though as harmless as doves. Among\nthe ancients the serpent was consulted as an oracle, and Maury points\nout that it played an important part in the life of several celebrated\nGreek diviners in connection with the knowledge of the language of\nbirds, which many of the ancients believed to be the souls of the dead.\nThe serpent was associated with Apollo and Athen\u00e9, the Grecian deities\nof wisdom, as well as with the Egyptian Kneph,[219] the ram-headed god\nfrom whom the Gnostics are sometimes said to have derived their idea\nof the _Sophia_. This personification of divine wisdom is undoubtedly\nrepresented on Gnostic gems under the form of the serpent. In Hindu\nmythology there is the same association between the animal and the\nidea of wisdom. Siva, as Sambhu, is the patron of the Brahmanic order,\nand, as shown by his being three-eyed, is essentially a god possessing\nhigh intellectual attributes. Vishnu also is a god of wisdom, but of\nthe somewhat lower type which is distinctive of the worshippers of\ntruth under its feminine aspect. The connection between wisdom and the\nserpent is best seen, however, in the Hindu legends as to the Nagas.\nMr. Fergusson remarks that \u201cthe Naga appears everywhere in Vaishnava\ntradition. There is no more common representation of Vishnu[220]\nthan as reposing on the Sesha, the celestial seven-headed snake,\ncontemplating the creation of the world. It was by his assistance that\nthe ocean was churned and Amrita produced, He everywhere spreads his\nprotecting hood over the god or his avatars; and in all instances it\nis the seven-headed heavenly Naga, not the earthly cobra of Siva.\u201d\nThe former animal, no doubt, is especially symbolical of wisdom, and\nit is probably owing to his intellectual attributes, rather than to\nhis destructive or creative power, that Siva is sometimes styled the\nKing of Serpents. The Upanishads refer to the science of serpents, by\nwhich is meant the wisdom of the mysterious Nagas, who, according to\nBuddhistic legend, reside under Mount M\u00e9ru, and in the waters of the\nterrestrial world. One of the sacred books of the Tibetan Buddhists is\nfabled to have been received from the Nagas, who, says Schlagentweit,\nare \u201cfabulous creatures of the nature of serpents, who occupy a place\namong the beings superior to man, and are regarded as protectors of the\nlaw of the Buddha. To these spiritual beings S\u00e2kyamuni is said to have\ntaught a more philosophical religious system than to men, who were not\nsufficiently advanced to understand it at the time of his appearance.\u201d\nSo far as this has any historical basis, it can mean only that\nGautama taught his most secret doctrines to the Nagas, or aboriginal\nserpent-worshippers, who were the first to accept his teaching, and\nwhose religious ideas had probably much in common with those of Gautama\nhimself. Mr. Fergusson refers to the fact that a king of the Naga race\nwas reigning in Magadha when Buddha was born in 623 B.C.; and he adds\nthat the dissemination of his religion \u201cis wholly due to the accident\nof its having been adopted by the low caste kings of Magadha, and to\nits having been elevated by one of them to the rank of the religion of\nthe state.\u201d It would appear, indeed, that according to a Hindu legend,\nGautama himself had a serpent lineage.\n\nThe \u201cserpent-science\u201d of Hindu legend has a curious parallel in\nPh\u0153nician mythology. The invention of the Ph\u0153nician written character\nis referred to the god Taaut or Thoth, whose snake-symbol bears his\nname T\u00eat, and is used to represent the ninth letter of the alphabet\n(_teta_), which in the oldest Ph\u0153nician character has the form of the\nsnake curling itself up. Philo thus explains the form of the letter\n_theta_, and that the god from whom it took its name was designated\nby the Egyptians as a snake curled up, with its head turned inwards.\nPhilo adds that the letters of the Ph\u0153nician alphabet \u201care those\nformed by means of serpents; afterwards, when they built temples, they\nassigned them a place in the adytums, instituted various ceremonies and\nsolemnities in honour of them, and adored them as the supreme gods,\nthe rulers of the universe.\u201d Bunsen thinks the sense of this passage\nis \u201cthat the forms and movements of serpents were employed in the\ninvention of the oldest letters, which represent the gods.\u201d He says,\nhowever, that \u201cthe alphabet does not tally at all with the Ph\u0153nician\nnames,\u201d and the explanation given by Philo, although curious as showing\nthe ideas anciently associated with the serpent, is reliable only so\nfar as it confirms the connection between that animal and the inventor\nof the written characters. According to another tradition, the ancient\ntheology of Egypt was said to have been given by the Agatho-d\u00e6mon, who\nwas the benefactor of all mankind.\n\nThe account given of the serpent by Sanchoniathon, as cited by\nEusebius, is worth repetition as showing the peculiar notions anciently\ncurrent in connection with that animal. The Ph\u0153nician writer says:\n\u201cTaautus first attributed something of the divine nature to the serpent\nand the serpent tribe, in which he was followed by the Ph\u0153nicians and\nEgyptians; for this animal was esteemed by him to be the most inspired\nof all the reptiles, and of a fiery nature, inasmuch as it exhibits\nan incredible celerity, moving by its spirit without either hands or\nfeet, or any of those external members by which other animals effect\ntheir motion, and in its progress it assumes a variety of forms,\nmoving in a spiral course, and darting forwards with whatever degree\nof swiftness it pleases. It is, moreover, long-lived, and has the\nquality not only of putting off its old age, and assuming a second\nyouth, but of receiving at the same time an augmentation of its size\nand strength, and when it has fulfilled the appointed measure of its\nexistence it consumes itself, as Taautus has laid down in the sacred\nbooks; upon which account this animal is introduced in the sacred rites\nand mysteries.\u201d In India at the present day some Brahmans always keep\nthe skin of a n\u00e2g, or snake, in one of their sacred books, probably\nfrom some idea connected with the casting by the serpent of its skin\nreferred to in the preceding passage.\n\nWe have now seen that the serpent was anciently the symbol of wisdom,\nlife, and healing, and also that it was thought to have power over\nthe wind and rain. This last attribute is easily understood when the\nimportance of rain in the east is considered, and the ideas associated\nby the ancients with the air and moisture are remembered. The Hebrew\ntradition which speaks of the creative spirit moving over the face of\nthe waters embodies those ideas, according to which the water contains\nthe elements of life and the wind is the vivifying principle. The\nattribute of wisdom cannot so easily be connected with that of life.\nThe power of healing is certainly an evidence of the possession of\nwisdom,[221] but as it is only one phase of it, probably the latter\nattribute was antecedent to the former, or at least it may have had\nan independent origin. What this origin was may perhaps be explained\nby reference to certain other ideas very generally entertained in\nrelation to the serpent. Among various African tribes this animal\nis viewed with great veneration, under the belief that it is often\nthe re-embodiment of a deceased ancestor. This notion appears to be\nprevalent also among the Hindus, who, like the Kafirs, will never\nkill a serpent, although it is usually regarded with more dislike\nthan veneration. Mr. Squier remarks that \u201cmany of the North American\ntribes entertain a superstitious regard for serpents, and particularly\nfor the rattlesnake.[222] Though always avoiding they never destroy\nit, \u2018lest,\u2019 says Barham, \u2018the spirit of the reptile should excite its\nkindred to revenge.\u2019\u201d Mr. Squier adds that, \u201caccording to Adair, this\nfear was not unmingled with veneration. Charlevoix states that the\nNatchez had the figure of a rattlesnake, carved from wood, placed among\nother objects upon the altar of their temple, to which they paid great\nhonour. Heckwelder relates that the Linni Linape called the rattlesnake\n\u2018grandfather,\u2019 and would on no account allow it to be destroyed. Hemy\nstates that the Indians around Lake Huron had a similar superstition,\nand also designated the rattlesnake as their \u2018grandfather.\u2019 He also\nmentions instances in which offerings of tobacco were made to it, and\nits parental care solicited for the party performing the sacrifice.\nCarver also mentions an instance of similar regard on the part of\na Menominee Indian, who carried a rattlesnake constantly with him,\n\u2018treating it as a deity, and calling it his great father.\u2019\u201d\n\nThe most curious notion, however, is that of the Mexicans, who always\nrepresented the first woman, whose name was translated by the old\nSpanish writers \u201cthe woman of our flesh,\u201d as accompanied by a great\nmale serpent. The serpent is the sun-god _Tonacatle-coatl_, the\nprincipal deity of the Mexican Pantheon, and his female companion,\nthe goddess mother of mankind, has the title _cihua-cohuatl_, which\nsignifies \u201cwoman of the serpent.\u201d With the Peruvians, also, the\nprincipal deity was the serpent-sun, whose wife, the female serpent,\ngave birth to a boy and a girl from whom all mankind were said to be\ndescended. It is remarkable that the serpent origin thus ascribed to\nthe human race is not confined to the aborigines of America. According\nto Herodotus, the primeval mother of the Scyths was a monster, half\nwoman and half serpent. This reminds us of the serpent parentage\nascribed to various personages of classical antiquity.[223] Among the\nSemites, Zoh\u00e1k, the traditional Arabian conqueror of Central Asia,\nis represented as having two snakes growing at his back; and Mr.\nBruce mentions that the line of the Abyssinian kings begins with \u201cThe\nSerpent,\u201d _Arwe_, who is said to have reigned at Axum for 400 years,\nshowing that the royal descent was traced from this animal. From the\nposition assigned to the dragon in China, it probably was formerly\nthought to stand in a similar relation to the Emperor, of whom it is\nthe special symbol.\n\nThe facts cited prove that the serpent superstition is intimately\nconnected with ancestor-worship, probably originating among uncultured\ntribes, who, struck by the noiseless movement and the activity of the\nserpent, combined with its peculiar gaze and power of casting its skin,\nviewed it as a spirit embodiment. As such, it would be supposed to have\nthe superior wisdom and power ascribed to the denizens of the invisible\nworld, and from this would originate also the ascription to it of\nthe power over life and health, and over the moisture on which those\nbenefits are dependent. The serpent-spirit may, however, have made\nits appearance for a good or a bad purpose, to confer a benefit or to\ninflict punishment for the misdeeds of the living. The notion of there\nbeing good and evil serpent-spirits would thus naturally arise. Among\nancestor-worshipping peoples, however, the serpent would be viewed as a\ngood being who busied himself about the interests of the tribe to which\nhe had once belonged. When the simple idea of a spirit-ancestor was\ntransformed into that of the Great Spirit, the father of the race, the\nattributes of the serpent would be enlarged. The common ancestor would\nbe relegated to the heavens, and that which was necessary to the life\nand well-being of his people would be supposed to be under his care.\nHence the great serpent was thought to have power over the rain and the\nhurricane, with the latter of which he was probably often identified.\n\nWhen the serpent was thus transferred to the atmosphere, and the\nsuperstition lost its simple character as a phase of ancestor-worship,\nits most natural association would be with the solar cult. It is\nnot surprising, therefore, to find that _Quetzalcoatl_, the divine\nbenefactor of the Mexicans, was an incarnation of the serpent-sun\n_Tonacatlcoatl_, who thus became the great father, as the female\nserpent _Cihua-coatl_ was the great mother, of the human race. It is\nan interesting inquiry how far the sun-gods of other peoples partook\nof this double character. Bunsen has a remarkable passage bearing on\nthe serpent nature of those deities. He says that \u201cEsmun-Esculapius\nis strictly a Ph\u0153nician god. He was especially worshipped at Berytus.\nAt Carthage he was called the highest god, together with Astart\u00e9 and\nHercules. At Babylon, according to the above genealogy of Bel, Apollo\ncorresponded to him. As the snake-god he must actually be Hermes,\nin Ph\u0153nician T\u00eat, Taautes.... In an earlier stage of cosmogonical\nconsciousness he is Agatho-d\u00e6mon-S\u00f4s, whom Lepsius has shown to be the\nthird god in the first order of the Egyptian Pantheon.\u201d The serpent\ndeity who was thus known under so many forms was none other than the\nsun-god Set or Saturn, who has already been identified with Siva and\nother deities having the attributes usually ascribed to the serpent.\nBunsen asserts that Set is common to all the Semites and Chaldeans,\nas he was to the Egyptians, but that \u201chis supposed identity with\nSaturn is not so old as his identity with the sun-god, as Sirius\n(S\u00f4this), because the sun has the greatest power when it is in Sirius.\u201d\nElsewhere the same writer says that \u201cthe Oriento-Egyptian conception of\nTyphon-Set was that of a drying-up parching heat. Set is considered as\nthe sun-god when he has reached his zenith, the god of the summer sun.\u201d\n\nThe solar[224] character of the serpent-god appears therefore to\nbe placed beyond doubt. But what was the relation in which he was\nsupposed to stand to the human race? Bunsen, to whose labours I am so\nmuch indebted, remarks that Seth \u201cappears gradually among the Semites\nas the background of their religious consciousness,\u201d and not merely\nwas he \u201cthe primitive god of northern Egypt and Palestine,\u201d but his\ngenealogy as \u201cthe Seth of Genesis, the father of Enoch (the man),\nmust be considered as originally running parallel with that derived\nfrom the Elohim, Adam\u2019s father.\u201d Seth is thus the divine ancestor of\nthe Semites, a character in which, but in relation to other races,\nthe solar deities generally agree with him. The kings and priests of\nancient peoples claimed this divine origin, and \u201cchildren of the sun\u201d\nwas the title of the members of the sacred caste. When the actual\nancestral character of the deity is hidden he is regarded as \u201cthe\nfather of his people\u201d and their divine benefactor. He is the introducer\nof agriculture, the inventor of arts and sciences, and the civiliser of\nmankind; \u201ccharacteristics,\u201d says Faber, \u201cwhich every nation ascribed to\nthe first of their gods or the oldest of their kings.\u201d This was true\nof Thoth, Saturn, and other analogous deities, and the Adam of Hebrew\ntradition was the father of agriculture, as his representative Noah was\nthe introducer of the vine.\n\nElsewhere I have endeavoured to show that the name of the great\nancestor of Hebrew tradition has been preserved by certain peoples who\nmay thus be classed together as Adamites. He appears, indeed, to be\nthe recognised legendary ancestor of the members of that division of\nmankind whose primeval home we can scarcely doubt was in Central Asia,\nanswering in this respect to the Seth of the Semites. According to the\ntradition, however, as handed down to us by the Hebrews, Seth himself\nwas the son of Adam. From this, it would seem to follow that, as Seth\nwas the serpent sun-god (the Agatho-d\u00e6mon), the legendary ancestor\nof the Adamites must himself have partaken of the same character.\nStrange as this idea may appear it is not without warrant. We have\nalready seen that the Mexicans ascribed that nature to _Tonacatlcoatl_\nand his wife, the mother of mankind, and that a similar notion was\nentertained by various peoples of the old world. The Chaldean god _H\u00e9a_\nwho, as the \u201cteacher of mankind,\u201d and the \u201clord of understanding,\u201d\nanswers exactly to the divine benefactor of the race before referred\nto, was \u201cfigured by the great serpent which occupies so conspicuous\na place among the symbols of the gods on the black stones recording\nBabylonian benefactions.\u201d The name of the god is connected with the\nArabic _Hiya_, which signifies a serpent as well as life, and Sir\nHenry Rawlinson says that \u201cthere are very strong grounds indeed for\nconnecting him with the serpent of Scripture, and with the Paradisaical\ntraditions of the tree of knowledge and the tree of life.\u201d The god H\u00e9a\nwas, therefore, the serpent revealer of knowledge, answering in some\nrespects to the serpent of the fall. He was, however, the Agatho-d\u00e6mon,\nand in the earlier form of the legend doubtless answered to the great\nhuman ancestor himself. It is curious that, according to Rabbinical\ntradition, Cain was the son, not of Adam, but of the serpent-spirit\nAsmodeus, who is the same as the Persian Ahriman, \u201cthe great serpent\nwith two feet.\u201d[225] In the name of Eve, the mother of mankind, we\nhave, indeed, direct reference to the supposed serpent-nature of our\nfirst parents. Clemens Alexandrinus long since remarked that the\nname _Hevia_, aspirated, signifies a female serpent. The name Eve is\nevidently connected with the same Arabic root as that which we have\nseen to mean both \u201clife\u201d and \u201ca serpent,\u201d and the Persians appear to\nhave called the constellation _Serpens_ \u201cthe little Ava,\u201d that is\n_Eve_, a title which is still given to it by the Arabs. But if Eve was\nthe serpent mother, Adam must have been the serpent father. In the old\nAkkad tongue _Ad_ signifies \u201ca father,\u201d and the mythical personages\nwith whom Adam is most nearly allied, such as Seth or Saturn, Taaut\nor Thoth, and others, were serpent deities. Such would seem to have\nbeen the case also with the deities whose names show a close formal\nresemblance to that of Adam. Thus the original name of Hercules was\n_Sandan_ or _Adanos_, and Hercules, like the allied god Mars, was\nundoubtedly often closely associated with the serpent. This notion\nis confirmed by the identification of Adonis and Osiris as _Azar_ or\n_Adar_, according to Bunsen the later Egyptian _Sar-Apis_, who is\nknown to have been represented as a serpent. The _Abaddon_ of St. John,\nthe old dragon Satan, was probably intended for the same serpent-god.\nIt is interesting to compare the ideas entertained as to the great\ndragon in the Book of Revelation and those held by the Chinese in\nrelation to probably the same being. Mr. Doolittle says: \u201cThe dragon\nholds a remarkable position in the history and government of China.\nIt also enjoys an ominous eminence in the affections of the Chinese\npeople. It is frequently represented as the greatest benefactor of\nmankind. It is the dragon which causes the clouds to form and the rain\nto fall. The Chinese delight in praising its wonderful properties and\npowers. It is the venerated symbol of good.\u201d\n\nThis was probably the view originally taken by the Egyptians, who were\nall followers of the serpent cult. In Egypt two kinds of serpents were\nthe objects of peculiar veneration, and of an almost universal worship.\nAll the gods were more or less symbolised or crowned by serpents,\nwhile all the goddesses were hieroglyphically represented by serpents.\nThe animal used for these purposes was the cobra de copello, or\nur\u00e6us, which, according to Mr. W. R. Cooper,[226] \u201cfrom its dangerous\nbeauty, and in consequence of ancient tradition asserting it to have\nbeen spontaneously produced by the rays of the sun,\u201d was universally\nassumed as the \u201cemblem of divine and sacro-regal sovereignty.\u201d The\nur\u00e6us appears to be always represented on the Egyptian monuments, in\nthe feminine form, and it was used as a symbol of fecundity, agreeably\nto which idea the generative power of the solar beams is typified by\npendent ur\u00e6i. The ur\u00e6us, moreover, symbolised life and the power of\nhealing, and it was the emblem of immortality. Mr. Cooper remarks that\nin the Egyptian religious system the principle of good was typically\nrepresented by a serpent, while under the form of an entirely different\nserpent was figured a monstrous _personal_ evil being who maintained\na constant spiritual warfare with the spirit of good. The serpent\nembodiment of the principle of evil was called Hof, Rehof, or Aph\u00f4phis,\nand it was a species of coluber of large size. It is described as \u201cthe\ndestroyer, the enemy of the gods, and the devourer of the souls of\nmen;\u201d and it was thought to dwell in the depths of \u201cthat mysterious\nocean upon which the Baris, or boat of the sun, was navigated by the\ngods through the hours of day and night, in the celestial regions.\u201d\nThe idea of an antagonism between the giant serpent Aph\u00f4phis and the\ngood serpent, as the \u201csoul of the world,\u201d constantly occurs in the\nRitual of the Dead, and the aid of every divinity in turn is sought\nby the deceased in his conflict with the evil being. It is remarkable\nthat the \u201csoul of the world,\u201d Chnuphis, or Bait, is represented as a\ncoluber, and that it appears to be identified with Aph\u00f4phis in one\nchapter of the Ritual. Mr. Cooper states that, although a large coluber\nwhich is figured as being worshipped resembles Aph\u00f4phis, it cannot\nbe him, as there is no example of direct worship paid to Aph\u00f4phis,\n\u201cunless, indeed, we identify it with Sutekh, as the Shepherd Kings,\nthe last but one of whom was named Aph\u00f4phis, appear to have done.\u201d\nThe serpent Aph\u00f4phis is sometimes represented with the crown of Lower\nEgypt upon his head, and at one period he was identified with Set or\nSeth, the national deity of the Hyksos or Shepherd tribes. All traces\nof the worship of Set was obliterated from the Egyptian monuments, but\none representation has been preserved in which Set is figured with\nHorus, united as one divinity, between the triple serpent of good.\nThis shows that Set, and probably, therefore, his serpent emblem, was\noriginally not considered evil. Lower Egypt was largely populated by\nSemitic peoples, whose national deity was their legendary ancestor\nSeth, and the detestation with which the Egyptians regarded Set and\nthe serpent Aph\u00f4phis identified with him was probably the result of\nnational enmity. Mr. Cooper points out that the serpent of good is\nalways represented by the Egyptians as upright and the serpent of evil\nas crawling, this being generally the only distinction made. The god\nChnuphis, the \u201csoul of the world,\u201d is usually figured as a Serpent\n(Coluber) walking upon two human legs, and curiously enough this is\nthe form taken by the evil principle of Persian mythology, the great\nserpent walking on two feet. A similar inversion of ideas occurs in the\nreligious mythology of the Naga peoples of the East. Near the ruined\ntemples of Cambodia, as on the Buddhist Topes of India, are sculptured\ngigantic serpents with voluminous folds supported by human figures, as\nthe gigantic Aph\u00f4phis is represented on the Egyptian monuments. There\nmust have been some special reason why the great serpent was regarded\nso differently by various peoples, and this was probably the result of\nrace antagonism.\n\nIt is remarkable that one of the most ancient people of whom we have\nany written record\u2014the primitive inhabitants of Chaldea\u2014not only bore\nthe name of the traditional father of mankind, but were especially\nidentified with the serpent. The predecessors of the _Akkad_, in\nChaldea, were the Medes, or _Mad_, of Berosus, and the distinctive\ntitle of at least the later Medes was _M\u00e1r_, which in Persian means \u201ca\nsnake.\u201d This Sir Henry Rawlinson supposes to have given rise \u201cnot only\nto the Persian traditions of Zoh\u00e1k and his snakes, but to the Armenian\ntraditions, also, of the dragon dynasty of Media.\u201d The Medes of Berosus\nbelonged almost certainly to the old Scythic stock of Central Asia,\nto whom the Chaldeans, the Hebrews, and the Aryans have alike been\naffiliated by different writers. When, therefore, Mr. Fergusson says\nthat serpent-worship characterised the old Turanian Chaldean Empire, he\nwould seem to trace it to the old Asiatic centre. Probably to the same\nsource must be traced the serpent tradition of the Abyssinian kings.\nBryant long since asserted that that superstition originated with the\nAmonians or Hamites, who also would seem to have been derived from the\nScythic stock. The facts brought together in the preceding pages far\nfrom exhaust the subject, but they appear to justify the following\nconclusions:\u2014\n\nFirst, The serpent has been viewed with awe or veneration from primeval\ntimes, and almost universally as a re-embodiment of a deceased human\nbeing, and as such there were ascribed to it the attributes of life\nand wisdom, and the power of healing.\n\nSecondly, The idea of a simple spirit re-incarnation of a deceased\nancestor gave rise to the notion that mankind originally sprang from a\nserpent, and ultimately to a legend embodying that idea.\n\nThirdly, This legend was connected with nature\u2014or rather\nsun-worship\u2014and the sun was, therefore, looked upon as the divine\nserpent-father of man and nature.\n\nFourthly, Serpent-worship, as a developed religious system, originated\nin Central Asia, the home of the great Scythic stock, from whom all the\ncivilised races of the historical period sprang.\n\nFifthly, These peoples are the Adamites, and their mythical ancestor\nwas at one time regarded as the Great Serpent, his descendants being in\na special sense serpent-worshippers.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_Note._\u2014At page 88, the Malagasy idol Ramahavaly is spoken of as still\nexisting. As a fact, however, in 1869 all the Malagasy national idols\nwere, by order of the Government, publicly burned. Many other idols and\ncharms were at the same time destroyed by their owners.\u2014_Madagascar and\nits People_, by the Rev. James Sibree, Jun., p. 481.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[216] Theodoret did not distinguish between an Egyptian sect called\n_Sethians_ and the Gnostic _Ophites_ or serpent-worshippers.\n\n[217] The heavenly serpent, _Danh_, of the Dahomans, is said by Captain\nBurton to be the god of wealth. \u201cHis earthly representative is esteemed\nthe supreme bliss and general good.\u201d The Slavonian Morlacchi still\nconsider that the sight of a snake crossing the road is an omen of good\nfortune.\u2014Wilkinson\u2019s \u201cDalmatia and Montenegro,\u201d vol. ii., p. 160.\n\n[218] Mr. Lane states that each quarter of Cairo is supposed to have\nits guardian genius, or Agatho-d\u00e6mon, in the form of a serpent.\u2014Vol.\ni., p. 289.\n\n[219] Warburton supposes that the worship of the One God Kneph was\nchanged into that of the dragon or winged-serpent Knuphis.\n\n[220] Vishnu is often identified with Kneph.\n\n[221] According to Gaelic and German folklore, the white snake when\nboiled has the faculty of conferring medicinal wisdom. The white snake\nis venerated as the king of serpents by the Scottish Highlanders as\nby certain Arab tribes, and it would appear also by the Singhalese of\nCeylon.\n\n[222] The snake is one of the Indian tribal _totems_.\n\n[223] Pausanias, iv., 14, mentions Aristodama, the mother of Aratus,\nas having had intercourse with a serpent, and the mother of the great\nScipio was said to have conceived by a serpent. Such was the case also\nwith Olympias, the mother of Alexander, who was taught by her that he\nwas a god, and who in return deified her.\u2014_Le Mythe de la Femme et du\nSerpent_, par Ch. Schoebel, 1876, p. 84.\n\n[224] Mr. Robert Brown, jun., says that the serpent has six principal\npoints of connection with Dionysos:\u20141, As a symbol of, and connected\nwith, wisdom; 2, As a solar emblem; 3, As a symbol of time and\neternity; 4, As an emblem of the earth-life; 5, As connected with\nfertilising moisture; 6, As a Phallic emblem.\u2014_The Great Dionysiak\nMyth_, 1878, ii., 66.\n\n[225] Mr. Cooper states (_loc. cit._, p. 390) that prominent in the\nEgyptian religious system was the belief in a monstrous _personal_ evil\nbeing typically represented as a serpent, and that the principle of\ngood was there likewise represented by an entirely different serpent, a\nconstant spiritual warfare being maintained between the two.\n\n[226] \u201cThe Serpent Myths of Ancient Egypt,\u201d published in the\n\u201cTransactions of the Victoria Institute,\u201d vol. vi., 1872.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nTHE ADAMITES.\n\n\nMuch has from time to time been written as to the distinction between\nthe Adamites and the pre-Adamites, although little has been done to\nidentify the members of the two great divisions into which the human\nrace has been thus divided. Those who accept the Deluge of Noah as a\nhistorical fact, stated however in terms too wide, may say generally\nthat all the descendants of this patriarch are, as such, Adamites,\nwhile the pre-Adamites comprise the peoples of the primitive area\ninhabited by the dark races, supposed by some writers to be referred\nto in the Hebrew Scriptures under the term _ish_, \u201cthe sons of man,\u201d\nas distinguished from the sons of Adam. Little value, however, can\nbe attached to such a general statement as this. Supposing Noah to\nhave been a second common father of the race, we are still ignorant\nas to what peoples are to be classed among his descendants. No doubt\nthe _Toldoth Beni Noah_ of Genesis throws considerable light on the\nquestion. According to that genealogical table the whole earth was\ndivided after the Flood among the families of the three sons of\nNoah\u2014Shem, Ham, and Japheth. It is not necessary here to identify\nthe peoples described as the descendants of these patriarchs. It\nwill suffice to say that Professor Rawlinson, who differs only in\none or two particulars from other recent authorities, writes as to\nthe distribution of those peoples: \u201cWhereas the Japhetic and Hamitic\nraces are geographically contiguous, the former spread over all the\nnorthern regions known to the genealogist\u2014Greece, Thrace, Scythia,\nmost of Asia Minor, Armenia, and Media; the latter over all the south\nand the south-west, North Africa, Egypt, Nubia, Ethiopia, Southern and\nSoutheastern Arabia, and Babylonia\u2014so the Semitic races are located in\nwhat may be called one region, that region being the central one, lying\nintermediate between the Japhetic region upon the north and the Hamitic\none upon the south.\u201d\n\nSupposing the Toldoth to give an exact statement of the descendants\nof the three sons of Noah, it by no means follows that the peoples\nthere referred to are alone entitled to be classed as Adamites, and\nI propose, therefore, to see whether the latter can be identified by\nother evidence. Almost intuitively we turn, in the first place, to that\nregion known as Chaldea, which has furnished in our own days material\nso important for the reconstruction of the annals of civilised man in\nthe earliest historical period. Professor Rawlinson, indeed, at the\nLiverpool meeting of the British Association, held in 1870, sought to\nestablish that the Garden of Eden of the Hebrew writers was none other\nthan Babylonia; a hypothesis which certainly agrees with Sir Henry\nRawlinson\u2019s statement that _H\u00e9a_, the third member of the primitive\nChaldean triad, may be connected with the Paradisaical traditions of\nthe tree of knowledge and the tree of life. This would point to Chaldea\nas the original home of the Adamites, unless, indeed, the traditions\nwere derived from a still earlier centre, and it will be well to\nascertain whether there is anything in the history of Babylon which\ndirectly connects its people with the Adamic stock.\n\nIf we were to accept with Chwolson the great antiquity of \u201cThe Book of\nNabath\u00e6an Agriculture,\u201d there would be no difficulty in assigning such\na position to the Chaldeans. For this book not only expressly declares\nthat they were the descendants of Adam, but in it Adam appears as the\nfounder of agriculture in Babylon, acting the part of a civiliser, and\nhence named \u201cThe Father of Mankind.\u201d This agrees well with the Old\nTestament account of Adam as the first cultivator of the ground. M.\nRenan, however, would seem to have conclusively established the late\ndate of the so-called Nabath\u00e6an work, showing that it contains legends\nas to Adam, Seth, Enoch, Noah, and Abraham, \u201canalogous to those which\nthey have in the apocryphal writings of the Jews and Christians, and\nsubsequently in those of the Mussulmans,\u201d Adam being known to all the\nMoslem East as \u201cThe Father of Mankind.\u201d\n\nWe must seek, therefore, for some more reliable record of early\nChaldean history; and this we have in the stone monuments on which its\nannals were engraved. Sir Henry Rawlinson, on their authority, says\nof the Chaldeans of Babylonia that they were \u201ca branch of the great\nHamitic race of _Akkad_, which inhabited Babylonia from the earliest\ntimes. With this race originated the art of writing, the building of\ncities, the institution of a religious system, the cultivation of all\nscience, and of astronomy in particular.\u201d The race affinity of the\n_Akkad_ is hardly yet settled, but some information as to this point\nmay be gained from the name by which they were designated. This appears\nto be composed of two words _Ak(k)-Ad_, the latter of which may be\nidentified with the first syllable of the name Adam. As to the word\n_Ak_, some light may probably be thrown on its meaning by reference\nto the Celtic languages. Baldwin, without seeing its full bearing,\nmakes the remark that the Dravidians of Southern India use _Mag_, as\nthe Berbers and Gaels use _Mac_ (_Mach_), the former word denoting\n\u201ckindred\u201d in all the Teutonic languages. Now, it could be proved by\nmany examples that the letter _M_, which is found at the beginning of\ncertain words in various eastern languages, is often simply a prefix.\nThis is especially the case in Hebrew and Arabic, and, therefore,\nprobably in the more ancient languages with which they are allied.\nSuch, at least, must be the case with the initial letter of the word\n_mach_, \u201cson,\u201d as in Erse the _m_ is wanting, and in Welsh the related\nword, having the sense of \u201ca root or stem, lineage,\u201d is also simply\n_ach_. Thus _Ak(k)-Ad_ may well be \u201cthe sons or lineage of Ad;\u201d as\nMac-Adam in Gaelic is a son of Adam. That the first syllable of this\nword had the signification here assigned to it is rendered extremely\nprobable by another circumstance. It is well known that the Welsh\nequivalent for _Mach_, in the sense of \u201cson,\u201d is _Ap_; and so also we\nfind that in Hebrew \u201cson\u201d is rendered by _ben_ (the Assyrian _ban_),\nwhile in Arabic it is _ibn_. In these words the _b_ is the root sound,\nand if son was expressed by _ak_ in the old Akkad tongue, this would\nbear the same relation to the Semitic languages as the Welsh does to\nthe Gaelic and Erse\u2014_ak_ and _ben_ in the one class answering to _ach_\nand _ap_ in the other. Nor is this view without positive support. The\nHebrew has a word _ach_ which expresses, not only the sense of \u201ca\nbrother,\u201d but also \u201cone of the same kindred.\u201d In Assyrian _uk_ means a\n\u201cpeople,\u201d while _ak_ signifies a \u201cCreator;\u201d these words being connected\nwith the old Egyptian _uk_, and also _ahi_, \u201cto live.\u201d\n\nNor is the idea that the Chaldean _Akkad_ were literally \u201cthe sons\nof _Ad_\u201d without historical basis. According to Berosus, the first\nBabylonian dynasty was Median. What people were referred to by this\nname is still undecided. Professor Rawlinson supposes that they were\nreally the same as the so-called Aryan Medes of later history, while\nSir Henry Rawlinson, although treating the later Medes as Aryan,\nyet considers those of Bersosus to have belonged to a Turanian, or\nat least a mixed Scytho-Aryan, stock. Elsewhere Professor Rawlinson\nseems inclined to identify the Chaldean _Akkad_ with these Medes, as\na Turanian people who at a very early date conquered the Babylonian\nKushites and mixed with them. This is, in fact, the conclusion which\nappears to be required by other considerations. The name by which\nthe Medes are first noticed on the Assyrian monuments is _Mad_. But\nif the initial labial is removed, this name is reduced to the more\nsimple form _Ad_; and, supposing the explanation given of the primitive\nname of the Chaldean race to be correct, the _(M)ad_ who preceded\nthem would really be the parent stock from which the _Akkad_, or\nChaldeans, were derived. Confirmation of this notion may be supplied\nfrom another source. Among their Aryan neighbours the later Medes had\nthe distinctive title of _M\u00e1r_. This, Sir Henry Rawlinson supposes to\nhave given rise, \u201cnot only to the Persian traditions of Zoh\u00e1k and his\nsnakes, but to the Armenian traditions also of the dragon dynasty of\nMedia, the word _M\u00e1r_ having in Persian the signification of a snake.\u201d\nBut this must have been through ignorance of the real origin of the\ntitle, which had reference rather to the lion than to the snake. The\nArab historian, Massoudi, in accounting for the application to the city\nof Babylon of the name of _Iran-Sheher_, observes that, \u201caccording to\nsome, the true orthography should be _Arian-Sheher_,\u201d which signifies\nin Nabath\u00e6an, \u201cthe city of Lions,\u201d and that \u201cthis name of Lion\ndesignated the kings of Assyria, who bore the general title of Nimrud.\u201d\nSir Henry Rawlinson thinks that the title _M\u00e1r_ is Scythic, and, if so,\nthere can be little doubt of its signification. The primitive meaning\nof _Ar_ was \u201cfire,\u201d from which the lion, as the symbol of the Sun-god\nwas called _ari_, the Sun-god himself having a name _Ra_. Strictly,\ntherefore, _M\u00e1r_ would denote \u201cfire-worshippers,\u201d a title which, as\nis well-known, was especially applicable to the ancient Medes. The\n_Aryans_ generally appear to have been Sun-or Fire-worshippers, and\nprobably they received their name from this fact. This would seem to be\nmuch more probable than the ordinary derivation of the name Aryan from\nthe root _ar_, \u201cto plough;\u201d and it would include the sense of \u201cnoble\u201d\npreferred by Mr. Peile, \u201cchildren of the Sun\u201d being usually a special\ntitle of the priestly or royal caste.\n\nConnected with this question is that of the origin of the name of the\nGreek god _Ares_ (the Latin _Mars_). Among other grounds for inferring\nthe Asiatic origin of this deity is his connection with Herakles. The\nLatin myth of Hercules and Cacus would seem, moreover, to require\nthe identification of the former with Mars. Such would appear to be\nthe case also in Chaldean mythology. The Babylonian Mars was called\n_Nergal_, which is probably the same name as \u201cHercules,\u201d and Sir Henry\nRawlinson suggests that the only distinction to be made between that\ndeity and _Nin_, or Hercules, as gods of war and hunting, is that the\nformer is more addicted to the chase of animals and the latter to that\nof mankind. That Hercules, or Herakles, was of Ph\u0153nician or Assyrian\norigin has been fully established by the learned researches of M.\nRaoul-Rochette, who has shown, moreover, that the proper name of that\ndeity was _Sandan_ or _Adanos_ (_Adan_), a name which not only reminds\nus of Aduni, supposed by Professor Rawlinson to be a primeval Chaldean\ndeity, but also recalls that of the Median _Ad_, and even of the Hebrew\n_Adam_.\n\nA remark made by Lajard strongly confirms the idea that the Latin\nwar-god was derived from a similar source. This learned French writer\naccounts for the rapidity with which _Mazd\u00ebism_, better known as the\nworship of Mithra, spread among the Romans, by supposing that it was in\nsome way connected with their national worship. Probably a key to this\nconnection may be found in the curious figures of Mithra which appear\nto have been peculiar to the Roman phase of Mazd\u00ebism. These figures,\nwhich are encircled by a serpent, unite to the human body and limbs,\nthe head of the lion, and they might well be taken to represent Mars\nhimself, since the title _M\u00e1r_, which was distinctive of the Medes, not\nonly conveyed the idea of a serpent, but was also, and more intimately,\nassociated with the lion symbol of the Sun-god.\n\nIf the alliance thus sought to be established, through the title _M\u00e1r_,\nbetween the Medes or _Mad_, and the other peoples of the so-called\nAryan stock be correct, we may expect to find traces among some, at\nleast, of these peoples of the primeval _Ad_. Nor will such expectation\nbe disappointed. The Parsis of Bombay have a book called the \u201cDesatir,\u201d\nthe first part of which is entitled \u201cthe Book of the Great _Abad_,\u201d\nwho is declared to have been the first ancestor of mankind. The\nauthenticity of this book has been denied, as Mr. Baldwin thinks,\nhowever, on insufficient grounds. It is certainly strange, on the\nassumption of its being apocryphal, that such a name as _Abad_ should\nhave been given to the mythical head of the race. The meaning of the\nname is evidently \u201cFather _Ad_\u201d and there is nothing improbable in the\nPersians preserving a tradition of the mythical ancestor, whose memory\nwas retained in the national name of the Medes, a people with whom they\nwere so closely connected. It simply confirms the conclusion before\narrived at, that they also must be classed among the Adamites.\n\nThe Hindus themselves would seem not to be without a remembrance\nof the mythical ancestor of the Adamic stock. The Puranas, which,\nnotwithstanding their modern form, doubtless retain many old legends,\nrefers to the reign of King _It_ or _Ait_, as an avatar of Mahadeva\n(_Siva_), who is a form of Saturn. Assuming that the information given\nto Wilford as to the reign of this king in Egypt ought to be rejected;\nyet, as _Aetus_ is mentioned by Greek writers as a Hindu, we must\nsuppose such information to have been founded on actual statements\ncontained in the Puranas. These certainly refer to the _Y\u00e1duvas_,\ndescendants of Yadu, supposed emigrants to Abyssinia, whose character,\nas described in the Puranas, agrees well, says Wilford, with that\nascribed \u201cby the ancients to the genuine Ethiopians, who are said by\nStephanus of Byzantium, by Eusebius, by Philostratus, by Eustathius,\nand others, to have come originally from India under the guidance of\nAetus or Y\u00e1tu,\u201d whom they believed to be the same as King Ait.\n\nNor do the Celtic peoples appear to be without a traditional\nremembrance of the mythical ancestor. The leading Celtic people of\nGaul, in the time of C\u00e6sar, were the _\u00c6din_, and Davies thought that\ntheir name was derived from _Aedd_ the Great, whom he finds referred\nto in the Welsh triads, and whom he identifies with _Aides_ or _Dis_.\nC\u00e6sar, indeed, says that the god _Dis_ was the mythical ancestor of the\nGauls. The position occupied by this deity in the traditions of the\nCeltic race is very remarkable, when we consider that a divine person\nbearing the same name was known, not only to the Greeks, but apparently\nalso to the Babylonians. Sir Henry Rawlinson points out that _Dis_\nshould be one of the names of _Anu_, the first member of the leading\nChaldean triad, and the deity who answered to _Hades_ or _Pluto_.\n_Warka_ or _Urka_, the great necropolis of Babylon, was especially\ndedicated to _Anu_, and Sir Henry Rawlinson remarks on this: \u201cCan\nthe coincidence then be merely accidental between _Dis_, the Lord of\n_Urka_, the City of the Dead, and _Dis_, the King of Orcus or Hades?\u201d\nMost certainly not, as it is only one of many circumstances which prove\nthe close connection of the Greeks and other Aryan peoples with the\nancient Babylonians. The original character of _Dis_, \u201cLord of the\nDead,\u201d was probably the same as that of the Gallic _Dis_, _i.e._, the\nmythical ancestor of the race. A similar change of character has been\nundergone by the Hindu _Yama_.\n\nIt is very probable that in the divine ancestor _Dis_, as in the\nmythical King _It_ of the Hindus, we have reference to the primeval\n_Ad_.[227] A common relationship as Adamites may be shown, as well\nby association with the Medes, through their title _M\u00e1r_, as by\npreservation of a tradition of the common ancestor.\n\nThe result, so far, is that not only the Persians, Greeks, and Romans,\nand probably the Hindus, but also the Celtic peoples, have been\nconnected with the Medes or _Mad_, and through them with the _Akkad_.\nBut among the peoples supposed to be still more nearly allied to the\nChaldeans, we may expect to find references to the mythical ancestor\nof the Adamic division of mankind. According to old tradition, indeed,\n_Ad_ himself was the primeval father of the original Arab stock.\nMoreover, the dialect of Mahrah, where pure Arab blood is supposed\nstill to exist, is called the language of _Ad_. It can hardly be\ndoubted that a reference to the same mythical personage is also\ncontained in the name of the great deity of the Syrians, _Adad_, \u201cKing\nof Kings,\u201d whose title implies the idea of \u201cfatherhood.\u201d Nor are there\nwanting traces of the primeval _Ad_ among the Egyptians. Mr. William\nOsburn states that the name of the local god of On or Heliopolis \u201cis\nwritten on the monuments with the characters representing the sound\n_a, t, m_.\u201d This God was associated with the setting sun, and he was\nplaced with the gods of the other cities of the Delta, a distinction\nhe received, says Osburn, \u201cfor the triple reason, that he was the\nlocal god of the capital city, that he was the father of mankind, and\nthat he was the ruler and guide of the sun, the common dispenser of\nearthly blessings to all men.\u201d _Atum_ thus becomes identified with the\nHebrew _Adam_, and although the description given by Osburn of the\nEgyptian deity may require some qualification, yet that identification\nis strengthened rather than weakened by other considerations. Bunsen\nsays that the office of _Atum_ in the lower world is that of a judge,\nand he supposes from this that at one time he may have been a Dispater.\nHe does, indeed, bear much the same relation to man as _Dis_ himself.\nIn the Ritual of the Dead, the souls call him father, and he addresses\nthem as children. Sir Gardner Wilkinson says that _Atum_, or _Atmoo_,\nis always figured with a human head and painted of a red colour. This\nseems to confirm the idea derived from his name, that this deity was\nrelated to the Hebrew Adam, with whom the idea of _ruddiness_ was\nundoubtedly associated. The human form of the Egyptian Atum shows,\nmoreover, that he was considered as peculiarly connected with man.\n\nIt has now been shown that not only are the people mentioned in the\n_Toldoth Beni Noah_ rightly classed as descendants of the mythical\n_Ad_, but that the Asiatic Aryans, with the allied peoples of Europe\nto the furthest limits of the Celtic area, may also well be thus\ndescribed. The ancient _Mad_ belonged, however, to the great Scythic\nstock, and hence all the Turanian peoples, including the Chinese,\nmay doubtless be classed among the Adamites. There is some ground,\ntherefore, for asserting that the Adamites include all the so-called\nTuranian and Aryan peoples of Asia and Europe, with the Hamitic and\nSemitic peoples of Western Asia and Northern Africa\u2014in fact, the\nyellow, the red, and the white races, as distinguished from the darker\npeoples of the tropics. But even these limits may perhaps be extended.\nOne of the solar heroes of the Volsung Tale is _Atli_, who becomes the\nsecond husband of Gudrun, the widow of Sigurd, Sigurd himself being the\nslayer of the dragon Fafnir, who symbolises the darkness or cold of a\nnorthern winter\u2014the Vritra of Hindu mythology. This dragon enemy of\nIndra was also called _Ahi_, the strangling snake, who appears again\nas _Atri_, and Mr. Cox supposes that the name _Atri_ may be the same\nas the _Atli_ of the Volsung Tale. _Atli_, who in the Nibelung song is\ncalled _Etzel_, overpowers the chieftains of Niflheim, who refused to\ngive up the golden treasures which Sigurd had won from the dragon, and\nhe throws them into a pit full of snakes.\n\nThe connection of the Teutonic hero with the serpent is remarkable;\nfor in the Mexican mythology we meet with a divinity having almost the\nsame name, and associated with the same animal. Humboldt tells us that\nthe Great Spirit of the Toltecks was called _Teotl_; and Hardwicke\nsays that _Teotl_ was the only God of Central America. If so, however,\nhe was a serpent deity, for the temples of Yucatan were undoubtedly\ndedicated to a deity of that nature. It is not improbable, however,\nthat _Teotl_ was really a generic term, agreeing in this respect, as\ncuriously enough in its form, with the Ph\u0153nician _Taaut_ (_Thoth_).\n\nThe God to whom the temples of Yucatan were really dedicated appears\nto be _Quetzalcoatl_, by some writers called the feathered serpent,\na title belonging rather to his serpent-father _Tonacatlcoatl_. This\n_Quetzalcoatl_ was the mysterious stranger who, according to tradition,\nfounded the civilisation of Mexico, agreeing thus in his character\nof a god of wisdom with the Egyptian _Thoth_; reminding us of the\nresemblance of the name of this deity to that of the Toltecan _Teotl_.\nBut the first part of the name of the Mexican _Quetzalcoatl_ no less\nresembles that borne by the Teutonic deity, _Etzel_. _Co-atl_ signifies\nthe \u201cserpent,\u201d while _quetzal_ would seem to have reference to the\nmale principle; and thus the idea expressed in the name of the Mexican\ngod is the male principle represented as a serpent. _Quetzalcoatl_,\nmoreover, is said to be an incarnation of _Tonacatlcoatl_, who is the\nmale-serpent, his wife being called _Cihua-coatl_, meaning, literally,\nthe \u201cwoman of the serpent,\u201d or \u201cfemale serpent.\u201d In the identification,\nthen, of _Atli_ or _Etzel_, who consigns his enemies to the pit of\nserpents, with the great serpent _Ahi_ himself, we have a ground of\nidentification of the Teutonic deity with the Mexican serpent-god\n_Quetzalcoatl_. This view loses none of its probability if the latter\nis, as Mr. Squire asserts, an incarnation of the serpent-sun, or\nrather a serpent incarnation of the sun-god, since _Ahi_ himself is a\nsolar deity. In the religious symbols used by the Mexicans, we have\nanother point of contact with the Asiatic deities. The sacred _Tau_ of\nantiquity has its counterpart on the Mexican monuments. The Mexican\nsymbol perfectly represents the cross form of the _Tau_, but it is\ncomposed of two serpents entwined, somewhat as in the caduceus of\nMercury. That the _Tau_ itself had such an origin we can well believe,\nseeing that the name of the letter _Tet_ (\u03b8\u03b5\u03c4\u03b1) of the Ph\u0153nician\nalphabet specially associated with _Thoth_, of whom the _Tau_ is a\nsymbol, is that of the God himself, as well as meaning \u201cserpent.\u201d\n\nIf the comparison thus made between the Mexican and Teutonic\nmythologies is correct, the further analogies pointed out by M.\nBrasseur de Bourbourg may be well founded. Thus the Mexican _Votan_ or\n_Odon_, supposed to be the same as _Quetzalcoatl_, may be in reality\nnone other than the Scandinavian _Odin_, _Woden_, or _Wuotan_, who,\nif not a sun-god, was the sky-god, whose eye was the sun (Grimm\u2019s\n\u201cTeutonic Mythology,\u201d translated by Stallybrass, p. 703). The snake is\nintimately associated with Odin in Norse mythology (Grimm, p. 685) as\nit is with Votan, and both these personages have been identified with\nthe Indian Buddha god.[228]\n\nNor is there wanting confirmative evidence of such an affinity between\nthe peoples of the Old and the New Worlds as that supposed. Mr. Tylor,\nin his work on \u201cPrimitive Culture,\u201d points out that the Roman game of\n_bucca-bucca_, referred to in a passage of Petronius, is still retained\nas the old nursery game, \u201cBuck, buck, how many horns do I hold up?\u201d\nThe meaning of this formula is not given, but, from the fact that the\nwitch\u2019s devil of the middle ages was represented as a buck or goat,\nwe can hardly doubt that the buck or bucca of the game referred to\nthe evil spirit. The devil was, indeed, called by the Cornish Celts\n_bucka_ (Welsh _bwg_), a hobgoblin, a name which is evidently connected\nwith the Russian _buka_, a sprite, and with the _Bog_ of Slavonic and\nother allied languages. We have, no doubt, the same word in the name\nof the Finnic sky-god _Ukko_. Of this again we seem to have traces,\nnot only in the Kalmuck _B\u00farkhan_ and the Mantchoo _Ab-ka_, but also\nin the Hottentot _Teqoa_ (Kafir, _Tixo_), the Supreme God; and in the\nword _yakko_, demon, the name given to the aborigines of Ceylon by\ntheir Hindu conquerors. But the root of this word is met with again\namong the American tribes. The Hurons believe the sky to be an _oki_,\nor demon, this name being also that by which the natives of Virginia\nknew their chief god. The same word appears to enter into the name of\nthe Algonquin god of the North Wind, _Kabibon-okka_, as also of the\nMuyscan Moon goddess, _Huyth-aca_. Whether the Algonquin Great Spirit,\n_Kitchi-Manitu_, has preserved the same word, is questionable; but it\nis noticeable that in the mythology of Kamtschatka the first man is\ncalled _Haetsh_, and he is the son of _Kutka_, the Creator, whose name,\nby the allowable change of _t_ for _k_, becomes almost the same as the\nFinnic _Ukko_. The word _oki_ may, moreover, be found, with merely the\nvowel change, among the Islanders of the Pacific. Thus the Polynesian\nfire-god is _Mahu-ika_, the last syllable of which is doubtless\nconnected with _akua_, meaning, like the American _oki_, spirit, or\ndemon. The same root is met with again in _Tiki_, the Rarotongan form\nof _Maui_, the divine ancestor of the New Zealanders, and the _Tii_ of\nthe Society Islands; also in _Akea_, the name of the mythical first\nking of Hawaii. _Tiki_ is probably only another form of _Ta-ata_,\nwith the change of _k_ for _t_ (as in _akua_ for _atua_); and it is\nremarkable that this name of the Polynesian First Man is really that of\nthe mythical ancestor of the Adamites, reversed, however, and with the\naddition of the word _ata_ (_aka_), spirit, which we have shown to be\nconnected with the name for God among so many independent races. Mr.\nFornander identifies the Polynesian word _aitu_ or _iku_, spirit, with\nthe name of the great \u201cKushite\u201d king It or Ait, and he states that the\nidea of royalty or sovereignty attached to that word is observed in\nold Hawaiian tradition.\u2014\u201cThe Polynesian Race,\u201d 1878, vol. i., pp. 44,\n54.\n\nThese mythological coincidences are, indeed, so strongly supported by\nsimilarity of customs and linguistic affinities, that there can be\nno difficulty in classing the Mexicans and kindred American peoples,\nand even the lighter Polynesians, with the Adamites. This being so,\na still broader generalisation than any yet attempted may be made as\nto the peoples to be included in the Adamic division of the human\nrace. The simplest classification of mankind, according to cranial\nconformation, is that of Retzius into dolichocephali, or long heads,\nand brachycephali, or short heads. The Mexicans, and other peoples\nof the western part of the American Continent, belong to the latter\ncategory, as do also the inhabitants of the greater part of the area of\nAsia and Europe. In China, and in the southern part of Asia as well as\nof Europe, the various peoples are chiefly long-headed, and this is the\ncase with the Hamitic population of Northern Africa. The latter are,\nhowever, certainly much mixed with the native African element, which\nis purely dolichocephalic, exhibiting traces of its prognathism; and\nit is far from improbable that originally they were brachycephalic,\nlike the allied peoples of Western Asia. Such also may have been the\ncase with the Chinese and the lighter Polynesians, who are now nearly\ndolichocephalic.[229] Throughout all the regions where these peoples\nare found there would appear to have been an indigenous long-headed\nstock, which has more or less nearly absorbed the brachycephalic\nelement, which was introduced long ages ago from the vast regions of\nCentral Asia, and which, for want of a better term, may be called\nScythic. Subject to this qualification, it may probably be said that\nAdamic and short-headed are synonymous terms, and that among the\ndescendants of Father _Ad_ may, therefore, be classed all the peoples\nwho are embraced in the great brachycephalic division of mankind, or\nwho would have belonged to it, if they had not been physically modified\nby contact with peoples of the more primitive dolichocephalic area.\n\nHow far the Adamites have trespassed on this area it is difficult\nto determine. That they have become mixed with the peoples of the\nAfrican Continent to a much larger extent than is usually supposed may\nbe believed. The Hottentots, at its extremest limit, are no doubt a\nresidual deposit of such intermixture; while the great family to which\nthe Kafirs belong furnish evidence of it in various particulars. The\nAdamites appear also to have spread throughout the archipelagos of the\nPacific, furnishing an explanation of the many customs and myths in\nwhich the Polynesian Islanders agree with Asiatic peoples. Nor are the\nAdamites much less widely spread throughout the American Continent.\nApart from what Professor Busk affirms, that a broad type of head is\nto be met with on the coast all round South America, peoples allied to\nthose of Mexico and Central America would seem to have occupied many\nof the West Indian Islands, and to have penetrated through the central\nportion of North America to the Great Lakes. Wherever the Adamites\nhave come into contact with the long-headed pre-Adamitic stock, they\nhave either made these to disappear, or, while having their physical\nstructure somewhat modified by intermixture, they have established\na supremacy due to their greater vigour and mental energy. It is\ndifficult, indeed, to say where the descendants of _Ad_ are not now to\nbe met with, or where the pre-Adamite is to be found uninfluenced by\ncontact with them.\n\nIn conclusion, it will be well to endeavour to ascertain the origin\nof the tradition as to _Adam_ or father _Ad_. According to usually\nreceived teaching, Adam and Eve were the actual first parents of the\nhuman race, or, at all events, of the Adamic portion of it. Whether\nor not this idea is correct need not be further considered here,\nbeyond stating that if, as Bunsen suggests, the existence of other\nantediluvian patriarchs be mythical, so also must be that of Adam from\nwhom they are said to have sprung.\n\nThe Semitic word ADaM conveys several ideas. In the form _Adamah_ or\n_Adami_ it has reference to the _earth_ or _soil_, but its primary\nsense was either \u201cred\u201d or \u201cman.\u201d Probably a double meaning was conveyed\nin the name of the Egyptian god Atum, whose representation was that of\na red man. It must be noted, however, that the traditional ancestor is\nusually styled, not _Adam_ but simply _Ad_; and this primitive root\nmay have had some other signification, analogous perhaps to that of\n_Eve_ (_Hhavv\u00e1h_), \u201cthe mother of all living.\u201d This word, which denotes\n\u201clife,\u201d is from _hhay\u00e1h_, to live, to give life\u2014the allied word in\nArabic being _hayw\u0101n_, and the Arabic name for Eve becoming _hawwa_.\nNow, in the Celtic dialects _ad_ forms the root of words denoting\nvegetable vitality. In Welsh, moreover, _tad_ is a father; the base,\n_ta_, denoting, among allied senses, \u201ca supreme one,\u201d reminding us of\nthe Chinese _ta_, great; and connected with it being _tras_, kindred,\naffinity. Turning, however, to Eastern languages, we find that the\nold Egyptian had a word _ti_, with a sense analogous to that of the\nWelsh _ta_, and also a verb _ta_, to give, which is found in Hebrew,\nas _\u2019athah_, to come, and in Arabic as _ata_, to give, or to bring\nforth. It is evident that the primitive root, consisting of the dental\n_t_ or _d_, preceded or followed by a vowel sound, had associated\nwith it the idea of activity, and probably of paternity. In the old\nAkkad speech, indeed, _ad_ itself signifies a \u201cfather,\u201d and we are\njustified, therefore, in supposing that when this word was used as\nthe name of the mythical common ancestor, it had a sense analogous to\nthat which \u201cEve\u201d expressed, _i.e._, \u201cthe _father_ of life, or of all\nliving.\u201d In Adam and Eve, therefore, we may have a reference to the\nmale and female principles which, in the philosophy of the ancients,\nas in that of the Chinese and some other Eastern peoples, pervade all\nnature, and originate all things, applied particularly, however, to the\nhuman race. But Adam was not the name given at first to this mystical\nfather of the race. The Egyptian _Atum_ was originally a cosmogonic\ndeity. Bunsen states that the name of this god may be resolved into\n_At-Mu_, meaning \u201cCreator of the mother or night.\u201d The sense of this,\nhowever, is not very apparent, and it may be suggested that the term\n_Adam_ (in Egyptian _Atum_) was formed by the combination of the\nprimitive _akkad_ words _Ad_, father, and _Dam_, mother. It would thus\noriginally express a dual idea, agreeably to the statement in Gen. v.\n2, that male and female were called \u201cAdam.\u201d This agrees perfectly with\nthe Persian tradition which made the first human being androgynous.\nWhen the dual idea expressed in the name was forgotten, Adam became the\nGreat Father, the Great Mother receiving the name of Eve (Hhavv\u00e1h),\n_i.e._, living or life, although _Adam_ in the generic sense of\n\u201cMankind,\u201d denoted both male and female.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_Note._\u2014The Turanian or rather Altaic affinity of the Akkad, referred\nto at page 109 above, appears to have been established by M. Lenormant,\nwho states that their name means \u201cMountaineers,\u201d from _Akkad_, a\nmountain. It is possible, however, that the word may have had a\nmore primitive signification. As the name of a country and not of a\npeople, Akkad did not come into use until the Assyrian epoch, \u201cWhen\nthe Accadian had become a dead language, and the tradition of the real\nmeaning of the word was consequently quite lost.\u201d (_Chaldean Magic and\nSorcery_, p. 404.) As to the aboriginal Arab people referred to at page\n117, it may be mentioned that M. Lenormant (_Hist. Anc. de l\u2019Orient_,\n9th Ed. I. t. prem. p. 313), points out that the name, Adah, of the\nmother of the two sons of Lameckh, who were chiefs of pastoral races,\nis only the feminine form of that of the people of Ad.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[227] _Adonai_, \u201cOur Lord,\u201d was converted by the Greeks into\n_Adoneus_, as a synomym of Pluto, _i.e._, _Dis_. (King\u2019s \u201cGnostics,\u201d\np. 101). Through his name, _Sandan_ or _Adanos_, these deities are\nconnected with _Hercules_, and hence with _Ares_ (Mars).\n\n[228] _Le Mythe de Votan_, by H. de Charencey, 1871, pp. 95, 103.\nGautama was only the last of the Boudhas, and the identification of\nWoden is therefore not necessarily with Gautama. Dr. Brinton, \u201cin\norder to put a stop to such visionary etymologies\u201d as those which\nconnect Votan with Wodan and Buddha, derives Votan from a Maya radical\n(_American Hero-Myths_, 1882, p. 217). It must be noted, however, that\nthe Maya meaning of Votan (heart _fig._ spirit) closely agrees with\nthat of Wodan (mind) and Buddha (knowledge).\n\n[229] M. de Ujfalvy has found that even the purest Iranian type of\nCentral Asia is brachycephalic.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nTHE DESCENDANTS OF CAIN.\n\n\nIn various parts not only of the old world continents, but also of\nAmerica, and even on some of the Islands of the Pacific, are the ruins\nof stone buildings which, from their general character, are well\ncalled \u201cKyklopean.\u201d The style of architecture varies in different\ncountries according to the uses for which the buildings were designed,\nor the local influences among which they were erected. Whatever their\nform, all those ancient buildings agree in the massive character of\ntheir structure, and most of them in the fact that the stones are put\ntogether without mortar or cement. Kyklopean architecture proper (in\nwhich large unhewn blocks are rudely put together with small stones\nto fill up the interstices) differs, however, from the _Polygonal_\nor _Pelasgian_, and from the _Horizontal_ or _Etruscan_, which, in\naddition, has the courses scrupulously level, with joints vertical, and\nfitting accurately. General Forlong, the author of \u201cRivers of Life,\nor Faiths of Man in all Ages,\u201d while pointing out that distinction,\nremarks that those several styles do not denote different ages, and\nthat the builders were evidently of the same race. This opinion is\nconfirmed by the fact that all the three styles are found in the ruins\nof Peru, whose Kyklopean structures, moreover, are not restricted to\nthose of rectangular formation, but sometimes take the form of round\ntowers.\n\nGeneral Forlong identifies the great building race of antiquity with\nthe Kushites or Aithiopians of the Greek historians, and with Mr.\nFergusson, he supposes them to have belonged to the Turanian family of\npeoples. The distinguished architect and arch\u00e6ologist affirms, indeed,\nthat not only were the Turanians the great architects and builders of\nremote antiquity, but that they were the inventors of all the arts, as\nwell as the religions and mythologies, which were afterwards developed\nby the later Shemites and Aryans.\n\nBut how far does this conclusion agree with actual facts? M. Georges\nPerrot, in his important work on the \u201cHistory of Art,\u201d says that the\nancient Oriental world has seen the birth of three great civilisations,\nthat of Egypt, that of Chaldea, and that of China, all of which have\nfeatures in common, although each preserves its own proper character.\nChaldea was the _Sennaar_ of the author of the Book of Genesis, the\nland in which were built the ancient cities of Babel, Erech, Accad,\nand Calneh. The mighty hunter or warrior Nimrod, to whom the erection\nof those cities is ascribed, was the son of Kush and the grandson of\nCham, and he is thus placed by the sacred writer in the same family as\nthe Egyptians, Aithiopians, and the Libyans, as also the Canaanites\nand Ph\u0153nicians. The Kushites, of whom Nimrod is the representative in\nGenesis, were located by the poets and classical historians in Susiana\nrather than in Chaldea. Both of these countries, however, adjoin the\nValley of the Tigris, and the name Aithiopians applied by those writers\nto the inhabitants of the shores of the Persian Gulf and the sea of\nOman agrees with the relationship which, according to the genealogists\nof the Hebrew Scriptures, subsisted between the Kushites of Asia and\nthose of Africa. It is to the shores of the Persian Gulf that the\ndevelopment, if not the origin, of the Chaldean civilisation has been\ntraced. M. Perrot calls Egypt \u201cthe ancestor of civilised nations,\u201d\nand he affirms that, in grouping the great peoples of antiquity to\ndetermine the part taken by each in the work of progress, it is\nnecessary to commence with Egypt as the point of departure of all the\nforces which operate to that end. The Egyptians were not, however,\nindigenous to the Valley of the Nile. It is now almost universally\nacknowledged that they belonged to the white or Caucasian stock of\nEurope and Western Asia, from which they reached Egypt by the isthmus\nof Suez. Their Caucasian origin is confirmed by their language,\nwhich, with the other Hamitic idioms, had, as M. Lenormant shows, a\nrelationship to the Semitic languages, the two families having a common\nmother language, the native country of which was in Asia at the east of\nthe basin of the Euphrates and Tigris. We are thus taken to the region\nwhere the old Chaldean civilisation flourished for the place of origin\nof the Egyptians; but did they belong to the same Kushite stock? In\nendeavouring to answer this question, it is necessary to remember that\nbefore the foundation of the Empire by Menes Egypt had comprised two\nkingdoms, that of Lower Egypt or the country of the north, and that\nof Upper Egypt or the country of the south. These kingdoms must have\nexisted a considerable period, judging from the fact that the later\nMonarchs carried two crowns to indicate the dominion exercised over the\ntwo great divisions of the Empire, and probably it represented some\nrace difference in their inhabitants. The Aryan character described by\nM. L. Page Renouf to the Egyptian mythology, and the features of many\nof the figures represented on the tombs of the fourth Dynasty, might\nlead us to suppose that the earliest Egyptians belonged to the Aryan\nstock. This opinion is, perhaps, confirmed by the consideration that\nthe earliest and most sacred towns of the Egyptians were situate in\nUpper Egypt.\n\nM. Lenormant thinks that the descendants of Mizraim settled in Egypt at\ndifferent epochs, and that the earliest settlers, the Anamim of the Old\nTestament and the Anou of the hieroglyphic inscriptions, were driven\nby the later ones into different parts of Egypt, but principally into\nNubia. The former may, therefore, have been pure Aryans, the southern\ncountry being referred to as the home of the race; although the Empire\nwas first established in Lower Egypt, its chief centre being Memphis,\nfrom which its culture gradually overspread the whole country. The\nearly inhabitants of the Delta region were represented at a later date\nby the Hyksos, who have been identified by Professor Duncker with the\nPhilistines of the Syrian Coast. This people are spoken of in the\nBook of Genesis as descendants of Mizraim, and their neighbours, the\nPh\u0153nicians, stood in the same relation to the northern Egyptians as did\nthe Kushites of Chaldea. Like the latter peoples, the Ph\u0153nicians were\ngreat builders. The remains of vast structures still exist throughout\nPh\u0153nicia, which was known to the ancient Babylonians as Martu, \u201cthe\nwest.\u201d Among modern writers, M. Renan is of opinion that \u201csingular\nrelations exist between the ethnographic, historic, and linguistic\nposition of Yemen and that of Ph\u0153nicia,\u201d as showing that there was\na close relationship between the latter and the ancient people of\nSouthern Arabia. Mr. Baldwin accepts both these views, and comes to the\nconclusion that the first great civilisers and builders of antiquity\nwere the Kushites or Aithiopians of Southern Arabia, and that they\ncolonised or civilised Chaldea, Ph\u0153nicia, and Egypt. Tradition speaks\nof Kepheus as one of the great sovereigns of ancient Aithiopia, whose\nkingdom extended from the Mediterranean to the Persian Gulf, and whose\ncapital was Joppa, one of the most ancient cities of Ph\u0153nicia. We may\nwell believe that this very early Kushite kingdom comprised part of\nNorthern Africa, and therefore that it included the Delta of the Nile\nwith the great city, Memphis, of the Egyptian pyramid builders. The\nsimilarity in many features of the Ph\u0153nician and Egyptian architecture\npoints to a close connection between those peoples, and a portion of\nthe Kushite race which peopled Ph\u0153nicia doubtless settled in the Delta,\nfrom whence its culture would easily spread throughout the Nile Valley.\nIt is certain that Southern Arabia was the seat of a very primitive\ncivilisation, which influenced all the regions around. Ph\u0153nicia,\nhowever, would seem to have been most intimately allied with Chaldea,\nthe origin of whose civilisation, although ascribed to the fish-god\nOannes, can hardly be traced to Arabia.\n\nAccording to the Biblical writer, Kush was the eldest son of Ham, who\nwas also the father of Mizraim, Phut, and Canaan. All these peoples\nwere great builders, and it is very probable, therefore, that they, as\nwell as the Kushites, derived their knowledge from a common source. In\nthis case, and even if Mizraim, Canaan, and Phut were the _descendants_\nrather than the brethren of Kush, the civilisation with which the\nKushites are accredited was, in reality, that of the earlier Hamites.\nThe probability is that all the peoples belonging to the Hamitic stock\npossessed the elements of a very ancient civilisation, which was handed\ndown in the most direct line through the Kushites of Chaldea. M. Perrot\naccepts the opinion of M. Oppert, that when the primitive Chaldeans\nfirst settled in the plains of Sennaar they already had a national\norganisation, and that they possessed writing, the most necessary\nindustries, a religion, and a complete legislation. If this was so we\nshall have to seek a very primitive source for the Kushite or Hamitic\ncivilisation. What was its origin can only be ascertained when the race\nancestry of the Hamites is known. In relation to this point it must not\nbe forgotten that Ham was the brother of Shem and Japhet, and therefore\nthat they were all members of a common family. As the descendants of\nNoah, they all alike belonged to the great white or Caucasian stock.\nM. Lenormant, while endorsing this view, says that anciently, as in\nthe present day, there was an anthropological distinction between\nthe Hamites and the Shemites, which he accounts for by supposing the\nformer to have become intermixed with a dark or black race, which they\nfound already established in the country to which they spread, while\nthe Shemites, who stayed behind, preserved the purity of the white\nrace. The facts of linguistic science and anthropology can thus be\nmade to agree, but M. Lenormant has to admit that the Eastern Kushites\ncannot be brought within that theory, as from the earliest historical\nperiod they have spoken a language radically distinct from those of\nthe Shemites and the other Hamitic peoples. He adds that the coast\nbetween the Persian Gulf and the Indus appears to have been, from a\nremote antiquity, the point of meeting and fusion of two distinct races\nhaving brown complexions, but inclining more or less to pure black. The\nEastern Kushites are thus confounded by a gradual series of transitions\nwith the Dravidians of India. This reference to the Dravidians is\nperfectly just, as there is no doubt, whatever may be the case now,\nthat originally they partook of the high qualities possessed by the\npeoples of the Kushite stock. As a race they were noted for their\nlove of art and commerce, and General Forlong, after having examined\nminutely most of the famous shrines of India, came to the conclusion\n\u201cthat there is nothing to equal those of Dravidia, save some small ones\nin Western India, which, in their completeness, form, and conception,\ndenote the same master builders who, as Jainas, &c., learned in Mysore\nand the South under those great architects.\u201d There is indeed reason\nto believe that the marvellous temples of Cambodia and Java, of which\nthe ruins still exist, were erected by Dravidians from India. M.\nMoura, the learned author of a history of Cambodia, has established\nthat the great architects of that kingdom were the peoples to whom the\nname of Khmerdoms is given by their descendants, the Khmers. They\nwere of Hindoo origin, and emigrated from the neighbourhood of Delhi\nin the fifth century before Christ. Whether the original Khmers were\nof pure Aryan stock is, however, very doubtful, and it is extremely\nprobable that they were Hinduised Dravidians. The Hindoos, to whom the\ncivilisation of Java is ascribed, are spoken of as coming from Kling,\nby which is meant the Dravidian Telinga.\n\nIf, as M. Lenormant supposes, the Eastern Kushites became fused with a\nbrown or black race, it does not follow that this race was originally\nblack, or that it belonged to a negroid stock. All the Hamites, and\nespecially the Kushites, were of a more or less dark complexion,\nbut the black hue may have been acquired through natural influences\noperating during a vast period of time. The Dravidians have, at least\nfrom a linguistic standpoint, Turanian affinities, and it is now almost\nuniversally admitted that the earliest civilised inhabitants of Chaldea\nbelonged to the great Turanian family of peoples who are usually spoken\nof as the yellow race. There is no doubt that a yellow race, whose\nlanguages had an affinity on the one side with the languages of the\nAltaic peoples, and on the other side with the Dravidian dialects,\nand who preceded the Shemitic and Japhetic peoples in material\ncivilisation, existed in Eastern Asia alongside of the white race.\n\nM. Ujfalvy supposes the Eastern Turanians to have descended the first\nfrom the plateau of the Altai; to be followed by the Western Turanians,\nwho occupied Northern Europe from time immemorial; the children of\nNoah being the last to quit the primeval home. If this was so we can\nwell understand that the average Turanian physical type must present\npeculiarities which distinguish it easily from that of the Caucasian\nraces.\n\nWhat we have now to do with is the origin of primitive civilisation,\nand everything points to the early Turanians as the people among whom\nit was developed. We have already seen that if the primitive Chaldeans\ndid not belong to the Turanian stock they were intimately associated\nwith Turanian peoples to whom they are thought to have been indebted\nfor much of their culture. The great western division of the Turanian\nrace appears to have possessed an advanced civilisation long before\nits Aryan neighbours. The Tchoudes, who are described by Ujfalvy as\nthe most ancient people of the Altaic race, were noted metallurgists,\nwhile the Permians and the Finns are supposed to have taught art and\nagriculture to the Slavs and Scandinavians of Northern Europe. M.\nReclus remarks that, not only did the Turanians teach their neighbours\nthe use of iron and other metals, but they have the glory of having\ngiven to us most of our domestic animals, and probably also the greater\npart of our most useful cultured plants. Finally, the Turanians were,\nsays M. Lenormant, \u201cthe constructors of the first towns, and the\ninventors of metallurgy and of the first rudiments of the principal\narts of civilisation.\u201d He adds that they were \u201caddicted to rites\nwhich were reproved by Yahveh, and were viewed with as much hatred as\nsuperstitious terror by the populations still in the pastoral state\nwhom they had preceded in the path of material progress and invention,\nbut who remained morally more pure and elevated.\u201d\n\nThis description, applied by M. Lenormant to the Turanians, has\nreference primarily to the Cainites, and it carries the origin of\nmaterial civilisation much farther back in time than would have been\nthought possible a few years ago. The facts mentioned in connection\nwith Cain and his descendants strikingly confirm the opinion that the\nKushite civilisation was handed down from a period which, in relation\nto the Deluge of Genesis, may be called antediluvian. The tradition\nof the Deluge is a primitive belief of the three white races, the\nAryan, the Semitic, and the Hamitic. It appears to have been originally\nlimited to the peoples of the Caucasian stock, and this fact requires\nthat the Turanians should be excluded from the effect of the supposed\ncatastrophe. The yellow race, therefore, may claim an \u201cantediluvian\u201d\ndescent, and as Noah, the progenitor of the white races, belonged to\nthe Sethite stock, the common ancestor of the Turanian peoples must\nhave been a Cainite.\n\nThe first public event recorded in the life of Cain after his exile was\nthe building of a town, which he called Enoch, after his first-born\nson. This town has been identified with the city of Khotan, which is\nsituate in the region where Cain is thought to have fixed his abode.\nAccording to Abel R\u00e9musat the traditions of that city, preserved in the\nnative chronicles and referred to by the Chinese historians, go back\nto a much earlier period than those of any other city of Central Asia.\nBaron d\u2019Eckstein has, moreover, shown that Khotan was the centre of\na district in which the art of metallurgy has been practised from the\nremotest antiquity. This is important, for Tubal Cain, the youngest son\nof Lamekh, the descendant of Cain, is said in Genesis to have been \u201can\ninstructor of every artificer in brass and iron.\u201d\n\nThe ancestors of the present Chinese appear not to have been acquainted\nwith the blacksmith\u2019s art when they first descended into the plains,\nalthough it was practised by the neighbouring Tibetan tribes, who, we\ncan hardly doubt, were allied to the Kolarian population of Eastern\nIndia, if not also to the Dravidians of the south and west. The\nrelationship of the Dravidians to the peoples of the Altaic stock, and\nthe practice of metallurgy by the latter particularly, would tend,\nhowever, to prove that the Jabal were not, as supposed by M. Ujfalvy,\nTuranians who settled in Northern Asia and Europe. Those facts would\nrather support the view of Knobel, which identifies the Jabal and the\nJubal as a musical and pastoral race, as distinguished from a settled\nmetallurgic race to whom the name of Tubal Cain was given.\n\nThe opinion that the ancestors of the Turanian peoples were Cainites\nmay be confirmed by reference to certain social and religious\nphenomena. In the story of the slaying by Cain of his brother Abel\nthere is evident reference to antagonism between a pastoral and an\nagricultural people. M. Lenormant, who sees a connection between the\nfratricide and the founding of the first city, has arrived at the\nconviction that the Chald\u00e6o-Babylon tradition concerning the primitive\ndays of the human race included a reference to those two actions of\nCain. He says, however, \u201cthere are certain reasons for suspecting\nthat the Chaldeans took the part of the murderer Cain against Abel,\nas the Romans did that of Romulus against Remus.\u201d The preference of\nthe Chaldeans for the murderer agrees with the Cainite origin ascribed\nto their Turanian ancestors, among whom the polygamy and revenge\nattributed to Lamekh were no doubt as prevalent as among some of their\ndescendants at the present day. The French writer sees in the fourth\nchapter of Genesis a condemnation of Lamekh as the prototype of fierce\nvengeance, and at the same time of polygamy. The whole pre-Deluge\nhistory of man, as given in Genesis, would seem to imply the existence\nof an hereditary opposition between the descendants of Cain and those\nof Seth, who was regarded as standing in a special relation to the\nShemites. It was evidently written in the same spirit as that which saw\nin the enmity between the Iranians and Turanians a constant conflict\nbetween light and darkness. The race of Cain are referred in the\nBiblical narrative as \u201csons of men,\u201d a title which implies a condition\nof religious or moral inferiority, as compared with the \u201csons of God\u201d\ndescended from Seth. That narrative says, further, that in the time of\nEnoch men began to call on the name of Jehovah. This statement, which\nhas reference only to the Sethites, supposes that the Cainites invoked\nsome other god, and in the Shamanism of the Dravidians and various\nTuranian peoples we have no doubt a phase of the religious worship\nprevalent among their Cainite ancestors.\n\nAnother point in connection with religious ideas, which is of\ngreat importance in relation to the above subject, is the origin\nof serpent-worship. M. Lenormant remarks that \u201cthe Arcadians made\nthe serpent one of the principal attributes and one of the forms of\nH\u00e9a.\u201d This deity, who closely resembles Wa\u00efnamo\u00efnen, one of the three\nprincipal gods of the Finns, occupied a very important position in\nthe Pantheon of the ancient Chaldeans. H\u00e9a, like the Finnish god,\nwas \u201cnot only king of the waters and the atmosphere, he was also the\nspirit whence all life proceeded, the master of favourable spells,\nthe adversary and conqueror of all personifications of evil, and the\nsovereign possessor of all science.\u201d The worship of serpent-gods is\na practice to which many of the primitive Turanian tribes have been\naddicted. This accounts for the curious association of serpent-worship\nwith Buddhism and Siva-ism. Both of these faiths, as exhibited in the\nmarvellous sculptures of the ruined temples of Cambodia, are intimately\nconnected with serpent-worship. This cult was no doubt very prevalent\namong the native populations before the arrival of the Hindoos, as\nlegend states that the banished Indian Prince, for whom the city of\nNakon-Thom was built, married a daughter of the King of the Nagas or\nSerpents, and became the sovereign of the country. Serpent-worship,\nindeed, would seem to have been prevalent throughout Northern India.\nThe territory of the king of the serpent city Taxila reached nearly to\nDelhi, and it probably extended over Kashmere and part of Afghanistan.\nHere was a very important centre of serpent-worship. General Forlong\nstates that in Kashmere this cult appears everywhere, \u201cand the records\nof the country point to its beautiful lake and mountain fastnesses\nas the earliest historic seats which we have of the faith.\u201d It is\nremarkable that a King of the Naga race was reigning in Magadha when\nGautama was born in 626 B.C., and, according to a Hindoo legend, even\nthe Buddha himself had a serpent lineage. If this was so, it is not\nsurprising that his teachings should be accepted by the Naga races, who\nno doubt belonged to the pre-Aryan stock.\n\nThe constant introduction of the serpent, especially of the sacred\nCobra, into the sculptures of the Cambodian temples, is remarkable.\nM. Moura states that the ancient Khmers of Cambodia recognised both\ngood and evil serpents, the former of which lived in the water and the\nlatter inhabited the land. The Buddhists of India and Indo-China had\nthe same idea, and M. Moura supposes that the good serpents represented\nthe human Nagas who became Buddhists, and the bad serpents those who\nrefused to abandon their native serpent-worship. This explanation,\nhowever, is not necessary, as the ancient Egyptians entertained\nanalogous ideas. No other people, except, perhaps, the Hindoos and\nallied races, were more thoroughly imbued with the serpent superstition\nthan the Egyptians. Mr. Cooper, in his \u201cObservations on the Serpent\nMyths of Ancient Egypt,\u201d remarks that \u201cthe reverence paid to the\nsnake was not merely local, or even limited to one period of history,\nbut prevailed alike in every district of the Pharian Empire, and has\nleft its indelible impress upon the architecture and the arch\u00e6ology\nof both Upper and Lower Egypt.\u201d The Cobra di Capello of the Hindoos\nand Cambodians was the sacred Ur\u00e6us of the Egyptians. With the\nlatter it was used as the symbol of fecundity and immortality, and\nwas also universally assumed as the \u201cemblem of divine and sacro-regal\nsovereignty.\u201d The Ur\u00e6us was always represented in the female form,\nand all the Egyptian goddesses were adorned with it, as the images\nof the Hindoo gods were often surmounted with the sacred Naga. Among\nthe Egyptians another kind of serpent was also held in universal\nveneration. It was a gigantic species of Coluber, which from the\nearliest ages was regarded as \u201cthe representative of spiritual, and\noccasionally physical, evil.\u201d This was the great snake of the celestial\nwaters, the adversary of the gods with which the soul had to contend\nafter death. The Egyptians had thus a good and an evil serpent, the\nformer of which was small and the latter large. Among the Cambodians\nthe reverse was the case, as the small serpent was the representative\nof evil, and the great serpent, the Naga-Naga, of good.\n\nWe have already seen that the cobra occupies an important place in\nthe Buddhist sculpture, and that the great serpent with its human\nsupporters was represented at both Amravati and Angkor Wat. Curiously\nenough a similar idea to this is represented on certain Egyptian\nmonuments. On the sarcophagus of Oime-nepthah I. is sculptured a long\nserpent, which, says Mr. Robert Sewell, is doubled into folds just like\nthe roll of the Buddhist frieze, and having a god standing on each fold\nin the places occupied by the sacred emblems of the Buddhist faith\nat Amravati. He supposes the long roll of the Amravati frieze to be\nintended to represent a serpent, and to have had its origin in Western\nAsian or Egyptian ideas. I had already, before meeting with this\nobservation, been struck with the similarity between the Egyptian and\nthe Buddhist representations, especially when considered in the light\nof the Cambodian sculptures which undoubtedly represent the Naga-Naga.\nThe gigantic serpent of the celestial ocean of Egyptian mythology is\nAph\u00f4phis, the spirit of evil, and in the contest between him and Horus\nwe have, according to M. Le Page Renouf, a form of the Indra and Vritra\nmyth. An Accadian text speaks of \u201cthe enormous serpent with seven\nheads,\u201d the \u201cserpent which beats the waves of the sea ... extending his\npower over heaven and earth.\u201d This is supposed to refer to H\u00e9a, and it\nreminds us of the heavenly Naga-Naga of Hindoo mythology, which, like\nthe Accadian serpent deity, was representative of the good principle.\nSuch was also the case among all the old Turanian nations, and it\nwas only when, as remarked by M. Lenormant, \u201cthe Iranian traditions\nwere fused with the ancient beliefs of the Proto-Medic religion, the\nserpent-god naturally became identified with the representative of\nthe dark and bad principle.\u201d It cannot be doubted that this was the\nlater notion, and that the Turanian belief which associated with the\nserpent ideas of goodness was of earlier date. Thus, the Dragon, says\nMr. Doolittle, \u201cenjoys an ominous eminence in the affections of the\nChinese people. It is frequently represented as the greatest benefactor\nof mankind.... The Chinese delight in praising its wonderful prospects\nand powers. It is the venerated symbol of good.\u201d\n\nThe veneration of the serpent must have been of very early origin\nto occupy so strong a hold over the Chinese, whose spoken language,\naccording to M. Terrien de Lacouperie, forms a link between the\nAccadian and the Ugro-Finnish divisions of the Ural-Altaic languages.\nThe art of metallurgy was practised by the peoples belonging to both\nthese divisions, and yet, according to M. Lenormant, it was not known\nto the early Chinese. We must thus suppose that the latter left the\ncommon home before the invention of metallurgy, and, therefore, that\nthey represent a very early condition of the stock from which the\nTuranian peoples sprang. We seem, indeed, to be carried back to the\nvery earliest period of the legendary history of the Cainite race, and\npossibly to that of the legendary ancestor of the race. According to\nthe tradition preserved in Genesis, there was a peculiar association\nbetween Adam and the serpent. This animal is there the tempter Satan,\nbut according to another view Adam, or rather Ad, who was apparently\nthe traditional ancestor of a portion at least of the old Turanian\nstock, was himself the serpent. A rabbinical tradition makes Cain\nthe son, not of Adam, but of the serpent-spirit Asmodeus. The name\nEve is connected with an Arabic root which means both \u201clife\u201d and \u201ca\nserpent,\u201d and if Eve was the serpent mother, Ad must have been the\nserpent father of the race. There is reason for believing that Adam\nwas the legendary ancestor of the Cainites, as distinguished from\nthe descendants of Seth. The name Adam, no doubt, signifies in the\nSemitic languages \u201cthe man,\u201d but it has been pointed out that the name\nborne by the son of Seth, and therefore the ancestor of Noah, that\nis Enoch, is in Hebrew the exact synonym of Adam, and also signifies\n\u201cthe man.\u201d There is, moreover, almost an exact parallel between the\ndescendants of Adam, through Cain on the one hand, and those of Seth\nthrough Enoch on the other, and each line is terminated by three\nheads of races, that of the Cainites by the sons of Lamekh and that\nof the Enocides by the grandsons of Lamekh. In the latter there is\nthe insertion of one additional generation, that of Noah, between\nLamekh and the division of the family into three branches. This is,\nhowever, capable of explanation. M. Lenormant shows, by a comparison\nof the various legends referring to the primitive age of mankind,\nthat the number 7 or 10 was used by all the ancient nations as a\nround number for the antediluvian ancestors of the race. Tradition\nseemed to float between these two numbers until the influence of\nthe Chald\u00e6o-Babylonians caused the number 10, which is that of the\ngenerations of the Sethites, to dominate over the number 7, that of\nthe Cainites. It is to that influence we would ascribe the existence\namong the descendants of Seth of the legendary ancestor of the three\nCaucasian races. The Chaldean Noah was Khasisatra, whose vessel was\nsaved during the Flood by the god H\u00e9a. This god himself was, however,\nsupposed to have a vessel in which he sailed over the celestial ocean.\nHe was, in fact, the fish-god Oannes, from whom the Chaldeans were\nsaid to have derived their civilisation, and we probably have in\nOannes the point of identification between H\u00e9a and Noah himself. The\nCaucasian races, whose fathers had been saved from the Deluge, could\nnot have a better legendary ancestor than the divine teacher who,\nissuing from the Egyptian sea, was the god H\u00e9a, not only the soul of\nthe watery element but the source of all generation. If Noah, then,\nbe a mythological being, introduced into the Sethite genealogy under\nChaldean influence, Lamekh becomes the direct ancestor of the Caucasian\nstock as he is of the Turanian peoples. An argument in favour of this\nview is furnished by the Scripture account itself. Among the sons of\nNoah a peculiar position is occupied by Ham. He and his son Canaan are\ncursed, in like manner as Cain was cursed. The sins were different,\nand therefore the punishments were different, but there appears to be\na kind of parallelism between Cain and Canaan for which a good reason\nprobably existed in the mind of the writer of Genesis. We have seen\nthat the Hamites were intimately connected with peoples belonging to\nthe Turanian stock, and they were the special recipients of the old\nCainite civilisation. It is, indeed, far from improbable that they were\nmore Cainite than Sethite. The three sons of Noah would seem to answer\nto the three sons of Adam, and as Ham or Canaan is a reproduction\nof Cain, so Japheth and Shem are reproductions of Abel and Seth. In\neither case the elder brothers were put on one side or cursed, that the\nyoungest brother might enjoy the inheritance. Perhaps an explanation\nof this conduct may be found in the race relationships of the Semites.\nThat they had a closer affinity to the Hamites than had the Japhethites\nis unquestionable, and it can hardly be less doubted that the latter\nwere the purest branch of the Caucasian stock. The Semites were,\nindeed, a mixed race, but as the Hebrews professed to be the chosen\npeople it was necessary that the Hamite and Japhethite races should be\nput on one side, as Abel and Cain had been, that their ancestor Shem\nmight take the chief place. The Semites thus became the representative\nCaucasian people who, as children of light, stand in opposition to the\nTuranian Hamites, in like manner as the sons of Seth were opposed to\nthe descendants of Cain.\n\nWe have been led to believe that the civilisation of the ancient world\noriginated among the Cainites, of whom the Turanians are the line of\ndescendants. We have seen reason, moreover, for supposing that the\nparticular branch of the Turanian stock, among whom the development\nof the art of metallurgy first took place, was the Ural-Altaic, to\nwhich the earliest inhabitants of Chaldea belonged, and whom Dr.\nTopinard supposes to be the connecting-link between the fair types of\nEurope and the brachycephalic types of Asia. The building art was one\nof the earliest to be developed, as is evident from the reference in\nGenesis to the building of a city by Cain. The erection of the first\ncity is connected with the slaying of Abel, and therefore the origin\nof architecture may be referred back to almost the earliest period\nof human culture, and we may well suppose that some of the least\ncultured Turanian tribes represent a still earlier stage of Cainite\ncivilisation. M. Lenormant objects to Herr Knobel\u2019s theory that the\nChinese and the Mongolian peoples are Cainites, that \u201cthe geographical\nhorizon of the traditions of Genesis did not extend far enough to\ninclude them.\u201d If, however, when the Chinese first descended into\nthe plains they were still in the stone age, they may have been true\nCainites, the more so as their immediate ancestors were located much\nnearer than are their descendants to the primeval home of Adamite\nman. The remarkable influence which the veneration for the serpent\nhas obtained among the Chinese, a superstition which was developed\nno less remarkably among the peoples belonging to the Western branch\nof the Turanian family, and through them among the Hamitic peoples,\nwould seem to prove that it was of primeval origin. The arts of\nmetallurgy and architecture appear to have had a later development,\nand to have originated among the Turanian Aithiopians or Kuths, to\nwhom the civilisation of the ancient world was ascribed. After leaving\ntheir home in West-Central Asia they settled in Chaldea, from whence\nthey gradually spread throughout Western Asia, Northern Africa, and\nEurope, where, in later years, they came in contact with the Caucasian\nraces, who gave a higher tone to their intellectual culture and their\nreligious ideas, the latter being especially observable in the position\nassigned to the great serpent as the embodiment of evil.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n_Note._\u2014The legend of the slaying of Abel by his brother Cain referred\nto at page 138, is met with in the Mythologies of some of the American\ntribes. See _Monographie des D\u00e8n\u00e8 Dindji\u00e9_, by C. R. E. Petitot,\npp. 62-84, and for a similar legend of the Aztecs, see _American\nHero-Myths_, by Daniel G. Brinton, pp. 64-68.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nSACRED PROSTITUTION.\n\n\nMr. Darwin, in his work entitled \u201cThe Descent of Man\u201d (vol. ii., p.\n361), seems to endorse the opinion that the high honour bestowed in\nancient times on women who were utterly licentious is intelligible\nonly \u201cif we admit that promiscuous intercourse was the aboriginal and\ntherefore the long revered custom of the tribe,\u201d[230] and I propose, in\nthe present chapter, to show that the fact referred to has nothing at\nall to do with the custom sought to be supported by it.\n\nThe examples on which Sir John Lubbock relies have been taken from\nDulaure\u2019s work on ancient religions, but they are more fully detailed\nin the \u201cHistoire de la Prostitution\u201d by M. Pierre Dufour, and they\ncertainly form one of the most remarkable chapters in the history of\nmorals.\n\nAccording to Herodotus,[231] every woman born in Babylonia was obliged\nby law, once in her life, to submit to the embrace of a stranger. Those\nwho were gifted with beauty of face or figure soon completed this\noffering to Venus, but of the others some had to remain in the sacred\nenclosure for several years before they were able to obey the law. This\nstatement of Herodotus is confirmed by the evidence of Strabo, who\nsays the custom dated from the foundation of the city of Babylon.\n\nThe compulsory prostitution of Babylonia was connected with the worship\nof Mylitta, and wherever this worship spread it was accompanied by the\nsexual sacrifice. Strabo relates[232] that in Armenia the sons and\ndaughters of the leading families were consecrated to the service of\nAna\u00eftis for a longer or shorter period. Their duty was to entertain\nstrangers, and those females who had received the greatest number were\non their return home the most sought after in marriage. The Ph\u0153nician\nworship of Astart\u00e9 was no less distinguished by sacred prostitution,\nto which was added a promiscuous intercourse between the sexes during\ncertain religious f\u00eates, at which the men and women exchanged their\ngarments. The Ph\u0153nicians carried the custom to the Isle of Cyprus,\nwhere the worship of their great goddess, under the name of Venus,\nbecame supreme.\n\nAccording to a popular legend the women of Amathonte, afterwards\nnoted for its temple, were originally known for their chastity. When,\ntherefore, Venus was cast by the waves naked on their shores, they\ntreated her with disdain, and as a punishment they were commanded\nto prostitute themselves to all comers, a command which they obeyed\nwith so much reluctance that the goddess changed them into stone.\nWith their worship of Astart\u00e9 or Venus, the Ph\u0153nicians introduced\nsacred prostitution into all their Colonies. St. Augustine says that,\nat Carthage, there were three Venuses rather than one: one of the\nvirgins, another of the married women, and a third of the courtesans,\nto the last of whom it was that the Ph\u0153nicians sacrificed the chastity\nof their daughters before they were married. It was the same in\nSyria. At Byblos during the f\u00eates of Adonis, after the ceremony which\nannounced the resurrection of the God, every female worshipper had to\nsacrifice to Venus either her hair or her person. Those who preferred\nto preserve the former adjourned to the sacred enclosures, where they\nremained for a whole day for the purpose of prostituting themselves.\n\nThe same curious custom appears to have been practised in Media and\nPersia, and among the Parthians. The Lydians were particularly noted\nfor the zeal with which they practised the rites of Venus. They did\nnot limit their observance to occasional attendance at the sacred\nf\u00eates, but, says Herodotus, they devoted themselves to the goddess,\nand practised, for their own benefit, the most shameless prostitution.\nIt is related that a magnificent monument to Alyattes, the father of\nCr\u0153sus, was built by the contributions of the merchants, the artisans,\nand the courtesans, and that the portion of the monument erected with\nthe sum furnished by the courtesans much exceeded both the other parts\nbuilt at the expense of the artisans and merchants.\n\nSome writers deny that sacred prostitution was practised in Egypt,\nbut the great similarity between the worship of Osiris and Isis and\nthat of Venus and Adonis renders the contrary opinion highly probable.\nOn their way to the f\u00eates of Isis at Bubastis the female pilgrims\nexecuted indecent dances when the vessels passed the villages on\nthe banks of the river. \u201cThese obscenities,\u201d says Dufour, \u201cwere only\nsuch as were about to happen at the temple, which was visited each\nyear by seven hundred thousand pilgrims, who gave themselves up to\nincredible excesses.\u201d Strabo asserts that a class of persons called\n_pellices_ (harlots) were dedicated to the service of the patron deity\nof Thebes, and that they \u201cwere permitted to cohabit with anyone they\nchose.\u201d It is true that Sir Gardner Wilkinson[233] treats this account\nas absurd, on the ground that the women, many of whom were the wives\nand daughters of the noblest families, assisted in the most important\nceremonies of the temple. This fact is, however, quite consistent with\nStrabo\u2019s statement, which may have referred to an inferior class of\nfemale servitors, and considering the customs of allied peoples, it is\nmore likely to be true than the reverse. The testimony of Herodotus is\ncertainly opposed to that of Strabo. But the former acknowledges that\nhe did not reveal all that he knew of the secrets of Egyptian worship,\nand we must, therefore, receive with some hesitation his assertion\nthat \u201cthe Egyptians are the first who, from a religious motive, have\nforbidden commerce with women in the sacred places, or even entrance\nthere after having known them, without being first cleansed.\u201d The Greek\nhistorian adds\u2014\u201cAlmost all other peoples, except the Egyptians and the\nGreeks, have commerce with women in the sacred places; or, when they\nrise from them, they enter there without being washed.\u201d Whatever may be\nthe truth as to the inhabitants of ancient Egypt, at the present day\nthe dancing girls of that country, who are also prostitutes, attend the\nreligious festivals just as the ancient devotees of Astart\u00e9 are said to\nhave done.\n\nIf we test the value of Herodotus\u2019 evidence on the matter in question\nby what is known of Grecian customs, it will have little weight. Sacred\nprostitution at Athens was under the patronage of Venus Pandemos, who\nis said to have been the first divinity that Theseus caused the people\nto adore, or, at least, to whom a statue was erected on the public\nplace. The f\u00eates of that goddess were celebrated on the fourth day of\neach month, a chief part in them being assigned to the prostitutes,\nwho then exercised their calling only for the profit of the goddess,\nand they expended in offerings the money which they had gained under\nher auspices. At the height of its prosperity the temple of Venus at\nCorinth had, according to Strabo, one thousand courtesans. It was a\ncommon custom in Greece to consecrate to Venus a certain number of\nyoung girls, when it was desired to render the goddess favourable, or\nwhen she had granted the prayers addressed to her.\n\nThe ordinary Athenian prostitutes appear to have been dedicated to the\npublic service, and they were forbidden to leave the country without\nthe consent of the Archons, who often accorded it only on having a\nguarantee that they would return. There would seem even to have been\na College of Prostitutes, which was declared useful and necessary to\nthe state. The story of the social influence of the _heter\u00e6_ during\nthe palmiest days of Greece is too well known to need repetition, and\nit will be found fully detailed in the pages of Dufour. The majority\nof the _heter\u00e6_, however, were far from being in the position of\nAspasia, La\u00efs, and others, who were the friends, and even instructors,\nof statesmen and philosophers. Although they were allowed some of\nthe rights of citizenship, they were often treated with implacable\nrigour by the Areopagus, and their children were condemned to the\nsame ignominy as themselves. Curiously enough, the chief accusation\nagainst the prostitutes was their irreligion, and although they were\npriestesses in some temples, from others they were rigidly excluded.\n\nAmong the Romans the prostitute class held a much lower position in\npublic opinion than with the Greeks, and for a long time its members\nwere treated as below the attention of legislators, and were left to\nthe arbitrary regulation of the police. They were classed with the\nslave population as civilly dead, and, having once become \u201cinfamous,\u201d\nthe moral stain was indelible. Dufour says, as to the religious\ncharacter of Latin prostitution\u2014\u201cThe courtesans at Rome were not,\nas in Greece, kept at a distance from the altars. On the contrary,\nthey frequented all the temples, in order, no doubt, to find their\nfavourable chances of gain; they showed their gratitude to the divinity\nwho had been propitious to them, and they brought to his sanctuary a\nportion of the gain which they believed they owed to him. Religion\nclosed its eyes to this impure source of revenue and offerings; civil\nlegislation did not intermeddle with these details of false devotion,\nwhich concerned only religion; and, thanks to that tolerance, or rather\nthe systematic abstention from judicial and religious control, sacred\nprostitution preserved at Rome nearly its primitive features, with this\ndifference, nevertheless, that it was always confined to the class of\ncourtesans, and that, instead of being an integral part of worship,\nit was a foreign accessory to it.\u201d According to some Roman writers,\nhowever, Acca Laurentia (the foster-mother of Romulus and Remus), in\nwhose honour the Lupercales were instituted, was a prostitute, and\nthe f\u00eates of Flora had a similar origin. The goddess of flowers was\noriginally a courtesan, who made an enormous fortune, which she left\nto the state. Her legacy was accepted, and the Senate, in gratitude,\ndecreed that the name of Flora should be inscribed in the fastes of\nthe state, and that solemn f\u00eates should perpetuate the memory of her\ngenerosity. These f\u00eates always preserved a remembrance of their origin,\nand were accompanied by the most scandalous scenes, which were publicly\nenacted in the circus.\n\nThe religious prostitutes of antiquity find their counterparts in the\ndancing girls attached to the Hindoo temples. These \u201cfemale slaves of\nthe idol\u201d are girls who have been dedicated to the temple service,\noften by their own parents, and they act both as dancing girls and\ncourtesans. Notwithstanding their calling, they are treated with great\nrespect, and such would seem always to have been the case, if we may\njudge by the ancient legend which relates that Gautama was entertained\nat Vesali by a lady of high rank who had the title of \u201cChief of the\nCourtesans.\u201d[234] No doubt the attention paid to the appearance and\neducation of the temple prostitutes has much to do with the respect\nwith which they are treated, the position accorded by the ancient\nGreeks to the superior class of _heter\u00e6_ being due to an analogous\ncause.\n\nBishop Heber says, in relation to the Bayad\u00eares of Southern India,\nthat they differ considerably from the Nautch girls of the Northern\nProvinces, \u201cbeing all in the service of different temples, for which\nthey are purchased young, and brought up with a degree of care which is\nseldom bestowed on the females of India of any other class. This care\nnot only extends to dancing and singing, and the other allurements of\ntheir miserable profession, but to reading and writing. Their dress is\nlighter than the bundle of red cloth which swaddles the _figurant\u00e9_\nof Hindostan, and their dancing is more indecent; but their general\nappearance and manner seemed to me far from immodest, and their\nair even more respectable than the generality of the lower classes\nof India.... The money which they acquire in the practice of their\nprofession is hallowed to their wicked gods, whose ministers are said\nto turn them out without remorse, or with a very scanty provision, when\nage or sickness renders them unfit for their occupation. Most of them,\nhowever, die young.\u201d The Bishop adds, \u201cI had heard that the Bayad\u00eares\nwere regarded with respect among the other classes of Hindoos, as\nservants of the gods, and that, after a few years\u2019 service, they often\nmarry respectably. But, though I made several inquiries, I cannot find\nthat this is the case; their name is a common term of reproach among\nthe women of the country, nor could any man of decent caste marry one\nof their number.\u201d[235] The courtesans of Hindostan do not appear to be\nattached to the temples, but Tavernier relates that they made offerings\nto certain idols, to whom they surrendered themselves when young to\nbring good fortune.\n\nThe chief facts connected with religious prostitution have now been\ngiven, and it remains only to show that this system has nothing to\ndo with any custom of communal marriage, or promiscuous intercourse\nbetween the sexes, such as it is thought to give evidence of. Sir\nJohn Lubbock says that the life led by the courtesans attached to the\nHindoo temples is not considered shameful, because they continue the\nold custom of the country under religious sanction. This statement,\nhowever, is wholly inaccurate, as the former existence of the custom\nreferred to cannot be established. The social phenomena which are\nthought to establish that mankind has passed through a stage of\npromiscuity in the intercourse between the sexes are capable of totally\ndifferent interpretation. The ease with which any doctrine or practice,\nhowever absurd or monstrous, will be accepted, if it possesses a\nreligious sanction, would alone account for the respect entertained for\nreligious prostitutes. But among a people who, like the Hindoos, view\nsexual immorality for personal gain with abhorrence, such a calling,\nif it were based on so barbarous a custom as communal marriage, would\ninevitably lessen rather than increase that sentiment. On the other\nhand, if the religious position accorded to the temple prostitutes\nis connected with ideas which have a sacredness of their own, the\nrespect will be greatly increased. And thus, in fact, it is. Probably\nno custom is more widely spread than the providing for a guest a\nfemale companion, who is usually a wife or daughter of the host. Such\na connection with a stranger is permitted even among peoples who are\notherwise jealous preservers of female chastity. This custom of sexual\nhospitality is said to have been practised by the Babylonians in the\ntime of Alexander, although, according to the Roman historian, parents\nand husbands did not decline to accept money in return for the favours\nthus accorded. Eusebius asserts that the Ph\u0153nicians prostituted their\ndaughters to strangers, and that this was done for the greater glory\nof hospitality. So, also, we find that at Cyprus the women who devoted\nthemselves to the good goddess walked about the shores of the island to\nattract the strangers who disembarked.\n\nIn the earliest phase of what is called sacred prostitution it was not\nevery man who was entitled to enjoy its privileges. The Babylonian\nwomen, who were compelled to make a sacrifice of their persons once in\ntheir lives, submitted to the embraces only of strangers. In Armenia,\nalso, strangers alone were entitled to seek sexual hospitality in the\nsacred enclosures at the temple of Ana\u00eftis, and it was the same in\nSyria during the f\u00eates of Venus and Adonis. Dufour was struck by this\nfact, and, speaking of it, he says, \u201cIt may be thought surprising\nthat the inhabitants of the country were so impressed with a worship\nin which their women had all the benefit of the mysteries of Venus.\u201d\nHe adds, however, that the former were not less interested than the\nlatter in these mysteries. \u201cThe worship of Venus was in some sort\nstationary for the women, nomadic for the men, seeing that these could\nvisit in turn the different f\u00eates and temples of the goddess, profiting\neverywhere, in these sensual pilgrimages, by the advantages reserved to\nguests and to strangers.\u201d\n\nBesides hospitality, the practice of which is, under ordinary\ncircumstances, an almost sacred duty with uncultured peoples, there\nwas another series of ideas associated with the system of sacred\nprostitution. In the East, the great aim of woman\u2019s life is marriage\nand bearing children. We have a curious reference to this fact in the\nlament of the Hebrew women for Jephthah\u2019s daughter, which appears to\nhave been occasioned less by her death than by the recorded fact that\n\u201cshe knew no man.\u201d When she heard of the vow made by her father, she\nsaid to him, \u201cLet me alone two months, that I may go up and down upon\nthe mountains and bewail my virginity, I and my fellows.\u201d The desire\nof the wife, however, is not merely for children, but for a man-child,\nthe necessity for which has given rise to the practice of adoption;\nanother custom which Sir John Lubbock believes to support his favourite\ndoctrine of communal marriage. In India adoption is practised when a\nman has no son of his own, and it has a directly religious motive.\nSir Thomas Strange shows that the Hindoo law of inheritance cannot\nbe understood without reference to the belief that a man\u2019s future\nhappiness depends \u201cupon the performance of his obsequies and the\npayment of his [spiritual] debts.\u201d He who pays these debts is his\nheir; and, as \u201cofferings from sons are more effectual than offerings\nfrom other persons, sons are first in order of succession.\u201d Hence to\nhave a son is to the Hindoo a sacred duty, and when his wife bears no\nchildren, or only daughters, he is compelled by his religious belief to\nadopt one. We can understand how anxious for a son women must be where\nthose ideas prevail, and this anxiety has given rise to various curious\nceremonies having for their object to prevent or cure sterility. Some\nof these, which have been described by Dulaure and other writers,\nexisted in Europe down to a comparatively recent period. In India, and\nprobably in some other Eastern countries, they are still practised both\nby wives who have continued childless and by newly-married women, the\nlatter offering to the _Linga_ the sacrifice of their virginity.\n\nThis desire for children led to offerings being made to ensure the\ncoveted blessing, and to vows to be performed on its being obtained.\nThe nature of the vow would undoubtedly have some reference to the\nthing desired; and, as related by an old Arabian traveller in India,\n\u201cwhen a woman has made a vow for the purpose of having children, if\nshe brings into the world a pretty daughter, she carries it to _Bod_\n(so they call the idol which they adore), and leaves it with him.\u201d The\ncraving for children was anciently as strong among Eastern peoples\nas it is at the present day, and it is much more probable that this,\nrather than a habit of licentiousness, either of the women themselves\nor of the priests, led to the sacrifice at the shrine of Mylitta. If we\nare to believe Herodotus, the Babylonian women were in his time noted\nfor their virtue, although at a later period they would seem to have\nlost that characteristic.\n\nThe desire for children is directly opposed to the feeling which would\noperate in the case of communal marriage, where parents and children,\nhaving no special relation, no one would have any particular interest\nin preserving the issue of such intercourse. Among the uncultured\npeoples of the present era who the most nearly approach in their sexual\nrelations to a state of communal marriage, the indifference to children\nis often apparent. Infanticide is very general, and abortion is often\npractised by the women to enable them to retain the favour of their\nhusbands. The sacred prostitution, which is intimately connected with\nthe craving for children, must, therefore, have originated at a time\nwhen a considerable advance had been made in social culture.\n\nIt would not be surprising if the ancient Babylonish custom had,\nof itself, resulted in a system of sacred prostitution. The act of\nsexual intercourse was in the nature of an offering to the Goddess of\nFecundity, and a life of prostitution in the service of the goddess\nmight well come to be viewed as pleasing to her and as deserving of\nrespect at the hands of her worshippers. We have an analogous phase of\nthought in the Japanese notion, that a girl who enters the Yoshiwara\nfor the purpose of thus supporting her parents performs a highly\nmeritorious act. In Armenia, as we have seen, children were devoted by\ntheir parents to the service of the great goddess for a term of years,\nand those who had received the most numerous favours from strangers\nwere the most eagerly sought after in marriage on the expiration of\nthat period. That dedication was in pursuance of a vow, which no doubt,\nlike the vows of Indian women at the present day, would at first have\nrelation to some sexual want, although thank-offerings of the same\ncharacter would afterwards come to be presented by the worshippers of\nthe goddess for blessings of any description. Thus Xenophon consecrated\nfifty courtesans to the Corinthian Venus, in pursuance of the vow which\nhe had made when he besought the goddess to give him the victory in the\nOlympian games. Pindar makes Xenophon thus address these slaves of the\ngoddess: \u201cOh, young damsels, who receive all strangers and give them\nhospitality, priestesses of the goddess Pitho in the rich Corinth, it\nis you who, in causing the incense to burn before the images of Venus\nand in invoking the mother of love, often merit for us her celestial\naid, and procure for us the sweet moments which we taste on the\nluxurious couches where is gathered the delicate fruit of beauty.\u201d\n\nThe legitimate inference to be made from what has gone before is that\nsacred prostitution sprang from the primitive custom of providing\nsexual hospitality for strangers, the agents by which it was carried\nout being supplied by the votaries of the deity under whose sanction\nthe custom was placed. Assuming its existence, and the strong desire\non the part of married women for children, which led them to sacrifice\ntheir own virginity as an offering to the Goddess of Fecundity, or to\ndedicate their daughters to her service, we have a perfect explanation\nof the custom of sacred prostitution. The duty of these \u201cservants of\nthe idol\u201d would include the furnishing of hospitality to the strangers\nwho visited the shrines and f\u00eates of the deity. These pilgrims became\nthe guests of the deity, and she was bound to furnish them with the\nsame hospitality as that which they would have met with if they had\nbeen entertained by private individuals. The piety of her worshippers\nenabled her to do this, either by devoting their daughters for a\nlimited period to this sacred service, in return for which the reward\nof fecundity would be looked for, or by presenting them absolutely\nto the goddess in return for favours received at her hands. It is\nnot surprising that among peoples having such notions, the temple\ncourtesans were regarded with great respect, nor that those who had\nacted in that capacity with success were eagerly sought after as wives.\nIt is more difficult to understand how sexual hospitality should have\ncome to be placed under divine sanction. The difficulty vanishes,\nhowever, when the light in which the process of generation is viewed\nin the East is considered. That which by us is looked upon as due to\na passionate impulse, was anciently (except among certain religious\nsects), and is still to the Eastern mind, an act of mysterious\nsignificance. The male organ of generation was the symbol of creative\npower, and the veneration in which it was held led to practices which\nto a modern European are nothing but disgusting, although to the Semite\nthey partake of a purely religious character.\n\nTo pursue this subject further would be to enter upon the wide field of\nPhallic worship. Sufficient has, however, already been said to prove\nthat sacred prostitution is only remotely connected, if at all, with\ncommunal marriage. The only apparent connection between them is the\nsexual hospitality to strangers which the former was established to\nsupply; but the association is only apparent, as the providing of that\nhospitality is perfectly consistent with the recognition of the value\nof female chastity, and is quite independent of any ideas entertained\nas to marriage.\n\nIn conclusion, I may add that the opinion expressed by Sir John\nLubbock,[236] that the Grecian _het\u00e6r\u00e6_ were more highly esteemed than\nthe married women, because the former were originally countrywomen and\nrelations, and the latter captives and slaves, is not consistent with\nthe facts of the case. Any one conversant with the social customs of\nancient Greece will be able to give a totally different explanation\nof that phenomenon. Marriage with foreign women was forbidden, and\nthus captives and slaves furnished the Greeks with concubines and\nprostitutes, while their wives were taken from among their own\ncountrywomen. Even such was the case in the earliest heroic ages,\nwhen, says Mr. Gladstone, the intercourse between husband and wife was\n\u201cthoroughly natural, full of warmth, dignity, reciprocal deference,\nand substantial, if not conventional delicacy.\u201d The same writer says:\n\u201cThe relations of youth and maiden generally are indicated with extreme\nbeauty and tenderness in the Iliad; and those of the unmarried woman\nto a suitor, or probable spouse, are so portrayed, in the case of the\nincomparable Nausicaa, as to show a delicacy and freedom that no period\nof history or state of manners can surpass.\u201d[237]\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[230] Sir John Lubbock\u2019s \u201cOrigin of Civilisation,\u201d 3rd ed., p. 96.\n\n[231] Clio, sec. 199.\n\n[232] Bk. ii., Melpom., 172.\n\n[233] \u201cAncient Egyptians,\u201d iv., 204.\n\n[234] Mrs. Spier\u2019s \u201cLife in Ancient India,\u201d p. 281.\n\n[235] \u201cJourney,\u201d iii., 219.\n\n[236] _Op. cit._, p. 120.\n\n[237] \u201cJuventus Mundi,\u201d pp. 408, 411.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nMARRIAGE AMONG PRIMITIVE PEOPLES.\n\n\nThe usual idea associated with the term \u201cmarriage\u201d is the union in\ndomestic life of a single pair of individuals, and with few exceptions\nthis is the only marriage recognised by Christian peoples. We learn\nfrom the Old Testament Scriptures that the Hebrews had different\nideas on that subject. They not only considered it allowable for a\nman to have more than one wife, but apparently they thought he might\nhave as many wives as he chose. This system of marriage, to which the\nterm polygamy has been usually applied, is still prevalent in most\ncountries outside of the European area. The monogamous and polygamous\nforms of marriage are, however, by no means the only possible ones.\nInstead of a man and a woman living together, a number of individuals\nmay thus associate, and in lieu of a man having several wives a woman\nmay conceivably have more than one husband. Moreover, marriage may be\nsubject to varying regulations or restrictions, causing the same system\nto present dissimilar features in different localities. That which is\n_possible_ in social life may reasonably be expected to occur somewhere\nor other on the earth\u2019s surface; and, as a fact, all the types of\nmarriage referred to are to be found among peoples of the Eastern\nHemisphere.\n\nIt can hardly be doubted that the most civilised races, of which we\nmay call the modern world, have, with the exception of the Chinese,\nbelonged to the two great branches of the Caucasian stock, the\nAryan and the Semitic-speaking peoples. Those races, and especially\nsuch of them as inhabit the Western part of the Old Continent, have\nshown a preference for monogamy or polygamy, the former being almost\nrestricted to Europeans, the latter being nearly universal among the\nAsiatic portion of the Caucasian stock. The inferior races, however,\npossess the least advanced systems of marriage. The natives of the\nAustralian Continent are usually regarded as the most uncivilised of\nmankind, and among them there has been developed a system which some\npersons would probably consider not entitled to the name of marriage.\nIn it individuals give place theoretically to groups, between whom\nthe marriage relation is supposed to be formed, the individuals being\ntreated only as members of a group. The existence of this peculiar\nsystem has been established by the inquiries of the Rev. Lorimer Fison,\nwho has shown, moreover, that Australian marriage \u201cis something\nmore than the marriage of group to group, _within a tribe_. It is\nan arrangement, extending across a Continent, which divides many\nwidely-scattered tribes into intermarrying classes, and gives a man\nof one class marital rites over women of another class in a tribe a\nthousand miles away, and speaking a language other than his own. It\nseems to be strong evidence of the common origin of all the Australian\ntribes among whom it prevails; and it is a striking illustration of how\ncustom remains fixed while language changes.\u201d[238] An American writer,\nMr. Lewis Morgan, who was the first to point out the prevalence among\nthe less cultured races of mankind of relationship which he terms\n\u201c_classificatory_,\u201d in opposition to the _descriptive_ relationships\nof the superior races, states that, according to Australian marriage,\n\u201ca group of males distinguished by the same class name are the born\nhusbands of a group of females bearing another class name; and\nwhenever a male of this class meets a female of the other class, they\nrecognise each other as husband and wife, and their right to live in\nthis relation is regarded by the tribe to which they belong.\u201d The\npeculiarity of this system is, not that each individual is entitled\nto take a wife or husband out of a particular group, but that, in\ntheory, every individual is from birth the husband or wife of all the\nmembers of a special group. Mr. Fison remarks further that the idea\nof marriage under that system is founded on the rights neither of the\nwoman nor of the man. It is based \u201con the rights of the tribe, or\nrather of the classes into which the tribe is divided. Class marriage\nis not a contract entered into by two parties. It is a natural state\ninto which both parties are born, and they have to be content with\nthat state whereunto they are called.\u201d But what is the nature of the\nsocial organisation to which the system of group marriage belongs? At\nthe present time nearly all the existing Australian tribes are divided\ninto four classes, into one of which every individual is born. The\nmembers of each class are supposed to trace their descent to the same\ncommon female ancestor, they are treated as of the same degrees of\nkinship to each other, and they are not allowed to intermarry. There\nis reason to believe that originally, perhaps when the ancestors of\nall the existing tribes resided in the same neighbourhood, each tribe\nconsisted of only two classes. In this case, the law of group marriage,\nunder the regulations as to marriage and descent just mentioned, would\nrequire that all the members of each class should be real or tribal\nbrothers and sisters of each other, and the husbands and wives of all\nthe members of the other class. The theoretical result would be, that\nall the men of each class would have their wives in common, and all\nthe women of each class their husbands in common. Whether the number\nof individuals in each group was large or small, the result would be\nthe same. In practice, the exercise of the extended marriage right\nwould be restricted to a few individuals, but that its existence is\ngenerally understood is shown by the statement of a native servant,\nwho had travelled far and wide in Australia, that \u201che was furnished\nwith temporary wives by the various tribes with whom he sojourned in\nhis travels; that his right to those women was recognised as a matter\nof course; and that he could always ascertain whether they belonged\nto the division into which he could legally marry, though the places\nwere a thousand miles apart, and the languages quite different.\u201d This\nparticular case might, perhaps, be explained as an extreme example of\nthe granting of sexual hospitality; but Mr. Fison refers to several\nfacts which prove the reality of the relationships arising out of\ngroup marriage, and therefore of this system itself. He states that\nan Australian \u201chas the rights of a brother, and he acknowledges the\nduties of a brother, towards every man of his own group; and he can\nno more marry a woman of a group which is \u2018sister\u2019 to his own than we\ncan marry our own sister.\u201d Among the Australians, as among some other\nraces who are supposed to have had at one time a similar marriage\nsystem, a mother-in-law and a son-in-law mutually avoid each other.\nThis conduct is based on the fact that the mother-in-law belongs to the\nclass of women over whom the son-in-law has a marital right, but as\nshe is _specially_ forbidden to him they must keep out of each other\u2019s\nway. Again, the incidents attendant on adoption are in accordance with\nthe reality of group relationships. A person who is adopted into a\ngens or family \u201cforthwith abandons all the relationships of his own\ngens, and takes those of the gens into which he is adopted,\u201d a result\nwhich is due to the fact that relationship is conceived, not between\nindividual and individual, but between group and group. Extraordinary\nas is the Australian system at the present time, when each class, or\nintermarrying group, embraces so many individuals, it would not appear\nso strange if, as was originally the case, each group consisted only of\nthe immediate descendants of the common female ancestor. In this case\nall the males in any particular generation of each family group would\nbe the husbands of all the females in the same generation of the other\nfamily; in other words, all the men of each group would have their\nwives in common and all the women their husbands in common. Moreover,\nthe actual practice of the Australian tribes differs from the theory.\nEvery man and every woman is permanently married to an individual of\nthe opposite sex, and often this connection is formed at an early\nage by arrangement between the parents of the persons concerned. In\naddition, however, each of these persons may be allotted by the great\ncouncil of the tribe as an \u201caccessory spouse,\u201d or _pirauru_, to some\nother individual. The Australian system, therefore, presents a mixture\nof individual marriage and group marriage, the latter of which is\nevidently closely connected with the right of sexual hospitality, which\nis considered by the savage mind as natural and of great importance.\n\nAustralian marriage is thus based on what may be theoretically termed\nthe natural marriage between two groups of individuals whose wishes are\nnever consulted in the matter. The same arrangement might, of course,\nbe made among the individuals themselves, and, curiously enough, a form\nof group marriage, much restricted in its operation, was at one time\nfully recognised among the Polynesian Islands of the Pacific. This\nsystem was known as _punalua_, and it consisted in two or more brothers\nhaving their wives, or two or more sisters having their husbands, in\ncommon. Here, brothers and sisters form one group, and the wives of\nthe one with the husbands of the other, themselves being brothers\nand sisters (actual or tribal), form another group answering to the\nintermarrying classes of the Australians. The Polynesian _punalua_\nand the Australian group marriage are, therefore, fundamentally the\nsame.[239] The Australian system is much the more comprehensive,\nhowever, as it affects all the members of a class, while the Polynesian\naffects only the persons immediately concerned. Each punaluan group\nappears to be formed independently, with the consent of all the\nparties to the arrangement, and without conferring any sexual right on\nthe children belonging to it. This is totally unlike the Australian\npractice, which recognises individuals only as members of particular\ngroups, standing to each other in a certain marital relation and\nperpetuated by descent through their female members. The latter may be\ndescribed as _hereditary_ punalua, as distinguished from the Polynesian\nsystem, which is purely personal.\n\nMr. Morgan points out that _punalua_ may be of two forms, one founded\non the brotherhood of the husbands, and the other on the sisterhood\nof the wives, the men of each group being polygamous and the women\npolyandrous. Both forms of that marriage arrangement are said to have\nexisted among the natives of America, although, when discovered by\nEuropeans, the family with them was founded on marriage between single\npairs, but without exclusive cohabitation. Thus, it was not uncommon\nfor a man who married an eldest daughter to claim all his wife\u2019s\nsisters, and he appears to have occasionally allowed his brothers\nto participate in the matrimonial privileges. In other cases, a man\nmarried the sister of his deceased wife as a matter of course, but\nhe did not take her in his wife\u2019s lifetime. Similar customs exist in\nsome parts of Australia, where the old system of marriage has been\nalmost forgotten. The polyandrous form of punalua was known to the\nAustralians either as a feature of the group right, or in the course of\nits decadence. Thus, every woman had accessory husbands or paramours\nwho associated with her temporarily, notwithstanding that she had a\nrecognised husband with whom she habitually cohabited. Mr. T. E. Lance\nmentions a tribe in which most of the women are nominally the wives of\nelderly men, who are, however, obliged to lend them on stated occasions\nto the younger men of the allowed classes.\n\nIt is evident that circumstances may favour the development of either\nthe polyandrous or the polygamous form of punalua to the exclusion\nof the other. A scarcity of women would tend to the establishment of\nthe former system, as we see in the case of the Todas of Southern\nIndia. This fine race of hillmen were inveterate practisers of\nfemale infanticide down to a recent date, and it was almost the\nuniversal practice for a family of near relations to live together\nin one hut, having wife, children, and cattle in common.[240] The\ncontinued formation of such alliances appears to have led to a result\nmuch resembling the group marriage of the Australians. As Colonel\nMarshall states, \u201cthe family come to be represented mainly by a knot\nof brothers, half-brothers, and cousins, married to closely related\nkinswomen in nearly equal numbers; the men being the common fathers\nof all the progeny; each woman, however, the mother of her own\nchildren only.\u201d[241] The Todas have, under British influence, given\nup the practice of infanticide, but they have fewer female than male\nchildren, owing to a preponderance of male births, and polyandry is\nstill customary among them. A woman is at first married with her own\nconsent to one man, who pays the dowry. Afterwards, however, \u201cif the\nhusband has brothers, or very near relatives, all living together, they\nmay each, if both she and he consent, participate in the right to be\nconsidered her husband also, on making up a share of the dowry that\nhas been paid.\u201d[242] Notwithstanding the example of the Todas, it must\nnot be thought that a scarcity of women is essential to the existence\nof polyandry. In Tibet this system of marriage is universal, and it\nhas been so from time immemorial. Nevertheless, unmarried women are\nnumerous, and infanticide is not practised. Mr. Andrew Wilson defined\nTibetan polyandry as the marriage of one woman to two or more brothers,\nand these are actual brothers, although at one time probably they may\nalso have been tribal. The choice of a wife is the right of the elder\nbrother, and Mr. Wilson states[243] that \u201camong the Tibetan-speaking\npeople it universally prevails that the contract he makes is understood\nto involve a marital contract with all the brothers, if they choose to\navail themselves of it.\u201d Moreover, all the children of the marriage\nbelong to the eldest brother, as the head of the family group. In\nLadak,[244] however, the consent of the younger brothers is required\nto the marital partnership, although on the death of the eldest brother\nhis authority, with his property and his widow, devolve upon his next\nbrother, whether or not there has been a polyandrous arrangement.\nMr. Wilson observes[245] that Tibetan polyandry had the effect \u201cof\nchecking the increase of population in regions from which emigration\nis difficult, and where it is also difficult to increase the means\nof subsistence.\u201d It is due to an artificial scarcity of _wives_,\nrather than of women, in which it differs from the polyandry of the\nTodas, which is the consequence of an actual scarcity of females,\ncaused originally by the practice of infanticide, and afterwards by a\npreponderance of male births. Both the Tibetans and the Todas trace\ndescent through the male line\u2014that is, take the family or gentile\nname of the father; but some peoples of Southern India, who practice\npolyandry, prefer the female line. This is not surprising, when we\nfind, as among the Nairs of Malabar, that not only has a woman several\nhusbands, but a man \u201cmay be one in several combinations of husbands.\u201d\nSuch unions, which are governed by certain restrictions as to tribe and\ncaste, closely resemble the Australian group marriage. In Ceylon, where\npolyandry is very prevalent among the Kandyans, marriage is of two\nforms, one termed _deega_, in which the wife goes to live in the house\nand village of her husband or husbands, the other, termed _beena_, in\nwhich the husband or husbands come to reside with her in the house\nof her birth. The Tibetan polyandry may be a form of the _deega_\nmarriage, and the Nair polyandry a form of the _beena_ marriage,\nalthough it is possible that the latter may be a \u201cmere freak,\u201d if it\nbe true (as Mr. Wilson affirms) that the Nairs are nominally married\nto girls of their own caste, but never have any intercourse with their\nwives, who may have as many lovers as they please, provided they are\nBrahmins or Nairs, other than the husband. These lovers answer to the\nparamours of the Australian system, but, whereas the latter occupy\na secondary place, among the Nairs it is the husband who is in that\nposition. This custom may not improbably be explained by the remarks\nof a Mohammedan writer, who says,[246] with regard to the marriages\nof the Brahmins of Malabar, \u201cwhen there are several brothers in one\nfamily, the eldest of them alone enters into the conjugal state (except\nin cases where it is evident that he will have no issue), the remainder\nrefraining from marriage, in order that heirs may not multiply to the\nconfusion of inheritance. The younger brothers, however, intermarry\nwith women of the Nair caste without entering into any compact with\nthem, thus following the custom of the Nairs, who have themselves no\nconjugal contract. In the event of any children being born from these\nconnections, they are excluded from the inheritance; but should it\nappear evident that the elder brother will not have issue, then another\nbrother, the next to him in age, will marry.\u201d The irregular marriages\nwith the Nair women were, perhaps, introduced by the Brahmins to\nprovide wives for the brothers of their caste who were not allowed to\nmarry. The original Nair polyandry may have been similar to that of the\ncarpenters, ironsmiths, painters, and other Malabar castes, who (says\nthe same writer) \u201ccohabit, two or more together, with one woman, but\nnot unless they are brothers, or in some way related, lest confusion\nshould ensue in the inheritance of property.\u201d\n\nIt is thought, from certain facts mentioned in the Mah\u00e1 Bh\u00e1rata, that\npolyandry was a recognised institution among the early Hindus, and\nthat the eldest brother had the right, as now among the Tibetans,\nto choose a wife for the family. Some writers have gone so far even\nas to assert that all the peoples of the primitive Aryan stock, and\nour own British ancestors amongst them, practised the same custom or\nsome form of group marriage. Mr. J. F. M\u2019Lennan regarded the Hebrew\nlaw of the Levirate, which required a younger son to take his elder\nbrother\u2019s widow if he had died childless, as having been derived\nfrom the practice of polyandry. Whether this was so, or whether it\nwas merely a regulation to prevent the elder branch of a stock from\nbecoming extinct, traces of polyandry have undoubtedly been met with\namong peoples of the Semitic stock. It would seem, however, to have\nbeen most prevalent among the tribes of Southern Arabia, and it was\nprobably due, chiefly to the poverty of the people,[247] as among the\nTibetans, who may have directly influenced the development of polyandry\nin Arabia. The true marriage system of the Semitic peoples was punalua\nof the polygamous form, in which several sisters had a husband in\ncommon. We have an instance of it in the marriage of Jacob with the\nsisters Leah and Rachel. At a later period, however, when blood or even\ntribal relationship between the wives was not required, the practice\nof polygamy became fully established. This system has attained its\nchief development among the Semitic races and those African peoples who\nare allied to them by blood. The most widely-spread forms of marriage\nnow existing are polygamy and monogamy, and while the former may be\ntraced to the polygamous phase of punalua or group marriage, it is not\nimprobable that the latter is traceable to the polyandrous phase. At\nall events, monogamy has been established chiefly among those races\nwho are supposed, formerly, to have been polyandrous. The Australians,\namong whom group marriage has reached so full a development, are said\nto show a tendency to the introduction of individual marriage. Descent\nthrough the female line, which was, at one time, universal among\nthem, is giving place to descent through males, where residence has\nbecome fixed and property accumulated. The change is accompanied by a\nweakening of the group right, and the gradual introduction of marriage\n\u201cby gifts, by exchange, by capture, and by elopement, one or other of\nthese predominating.\u201d The rights of the individual are thus substituted\nfor those of the group, and individual marriage is recognised.\n\nStrange as are the various marriage systems we have referred to, they\nare based on the very simple principle that every individual has a\nsexual right. The conditions under which this right may be exercised\nvary among different peoples, their operation giving rise to the\npeculiar married arrangements in question. Among the Australians,\nalmost the only restriction on sexual unions appears to be that arising\nfrom consanguinity. Their marriage regulations have evidently been\nformed with the intention of absolutely prohibiting unions between\npersons near of kin. Although marriage with a sister of the half-blood\nis often permitted, and for special reasons marriage with a full sister\nmay be allowed, the objection to consanguineous unions may be declared\nto be universal among peoples of a low degree of culture. Their\nmarriage regulations, however, are generally intended to have certain\npositive results. The chief result aimed at would seem to be the\nprevention of over-population. This fact, combined with the recognition\nof the sexual rights of man, accounts for the polyandry of the Tibetans\nand the Hindus, and the attainment of it is in many cases aided by the\npractice of infanticide. Polygamy, on the other hand, has no apparent\nrelation to the question of population. It is connected rather with the\nrights of the gens or family to which the women belong, the man having,\nin many cases, certain duties to perform before he can obtain his wife\nor wives. The development of polygamy is, moreover, attended with an\ninvasion of the sexual rights of individuals; as the appropriation of\nthe women by the rich or powerful often renders the obtaining of wives\nby the poor or weak difficult, if not impossible.\n\nThe objection entertained by peoples of a low degree of culture to\nthe marriage of persons near of kin is a strong ground of objection\nto Mr. Morgan\u2019s theory that consanguineous unions were the earliest\nto be formed; in other words, that \u201cpromiscuous intermarriage between\nbrothers and sisters and others of the closest kin\u201d was, at one time,\ncustomary. Mr. Fison refers to various practices which he thinks\npoint to the former existence of such a state of things among the\nAustralians. In reality, however, they are merely incidents of the\ngroup marriage which has been developed by that race, or at most, the\nresult of temporary suspension under special circumstances of the\nrestrictions which that system enforces. They are, indeed, cases of\nlicentiousness similar to what is often met with among many peoples\nduring religious and other festivals. The occurrence of a temporary\ncondition of lawlessness on various occasions, such as the death of a\nchief or the celebration of an important event, is not unknown even to\ncivilised nations. Mr. Morgan\u2019s opinion as to the former prevalence\nof consanguineous marriages derives no real support from the fact\nmentioned by Mr. Fison, and as I have elsewhere[248] shown, marriages\nof that character are not required to account for the phenomena\nexhibited in the classificatory system of relationship which exists\namong the primitive races of mankind.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[238] \u201cKamilaroi and Kurnai,\u201d p. 54.\n\n[239] Mr. Fison alludes to the New Zealand practice of a woman\u2019s\nsuitors wrestling for her, which is called _punarua_. This word, he\nsays, is the Hawaiian _punalua_, which denotes the common-right of\ntribal brothers to certain women (_note_, p. 153).\n\n[240] \u201cA Phrenologist among the Todas,\u201d by Col. William E. Marshall, p.\n213.\n\n[241] Ditto, p. 226.\n\n[242] \u201cA Phrenologist among the Todas,\u201d by Col. William E. Marshall, p.\n43.\n\n[243] \u201cThe Abode of Snow,\u201d p. 233.\n\n[244] \u201cAncient Society,\u201d by J. F. M\u2019Lennan, p. 158.\n\n[245] _Op. cit._, p. 234.\n\n[246] \u201cTohful-ul-Mujahideen,\u201d p. 63.\n\n[247] \u201cKinship and Marriage in Early Arabia,\u201d pp. 128, 235.\n\n[248] \u201cJournal of the Anthropological Institute,\u201d vol. viii. (1879), p.\n144, _et seq._\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nMARRIAGE BY CAPTURE.\n\n\nVarious attempts have been made to account for the prevalence among\npeoples of all degrees of culture of what has been called \u201cmarriage by\ncapture,\u201d or of rites which furnish evidence of its former existence.\nMr. M\u2019Lennan traces it to infanticide, which by \u201crendering women\nscarce, led at once to polyandry within the tribe, and the capturing of\nwomen from without.\u201d On the other hand, Sir John Lubbock ascribes the\norigin of \u201cmarriage by capture\u201d to a desire on the part of individuals\nto acquire women for themselves, \u201cwithout infringing on the general\nrights of the tribe.\u201d According to this view, communal marriage was\nreplaced by special connections, accompanied by the introduction of\na foreign element, giving rise to the practice of _exogamy_. The\nreference to this practice (the necessity for which must, if Mr.\nM\u2019Lennan\u2019s idea is correct, have preceded \u201cmarriage by capture,\u201d\ninstead of the latter originating it) unnecessarily complicates the\nquestion under discussion.\n\nAlthough exogamy is often associated with forcible marriage, the two\nthings are perfectly distinct, and they have had totally different\norigins. Mr. Morgan very justly connects the former with certain ideas\nentertained by primitive peoples with regard to blood relationship,\nand it can be explained most simply and rationally as _marriage out\nof the clan_, it having sprang from the belief that all the members of\na clan are related by blood, and therefore incapable of being united\nin marriage. This view is confirmed by the fact that tribes which are\n_endogamous_ in relation to other tribes are _exogamous_ in the sense\nthat they comprise several clans, the members of none of which can\nintermarry among themselves. We have a curious example of this limited\nexogamy in the Chinese, among whom persons bearing the same family name\nare not permitted to intermarry. True endogamy would seem to exist\namong very few peoples, and when it is practised the custom is probably\ndue to special circumstances, which, giving prominence to a particular\nclan, have enabled them to claim a caste privilege, or it may be owing\nto a necessity arising from the complete severance of the members of a\nclan from their fellows. The scarcity of women, whether occasioned by\ninfanticide or polygamy, may have rendered exogamy more requisite, and\nit may have been complicated by forcible marriage, but none of these\nhave any real bearing on its origin.\n\nIt could be shown without difficulty that the opinion entertained by\nthe writers I have referred to, that the primitive condition of man was\none of communal marriage, is untenable, and if I am correct in this\nconclusion, there will be no occasion to consider the argument that\n\u201cmarriage by capture\u201d depended on such a social condition. The idea\nthat \u201cmarriage by capture\u201d originated in the necessity for exogamy,\narising from infanticide or some other practice, is more plausible,\nand such an explanation of the custom may be accepted where it is\nnot universal in a tribe, but resorted to only in particular cases or\nunder special conditions. The capture of wives among the Australian\naborigines is expressly accounted for by Oldfield as being due to the\nscarcity of women. But where forcible marriage can be traced to the\naction of individual caprice it must be treated as exceptional, and\nsome other explanation must be sought for the widespread practices\nwhich are supposed to prove the former prevalence of that custom. From\nthis standpoint Mr. M\u2019Lennan\u2019s explanation is far from satisfactory,\nas may be shown by analysis of the incidents attendant on \u201cmarriage by\ncapture,\u201d as practised by different peoples.\n\nIt is true that sometimes the carrying off of the bride is resisted\nby her friends, and is attended in some cases, as among the Welsh\ndown to a comparatively recent period, by a sham fight between them\nand the friends of the bridegroom; although among other peoples, as\nwith the Khonds of India, the protection of the bride is left to\nher female companions. In the great majority of cases cited by Sir\nJohn Lubbock, however, the suitor forcibly removes the bride without\nany hindrance from her friends. Occasionally, as with the Tunguses,\nthe New Zealanders, and the Mandingos, she strongly resists. Among\nother peoples, as with the Esquimaux, the resistance is usually only\npretended, and is thus analogous to the sham fight already referred to.\nIn all these cases alike, however, it is the girl only who has to be\nconquered, and if the resistance were real it would depend on herself\nwhether or not she should be captured. There are other incidents of\nthis forcible marriage which have more significance than has hitherto\nbeen attached to them. Among the New Zealanders, if the girl who\nis being carried off can break away from her captor and regain her\nfather\u2019s house, the suitor loses all chance of ever obtaining her in\nmarriage. So, also, among the Fijians, if a woman does not approve of\nthe man who has taken her by force to his house, she leaves him for\nsome one who can protect her. Among the Fuegians the girl who is not\nwilling to accept her would-be husband does not wait to be carried off,\nbut hides herself in the woods, and remains concealed until he is tired\nof looking for her. According to Mongol custom, the bride hides herself\nwith some of her relations, and the bridegroom has to search for and\nfind her. Something like the Fuegian custom is practised by the Aitas,\namong whom the bride has to conceal herself in a wood, where the suitor\nmust find her before sunset.\n\nIn these cases the will of the bride-elect is a very important element,\nand it is equally so in those cases where she is captured and carried\noff only after a prolonged chase. Thus, with the Kalmucks, according\nto Dr. Clarke, the girl gallops away at full speed, pursued by her\nsuitor, and if she does not wish to marry him she always effects her\nescape. An analogous custom is found among the uncultured tribes of the\nMalayan Peninsula. Here, however, the chase is on foot, and generally\nround a circle, although sometimes in the forest, and, as Bourien\n(quoted by Sir John Lubbock) says, the pursuer is successful only if\nhe \u201chas had the good fortune to please the intended bride.\u201d A similar\ncustom is found among the Koraks of NorthEastern Asia. Here the\nceremony takes place within a large tent containing numerous separate\ncompartments (_pologs_), arranged in a continuous circle around its\ninner circumference. Mr. Kennan (in his \u201cTent Life in Siberia\u201d) gives\nan amusing and instructive description of such a ceremony. The women of\nthe encampment, armed with willow and alder rods, stationed themselves\nat the entrances of the pologs, the front curtains of which were\nthrown up. Then, at a given signal, \u201cthe bride darted suddenly into\nthe first polog, and began a rapid flight around the tent, raising\nthe curtains between the pologs successively, and passing under. The\nbridegroom instantly followed in hot pursuit, but the women who were\nstationed in each compartment threw every possible impediment in his\nway, tripping up his unwary feet, holding down the curtains to prevent\nhis passage, and applying the willow and alder switches unmercifully\nto a very susceptible part of his body as he stooped to raise them....\nWith undismayed perseverance he pressed on, stumbling headlong over the\noutstretched feet of his female persecutors, and getting constantly\nentangled in the ample folds of the reindeer-skin curtains, which\nwere thrown with the skill of a matador over his head and eyes. In a\nmoment the bride had entered the last closed polog near the door, while\nthe unfortunate bridegroom was still struggling with his accumulated\nmisfortunes about half way round the tent. I expected,\u201d says the\ntraveller, \u201cto see him relax his efforts and give up the contest when\nthe bride disappeared, and was preparing to protest strongly on his\nbehalf against the unfairness of the trial; but, to my surprise, he\nstill struggled on, and with a final plunge, burst through the curtain\nof the last polog, and rejoined his bride,\u201d who had waited for him\nthere. Mr. Kennan adds that \u201cthe intention of the whole ceremony was\nevidently to give the woman an opportunity to marry the man or not, as\nshe chose, since it was obviously impossible for him to catch her under\nsuch circumstances, unless she voluntarily waited for him in one of the\npologs.\u201d\n\nJudging only from the element of force observable in what are termed\n\u201cmarriages by capture,\u201d the explanation of them given by Mr. M\u2019Lennan\nappears reasonable. But, although capture may be an incident of\nexogamy, the customs under consideration are really connected with\nendogamy, in the sense that the parties to them belong to a common\ntribe. Moreover, those customs are wanting in another of the elements\nwhich would be necessary to justify their being classed as \u201csurvivals\u201d\nof an earlier practice of forcible exogamy. This pre-supposes the\nabsence of consent on the part of the relatives of the bride, but\nthe so-called marriage by capture is nearly always preceded by an\narrangement with them. The only exception among the various examples of\nsuch marriages mentioned by Sir John Lubbock is that of the inhabitants\nof Bali, where the man is said to forcibly carry off his bride to the\nwoods, and to _afterwards_ effect reconciliation with her \u201cenraged\u201d\nfriends. It is not improbable, however, that rage may be simulated in\nthis case as in others, and that the capture is arranged beforehand\nwith them. Sir John Lubbock himself explains an apparent act of lawless\nviolence among the Mandingos as an incident of \u201cmarriage by capture,\u201d\non the ground that the bride\u2019s relatives \u201conly laughed at the farce,\nand consoled her by saying that she would soon be reconciled to her\nsituation;\u201d and it appears that her mother had previously given her\nconsent to the proceeding. A mere general understanding, if universally\nrecognised, would indeed be as efficacious as a special consent,\nand whether the consent of the parent has to be obtained previously\nto overcoming the opposition of the bride, or whether this has to\nbe overcome as a condition precedent to the consent being given, is\npractically of no importance. We seem to have an example of the latter\nin the marriage customs of the Afghans as described by Elphinstone.\nAmong this people wives are always purchased, and the necessity for\npaying the usual price is not done away with, although a man is allowed\nto make sure of his bride by cutting off a lock of her hair, snatching\naway her veil, or throwing a sheet over her, if he declares at the same\ntime that she is his affianced wife.\n\nThe facts just mentioned lead to the conclusion that the \u201ccapture\u201d\nwhich forms the most prominent incident in the marriage customs under\ndiscussion, has a totally different significance from that which is\nconnected with exogamy in the sense supposed by Mr. M\u2019Lennan and Sir\nJohn Lubbock. In the latter case force is resorted to to prevent the\npossibility of opposition by the tribe to whom the victim of the\nviolence belongs; but in the former, as the consent of the woman\u2019s\nrelatives had already been given, expressly or by implication, the\nforce must be to overcome the possible opposition of the woman\nherself, whether this may arise from bashfulness or from an actual\ndislike to the suitor. We have here an important distinction, and\nit points to a state of society where women have acquired a right\nto exercise a choice in the matter of marriage. Before this right\ncould be fully established the suitor would be allowed to obtain her\ncompliance by force, if necessary, as with the Greenlanders, among\nwhom, according to Crantz, the bride, if, after she has been captured\nby the old women who negotiated the marriage, she cannot be persuaded\nby kind and courteous treatment, is \u201ccompelled by force, nay, sometimes\nby blows, to change her state.\u201d But even among the Greenlanders, if\na girl had great repugnance to her suitor, she could escape marriage\nby betaking herself to the mountains. A still more efficacious plan\nis the cutting off of her hair, which frees her from all importunity,\nas it is accepted as a sure sign that she has determined never to\nmarry. \u201cMarriage by capture\u201d has thus relation not to the tribe but\nto the individual immediately concerned, and it is based on her power\nto withhold her consent to the contract made between her suitor and\nher relatives. Among some uncultured peoples the opposition of the\nbride-elect is effectually overcome by force, but it is seldom that\nshe is not allowed the opportunity of escaping a marriage which she\ndislikes. When once it has become usual for the bride to show a real\nor simulated opposition to the proposed marriage, as might easily be\nthe case among peoples who, although uncultured, esteem chastity before\nmarriage, it would in course of time be firmly established as a general\ncustom. Thus, when a Greenland young woman is asked in marriage she\nprofesses great bashfulness, tears her ringlets, and runs away. When\nthe show of opposition had become a matter of etiquette, it would,\nnotwithstanding that the marriage had been previously arranged, be\njoined in by the friends of the bride, who, by a fiction, is being\ncarried off against her will. Hence the customs of having a sham fight\nbefore the bridegroom is allowed to gain possession of his prize, and\nthe placing of impediments in the way of his catching her in the chase,\nneither of which has any relation to a supposed primitive practice of\nforcible abduction from a hostile tribe.\n\nIt will be said, however, if the relations of the bride have consented\nto her marriage, why do they oppose the carrying into effect of their\nagreement? Much light is thrown on this point by the description given\nby Colonel Dalton of the customs of the hill-tribes of Bengal.[249]\nWith many of the aboriginal peoples of India, and with some Sudra\ncastes, one of the most important ceremonies of marriage is the\napplication of the _Sindur_ to the forehead of the bride; this consists\nin the bridegroom making, usually with vermilion, a red mark between\nher eyes. In some places, however, particularly in Singhbum, among the\nHos, the bridegroom and bride mark each other with blood, signifying\nthat by marriage they become one. Colonel Dalton supposes this to be\nthe origin of the _Sindrahan_, a custom which is as singular as it is\nwidespread. With the Oraons, a Dravidian tribe, the same ceremony is\npractised, but in secret. A veil is cast over the bridal pair, who\nare then covered with another piece of stuff held by some of their\nmale relations, while others mount guard, fully armed, as though to\nkill any one who might approach to interfere with the ceremony. In the\nSinghbum villages the ceremony is modified, and the engaged couple\ndrink beer from the same vessel. This signifies that they form only\none body, belong to the same _kili_\u2014in other words, that the woman\nis admitted to the clan of her husband. Dr. Hunter, in his admirable\nwork entitled \u201cAnnals of Rural Bengal,\u201d says the great event of the\nlife of a Santal is the union of his \u201ctribe\u201d with another \u201ctribe\u201d in\nmarriage. No individual can marry a member of his own clan, and the\nwoman in marrying abandons the clan of her father, as well as his gods,\nto adopt the clan and the gods of her husband. The ceremony by which\nthe Santals express this separation is different from that adopted\nby the Hos. The husband\u2019s clansmen knot together the garments of the\nbridegroom and the bride, after which the women of the bride\u2019s clan\nbring lighted charcoal, crush it with a pestle to indicate the breaking\nof the old family tie, and then extinguish it with water to indicate\nthe definitive separation of the bride from her own clan. As we have\nseen, this separation is effected among the Oraons in the presence\nof the members of the two clans, and the sham combat by which the\nmarriage ceremonies commence is evidently intended to show that it is\nindispensable to obtain the consent, not only of the bride, but also\nof the family group to which she belongs, before the ties which bind\nher to the clan can be broken. After offering a pretended resistance,\nthe clansmen of the bride express their consent in joining with the\nrelations of the bridegroom to celebrate the formation of the fresh\nfamily tie.\n\nAt first sight, it might be thought that there is little difference\nbetween this explanation of \u201cmarriage by capture\u201d and that given by\nSir John Lubbock, but in reality they differ completely. Sir John\nLubbock supposes a violent capture from another tribe without any\nreference to the question of clanship. On the other hand, in the\nexplanation above proposed, there is a change in the position of the\nwoman, but it is brought about by arrangement, the pretended combat\nhaving relation to the rights of the clan, but having no reference\nto the wider organisation of the tribe. The sham-fight is simply a\nphase of the ceremonies, destined to show the objection entertained\nby a family group to part with one of its members, and, what is of\nstill greater importance, to give up the interest they possess in the\nfuture offspring of the woman who is to be cut off from the clan.\nThe essentially pacific character of the sham-fight is shown by the\nmanner in which, as described by Colonel Dalton, it is conducted in\nGondwana. Among the Muasi of this district, when the cavalcade of the\nbridegroom approaches the house of the bride, there issues from it a\nmerry troop of young girls, who are headed by the mother of the bride,\nbearing on her head a vessel full of water, surmounted by a lighted\nlamp. When the girls come near the bridegroom\u2019s friends they throw at\nthem balls of boiled rice, after which they beat a retreat. The young\nmen pursue them to the door of the house, which, however, they cannot\nenter until they have made presents to its female defenders. The fact\nthat among nearly all the peoples who have \u201cmarriage by combat,\u201d the\nchildren belong to the clan of their father, confirms the truth of the\nconclusion I have sought to establish, that the ceremony in question\nhas relation to the clan, and not to the bride. Among the primitive\npeoples to whom it would be necessary, on the hypothesis of Sir John\nLubbock, to trace the origin of that curious custom, the children\nusually belong to the family group of their mother. The sham-fight\ncould be introduced when a change has taken place in the condition of\nwomen; but this would imply a phase of civilisation much more recent\nthan that of the Australians and other barbarous tribes, to whose\npractice of stealing women for wives, which is mere forcible marriage,\nhas been wrongly traced the origin of \u201cmarriage by capture.\u201d\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[249] The Ethnology of Bengal.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nDEVELOPMENT OF THE \u201cFAMILY.\u201d\n\n\nMr. M\u2019Lennan has remarked, in relation to the curious customs of\ncapturing women for wives found among peoples in all parts of the\nworld, that \u201cin almost all cases the form of capture is the symbol\nof a group-act\u2014of a siege, or a pitched battle, or an invasion of a\nhouse by an armed band, while in a few cases only, and these much\ndisintegrated, it represents a capture by an individual. On the one\nside are the kindred of the husband; on the other the kindred of the\nwife.\u201d[250] Whatever may be the true explanation of the origin of\nexogamy, with which the custom referred to is connected, there can be\nno doubt of the truth of the statement that the wife-capture is now\nusually, although it sometimes has relation solely to the individual,\nthe symbol of a group-act. This may not be in the sense intended by\nMr. M\u2019Lennan, who looks upon exogamy and polyandry as referable to\none and the same cause, and who regards \u201call the exogamous races as\nhaving originally been polyandrous.\u201d[251] The phenomena of wife-capture\nprove conclusively, however, that the family group to which the woman\nbelonged possessed, or thought themselves entitled to, certain rights\nover her\u2014rights of which they resisted the invasion, whether by an\nindividual alone, or by a group of persons, or by an individual aided\nby the other members of a group. It is important to notice that the\ngroups in question appear to consist, not of strangers to each other,\nor to the man or woman more immediately concerned, but of persons\nbound together by certain ties of blood. This is shown to be so by the\nfact that the capture is atoned for by the payment to the relations\nof the woman of the marriage-price, if this has not been agreed on\nbeforehand.[252] It is required, moreover, by the conclusion arrived at\nby Mr. M\u2019Lennan, that the tribes among whom the system of wife-capture\nprevails are chiefly those whose marriages are governed by the law\nof exogamy.[253] By exogamy is meant the practice of marrying out of\nthe tribe or group of kindred,[254] and it is founded on a prejudice\nagainst marriage with kinsfolk.[255] There is some uncertainty as\nto the nature of M\u2019Lennan\u2019s primitive group, but, judging from his\nstatement that \u201cpromiscuity, producing uncertainty of fatherhood, led\nto the system of kinship through mothers only,\u201d[256] we may suppose\nthat it consisted of a number of persons, all of whom, as the result\nof promiscuity, were related by blood. The first division into which\nhe classes uncultured peoples, according to their marriage-rules, is\nthat where tribes are separate, and all the members of the tribes are,\nor feign themselves to be, of the same blood.[257] Mr. Morgan very\nproperly criticises this definition, which, he says, \u201cmight answer for\na description of a gens; but the gens is never found alone, separate\nfrom other gentes. There are several gentes intermingled by marriage\nin every tribe composed of gentes,\u201d[258] a fact which would seem to\ndistinguish the primitive group of M\u2019Lennan, although consisting of\nconsanguinei, from a gens or clan proper. Moreover, as Mr. Morgan\nshows, exogamy has relation to a rule or law of a gens, considered\nas \u201cthe unit of organisation of a social system,\u201d and therefore the\ngens (of which, as an institution, the rules are prohibition of\nintermarriage in the gens, and limitation of descent in the female\nline[259]), or rather the family from which it has sprung, may be\nregarded as the earliest social group of which we have any knowledge.\n\nIt is of the greatest importance to the discovery of the nature of the\nprimitive human family to understand the origin of the gens or clan.\nAs defined by Morgan, it is \u201ca body of consanguinei descended from\nthe same common ancestor, distinguished by a gentile name, and bound\ntogether by affinities of blood.\u201d Mr. Morgan affirms that the gens\noriginated in three principal conceptions, \u201cthe bond of kin, a pure\nlineage through descent in the female line, and non-intermarriage in\nthe gens.\u201d[260] The most essential feature is that of tracing kinship\nthrough females only, and the discovery of the origin of this custom\nwill throw light on that of the clan-institution itself, and therefore\non the nature of the primitive family.\n\nMr. M\u2019Lennan finds the origin of kinship through females only in the\nuncertainty of paternity, arising from the fact that, in primitive\ntimes, a woman was not appropriated to a particular man for his wife,\nor to men of one blood as wife.[261] The children, although belonging\nto the horde, remain attached to their mothers, and the blood tie\nobserved between them would, as promiscuity gave place to polyandry\nof the ruder kind in which the husbands are strangers in blood to\neach other, become developed into the system of kinship through\nfemales.[262] An earlier writer, Bachofen, was so much struck with\ncertain social phenomena among the ancients, that he believed women\nto have, at an early period, been supreme, not only in the family but\nin the state. He supposed that woman revolted against the primitive\ncondition of promiscuity, and established a system of marriage, in\nwhich the female occupied the first place as the head of the family,\nand as the person through whom kinship was to be traced. This movement,\nwhich had a religious origin, was followed by another resulting from\nthe development of the idea that the mother occupied a subordinate\nposition in relation to her children, of whom the father was the true\nparent. Mr. M\u2019Lennan very justly objects to this theory that, if\nmarriage was, from the beginning, monogamous, kinship would have been\ntraced through fathers from the first.[263] He adds that \u201cthose signs\nof supremacy on the woman\u2019s part were the direct consequences (1) of\nmarriage _not_ being monogamous, or such as to permit of certainty\nof fatherhood; and (2) of wives not as yet living in their husband\u2019s\nhouses, but apart from them, in the homes of their own mothers.\u201d[264]\nThe meaning of this is, that the phenomena referred to by Bachofen\nwere due to the former prevalence of a system of polyandry, such as\nstill exists among the Nairs of Southern India. It is very improbable,\nhowever, that kinship through the female only could have had the origin\nsupposed by Mr. M\u2019Lennan. According to him one cause of the supremacy\nof woman referred to by Bachofen was the fact of wives living apart\nfrom their husbands in the homes of their own mothers. This custom\nmust, therefore, have preceded the supremacy of woman, assuming this\nto have existed, and the tracing of kinship through females which gave\nrise to it. We must believe that originally women lived alone with\ntheir daughters (and their sons also, until these set up a separate\nestablishment for themselves, taking with them probably their favourite\nsisters, as with the Nairs at the present day),[265] there being no\nmale head of the family. If, however, we trace our steps back in\nthought to the most primitive period of human existence, we shall see\nthat such a domestic state as that here supposed cannot have been the\noriginal one. Among savages there is never that subordination of the\nman to the woman which we should have to assume. We cannot suppose that\nthe primeval group of mankind consisted of a woman and her children,\nand if the woman had a male companion we cannot doubt, judging from\nwhat we know of savage races, that he would be the head and chief\nof the group. The very notion, however, of the family group having\na male as well as a female head is inconsistent with Mr. M\u2019Lennan\u2019s\ntheory, and we must trace the origin of female kinship as a system to a\ndifferent source from the polyandry to which he ascribed it.\n\nThe idea of a special relationship subsisting between a woman and\nher children might no doubt be originated during the period when the\nmen of a group, \u201cin the spirit of indifference, indulged in savage\npromiscuity,\u201d[266] if such a condition of things ever existed, but that\nalone would not be sufficient to establish kinship through females\nonly. It may be questioned, indeed, whether there ever was a time\nwhen the uncertainty of paternity, which Mr. M\u2019Lennan\u2019s whole theory\nrequires, was so pronounced as to prevent kinship through males being\nacknowledged. Mr. Morgan agrees with Mr. M\u2019Lennan so far as to say\nthat, \u201cprior to the gentile organisation, kinship through females was\nundoubtedly superior to kinship through males, and was doubtless the\nprincipal basis upon which the lower tribal groups were organised.\u201d\nHe affirms truly, however, that \u201cdescent in the female line, which is\nall that \u2018kinship through females only\u2019 can possibly indicate,\u201d is\nonly the rule of a gens, and that relationship through the father is\nrecognised as fully as that through the mother.[267] I have elsewhere,\nhowever, given reasons for believing that this statement does not go\nfar enough, and that the earliest forms of the classificatory system of\nrelationships, on which Mr. Morgan bases his special theory, require\nactual kinship, and not relationship merely, through the male quite as\nfully as through the female.\n\nIt is surprising that Mr. Morgan says little as to the origin of\ndescent in the female line. He says: \u201cThe gens, though a very ancient\nsocial organisation founded upon kin, does not include all the\ndescendants of a common ancestor. It was for the reason that, when the\ngens came in, marriage between single pairs was unknown, and descent\nthrough males could not be traced with certainty. Kindred were linked\ntogether chiefly through the bond of their maternity.\u201d[268] We have\nhere apparently two reasons stated for the establishment of kinship\nthrough females, the absence of marriages between single pairs, and\nthe uncertainty of paternity. Both of these conditions are found by\nMr. Morgan to exist in the consanguine family groups which he supposes\nto have been formed when promiscuity ceased. The Polynesian peoples,\namong whom he finds traces of the consanguine family, have preserved\nthe recollection of female kinship, although, according to Mr.\nMorgan, the gens is unknown to them.[269] The classificatory system\nof relationships, the origin of which he traces to the consanguine\nfamily, can, however, receive a totally different interpretation, and\nthe existence of that family itself is very doubtful. Further, the\ndifficulty of tracing descent through males, which Mr. Morgan supposes,\nis the result only of the polyandrous unions his theory requires, and\nif they ever really existed they could supply no further explanation\nof the origin of female kinship than the polyandry of the Nairs. He\nwould have done better to have sought to connect it, as Mr. M\u2019Lennan\ndoes, with the special relation supposed to exist between a mother and\nher child.\n\nMr. Herbert Spencer shows how this idea may have arisen. Unlike the\nother writers I have referred to, he does not think that promiscuity in\nthe relation of the sexes ever existed in an unqualified form.[270] He\nthinks, indeed, that monogamy must have preceded polygamy, although,\nowing to the extension of promiscuity, and the birth of a larger number\nof children to _unknown_ fathers than to _known_ fathers, a habit would\narise of thinking of _maternal_ kinship rather than of _paternal_, and\nwhere paternity was manifest children would come to be spoken of in\nthe same way.[271] Mr. Spencer adds, that the habit having arisen, the\nresulting system of kinship in the female line would be strengthened by\nthe practice of exogamy.[272] The defect of this explanation lies in\nits requiring uncertain paternity, and I shall show that the system of\nfemale kinship has not arisen from the simple association in thought of\na child with its mother in preference to its father. It is, moreover,\ninconsistent with the fact mentioned by Mr. Spencer himself, that\nwhere the system of female kinship now subsists \u201cmale parentage is\nhabitually known.\u201d[273] It is true that he supposes male kinship to be\ndisregarded, but this conclusion appears to me not to be supported by\nsufficient evidence.\n\nThat there may have been a short period of barbarism in which the\nintercourse between the sexes was unrestrained by any law of marriage\nis possible. Probably, as female chastity before marriage is even\nnow but slightly regarded among most uncultured peoples, all sexual\nalliances were allowable, so long as the rule as to consanguinity\nwas not infringed, and so long as no offspring resulted from the\nalliance,[274] where this was entered into without the consent of\nparents. This consent would be necessary in all cases where such\nalliances were formed by females for marital purposes, and the sanction\nrequired would be that of the family head at the early period we\nare treating of. Judging from what we observe among modern savages\nwe cannot doubt that self-interest chiefly would govern the father\nin connection with his daughter\u2019s marriage. He would make certain\nrequisitions as the price of his consent. Whether the marriage was to\nbe a permanent or a terminable engagement, the father would stipulate\nthat his daughter should continue to live with or near him, and that\nher children should belong to the family group of which he is the\nhead. In this case not only would the children form part of the family\nto which their mother belonged, but the husband himself would become\nunited to it, and would be required to labour for the benefit of his\nfather-in-law.\n\nA custom still prevalent among the New Zealanders may be cited in\nillustration. The Reverend Richard Taylor says: \u201cSometimes the father\nsimply told his intended son-in-law he might come and live with his\ndaughter; she was thenceforth considered his wife, he lived with his\nfather-in-law, and became one of his tribe or _hapu_ to which his wife\nbelonged, and in case of war was often obliged to fight against his\nown relatives.\u201d Mr. Taylor adds, that so common is the custom of the\nbridegroom going to live with his wife\u2019s family, that it frequently\noccurs; when he refuses to do so, she will leave him, and go back to\nher relatives.[275] When the wife left her father\u2019s house to reside\nwith her husband he had to purchase the privilege by giving her\nfather and other relations handsome presents.[276] As among the New\nZealanders, children belonged to their father\u2019s family, the fact of\nthe wife going to reside among her husband\u2019s relations meant the loss\nby her father\u2019s family of the children. The presents may, therefore,\nbe supposed to represent the price given by a man for his wife\u2019s\noffspring to her relations. This opinion is confirmed by reference to\nthe marriage customs of a West African people. Mr. John Kizell, in his\ncorrespondence with Governor Columbine, respecting his negotiations\nwith the chiefs in the River Sherbro, says: \u201cThe young women are not\nallowed to have whom they like for a husband; the choice rests with\nthe parents. If a man wishes to marry the daughter, he must bring\nto the value of twenty or thirty bars to the father and mother; if\nthey like the man, and the brother likes him, then they will call all\ntheir family together, and tell them, \u2018we have a man in the house who\nwishes to have our daughter; it is that which makes us call the family\ntogether, that they may know it.\u2019 Then the friends inquire what he has\nbrought with him? the man tells them. They then tell him to go and\nbring a quantity of palm wine. When he returns, they again call the\nfamily together; they all place themselves on the ground, and drink the\nwine, and then give him his wife. In this case, all the children he has\nby her are his, but if he gives nothing for his wife, then the children\nwill all be taken from him, and will belong to the woman\u2019s family; he\nwill have nothing to do with them.\u201d[277]\n\nMr. Taylor says that the ancient and most general way of obtaining a\nwife among the New Zealanders was \u201cfor the gentleman to summon his\nfriends, and make a regular _taua_, or fight, to carry off the lady\nby force, and ofttimes with great violence.\u201d[278] A fight also took\nplace if, when a girl was given in marriage, the friends of another man\nthought he had a greater right to her, or if she eloped with some one\ncontrary to her father\u2019s or brother\u2019s wish. Even if all were agreeable,\n\u201cit was still customary for the bridegroom to go with a party, and\nappear to take her away by force, her friends yielding her up after\na feigned struggle; a few days afterwards, the parents of the lady,\nwith all her relatives, came upon the bridegroom for his pretended\nabduction; after much speaking and apparent anger, it ended with his\nmaking a handsome present of fine mats, &c., and giving an abundant\nfeast.\u201d[279] In this case the affair ended in the same manner as the\nAfrican marriage already referred to, and the idea was no doubt the\nsame in both\u2014the giving of compensation to the parents and relations\nof the woman for the loss sustained by them through her offspring\nbeing removed from the family group; probably the widespread custom of\npretended forcible marriage was originally connected with the rights\nof the woman\u2019s relations, although sometimes the capture is due to the\ndesire to obtain for nothing what could otherwise be acquired only by a\npurchase fee.\n\nWhat those rights are may be ascertained from the information given us\nby Mr. Morgan as to the privileges and obligations associated with the\nmembership of a gens. Among them is an obligation not to marry in the\ngens, mutual rights of inheritance of the property of deceased members,\nand reciprocal obligations of help, defence, and redress of injuries.\n\u201cThe functions and attributes of the gens,\u201d says Morgan, \u201cgave vitality\nas well as individuality to the organisation, and protected the\npersonal rights of its members,\u201d[280] who, as being connected by the\nties of blood relationship, may be regarded as forming an enlarged\nfamily group, or rather a fraternal association based on kinship.\n\nThe gens would, however, form too large a group for ordinary social\npurposes, and a smaller group would be composed of those more\nimmediately allied by blood. Thus, although theoretically the effects\nof a deceased person were distributed among his gentile relations,\nyet Morgan admits that \u201cpractically they were appropriated by the\nnearest of kin.\u201d[281] Among the Iroquois, if a man died leaving a\nwife and children, his property was distributed among his gentiles in\nsuch a manner that his sisters and their children, and his maternal\nuncles, would receive the most of it. His brothers might receive a\nsmall portion. An analogous rule prevailed when a woman died. The\nproperty remained in the gens in either case,[282] although its\ndivision was restricted to a small number of gentiles. It could not\nhave been otherwise where the members of the gens are numerous or\nwidely distributed. The same principle would apply in relation to\nrights over children, who in a low social stage are looked upon in\nthe light of property. Among the aborigines of America each gens had\npersonal names that were used by it alone, and, says Morgan, a gentile\nname conferred of itself gentile rights. Now, although a child was not\nfully christened until its birth and name had been announced to the\ncouncil of the tribe, its name was selected by its mother with the\nconcurrence of her nearest relatives. Morgan says nothing of any right\nof the gens over the marriage of its members, and it would seem not to\nhave any voice in the matter. The formation of the alliance is usually\nleft to the two individuals more immediately concerned or to their near\nrelations,[283] and the marriage price belongs to the parents and near\nkin of the wife. This, in the absence of the marriage price, would be\nthe case also with the children born of her marriage, on the principle\nthat \u201cchildren are the wealth of savages.\u201d Reference to the custom of\nblood revenge confirms the view that, for certain purposes, a smaller\nfamily group than the gens is recognised by the peoples having that\norganisation. Mr. Morgan thinks the practice of blood revenge had \u201cits\nbirthplace in the gens,\u201d which was bound to avenge the murder of one\nof its members. He says further that it was \u201cthe duty of the gens of\nthe slayer, and of the slain, to attempt an adjustment of the crime\nbefore proceeding to extremities.\u201d It rested, however, with the gentile\nkindred of the slain person to decide whether a composition for the\ncrime should be accepted, showing that they were considered the persons\nmore immediately concerned. The crime of murder is, as Mr. Morgan says,\n\u201cas old as human society, and its punishment by the revenge of kinsmen\nis as old as the crime itself.\u201d[284] This is hardly consistent with\nthe preceding statement that the practice of blood revenge had its\nbirthplace in the gens. It preceded the development of the gens, and\noriginated with the smaller family group which, as we have seen, is\nmore immediately connected with property and children and the marriage\nof its female members. Those who are liable to the obligations of the\nlaw of blood revenge in any particular case must be identified, and, as\nthey can hardly comprise all the members of the gens, we must suppose\nthem to be restricted to the smaller group consisting of near blood\nrelations. Judging from what we know of the habits of the Australian\naborigines in relation to the _lex talionis_, we cannot doubt that the\npersons subject to retaliation in any particular case are well defined.\n\nThe example of the Polynesian Islanders, who are said not to have risen\nto the conception of the gens, shows that before this was developed,\nnot only was the _lex talionis_ recognised, but the law of marriage\nand the rights of parents over their children were fully established.\nThese are, therefore, not dependent on the gens, but are incidental\nto a simpler group of blood relations\u2014that on which the gens itself\nis based. The idea of \u201cbrotherhood\u201d is at the foundation of all these\nearly social organisations. Mr. Morgan says, in relation to the\nIroquois _phratry_, that \u201cthe phratry is a brotherhood, as the term\nimports, and a natural growth from the organisation into gentes. It\nis an organic union or association of two or more gentes of the same\ntribe for certain common objects. These gentes were usually such as had\nbeen formed by the segmentation of an original gens.\u201d[285] So also,\na gens forms a fraternal association, as it consists of \u201ca body of\nconsanguinei descended from the same common ancestor, distinguished by\na gentile name, and bound together by affinities of blood.\u201d[286] If we\ntrace the ascent until we come to the common ancestor, we shall have a\ngroup of kinsmen who compose the simplest form of \u201cbrotherhood,\u201d that\nof a parent and his or her children. Originally this would be a mother\nand her daughters, as when the sons formed marriage associations the\ndaughters only and their children would be left under the parental\nroof. It is evident, therefore, that the primitive family cannot have\noriginated within the gens or clan. On the contrary, the clan was based\non the family or group of kinsmen, without which it could not have\nexisted. Moreover, it by no means follows that, because the common\nancestor of the members of the gens or clan was a female, the primitive\ngroup of kinsmen had not a male as well as a female head. Considered\nas a \u201cfraternal association,\u201d the father may have been excluded, but\nfor the purposes of the brotherhood it was of no importance whether\npaternity was certain or uncertain. The result would have been the\nsame in either case. For other than brotherhood purposes kinship to\nthe father may have been fully recognised. The obligations of the\n_lex talionis_, the right to property, and the control of children in\nmarriage, may have concerned only the kinsmen by the mother\u2019s side, but\nthose on the father\u2019s side may have been equally affected by the law of\nmarriage. That such was the case I have sought to establish elsewhere,\nas evidenced by the classificatory system of relationships, and that\nview is confirmed by various facts showing that kinship by the male\nside is fully recognised among savages.\n\nI have already had occasion to refer to Mr. M\u2019Lennan\u2019s admission\nthat, if \u201cmarriage was, from its beginning, monogamous, kinship would\ncertainly (human nature being as it now is) have been traced through\nfathers, if not indeed through fathers only, from the first.\u201d[287] Mr.\nHerbert Spencer, although apparently thinking that promiscuity in the\nrelations of the sexes was originally extensive, yet supposes that it\nwas accompanied by monogamic connections of a limited duration. He\nsays that \u201calways the state of having two wives must be preceded by\nthe state of having one,\u201d and he looks upon the preference for the\nmaternal kinship rather than paternal kinship as a habit, arising from\nthe fact that the former is observed in all cases, whilst the latter\nis inferable only in some cases.[288] Mr. Spencer\u2019s admission that\nwhere the system of female kinship now subsists, \u201cmale parentage is\nhabitually known, though disregarded,\u201d greatly weakens his position,\nthe more so as we are not told why or when it is disregarded.[289] Mr.\nMorgan goes far towards supplying an explanation of the fact, although\nhis theory is defective. He affirms that gentile kin were superior\nto other kin only because it conferred the rights and privileges of\na gens, and not because no other kin was recognised. \u201cWhether in or\nout of the gens, a brother was recognised as a brother, a father as\na father, a son as a son, and the same term was applied in either\ncase without discrimination between them.\u201d[290] Mr. Morgan does not,\nhowever, admit of certainty of paternity, although he states that \u201cthey\ndid not reject kinship through males because of uncertainty, but gave\nthe benefit of the doubt to a number of persons\u2014probable fathers being\nplaced in the category of real fathers, probable brothers in that of\nreal brothers, and probable sons in that of real sons.\u201d[291] This\nexplanation is plausible but insufficient, if, as Mr. Morgan says,\ndescent in the female line is only a rule of a gens.[292] In this case,\nfemale descent cannot have existed before the gens, and recognition of\nkinship through the father may have subsisted prior to the formation\nof the gens, together with that of the relationship between mother\nand child on which such descent is founded. This would seem to be\nrequired by the facts mentioned by Mr. Morgan in relation to the social\ninstitutions of the American aborigines. He says \u201can Indian tribe is\ncomposed of several gentes developed from two or more, all the members\nof which are intermingled by marriage, and all of them speak the same\ndialect. To a stranger the tribe is visible and not the gens.\u201d[293]\nOriginally, therefore, the tribe consisted of two gentes, that is\nof the descendants from two female common ancestors, and, as the\ngentes are not visible to a stranger, we must suppose that the tribe\noriginally represented the male head of the primitive family group to\nwhich the female common ancestors belonged. On this supposition the\nprimitive group consisted of a male and two females, the former being\nthe recognised representative of the group, although the descent of its\nmembers is traced through the latter. This view is quite consistent\nwith the explanation I have elsewhere given of the classificatory\nsystem of relationship, which undoubtedly requires the full recognition\nfor certain purposes of blood relationship through both the father and\nthe mother.\n\nThe conclusion thus arrived at is confirmed by what we know of the\nopinions entertained by peoples among whom the gentile organisation is\nfully developed. Carver, as quoted by Sir John Lubbock, states that\namong the Hudson\u2019s Bay Indians, children always take the name of their\nmother. The reason they give for this is, \u201cthat as their offspring are\nindebted to the father for their souls, the invisible part of their\nessence, and to the mother for their corporal and apparent part, it\nis more rational that they should be distinguished by the name of\nthe latter, from whom they indubitably derive their being, than by\nthat of the father, to which a doubt might arise whether they are\njustly entitled.\u201d[294] The reason given by the Hudson\u2019s Bay Indians\nwhy children are called after their mothers shows that the system of\nfemale kinship is quite consistent with the recognition of kinship\nthrough the male. No doubt the mother is regarded by savages as having\na closer physical relationship to her child than their father, but it\nis incredible to suppose that the latter could ever be looked upon as\nhaving no closer relationship to it than a stranger in blood. If the\nmother had several husbands the actual paternity may not be certain,\nbut, as the father must be one of several well-ascertained individuals,\nthe paternity is only rendered less certain, and the child may be\nregarded as having several fathers, and claim kinship through them all.\nIf they are sons of the same father, that kinship will be with the same\npersons as though its mother had but one husband. Under the conditions\nI have supposed, however, where a woman takes, as her husband, a man\nwho lives with her among her own relations, there would not be any\nuncertainty as to paternity, and therefore the stronger relationship\nsupposed between mother and child must have originated in the close\nphysical connection observed to subsist between them. This does not,\nhowever, explain the origin of clan relationship based on kinship\nthrough females only, which is connected with the fact of the members\nof a woman\u2019s clan possessing certain rights over her and her children.\nThese rights would not be affected, even if the primitive custom of\nthe woman continuing to live among her relations after marriage were\ndeparted from. Before this took place, the system of female kinship\nwould have become firmly established, and it would be confirmed,\nalthough it could not be originated, by the idea that, as the wife may\nnot be faithful to her husband, there is more certainty about maternity\nthan paternity.\n\nThe fact that a man\u2019s heirs are usually his sister\u2019s children, shows\nthat consanguinity is of great importance in the eyes of uncultured\npeoples, and what has been advanced is quite sufficient to account for\nthat fact without assuming the existence of a state of promiscuity\nin the relations between the sexes. Such a state is not consistent\nwith the abhorrence which even savages show to the marriage of\npersons of near blood relationship, and it has no support at all in\nthe observed phenomena of savage life. The _punalua_ custom of the\nPolynesian Islanders, which has its counterpart among the Todas of\nthe Neilgherries, and traces of which may perhaps be found, on the\none hand, in the fraternal polyandry of the Tibetans, and, on the\nother hand, in the sororal polygamy of the North American aborigines,\nis neither promiscuous nor incestuous in the proper sense of these\nwords. The possession by several brothers of wives in common, who may\nthemselves be sisters, or by several sisters of husbands in common, who\nmay be brothers, may, as I have elsewhere suggested, have originally\nbeen due to the feeling that marriage has a spiritual as well as a\nphysical significance. Punalua was really an application of the idea\nof brotherhood to marriage, and it is not surprising that, among\nuncultured peoples, the having wives or husbands in common should be\nconsidered a high mark of friendship.\n\nIt is important to notice that among the peoples who have developed or\nperfected the gentile institution, a rule of which is descent in the\nfemale line, the husband is the head of the household, and the wife\nlittle more than a servant, so long as they continue to live together.\nIt is true, as Lahontan states,[295] that the wife has the same power\nof divorce as the husband, but so long as she remains in his cabin\nshe is treated by him as a drudge and a mere child-bearer. As women\nthey have some influence in the tribe, but this is only when they have\nchildren to give them dignity. The Polynesian Islanders not having\nrisen to the conception of a gens, it is, perhaps, not surprising\nthat woman is usually regarded by them as an inferior creature. Her\nposition as a woman is, however, better than that of a wife, in which\ncapacity she is cared for as little as among the American aborigines.\nHer condition is mitigated only under the influence of the Areoi\nInstitution, and where she enters into the punaluan engagement. If\nit is true, as Mr. Morgan states, that \u201cthe Australians rank below\nthe Polynesians, and far below the American aborigines,\u201d we cannot\nwonder that the position of woman among the Australian aborigines is\none of great inferiority. In fact, among them wives are considered as\narticles of property, and not only do they suffer great privations,\nbut they are most barbarously treated. The last-named people practice\nthe simplest form of obtaining wives, that of capture by cunning and\npersonal violence, but in most of their tribes descent is in the female\nline, and the gens or clan is developed more or less perfectly. And\nyet the Australian aborigines possess marriage regulations which seem\nformed for the express purpose of preventing the intermarriage of blood\nrelations, and which fully recognise kinship by the male line.\n\nA modern French writer of great authority, Fustel de Coulanges, affirms\nthat the ancient family was constituted chiefly by religion, the first\ninstitution of which was marriage. The family gives rise to the gens,\nand \u201cwith its elder and younger branches, its servants and dependents,\nformed possibly a very numerous group of persons.\u201d Such a family, says\nde Coulanges, \u201cthanks to the religion which maintained its unity,\nthanks to its special privileges which rendered it indivisible, thanks\nto the laws of protection which retained its dependents, formed in time\na widespread society under an hereditary chief.\u201d[296] This view of\nthe primitive family possesses much truth, although it leaves out of\nsight one of the most essential features of the family among uncultured\npeoples. The same may be said in relation to the patriarchal family\nof Sir Henry Maine. This writer says that \u201cthe earliest tie which\nknitted men together in communities was consanguinity or kinship,\u201d and\nthat \u201cthere was no brotherhood recognised by our savage forefathers,\nexcept actual consanguinity regarded as a fact.\u201d[297] He adds, that\n\u201ckinship, as the tie, binding communities together, tends to be\nregarded as the same thing with subjection to a common authority.\u201d\nThe notions of power and consanguinity are blended, a mixture of\nideas which is seen \u201cin the subjection of the smallest group, the\nfamily, to its patriarchal head.\u201d[298] \u201cThis group,\u201d says Sir Henry\nMaine, \u201cconsists of animate and inanimate property, of wife, children,\nslaves, land and goods, all held together by subjection to the despotic\nauthority of the eldest male of the eldest ascending line, the father,\ngrandfather, or even more remote ancestor. The force which binds the\ngroup together is power. A child adopted into the patriarchal family\nbelongs to it as perfectly as the child naturally born into it, and\na child who severs his connection with it is lost to it altogether.\u201d\nThe patriarchal family of Maine thus differs from the ancient family\nof de Coulanges in its binding force, which in the one case is power,\nand in the other religion, forces which are, nevertheless, reconciled\nby the fact that the chief element in this religion is the ancestral\nidea which is at the base of the patriarchal family. This view of\nthe nature of the ancient family would be complete if it provided\nfor the fact, revealed by the study of primitive institutions as\nnow exhibited among uncultured peoples, that descent was originally\ntraced by the female line in preference to the male line. The defect\nthus revealed will, however, be removed if it can be shown, as I have\nendeavoured to do, that descent through the male is, for certain\npurposes, recognised equally with that through the female. Mr. Herbert\nSpencer, in his \u201cPrinciples of Sociology,\u201d refers,[299] as follows,\nto a suggestion made by Mr. Fiske, which contains an important truth\nbearing on the subject of this paper: \u201cPostulating the general law\nthat, in proportion as organisms are complex, they evolve slowly, he\ninfers that the prolongation of infancy which accompanied development\nof the less intelligent primates into the more intelligent ones,\nimplied greater duration of parental care. Children, not so soon\ncapable of providing for themselves, had to be longer nurtured by\nfemale parents, to some extent indeed by male parents, individually\nor jointly; and hence resulted a bond holding together parents and\noffspring for longer periods, and tending to initiate the family.\nThat this has been a co-operating factor in social evolution is very\nprobable.\u201d The bond thus formed shows its influence even among the\nlowest savages, in the natural affection which subsists between a\nmother and her children, when these escape the not unusual fate of\ninfanticide. Natural affection is less operative with male parents, but\nthere are other feelings which have relation chiefly to male children\nwhich tend to form an equally binding tie. Mr. Spencer remarks that\n\u201cto the yearnings of natural affection are added, in early stages\nof progress, certain motives, partly personal, partly social, which\nhelp to secure the lives of children, but which, at the same time,\ninitiate differences of status between children of different sexes.\nThere is the desire to strengthen the tribe in war; there is the wish\nto have a future avenger on individual enemies; there is the anxiety\nto leave behind one who shall perform the funeral rites and continue\noblations at the grave.\u201d[300] These motives must have been influential\nfrom the earliest period at which mankind consisted of more than a\nfew small and isolated groups, and, therefore, we must assume that\nin these groups the male element was equally as strong as the female\nelement, if, indeed, they had not a male head. Mr. Spencer remarks\nfurther that those motives, \u201cstrengthening as societies passed through\nthe earlier stages, gradually gave a certain authority to the claims\nof male children, though not to those of females.\u201d[301] These ideas\nare quite inconsistent with the notion that the family group ever\nconsisted only of a female ancestor and her children, or that the\nwoman was originally the head of, and supreme in, the family. The\ncustom of tracing descent by the female line shows, however, that for\ncertain purposes the woman occupied an important position, although it\nmay, when the practice of wives going to reside among their husband\u2019s\nrelations become established, have tended to confirm that of female\ninfanticide, as the children would be lost to the mother\u2019s family\ngroup. One of the motives referred to by Mr. Spencer would, after the\nidea of special kinship through females had become established, affect\nmore especially the persons bound together by a maternal tie. Where\nthe gentile organisation is established the duty of revenging private\ninjuries is confined to the other members of the common gens. The\nduty of defence against the external enemy belongs, however, to the\n_tribe_, which here undoubtedly stands in the place of the original\nfamily group, in which both male and female kinship, with their special\nduties, was recognised, represented by its male head. This group we\nmust suppose, therefore, had much in common with Sir Henry Maine\u2019s\npatriarchal family. Under the head of the oldest living male ancestor,\nit embraced wife or wives, children and dependents. The repugnance to\nmarriages between blood relations, which seems almost instinctive to\nman, would prevent such alliances between the members of the group.\nThe male children, when they reached the age of manhood, would leave\nthe paternal roof, and obtain wives from other groups, with which they\nwould become associated on the principle of adoption, while, on the\nother hand, young men from other groups would take their places as the\nhusbands of the female children. It would be during this primitive\nperiod that the idea of a special relationship subsisting between a\nmother and her children, on which the custom of tracing descent through\nthe female is founded, would become formed, as already mentioned.\nThe importance attached to female kinship would be increased by the\ndevelopment of a fraternal feeling among the children of the same\nmother, a feeling which would be strengthened if, as would probably\nnot seldom be the case, men, after some years of cohabitation with\ntheir wives, left their children solely to the mother\u2019s care. Under\nthe influence of these various ideas and circumstances the custom\nof tracing kinship for certain purposes in the female line would be\ndeveloped by the time that the habit had been formed of wives leaving\ntheir parents to reside among their husband\u2019s family. As when this\ntook place, the custom would be firmly established under the influence\nof polygamy, the development of the gentile organisation would almost\nnecessarily follow. The primitive idea of kinship through the father\nwould, however, still remain in full force with the attributes which\noriginally appertained to it\u2014namely, the headship in the family group\nof the eldest male ancestor, whose authority is practically represented\nby the tribe, and the non-intermarriage of those thus connected.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[250] \u201cStudies in Ancient History,\u201d p. 444.\n\n[251] Ditto, p. 181.\n\n[252] \u201cStudies in Ancient History,\u201d pp. 54, 57.\n\n[253] Ditto, pp. 104, 110.\n\n[254] Ditto, p. 174.\n\n[255] Ditto, p. 112.\n\n[256] Ditto, p. 139.\n\n[257] Ditto, p. 113.\n\n[258] \u201cAncient Society,\u201d p. 512.\n\n[259] Ditto, p. 511.\n\n[260] Ditto, p. 69.\n\n[261] \u201cAncient History,\u201d p. 124.\n\n[262] Ditto, p. 139.\n\n[263] _Loc. cit._, p. 418.\n\n[264] _Loc. cit._, p. 419.\n\n[265] M\u2019Lennan, p. 150.\n\n[266] M\u2019Lennan, p. 134.\n\n[267] \u201cAncient Society,\u201d p. 516.\n\n[268] \u201cAncient Society,\u201d p. 67.\n\n[269] Ditto, p. 60.\n\n[270] \u201cPrinciples of Sociology,\u201d vol. i., p. 662.\n\n[271] Ditto, p. 665.\n\n[272] Ditto, p. 666.\n\n[273] Ditto, p. 667.\n\n[274] Lahontan, \u201cM\u00e9moires,\u201d ii., pp. 144, _et seq._\n\n[275] \u201cTe Ika A Maui,\u201d p. 357.\n\n[276] Ditto, p. 337.\n\n[277] \u201cSixth Report of the Directors of the African Institution\u201d\n(1812), p. 128.\n\n[278] _Op. cit._, p. 336.\n\n[279] Ditto, p. 536.\n\n[280] \u201cAncient Society,\u201d p. 71.\n\n[281] \u201cAncient Society,\u201d p. 75, 528.\n\n[282] Ditto, p. 530.\n\n[283] See Lafitau \u201cLes M\u0153urs des Sauvages,\u201d ii., p. 564, _et seq._\n\n[284] See Lafitau, ii., p. 77, _et seq._\n\n[285] \u201cAncient Society,\u201d p. 88.\n\n[286] Ditto, p. 63.\n\n[287] \u201cAncient History,\u201d p. 418.\n\n[288] \u201cTypes of Sociology,\u201d pp. 665, 669.\n\n[289] Ditto, p. 667.\n\n[290] \u201cAncient Society,\u201d p. 516.\n\n[291] Ditto, p. 515.\n\n[292] Ditto, p. 516.\n\n[293] \u201cAncient Society,\u201d p. 103.\n\n[294] \u201cTravels in Northern America,\u201d p. 378.\n\n[295] \u201cMemoirs,\u201d ii., p. 150.\n\n[296] \u201cLa Cit\u00e9 Antique\u201d (6th Ed.), 1876, p. 133.\n\n[297] \u201cEarly History of Institutions,\u201d pp. 64, 65.\n\n[298] Ditto, p. 68.\n\n[299] P. 630, _note_.\n\n[300] \u201cPrinciples of Sociology,\u201d p. 769.\n\n[301] Ditto, p. 771.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nTHE SOCIAL POSITION OF WOMAN AS AFFECTED BY \u201cCIVILISATION.\u201d\n\n\nThe legend which teaches that the first woman was formed out of one of\nthe ribs of the first man must surely be true, seeing that it agrees\nperfectly with the position which woman holds among all primitive\npeoples!\n\nWith few rights, if any, in this life, it is not surprising that her\nsubordination is continued in the spirit world, and that if she gains\nadmittance at all into the native heaven, it is usually under peculiar\ncircumstances. Thus, the Fijian women are voluntarily strangled or\nburied alive at the funerals of their husbands, from the belief\nthat in _their_ company alone \u201ccan they reach the realms of bliss;\u201d\nto which is added the idea that she \u201cwho meets her death with the\ngreatest devotedness will become the favourite wife in the abode of\nspirits.\u201d What becomes after death of the women who do not die with\ntheir husbands is, perhaps, uncertain, but there is reason to believe\nthat among many uncultured peoples as little thought is given to the\nfuture state of such unfortunates as to that of animals killed for\nfood. In fact, among the Papuan tribes, and with many of the natives\nof Australia, women are highly prized for cannibal purposes. Judging\nfrom this fact, we shall not expect to find that, during life, they\nare much cared for, unless it be on the principle which sometimes\nleads cannibals to fatten their victims before preying on them. This\nis not the case, however, with the natives of Australia, and women\namong them not only have to endure many privations, but are most\nbarbarously treated. Wilkes states that they are considered as articles\nof property. Among few peoples is the lot of woman so cruel as with the\naborigines of Australia.\n\nIn this respect, however, there is little difference with any\nuncultured race. Marriages of affection are unknown to the Fijians,\nand women remain faithful to their husbands from fear rather than\nfrom love. \u201cLike other property,\u201d says Admiral Wilkes, \u201cwives may be\nsold at pleasure, and the usual price is a musket. Those who purchase\nthem may do with them as they please, even to knocking them on the\nhead.\u201d Thus, among the Fijians, women are, in the true sense of the\nword, \u201cproperty,\u201d and marriage is a matter of bargain and sale. This\nremark is applicable to peoples less savage than the untamed Papuan.\nAmong the pastoral tribes of East Africa, and also the black tribes of\nMadagascar, women are, if anything, thought less of than cattle. The\nKafirs, indeed, value them _in_ cattle, and girls pride themselves on\nthe price they fetch. The condition of the Kafir wife agrees with the\nestimation in which she is held. Woman occupies much the same position\nwith the true Negro tribes, and even among the North African peoples\nwho have embraced Mohamedanism the woman is subject absolutely to the\nwill of her husband. Wives do not appear to be treated with cruelty,\nhowever, and, according to Mr. Winwood Reade, they often, by force of\na certain public opinion, exercise a peculiar influence over the men\nin domestic affairs. Among the Wahuma of East Africa, women, curiously\nenough, are not regarded exactly as property, and their condition is\nprobably, on the whole, superior to what it is among the Negro or Kafir\ntribes.\n\nWomen occupy among the American aborigines a position of, on the whole,\ngreater hardship. They are generally considered as inferior beings,\nand their lives are spent in the lowest and most laborious drudgery.\nThroughout both North and South America, with few exceptions, a wife is\ntreated as the property of her husband, who will lend her to a friend\nwith as little compunction as he would a hatchet. Moreover, as amongst\nmost uncultured peoples, she is always liable to instant divorce.\nThis arbitrary treatment, and the hardships which women suffer, have\nprobably much to do with the prevalence of infanticide, especially of\nfemale children. The condition of woman among the Eskins appears to\nbe more bearable than with the true American tribes. This is shown by\nthe existence between husband and wife of a certain attachment, which\nsometimes ripens into real affection; and yet, according to Sir John\nRoss, the Eskino women are considered merely as property or furniture.\nIt is not far otherwise with the Greenlanders. Crantz declares that,\nfrom their twentieth year, the life of their women is a mixture of\nfear, indigence, and lamentation.\n\nAmong some of the Polynesian Islanders, and particularly the Samoans,\nwoman is more esteemed than with others, but usually she is treated\nin the same manner as with most uncultured peoples. As shown by many\nof their customs, she is looked upon as an inferior creature. Captain\nKing remarked that at the Sandwich Islands, when these were first\ndiscovered, less respect was shown to women than at any of the other\nPacific Islands which Captain Cook\u2019s expedition had visited. All the\nbest kinds of food were forbidden them. In domestic life they lived\nalmost entirely by themselves, and although no instance of positive\nill-treatment was actually observed, yet it was evident that \u201cthey had\nlittle regard or attention paid them.\u201d\n\nThe facts stated sufficiently establish that, among primitive peoples,\nwoman is regarded as \u201cproperty.\u201d Usually female children are thought\nlittle of by their parents, and they are cared for only as having a\ncertain exchange value. In the more advanced stage represented by\nthe pastoral peoples they are more highly prized, because, although\na man may prefer his cattle to his daughters, these, if successfully\nreared, will bring a certain addition to his stock. A curious relic of\nthis primitive idea of the exchange value of woman is yet extant in\nAfghanistan, where crimes are atoned for by fines estimated, partly in\nyoung women, and partly in money. It is not surprising that the man who\nhas purchased his wife should look upon her in the same light as any\nother chattel which he has acquired, and this _property_ notion is at\nthe foundation of most of the social habits of savage life.\n\nIt must not be thought that women, even among the most uncultured\npeoples, are altogether without influence, if not over their own\ncondition, yet over the minds of other. The wars, if such they can\nbe called, waged by the Australian aborigines, are generally due to\nthe old women, who incite the men with the most passionate language\nto revenge any injury to the tribe, and they perform the same office\namong other uncivilised peoples. It is well-known what influence over\nthe conduct of such peoples is exercised by the sorcerers or wizard\ndoctors, and in many parts of both Africa and America women as well as\nmen exercise that calling;. It is not often that among the more warlike\nraces women attain to the position of chief, but such a state of\nthings is not unknown to the African tribes; and in Madagascar and the\nPolynesian Islands woman is as competent as man to occupy the throne.\nWith the American tribes who trace descent through females, women have\ngreat influence in the election of the chiefs.\n\nNor is woman exactly without _rights_ among uncultured peoples.\nAt first these relate to the disposition of her own person before\nmarriage, and the existence of such a right is implied in the\nwidespread customs which have been thought to give evidence of the\nprimitive social phase described as \u201cmarriage by capture.\u201d Mr.\nDarwin, in his work, \u201cThe Descent of Man,\u201d well points out that among\nuncultured peoples girls have more choice in the matter of marriage\nthan is usually supposed.\n\nIt by no means follows that the position of a woman is, among\nuncultured peoples, more bearable because she has managed to marry the\nman whom she prefers. Where the marriage has been preceded by actual\nattachment, no doubt it usually is so; and in that case, especially if\nshe has much intelligence, a wife may have great influence over her\nhusband. It is probable that polygamy has been an important instrument\nin improving the condition of the married woman. With most uncultured\npeoples who practise polygamy, a first wife is the head wife, and all\nthe succeeding ones are under her control. The former thus occupies a\nposition of influence in the household; she is less roughly treated by\nher husband, and she gradually acquires certain rights. Mr. Shooter\nsays that, among the Kafirs, all the cows which a man possesses at\nthe time of his earliest marriage are regarded as the property of his\nfirst wife, and after the birth of her first son they are called _his_\ncattle. Theoretically, the husband can neither sell nor dispose of them\nwithout his wife\u2019s consent. Cattle are assigned to each of the wives\nwhom the husband subsequently takes, and the wife who furnishes the\ncattle to purchase and endow a new wife, is entitled to her services,\nand calls her \u201c_my_ wife.\u201d These rights of property are, however, in\nreality of very slight value. On the death of the husband, the women\nof his household descend to the son who is entitled to the cattle\nbelonging to each family division, and if he dies without direct heirs,\nto the next male relative, who is nevertheless bound to provide for\nthem.\n\nIt is difficult to conceive that the improvement in the position of\nwoman witnessed among civilised peoples, can have been much affected by\nany change that could take place in the relation between husband and\nwife, so long as the latter is treated as mere property. I am disposed,\ntherefore, to trace that improvement to another source, and to look\nupon it as springing from the maternal relationship. Stern as may be\nthe treatment experienced by a wife, it is seldom that a mother is not\nhonoured. This is especially the case among the African tribes. The\nsame feeling is not unknown to the Arabs, whose sacred book declares\nthat \u201ca son gains Paradise at the feet of his mother.\u201d Inconsistent as\nit is with our ideas, there can be little doubt that the curious custom\nof strangling parents, or burying them alive, when they have become\nold and helpless, is looked upon as a mark of respect and regard.\nWilkes was assured by the missionaries that the Fijians were kind and\naffectionate to their parents, and that they considered the strangling\ncustom as so great a proof of affection that none but children could be\nfound to perform it.\n\nThe Chinese have preserved the germs of the primitive idea, according\nto which woman is a kind of property, and among them still a wife may\nbe sold, although only with her own consent, and as a wife and not as\na slave. These restrictions show a great advance, which is evidenced\nalso by the fact that wives possess equal rank with their husbands.\nMoreover, mothers are allowed a certain degree of influence over their\nsons, who are, indeed, obliged at particular seasons to pay homage\nto them, the Emperor himself not being exempt from performing the\nceremonies of the _kotow_ before his mother. Where the filial piety is\nso strong, it is not surprising that ancestral-worship extends to the\nmother as well as the father, and that the memory of women celebrated\nfor their virtues is perpetuated. Nevertheless, Chinese women are\nalmost absolutely in the power of their fathers, husbands and sons, to\nwhom they owe obedience as the representatives of heaven.\n\nIn some of their customs the Romans bore considerable resemblance to\nthe Chinese. With the former, as among the latter, the father was\nabsolute within his family, and originally a woman, as part of her\nhusband\u2019s _familia_, could be sold or put to death by him without\ninterference by the State. This was not so if the wife was only _uxor_\nand retained her own familia, in which case, however, her children\nbelonged to her husband. The latter form of marriage, or the custom\nknown as \u201cbreaking the usus of the year,\u201d gradually came to be the most\nusual, and it resulted in the emancipation of women from the control to\nwhich they had before been subjected.\n\nThe old Roman, Cato the elder, complained of their having much power in\npolitical matters, and statues were even then erected in the provinces\nto Roman ladies. Unfortunately the emancipation of woman among the\nRomans was attended with a license which had the most deplorable\nresults, both moral and social.\n\nIn Greece the peculiar institutions established by Lycurgus gave the\nSpartan women much influence, and they were even said by the other\nGreeks to have brought their husbands under the yoke. On the other\nhand, among the Athenians, women were generally viewed as inferior\nto men, and wives were treated rather as household drudges than as\ncompanions. Before marriage girls were kept in strict seclusion, a\nhabit which, in the middle and higher classes, was long retained after\nmarriage, wives seeing little even of their husbands or fathers. It\nwould appear, however, to have been different during the heroic age,\nwhen the intercourse between husband and wife, says Mr. Gladstone, was\n\u201cthoroughly natural, full of warmth, dignity, reciprocal deference, and\nsubstantial, if not conventional, delicacy.\u201d\n\nIt is to the development of the emotion of love that the full\nrecognition of the true position to which woman is united must be\ntraced. The parent has influence because he or she is respected, and\nlove induces the same feeling in relation to the wife and woman in\ngeneral. Thus, at least, it would seem to be with Eastern peoples, who\nprobably closely agree in social habits with the ancient Greeks. Among\nthe Bedouins, in whose manners we may doubtless trace those of the\nearly Hebrews, women enjoy a considerable degree of liberty; and hence\nmarriages, although accompanied by the incidents of wife-purchase,\nare often governed by choice, and husbands make real companions of\ntheir wives. The respect paid to them is so great that, if a homicide\ncan succeed in concealing his head under the sleeve of a woman and\ncry _fyardh\u00e9k_, \u201cunder thy protection,\u201d his safety is insured. Pallas\nmentions an analogous custom as existing among the Circassians, who\nalso highly esteem woman. The same may be said of the Afghans, among\nwhom, although marriage is still a matter of purchase, love-matches\nare by no means rare. Wives often exercise great influence in Afghan\nhouseholds, the husband sometimes sinking into a secondary place.\n\nHow far the condition of women has been mitigated among the Bedouins\nand other races by Mohammedanism is an open question. According to the\nKoran, the Arabs were accustomed to treat them with great cruelty,\nwhile one of the chief features of Mohammed\u2019s teaching is the high\nposition accorded to them. In permitting polygamy, Mohammedan law\naccommodates itself to the habits of an earlier stage of social\nprogress, and tends to perpetuate many of its objectionable features.\nAs remarked by Lord Kames, polygamy is intimately connected with the\ntreatment of woman as a slave to be purchased even in marriage. But,\ngreat as are the evils attending that custom, they depend in great\nmeasure on special circumstances, and they are capable, as Mohammedan\nteaching shows, of considerable mitigation. Probably the practice of\npolygamy has never, among a civilised people, been accompanied by more\nbaneful results than it exhibits in modern Egypt, if we can accept the\ntestimony of Miss Martineau. This lady somewhat unjustly remarks that,\n\u201cif we are to look for a hell upon earth, it is where polygamy exists;\nand that, as polygamy runs riot in Egypt, Egypt is the lowest depth of\nthis hell.\u201d Polygamy has not in India so degrading an effect, but, of\nthe six qualities ascribed to woman by the code of so-called Gentoo\nlaws, all are bad ones. A really good wife is, however, so highly\nesteemed that, if a man forsake her of his own accord, he is to receive\nthe punishment of a thief. Perhaps the scarcity of such wives accounts\nfor the fact mentioned by Bishop Heber, that throughout India anything\nis thought good enough for women, and that \u201cthe roughest words, the\npoorest garments, the scantiest alms, the most degrading labour, and\nthe hardest blows, are generally of their portion.\u201d No doubt women\nof the lower castes are here referred to, and it cannot be supposed\nthat all women are thus treated. The Abb\u00e9 Dubois, indeed, affirms\nthat among the Hindoos the person of a woman is sacred, and that,\nhowever abject her condition, she is always addressed by every one by\nthe term \u201cmother.\u201d If we may believe the Abb\u00e9, who lived for thirty\nyears among the natives, the position of Hindoo women is far superior\nto what Europeans in general believe. He says, \u201cTo them belong the\nentire management of their household, the care of their children, the\nsuperintendence over the menial servants, the distribution of alms\nand charities. To them are generally entrusted the money, jewels, and\nother valuables of the family; to them belong the care of procuring\nprovisions and providing for all expenses; it is they also who are\ncharged, almost to the exclusion of their husbands, with the most\nimportant affairs of procuring wives for their sons, and husbands for\ntheir daughters, and in doing it they evince a nicety of attention and\nwisdom which are not certainly surpassed in any other country; while\nin the management of their domestic business, they in general show a\nshrewdness, a savingness, and a foresight, which would do honour to the\nbest housekeepers in Europe.... In short, although exposed outwardly in\npublic to the forbidden frowns of an austere husband, they cannot be\nconsidered in any other view than as perfect mistresses in the house.\nThe influence of the Hindoo females on the welfare of families is so\nwell known, that the successes or misfortunes of the Hindoo are almost\nentirely attributed to the good or bad management of the former; when\na person prospers in the world, it is the custom to say that he has\nthe happiness to possess an intelligent wife, and when any one runs to\nruin, it is the custom to say that he has the misfortune to have a bad\nwife for a partner.\u201d\n\nJudging from the Abb\u00e9\u2019s description, the properties of a good wife,\naccording to the compiler of the \u201cBook of Proverbs,\u201d would doubtless\nmeet with the perfect approval of the Hindoo.\n\nMuch as the emancipation of woman is aided by the development of love\nbetween the sexes, she is indebted to religion for its completion.\nThe description given by Tacitus of the high honour in which women\nwere held by the ancient Germans, as being in some sense holy and as\nhaving the gift of prophecy, may be somewhat exaggerated; but if it is\ntrue that the safest mode of binding that people to their political\nengagements was to require as hostages women of noble birth, we may\nwell believe that their regard for the female sex had a religious\nbasis. Tacitus adds, that the care of house and lands and of the family\naffairs, was usually committed to the women, while the men spent their\ntime in feasting, fighting, and sleeping. A happy commentary this\non the question whether the former is capable of managing her own\naffairs! The true position of woman, however, is not that assigned\nto her by the ancient Germans, who gave her a fictitious superiority\nbased on superstition. We must look to the peoples among whom have\nflourished the religions which have permanently influenced the world,\nfor evidences of the continued improvement of that position. That which\nhas had the most striking and lasting effect over the social status of\nwomen in the East is undoubtedly Buddhism. Gautama preached salvation\nto all human beings alike, rich and poor, male and female, and some\nof his first converts were women. His teaching went to the root of\nthe prejudice so powerful in the East, which leads man to consider\nwoman his inferior,[302] and she was at once raised to a level with\nhim. Hence, in most Buddhist countries, women are treated as man\u2019s\ncompanions, and not as his slaves. The fact that the former are allowed\nto take monastic vows reveals the true source of female emancipation.\nIt is a recognition of the capability of woman to attain to the\nspiritual re-birth, and, as a consequence, not only to escape from the\nmaterial life with its continued evils, but to secure supreme bliss in\nanother state. The idea of the spiritual re-birth was at the foundation\nof the ancient mysteries, and therefore the admission to them of woman\nwas a sign of her emancipation. The Zend-Avesta places men and women on\nthe same footing, and among the ancient Persians the latter sometimes\noccupied even high sacerdotal positions. She was, moreover, freely\nadmitted to the secret mysteries. M. Lajard says that the monuments\nshow us women not only admitted as neophytes to the celebration of\nthe mysteries, but performing there sometimes the part of god-mother\n(marraine), sometimes that of priestess and arch-priestess. In these\ntwo characters they assist the initiating priest, and they themselves\npreside at the initiation, assisted by a priest or an arch-priest.\nThe learned French writer concludes, therefore, that \u201cwomen among the\npeoples endowed with the institution of the mysteries found themselves\nthus placed in a condition of equality with man.\u201d That which had been\nbegun by Buddhism and Mazdaism was continued by Christianity, which\nknows no distinction of sex or position, however much its principles\nmay from time to time have suffered at the hands of ignorant or\nirrational legislators.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\nSPIRITISM AND MODERN SPIRITUALISM.\n\n\nWhether what is known as Modern Spiritualism is true or false, it must\nhave an equal influence on those who believe it to be true. As being,\nthen, influential for good or for evil over the lives of thousands of\npeople, its phenomena are deserving of most careful attention. For\nthe same reason the analogous phenomena which have been from time\nto time observed among uncultured peoples are also worthy of study.\nThere is little doubt that nearly everything which has been done by\nmodern Spiritualists has been performed from time immemorial by the\nShamans, or sorcery doctors, of the Turanian and allied tribes of the\nAmerican and African Continents. The two great essentials required\nin either case are the existence of disembodied spirits and mediums\nthrough whom they can communicate with man. As to the former, it is\ndoubtful whether there is any race of uncivilised men who are not firm\nbelievers in the existence of spirits or ghosts. In most cases, and\nprobably in all originally, these are the spirits of dead men, who\nare thought, for a time at least, to wander about the scenes of their\nmaterial life, and occasionally to make their presence known by sounds\nor by a visible appearance. So great is the dread of ghosts among\nmany of such peoples that they will hardly venture out of their huts\nafter dark, and when any person is compelled to do so he invariably\ncarries a light, although he would not have the slightest difficulty in\nfinding his way without its aid. Nor is the medium wanting among the\nuncivilised races. The most influential man in the tribe is the sorcery\ndoctor, except where he is merely a tool in the hands of the chief, and\nall his influence is due to his supposed control over, or, at least,\ncommunication with, the denizens of the spirit world. By their aid he\nis able to bewitch his own enemies or those of the persons who seek the\nexercise of his natural power, and, on the other hand, to discover the\norigin of the disease under which the sick man is wasting away, and to\nremove it from him should the spirits be propitious. The sorcery doctor\nof an African tribe, like the Shaman of the Mongol, is in fact a very\noracle through his supposed power of receiving communications from his\nimmaterial assistants. Moreover, the means by which he becomes _en\nrapport_ with the spirit world are exactly the same as those employed\nby the Spiritualist, although the mode in which the mediumistic\ncondition is induced may often be very different. Whether arrived\nat by a process of mesmerism, or by means of a ceremony attended\nwith great physical and mental excitement, or, on the other hand,\ninduced by extreme exhaustion, or whether it is caused by a kind of\nintoxication, the condition required is one of trance. The most simple\nmode of attaining it is probably the _self-mesmerism_ of the Zulus of\nNatal, an intense concentration and abstraction of the mind, giving\nthe clairvoyant faculty. Canon Calloway states that this process of\n\u201cinner divination\u201d is commonly practised by herd boys for the purpose\nof finding cattle which have strayed; and it is even used as a means of\nescape by those who are threatened with destruction by a jealous chief.\n\nThis clairvoyant power, which is intimately connected with\nSpiritualism, is by some peoples ascribed to spirit communication.\nThus, says Scheffer, among the Laplanders, \u201cWhen the devil takes a\nliking to any person, in his infancy, he haunts him with several\napparitions.... Those who are taken thus a second time see more visions\nand gain great knowledge. If they are seized a third time they arrive\nto the perfection of this art, and become so knowing, that without the\ndrum (the magic drum which answers to the tambourine of the Mongol\nand the rattle of the American Indian), they can see things at the\ngreatest distances, and are so possessed by the devil, that they see\nthem even against their will.\u201d Scheffer adds that on his complaining\nagainst a Lapp on account of his drum, the Lapp brought it to him,\n\u201cand confessed with tears that, though he should part with it, and\nnot make him another, he should have the same visions as formerly and\nhe instanced the traveller himself, giving him \u201ca true and particular\nrelation\u201d of whatever had happened to him in his journey to Lapland.\u201d\nHe complained, moreover, that \u201che knew not how to make use of his eyes,\nsince the things altogether distant were presented to them.\u201d According\nto Olaus Magnus, the Lapland Shaman \u201cfalls into an ecstacy and lies\nfor a short time as if dead; in the meanwhile his companion takes great\ncare that no gnat or other living creature touch him, for his soul is\ncarried by some ill genius into a foreign country, from whence it is\nbrought back, with a knife, ring, or some other token of his knowledge\nof what is done in those parts. After his rising up he relates all the\ncircumstances belonging to the business that was inquired after.\u201d\n\nAmong the special spiritualistic phenomena which are recognised\namong uncultured peoples are spirit-rapping, spirit-voices, and the\ncord-unloosening, which, when first exhibited, created in England so\nmuch astonishment. The last-named phenomenon is not unknown to the\nNorth American Indians, and is practised by the Greenlanders and by\nsome of the Siberian Shamans. Thus, among the Samoyedes, \u201cThe Shaman\nplaces himself on the ground upon a dry reindeer skin. Then he allows\nhimself to be firmly bound, hands and feet. The windows are closed, and\nthe Shaman calls upon the spirits, when suddenly a noise is heard in\nthe darkened room. Voices are heard within and outside the court; but\nupon the dry reindeer skin there is regular rhythmical beating. Bears\ngrowl, serpents hiss, and squirrels seem to jump about. At last the\nnoise ceases. The windows are opened, and the Shaman enters the court\nfree and unbound. No one doubts that the spirits have made the noise\nand set the Shaman free, and carried him secretly out of the court.\u201d\n\nWe have here the noises, voices, and rope untying which are so common\nin spiritualistic _s\u00e9ances_. These find a still closer parallel in the\ncurious rites of Greenland Shamanism, the object of which is to enable\nthe spirits of the sorcerer to visit heaven or hell as occasion may\nrequire. The historian Crantz thus describes the ceremony:\u2014\n\n\u201cFirst the devotee drums awhile, making all manner of distorted\nfigures, by which he enervates his strength and works up his\nenthusiasm. Then he goes to the entry of the house, and there gets one\nof his pupils to tie his head between his legs, and his hands behind\nhis back with a string; then all the lamps in the house must be put\nout and the windows shut up. For no one must see the interview between\nhim and the spirit; no one must stir, not so much as to scratch his\nhead, that the spirit may not be hindered, or rather that he may not\nbe detected in his knavery.... After he has begun to sing, in which\nall the rest join with him, he begins to sigh and puff and foam with\ngreat perturbation and noise, and calls out for his spirit to come to\nhim, and has often great trouble before he comes. But if the spirit is\nstill deaf to his cries, and comes not, his soul flies away to fetch\nhim. During this dereliction of his soul he is quiet, but, by-and-by,\nhe returns again with shouts of joy\u2014nay, with a certain rustling, so\nthat a person who has been several times present assured me that it\nwas exactly as if he heard several birds come flying, first over the\nhouse, and afterwards into it. But if the Torngak (or spirit) comes\nvoluntarily, he remains without in the entry. There an Angekok (or\nmagician) discourses with him about anything that the Greenlanders want\nto know. Two different voices are distinctly heard, one as without and\none as within. The answer is always dark and intricate. The hearers\ninterpret the meaning among themselves, but if they cannot agree in\nthe solution, they beg the Torngak to give the Angekok a more explicit\nanswer. Sometimes another comes who is not the usual Torngak, in which\ncase neither the Angekok nor his company understand him.... But if this\ncommunication extends still further, he soars aloft with his Torngak on\na long string to the realm of souls, where he is admitted to a short\nconference with the _Angekut poglit_, _i.e._, the fat or the famous\nwise ones, and learns there the fate of his sick patient, or even\nbrings him back a new soul. Or else he descends to the goddess of hell,\nand sets the enchanted creatures free. But back he comes presently\nagain, cries out terribly, and begins to beat his drum; for, in the\nmeantime, he has found means to disengage himself from his bonds, at\nleast, by the help of his scholars, and then, with the air of one quite\njaded with his journey, tells a long story of all that he had seen and\nheard. Finally, he tunes up a song, and goes round, and imparts his\nbenediction to all present by a touch. Then they light up the lamps,\nand see the poor Angekok wan, fatigued, and harassed, so that he can\nscarce speak.\u201d\n\nExcept that the civilised medium attains to a state of trance without\nso much excitement, and does not, while in that state, take so distant\na journey, the account given by Crantz would almost answer for a\ndescription of a spiritual _s\u00e9ance_. Most of the occasions in which\nthe sorcerer is consulted would seem to be cases of sickness. Illness\nis usually supposed to be caused by the agency of spirits, who are\nannoyed at something having been done or omitted, and the mission of\nthe sorcerer is to ascertain whether the sick man will live or die,\nand, if the former, what offering must be given to propitiate his\ntormentors. Among the Zulus, the diviners who eat _impepo_ medicine\nanswer, in a measure, to the Mongolian Shaman, although they do not\nprofess to have intercourse with supernatural agents. This is reserved,\napparently, for the diviners having familiar spirits. These people\ndo nothing of themselves, sit quite still, and the answers to the\nquestions put by inquirers are given by voices at a distance from them.\nCanon Calloway gives two curious instances of this mode of divining.\nIn one of them a young child, belonging to a family from another kraal\nwhich had settled in a village of the Amahlongwa, was seized with\nconvulsions, and some young men, its cousins, were sent to consult a\nwoman who had familiar spirits. They found the woman at home, but it\nwas not until they had waited a long time that a small voice proceeding\nfrom the roof of the hut saluted them. They were, of course, much\nsurprised at being addressed from such a place, but soon a regular\nconversation was carried on between them and the voices, in the course\nof which the spirits minutely described the particulars connected with\nthe child\u2019s illness\u2014a case of convulsions. They then told the young man\nthat \u201cthe disease was not properly convulsions, but was occasioned by\nthe ancestral spirits, because they did not approve of them living in\ntheir relative\u2019s kraal, and that, on their return home, they were to\nsacrifice a goat (which was particularly described), and pour its gall\nover the child, giving it at the same time Itongo medicine.\u201d This took\nplace in the day time, and the woman did nothing but occasionally ask\nthe spirits if they were speaking the truth. \u201cThe young men returned\nhome,\u201d says Calloway, \u201csacrificed the goat, poured the gall on the\nchild, plucked for him Itongo medicine, and gave him the expressed\njuice to drink;\u201d and the child had no return of the convulsions, and\nis still living. The statement that, during the interview, the woman\ndid nothing but occasionally ask the spirits if they were speaking the\ntruth, is somewhat suspicious, but, whatever the explanation of the\ncase, one thing seems certain\u2014the young men had not seen the woman\nbefore, as she lived on the coast, a day and a half\u2019s journey from\nthem. In the other instance referred to, the ultimate result was not\nso favourable, as the sickness was not removed, but it was attended\nwith an incident by which we are again reminded of the phenomena of\nSpiritualism. The spirits promised to dig up and bring to the diviner\nthe secret poison which they said was causing the sickness inquired\nabout. At the time appointed for the poison to be exhibited the old\npeople assembled in the diviner\u2019s hut, and, after arranging themselves\nin a line at the request of the spirits, they soon heard, first one\nthing fall on the floor, and then another, until at length each person\nwas told to take up what belonged to him and throw it into the running\nstream, when the disease would be carried away. On examining the things\n\u201csome found their beads which they had lost long ago; some found earth\nbound up; others found pieces of some old garment; others shreds of\nsomething they had worn; all found something belonging to them.\u201d In\nthis case, also, the voices came from above; but among some peoples\nthe spirit enters into the body of the diviner, in like manner as with\nspiritualistic mediums. This is so in China, where the spirit of the\ndead talks with the living through the male or female medium, as the\ncase may be\u2014and with all uncultured peoples, in fact, who look upon\ntheir priests, or sorcery doctors, as oracles.\n\nThere are two phenomena known to spiritualists which we can expect\nto find only among cultured peoples. One of these, the so-called\nspirit writing, has been practised by the Chinese probably from time\nimmemorial, and is effected by means of a peculiarly-shaped pen held\nby two men and some sand. The presence of the spirit is shown by a\nslow movement of the point of the pen tracing characters in the sand.\nAfter writing a line or two on the sand the pen ceases to move, and the\ncharacters are transferred to paper. After this, if the response is\nunfinished, another line is written, and so on, until the pen entirely\nceases its motion, which signifies that the spirit of the divinity\nhas taken its departure from the pen. Like the spirit drawings of\nmodern mediums, the meaning of the figures thus obtained is often very\ndifficult to make out. The other phenomenon is the rising and floating\nin the air, in which Mr. Home was so great an adept. This in all ages\nhas been the privilege of the saints, Asiatic or European, Buddhist or\nChristian, who have attained to a state of spiritual ecstacy.\n\nAt the beginning of this Essay it was said that, so long as the\nphenomena of Spiritualism are believed to be true, they have equal\ninfluence, whether true or false. On the other hand, it must not\nbe thought that, because they are accepted as true by uncultured\npeople, therefore they _are_ false, as being merely due to fraud or\nsuperstition. To those even who believe in a spirit world, the question\nof spirit action in connection with the phenomena is one of the utmost\ndifficulty; and a possible explanation may be suggested of the most\nremarkable of them, based on physical facts recorded by spiritualists\nthemselves, without the necessity of seeking spirit agency. It has\nbeen noticed that the faces which appear at the openings of the\ncabinet in which the Spiritualist mediums sit are usually at first,\nif not ultimately, much like the mediums themselves, and yet it seems\nto be absolutely impossible, considering how they are secured, that\nsuch could be the case. It may, however, only be impossible under the\n_ordinary_ conditions of physical life. If certain phenomena said to\nhave been observed were so in reality, the apparent difficulty is\nremoved. It has frequently been noticed that colouring matter placed\non a spirit hand has afterwards been found on the hand or body of\nthe medium. This has been established by experiments tried for the\npurpose. Further, it is stated that occasionally, when a light has been\nsuddenly struck, a long hand and arm have been seen swiftly drawn in\ntowards the medium. Moreover, the body itself of the medium, absurd as\nsuch a thing appears to be, has been seen to elongate, if we are to\nbelieve the statement of Mrs. Corner, made through the _Spiritualist_,\nin connection with the medium, Miss Cook. The familiar spirit of this\nmedium has been seen rising from her body, and some Spiritualists\nbelieve that the spirits usually, if not always, rise out of their\nmediums. In the instance just mentioned the spirit was said to have\nbeen visibly connected with the medium by cloudy, faintly luminous\nthreads.\n\nIf we accept these statements as true, most of the phenomena of\nSpiritualism are explainable without reference to the agency of\nspirits. They would show that the human body must contain within itself\nan inner form, be it material or immaterial, which, under proper\nconditions, is able to disengage itself either wholly or partly from\nits outer covering. The spirit hands which appear, and which are able\nto move heavy weights and convey them long distances through the air,\nwould really be those of the medium. The faces and full length figures\nwhich show themselves, holding conversations, and allowing themselves\nto be touched, and even permitting their robes to be cut, become the\nfaces and figures of the mediums. This view receives confirmation from\nthe Spiritualist standpoint, from the fact (if such it be) that the\n\u201cdoubles\u201d of well-known mediums have sometimes been recognised in the\npresence of the originals, and (seeing that Spiritualists believe the\nbody to be capable of elongation) it is not inconsistent with what has\nbeen observed that the spirit figure is sometimes much taller than the\nmedium. It is consistent, moreover, with the facts, that the distance\nfrom the medium within which the spirit figures can appear is limited,\nand that if the hands of the medium be held closely _from the first_,\nmany of the manifestations cannot be produced. This point has been\ninsisted upon as proof of imposture; but assuming, for the sake of\nargument, the truth of what is said as to the human \u201cdouble,\u201d it simply\nshows how intimately associated are the external covering and the inner\nform which has to become disengaged to show itself.\n\nThe more the subject is studied the more evident does it become that\nmost of the phenomena in question are dependent solely on the medium\nhimself. The evidence of Mrs. Everitt, given in the _Spiritualist_,\nseems to furnish the key to all such phenomena as that of the\nappearance of \u201cKatie King.\u201d Mrs. Everitt stated that, when entranced,\nshe had seen her own body[303] in a chair, and been struck with the\ncircumstance; and she added, that in the case of such a temporary\nseparation between the spirit and the body, these are united by a\nmagnetic cord. We have only to imagine that when Mrs. Everitt was\nentranced, her spirit became visible to the persons at the _s\u00e9ance_,\nand we should have the exact phenomenon produced at Miss Cook\u2019s\n_s\u00e9ances_. Moreover, the fact of the so-called spirit and the body\nof the medium being visible at the same time, which has been thought\nto prove that they are perfectly distinct persons, thus loses its\napparent significance. If Mrs. Everitt\u2019s spirit and the body which she\nsaw belonged to the same person, so may the spirit seen at Miss Cook\u2019s\n_s\u00e9ances_ belong to Miss Cook herself; an inference which is supported\nby the fact, that when the former disappeared, it was absorbed into\nMiss Cook\u2019s own organism. The magnetic cord which Mrs. Everitt\nreferred to as uniting the spirit and body while these are temporarily\nseparated exists also, so far as can be judged from the published\nreports of the _s\u00e9ances_ of Katie and Miss Cook.\n\nA remarkable confirmation of the above theory[304] is given in a recent\nwork by Col. Olcott, who, in 1874, at the Eddy homestead, in Vermont,\nU.S., witnessed the appearance of upwards of five hundred materialised\nfigures, of the reality of which he was convinced, although they could\nbe accounted for as proceeding from the medium himself, and not as due\nto the agency of departed spirits.[305]\n\nWhile offering the above explanation of many of the most important\nphenomena vouched for by the advocates of Spiritualism, it is simply to\nshow that such phenomena, according to the evidence of Spiritualists\nthemselves, do not require the intervention of spirit agency, although\nthis has an important bearing on the past history of mankind. Spiritism\nhas a marvellous influence over the mind of uncultured man, and it\nhas retained its influence almost unimpaired through most of the\nphases of human progress. A late French writer, after stating that\nsuperstition was supreme in the Roman Empire at the commencement of\nthe Christian era, declares that magic was universally practised,\nwith the object of acquiring, by means of \u201cdemons\u201d\u2014the spirits of\nthe dead\u2014power to benefit the person using it, or to injure those\nwho were obnoxious to him. It is thus evident that the phenomena to\nwhich the modern term \u201cSpiritualism\u201d has been applied are of great\ninterest to the Anthropologist, and, indeed, of the utmost importance\nfor a right understanding of some of the chief problems with which he\nhas to deal. They constitute an element in the life-history of past\ngenerations which cannot be left out of consideration when their mental\nand moral condition are being studied; and modern _Spiritualism_ may,\ntherefore, be studied with great advantage as a key to what is more\nproperly called _Spiritism_. Not that the former can be considered as\nan instance of \u201csurvival,\u201d in the proper sense of this phrase. Apart\nfrom such isolated instances as that of Swedenborg, Spiritualism is\nof quite recent introduction, and it appears to have had no direct\nconnection with its earlier prototype. It is worthy of note, however,\nthat it sprang up among the people who have long been in contact\nwith primitive tribes, over whom Spiritism has always had a powerful\ninfluence. It is possible that intermixture of Indian blood with that\nof the European settlers in North America may have had something to do\nwith the appearance of Spiritualism, which would thus be an example of\nintellectual reversion, analogous to the physical divergence to the\nIndian type which has by some writers been ascribed to the descendants\nof those settlers. Or the former may be merely a resemblance, instead\nof a reversion, dependent on the change in the physical organism. In\neither case, it is somewhat remarkable that many of the so-called\n\u201cspirits,\u201d which operate through Spiritualist mediums, claim to have\nhad an American (Indian) origin.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[302] I have not forgotten the so-called _Mutterrecht_. Whatever the\ninfluence of woman, as head of the family or household, however, her\nposition in society was a secondary one, except under the conditions\nreferred to in the chapter on \u201cSacred Prostitution.\u201d\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\nTOTEMS AND TOTEMISM.\n\n\nAfter treating of the nature of totems, I propose to explain the object\nof totemism as a system, and to show its origin. I am not aware that\nthis has yet been attempted in an adequate manner, although the subject\nhas been referred to, as I shall have occasion to show, by several\nwriters of authority. The late Dr. J. F. M\u2019Lennan, who first dealt with\nthe subject of totemism, which indeed he made his own, did not profess\nto explain its origin, notwithstanding certain remarks bearing on this\nquestion made in the course of his inquiries.\n\nThe first point to be considered is the nature of a \u201ctotem,\u201d and this\nis shown by the meaning of the name itself. The word is taken from the\nlanguage of the Ojibwas, a tribe of the widespread Algonkin stock,\nliving near Lake Superior, in North America. It signifies the symbol or\ndevice of a gens or tribal division, that by which it is distinguished\nfrom all other such divisions. The kind of objects used as totems by\nthe aborigines of North America may be seen from the names of the\ngentes into which the Ojibwa tribe is divided. These are twenty-three\nin number, and the totemic devices belonging to them comprise nine\nquadrupeds (the chief of which are the Wolf, the Bear, the Beaver, and\nthe Turtle), eight birds, five fishes, and one reptile, the snake.\nThere are numerous other totems among the American tribes, and they\nare not taken from the animal kingdom only. Thus, there are gentes\nwith vegetable totems, such as _Corn, Potatoe, Tobacco-Plant, and\nReed-Grass_. Natural objects, such as _Sun_, _Earth_, _Sand_, _Salt_,\n_Sea_, _Snow_, _Ice_, _Water_, and _Rain_, give names to other tribal\ndivisions. Among natural phenomena, _Thunder_ is widely spread as the\nname of a gens, while _Wind_ is used among the Creek Indians; and the\nOmahas have a name meaning _Many Seasons_. _Medicine_, _Tent_, _Lodge_,\n_Bonnet_, _Leggings_, and _Knife_, have given titles to other gentes,\nand so also has _colour_. Thus, we have _Black_ and _Red_ Omahas, and\n_Blue_ and _Red-Paint_ Cherokees. Names denoting qualities have been\ntaken by some gentes, such as _Beloved People_ of the Choctas; _Never\nLaugh_, _Starving_, _Half-Dead_, _Meat_, _Fish-Eaters_, and _Conjurers_\nof the Blackfeet; and the _Non-Chewing_ of the Delawares. How some of\nthose ideas could be represented pictorially as totems is not very\napparent, and Mr. Lewis Morgan very properly suggests, in relation to\nsome of the terms, that nicknames for gentes may have superseded the\noriginal names; to which may be added that probably many of the totems\nare of comparatively modern origin.\n\nThe natives of Australia make the same use of totems as the Americans.\nThe former have divisions of the tribe answering to the gentes of the\nlatter, distinguished by a common device or totem; and the Australian\ntotemic divisions are usually, like the American gentes, named after\nanimals. Thus, the Kamilaroi tribes have _Kangaroo_, _Opossum_,\n_Iguana_, _Emu_, _Bandicoot_, and _Blacksnake_ totems. _Eaglehawk_\nand _Crow_ are widely spread throughout Eastern Australia as names of\nClass divisions. Totems taken from the vegetable kingdom appear to be\nuncommon, as only two are mentioned in the Rev. Lorimer Fison\u2019s work on\nthe Kamilaroi. The Rev. George Taplin names two others among the totems\nof the South Australian tribes, each of which has a \u201ctutelary genius,\u201d\nor \u201ctribal symbol,\u201d in the shape of some bird, beast, fish, reptile,\ninsect, or substance. The divisions of a tribe in Western Victoria\ntake their totems from natural features, such as _Water_, _Mountain_,\n_Swamp_, and _River_, and in North-Western Victoria the totemic\ndivisions include _Hot-Wind_ and _Belonging-to-the-Sun_.\n\nAlthough no such developed totemic system as that in use by the natives\nof Australia and North America is known now to exist elsewhere, yet\nthere are traces of the use of totems by many other peoples. Thus,\namong the Bechuanas of South Africa,[306] each tribe takes its name\nfrom an animal or plant, and its members are known as \u201cmen of the\ncrocodile,\u201d \u201cmen of the fish,\u201d \u201cmen of the monkey,\u201d \u201cmen of the\nbuffalo,\u201d \u201cmen of the wild vine,\u201d &c. The head of the family, which\nholds the first rank in the tribe, receives the title of \u201cgreat man\u201d\nof the animal whose name it bears, and no one belonging to the tribe\nwill eat the flesh, or clothe himself with the skin, of its protecting\nanimal, who is regarded as the father of the tribe. Many of the Arab\ntribes take their names from animals, such as the Lion, the Panther,\nthe Wolf, the Bear, the Dog, the Fox, the Hyena, the Sheep, and\nmany others.[307] Professor Robertson Smith, who has endeavoured to\nestablish the existence of totemism among the early Arabs, states that\nthe totem animal was not used as ordinary food by those connected with\nit. Again, some of the Kolarian tribes of India are divided into clans\nnamed after animals, and we find the Heron, Hawk, Crow, and Eel clans\namong the Oraon and Munda tribes of Chota-Nagpur.\n\nA totem origin may probably be ascribed to the animal ancestry claimed\nby a chief or his tribe. Thus, it is said by M. M. Valikhanof[308]\nthat \u201ca characteristic feature in Central Asiatic traditions is the\nderivation of their origin from some animal.\u201d The Kastsch\u00e9, or Tele\npeople, are said to have sprung from the marriage of a wolf and a\nbeautiful Hun Princess. The Tugas professed to be descended from\na she-wolf, and the Tufans, or Tibetans, from a dog. The Chinese\naffirmed, moreover, that Balach\u00e9, the hereditary chief of the Mongol\nKhans, was the son of a blue wolf[309] and a white hind. Traces\nof the use of totems by the Chinese themselves are not wanting.\nTheir expression for the people is _Pih-sing_, meaning \u201cthe hundred\nfamily names.\u201d As a fact, there are about four hundred such names in\nChina, and the intermarriage of persons having the same family name\nis absolutely forbidden. The importance of this prohibition will be\napparent when we come to consider the incidents of totemism. Mr. Robert\nHart states[310] that some of the Chinese surnames have reference to\nanimals, fruits, metals, natural objects, &c., such as Horse, Sheep,\nOx,[311] Fish, Bird, Flower, Rice, River, Water, Cloud, Gold, &c., &c.\nHe adds, \u201cIn some parts of the country large villages are met with, in\neach of which there exists but one family name; thus, in one district\nwill be found, say, three villages, each containing two or three\nthousand people, the one of the \u2018Horse,\u2019 the second of the \u2018Sheep,\u2019 and\nthe third of the \u2018Ox\u2019 family name.\u201d According to the rule that a man\ncannot marry a woman of his own family name, a \u2018Horse\u2019 cannot marry\na \u2018Horse,\u2019 but must marry a \u2018Sheep,\u2019 or an \u2018Ox,\u2019 and we may suppose\nthat these animals were originally the totems or devices of particular\nfamily groups; in like manner, as the Wolf, the Bear, and the Beaver\nare, among the American aborigines, totems of the groups of kin to\nwhich the term gens is applied.\n\nThe former use of totems may probably be assumed also when animal names\nare applied, not to tribal divisions, but to the tribes themselves,\nas we have seen is the case with the Arabs. Thus, when the great Hindu\nEpic,[312] in describing the adventures of Arjuna, one of the Pandavan\nPrinces, says that the Nagas or Serpents were defeated with the aid\nof Peacocks, we must understand that a people known as Peacocks, from\ntheir totemic device, defeated a people whose badge was a serpent. The\nPeacock was indeed the heraldic device of the Tambouk Kings of Orissa.\nProbably the existence of the _Singhs_ or Lions, the warrior caste of\nthe tribes of North-Western India, may be accounted for in the same\nway. Dr. M\u2019Lennan[313] refers to numerous facts to prove that many\nanimals, among others the Serpent, the Horse, the Bull, the Lion, the\nBear, the Dog, and the Goat gave names to ancient tribes, who used the\nanimals after whom they were called as badges. He goes further than\nthis, and supposes that all the ancient nations passed through a totem\nstage, in which they had animals and plants for gods. This question,\nhowever, we shall have occasion to refer to later on.\n\nThe nature of totems having been shown, the object of totemism as a\nsystem has now to be explained. The Rev. George Taplin remarks that\neach Narrinyeri tribe is regarded as a family, every member of which\nis a blood relation, and the totem borne by the Australian tribe,\nor rather tribal division, is thus the symbol of a family group, in\nlike manner as the American totem is the device of a gens. The first\nquestion asked of a stranger by the Dieyerie tribe of Cooper\u2019s Creek,\nin Central Australia, is \u201cOf what family (murdoo) are you?\u201d Each\nmurdoo is distinguished by a special name, being that of some object\nwhich, according to a tribal legend, may be animate or inanimate, such\nas a dog, mouse, emu, iguana, rain, &c.[314] It is evident that the\nAustralian totemic device is equivalent to a family name, a name which\nbelongs to all the members of a particular group, and which cannot be\nheld by any person not belonging by birth or adoption to that group,\nso that it is aptly termed by the Rev. Lorimer Fison[315] a \u201cbadge of\nfraternity.\u201d This badge answers to the \u201cdevice of a gens,\u201d as the token\nof the American tribes is defined, and its possession by any person\nis proof that he belongs to a particular gens or tribal division, and\nthat he is entitled or subject to all the rights, privileges, and\nobligations of its members. Schoolcraft very properly terms the gens\nthe totemic institution, and as the rights, privileges, and obligations\nof the gens are attached to the totem, a consideration of them will\nthrow much light on the subject of this paper.\n\nAccording to Mr. Morgan,[316] the gens came into being upon three\nprincipal conceptions, the bond of kin, a pure lineage through descent\nin the female line, and non-intermarriage in the gens. Leaving out of\nview for the present the question of descent, the other conceptions\ngive rise to obligations of great importance. The bond of kin assumes\nthe positive obligation of mutual help, defence, and redress of\ninjuries among the members of the gens; while the third conception\nimplies the negative obligation which prevents the intermarriage of\npersons belonging to a common totem. The negative obligation is,\nhowever, no less than the positive obligation, based on the conception\nof kinship, and the totem device of the gens is, therefore, well\ndescribed as the badge of a fraternal group. The obligation of mutual\naid and defence implies the co-relative duty of doing nothing to injure\na fellow member of the gens, in accordance with which all individuals\nof the same totem must treat each other as brethren. This applies not\nonly to human beings, but also to the totem objects, although these may\nbe killed and eaten by persons not belonging to the fraternal group,\nby which they are regarded as sacred. Sir George Grey says,[317] in\nrelation to the _kobongs_ or totems of the Western Australians, \u201ca\ncertain mysterious connection exists between the family and its kobong,\nso that a member of the family will never kill an animal of the species\nto which his kobong belongs, should he find it asleep; indeed, he\nalways kills it reluctantly, and never without affording it a chance\nof escape.\u201d He adds: \u201cThis arises from the family belief, that some\none individual of the species is their nearest friend, to kill whom\nwould be a great crime, and to be carefully avoided. Similarly a native\nwho has a vegetable for his kobong may not gather it under certain\ncircumstances, and at a particular period of the year.\u201d So, also, the\naborigines of North America will not hunt, kill, or eat any animal of\nthe form of their own totem.\n\nWhere, therefore, we find particular animals forbidden for food to a\nclass of individuals we may assume that such animals have a totemic\ncharacter. Thus, Bosman relates[318] that, on the Gold Coast of Guinea,\neach person \u201cis forbidden the eating of one sort of flesh or other;\none eats no mutton, another no goats\u2019-flesh, beef, swines\u2019-flesh, wild\nfowl, &c.\u201d He points out that this restraint is not for a limited\ntime, but for the whole of life; and as a son never eats what his\nfather is restrained from, or a daughter that which her mother cannot\neat, the forbidden object partakes of the nature of a totem. It is\ndoubtful whether the Islanders of the Pacific ever possessed systematic\ntotemism, although traces of the use of totems may, perhaps, be found\nin the names taken from plants met with in some of the islands, and\neven in the word \u201cSamoa,\u201d which is said by the Rev. Wyatt Gill[319] to\nmean \u201cthe family or clan of the Moa,\u201d the Polynesian term for _fowl_.\nThe Samoans entertained ideas as to particular animals, such as the\neel, the shark, the turtle, the dog, the owl, and the lizard, similar\nto the notions associated with the totems of other peoples. They\nsupposed those animals to be incarnations of household deities, and no\nman dare injure or eat the animal which was the incarnation of his own\ngod, although he could eat freely of the incarnation of another man\u2019s\ngod.[320]\n\nNotions of the same kind were prevalent throughout the islands of\nthe Pacific.[321] Thus, the Fijians supposed every man to be under\nthe protection of a special god, who resided in or was symbolised\nby some animal, or other natural object, such as a rat, a shark, a\nhawk, a tree, &c. No one would eat the particular animal associated\nwith his own god;[322] which explains the fact that cannibalism was\nnot quite universal among the Fijians, as some gods were believed to\nreside in human bodies. The heathen Fijians allow souls not only to\nall mankind, but to animals and plants, and even to houses, canoes,\nand all mechanical contrivances. As soon as their parents die they\nare enrolled among the family gods, whose protecting care is firmly\nbelieved in.[323] It is very probable that these gods, who answer to\nthe household deities of the Samoans, are regarded as being incarnate\nin the sacred animals, &c., of the tribe, towards whom, as being\nre-embodiments of deceased ancestors, they necessarily stand in a\nfraternal relation.\n\nThese ideas show a close connection between animal-worship and\nancestor-worship, and they have an important bearing on the origin of\ntotemism. We have seen that the obligations of the totemic institution\nare based on the conception of kinship. This is also essential to\nancestor-worship, which, like totemism, rests on the obligation of\nmutual aid and protection. The worshippers make the offerings and\nperform the rites required by their deceased ancestors, who in return\ngive their protection and assistance to their descendants. This mutual\nobligation is associated with the superstitious regard for certain\nanimals and other objects. The venerated animals are not killed or\neaten by those who are connected with them by superstitious ties,\nand they are supposed, on their part, to act as protectors to their\nhuman allies, by whom they are viewed as guardian spirits. Catlin, the\nAmerican traveller, gives a vivid description of the mode in which\nthe Indian acquires such a guardian. He states[324] that every Indian\nmust \u201cmake mystery,\u201d that is, obtain the protection of some mysterious\npower which is supposed to be connected with what is known as the\nmystery bag. When a boy has attained the age of 14 or 15 years, he\nabsents himself for several days from his father\u2019s lodge, \u201clying on\nthe ground in some remote or secluded spot, crying to the Great Spirit,\nand fasting the whole time. During this period of peril and abstinence,\nwhen he falls asleep, the first animal, bird, or reptile of which he\ndreams (or pretends to have dreamed, perhaps), he considers the Great\nSpirit has designated for his mysterious protector through life. He\nthen returns home to his father\u2019s lodge, and relates his success, and\nafter allaying his thirst and satisfying his appetite, he sallies forth\nwith weapons or traps until he can procure the animal or bird, the\nskin of which he preserves entire, and ornaments it according to his\nown fancy, and carries it with him through life, for good luck (as he\ncalls it): as his strength in battle, and in death his guardian spirit,\nthat is buried with him, and which is to conduct him safe to the\nbeautiful hunting grounds, which he contemplates in the world to come.\u201d\nIn California it was thought that the Great Spirit sent, in a vision,\nto every child of seven years of age, the appearance of some animal\nto be its protector or guardian. The African fetish superstition is\nof much the same character, as the fetish object is worshipped solely\nthat it may give the protecting aid which the Indian expects from his\nanimal guardian. Mr. Cruickshank says,[325] in relation to the natives\nof the Gold Coast of Western Africa, that they believe \u201cthe Supreme\nBeing has bestowed upon a variety of objects, animate and inanimate,\nthe attributes of Deity, and that he directs every individual man in\nhis choice of his object of worship.... It may be a block, a stone,\na tree, a river, a lake, a mountain, a snake, an alligator, a bundle\nof rags, or whatever the extravagent imagination of the idolater may\npitch upon.\u201d Here, although the nature of the protecting influence is\napparently different from that which the Americans are supposed to\nobtain, it is in reality the same. In either case it is a guardian\nspirit, whether it is called a \u201cmystery\u201d animal or an object having the\nattributes of Deity.\n\nDr. M\u2019Lennan saw a necessary connection between totemism and\nanimal-worship, and he affirms[326] that the ancient nations passed,\nin pre-historic times, \u201cthrough the totem stage, having animals and\nplants, and the heavenly bodies conceived as animals, for gods before\nthe anthropomorphic gods appeared.\u201d By _totem_, Dr. M\u2019Lennan evidently\nunderstood merely the animal or plant friend or protector of the\nfamily or tribe, and if it had any reference to _soul_ or _spirit_,\nit is the soul or spirit of the animal or plant. He speaks[327] of\nmen \u201cbelieving themselves to be of the serpent-breed derived from\nserpent-ancestors,\u201d and so of other animals. He does not see in the\ntotem any reference to the actual progenitor of the family, and he\ncould hardly do so in accordance with his view of the mental condition\nof men in the totem stage, where \u201cnatural phenomena are ascribable\nto the presence in animals, plants, and things, and in the forces of\nnature, of such spirits prompting to action as men are conscious they\nthemselves possess.\u201d Professor Robertson Smith accepts, in his work on\nthe early Arabs,[328] Dr. M\u2019Lennan\u2019s views on the subject of totemism\nand animal-worship, and gives as one of the three points which supply\ncomplete proof of early totemism in any race, \u201cthe prevalence of the\nconception that the members of the stock are of the blood of the eponym\nanimal, or are sprung from a plant of the species chosen as totem.\u201d\nWhen Prof. Smith comes to consider this point, however, it appears that\namong the Arabs certain animals were not eaten because \u201cthey were\nthought to be men in another guise,\u201d that is, they were not merely\nanimals but were men in disguise.[329] This is very different from the\nanimistic theory, which makes men trace their descent from animals or\nplants, although these may be supposed to have the same kind of spirits\nas their human descendants; but it is consistent with the doctrine of\ntransmigration to which we shall have soon to refer.\n\nDr. M\u2019Lennan\u2019s hypothesis may be tested by what we know of the\nanimal-worship of ancient Egypt, where some animals were universally\nworshipped, while others were regarded with veneration only in\nparticular districts, of which they were the guardians, and by whose\ninhabitants they were carefully protected. We have here the operation\nof the idea of a special relation subsisting between certain persons\nand particular animals, such as we have seen to exist in connection\nwith totemism; and that relationship must, according to Dr. M\u2019Lennan\u2019s\nhypothesis that animal and plant gods were the earliest to be\nworshipped, have depended on the animal descent of those persons.\nThis explanation may appear to find some support in M. Maspero\u2019s\nstatement,[330] that all the sacred animals of Egypt were at first\nadored in their animal character, and that afterwards they were\nidentified with the gods of whom ultimately they became the incarnation\nor living tabernacle. It is very improbable, however, that the gods\nwould be identified with animals, unless such animals were already\nregarded as divine, or as connected with the peoples of whom they were\nthe guardians\u2014by virtue of such a special relationship as is thought\nby the Pacific Islanders to subsist between certain persons and the\nsacred animals in which their ancestors are incarnated. As a fact, the\nworship of animals was established in ancient Egypt by a king of the\nsecond dynasty.[331] Moreover, it has been shown by M. Pierret that\nthe Egyptian religion was essentially monotheistic, the different gods\nrepresented on the monuments being merely symbols. \u201cTheir very form,\u201d\nsays that writer, \u201cproves that we cannot see in them real beings. A\ngod represented with the head of a bird or of a quadruped can have\nonly an allegorical character, in like manner as the lion with a human\nhead called a sphinx has never passed for a real animal. It is only\na question of hieroglyphics. The various personages of the Pantheon\nrepresent the functions of the Supreme God, of the only and hidden God,\nwho preserves His identity and the fulness of His attributes under\neach of His forms.\u201d Dupuis, in his History of Religions,[332] refers\nto the ancient opinion that the division of Egypt into thirty-six\nnomes or provinces was in imitation of the thirty-six decans into\nwhich the Zodiac was divided, each of which had its protector. The\nheavenly guardians became the protecting deities of the Egyptian nomes\nwhich took the names of the animals there revered as images of the\npatron gods. That opinion is consistent with the view expressed by M.\nPierret as to the character of the Egyptian deities. Dr. M\u2019Lennan\nsupposes,[333] however, that the heavenly bodies were conceived as gods\nbefore the anthropomorphic gods appeared. He argues that, as there is\nnothing in the grouping of the stars to suggest animal forms, and as\nstars, when named, were given names that commanded respect, if not\nveneration, \u201cthe animals whose names were transferred to the stars or\nStellar groups, were on earth highly, if not religiously, regarded,\u201d\nin support of which view he shows that nearly all the animals so\nhonoured were anciently worshipped as gods. It by no means follows,\nhowever, that these animals were so worshipped before being transferred\nto the heavens; and possibly this had nothing to do with any special\nregard for such animals. Much depends on the origin and object of the\nconstellations. There is still great uncertainty on this point, but it\nis probable that the signs of the Zodiac, at least, were supposed to\nrepresent certain cosmical phenomena connected with the progress of the\nseasons, or with day and night, half of the signs being diurnal and\nmasculine, and the other half being nocturnal and feminine.[334]\n\nIn a very suggestive work by Mr. Andrew Lang, it is said[335] that\nDr. M\u2019Lennan gave up his hypothesis and ceased to have any view on\nthe origin of totemism, and that its origin and determining causes\nare still unknown. Mr. Lang himself suggests a probable origin when\nhe says, \u201cpeople united by contiguity, and by the blind sentiment\nof kinship not yet brought into explicit consciousness, might mark\nthemselves by a badge, and might thence devise a name, and later\nmight invent a myth of their descent from the object which the badge\nrepresented;\u201d the meaning of which appears to be that, before blood\nrelationship was recognised, persons living together marked[336]\nthemselves to enable their common origin to be remembered. Mr. Lang\nadds, however, that \u201cthe very nature of totemism shows that it took its\npresent shape at a time when men, animals, and plants were conceived\nof as physically akin; when names were handed on through the female\nline; when exogamy was the rule of marriage, and when the family\ntheoretically included all persons bearing the same family name, that\nis, all who claimed kindred with the same plant, animal, or object,\nwhether the persons are really akin or not.\u201d According to this view,\nkinship was fully recognised when totemism was established; as descent\nin the female line is based on that recognition, and exogamy was\nthe result of the objection entertained by the lower races to the\nintermarriage of persons nearly related by blood or adoption. This\nfeeling could hardly be so strong when totemism took its present shape,\nwhich is probably its original shape, if, when totems were invented,\nkinship was not recognised. The very nature of the totem is the\nconception of a special relation between men and certain animals and\nplants, and it is this conception, together with that of the totem as a\nprotecting influence, which have to be explained.\n\nAccording to Sir John Lubbock,[337] totemism is the stage of human\nprogress in which natural objects, trees, lakes, stones, animals, &c.,\nare worshipped, and it is regarded as equivalent to _nature-worship_.\nTotemism, again,[338] is the deification of classes, so that \u201cthe\nRedskin who regards the bear, or the wolf, as his totem, feels that he\nis in intimate, though mysterious, association with the whole species.\u201d\nThe explanation given by Sir John Lubbock[339] of the phase of totemism\nwhich relates to the worship of animals is, that it originated \u201cfrom\nthe practice of naming, first individuals, and then their families,\nafter particular animals. A family, for instance, which was called\nafter the bear, would come to look on that animal first with interest,\nthen with respect, and at length with a sort of awe.\u201d This does not\ngo far enough, however, as it is not shown why certain animals and\nother objects are chosen as totems, or why such totems are not only\nviewed with veneration but are regarded as friends and protectors. Dr.\nE. B. Tylor well objects,[340] \u201cas to animal-worship, when we find\nmen paying distinct and direct reverence to the lion, the bear, or\nthe crocodile, as mighty superhuman beings, or adoring other beasts,\nbirds, or reptiles as incarnations of spiritual deities, we can hardly\nsupersede such well-defined developments of animistic religion, by\nseeking their origin in personal names of deceased ancestors, who\nchanced to be called Lion, Bear, or Crocodile.\u201d\n\nThe fundamental basis of totemism is undoubtedly to be found in that\nphase of human thought in which spirits are supposed \u201cto inhabit trees\nand groves, and to move in the winds and stars,\u201d and in which almost\nevery phase of nature is personified. But whether, as asserted by\nDr. M\u2019Lennan,[341] \u201cthe animition hypothesis, held as a faith, is at\nthe root of all the mythologies,\u201d or whether the ideas of animism,\nas found expressed in totemism, have been derived from the doctrines\nof the ancient religions, is a question. According to the religious\nphilosophy of antiquity, as expressed by Pythagoras, \u201cthe pure and\nsimple essence of the Deity, was the common source of all the forms\nof nature, which, according to their various modifications, possess\ndifferent properties.\u201d The Universe or Great Cause, animated and\nintelligent, and subdivided into a multitude of partial causes likewise\nintelligent, was divided also into two great parts, the one active and\nthe other passive. Of these parts, the active comprises the Heavens,\nand the passive the Earth and the elements. In addition to this\ndivision was another, that of principles, of which one, answering to\nthe active cause, was the principle of light or good, and the other,\nanswering to the passive cause, was the principle of darkness or\nevil.[342] A very practical form of the ancient belief embodied in that\nphilosophical system was entertained by the early Scandinavians, who,\nsays Mallet,[343] supposed that \u201cfrom the supreme divinity emanated an\ninfinity of inferior deities and spirits, of whom every visible part\nof the universe was the residence and the temple, which intelligences\nnot only dwell in them, but also direct their operations. Each element\nhad its intelligence or proper deity; the Earth, the Water, the Fire,\nthe Air, the Sun, the Moon, and the Stars. It was contained also in the\ntrees, the forests, the rivers, the mountains, the rocks, the winds,\nthe thunder, the tempest, which therefore deserved religious worship.\u201d\nThere is no reference here to the twofold division of nature, but it is\nfound in the analogous beliefs of early races. Thus, Lenormant, in his\nwork on \u201cChaldean Magic and Sorcery,\u201d[344] when comparing the Finnish\nand Accadian Mythologies, speaks of their having \u201cthe same principle\nof the personification of natural phenomena, objects, and classes of\nbeings belonging to the animated world.\u201d An idea of dualism, however,\npervaded this system, which supposed that there was \u201ca bad as well\nas a good spirit attached to each celestial body, each element, each\nphenomenon, each object, and each being,\u201d which were ever trying to\nsupplant each other.[345] Thus, both Accadians and Finns \u201crecognised\ntwo worlds at enmity with each other; that of the gods together with\nthe propitious spirits, and that of the demons, respectively the\nkingdom of light and that of darkness, the region of good and that of\nevil.\u201d[346]\n\nAt first sight these ideas have no special bearing on the subject\nof totemism, but it is different when we consider certain notions\nentertained by the Australian aborigines.\n\nThe Rev. Lorimer Fison remarks,[347] \u201cthe Australian totems have a\nspecial value of their own. Some of them divide not mankind only, but\nthe whole universe, into what may almost be called gentile divisions.\u201d\nThe natives of Port Mackay, in Queensland, allot everything in nature\ninto one or other of the two classes, Wateroo and Yungaroo, into\nwhich their tribe is divided. The wind belongs to one and the rain\nto the other. The Sun is Wateroo and the Moon is Yungaroo. The stars\nare divided between them, and the division to which any star belongs\ncan be pointed out. The Mount Gambier tribe of South Australia has a\nsimilar arrangement, but natural objects are allied with the totemic\nsubdivisions. Mr. Fison gives examples of this as supplied to him by\nMr. D. S. Stewart, from which it appears that rain, thunder, lightning,\nwinter, hail, clouds, &c., are associated with the crow totem, and\nthe stars, moon, &c., belong to the same totemic class as the black\ncockatoo; while the black, crestless cockatoo subdivision includes\nthe sun, summer, autumn, wind, &c. The native of South Australia thus\n\u201clooks upon the Universe as a Great Tribe, to one of whose divisions he\nhimself belongs; and all things, animate and inanimate, which belong to\nhis class, are parts of the body corporate whereof he himself is part.\u201d\n\nThere is a curious parallelism between this system and the ancient\ndoctrine of the separation of the intelligent Universe into two great\ndivisions, the celestial and terrestrial, or that of light and that of\ndarkness. In the totemic system one great division includes the sun\nand summer, answering to the realm of light, and the other division\ncomprises moon, stars, winter, thunder, clouds, rain, hail, answering\nto the realm of darkness. The American aborigines also show traces of\nthe notion of the dual division of nature in their hero-myths, which,\naccording to Dr. Brinton,[348] are intended to express \u201cthe daily\nstruggle which is ever going on between Day and Night, between Light\nand Darkness, between Storm and Sunshine.\u201d It is not improbable that\nthe American totem system is based on the idea of duality. Although\nthe totem divisions or gentes are now so numerous, there is no reason\nto believe that, as long since mentioned by Lafitau[349] in relation\nto the Iroquois and Hurons, that they had at one time not more than\nthree gentes. Mr. Morgan states, indeed, that the Iroquois commenced\nwith two gentes, and it is possible that the original totems of all the\nNorth Americans were only two in number. The Wolf and the Bear, which\nprobably answer to Light and Darkness,[350] are the only totems common\nto all the great families of tribes of that area.\n\nThe dualism of the American mythology possesses the element of\nantagonism between the powers of light and those of darkness, which\nwas met with in the ancient mythologies. The Australian dualism appears\nto lose sight of that opposition, and to look upon the two great\ndivisions of nature represented by light and darkness as forming parts\nof a great whole. This idea is not wanting, however, to one phase of\nwhat Lenormant terms the \u201cnaturalistic pantheism\u201d of ancient religions.\nThe French historian states[351] that, although the Magi \u201cpreserved the\ndualistic form which the old Proto-Medic religion must have admitted,\u201d\nyet they considered the antagonism between the good and the bad spirits\nto be only superficial, \u201cfor they regarded the representatives of\nthe two opposing principles as consubstantial, equal in power, and\nemanating both from one and the same pre-existent principle.\u201d Lenormant\nfinds traces of this notion in the old Accadian system, and he\naffirms[352] that Magism goes further than the perception of a common\nprinciple from which both the evil and the good principles emanated,\nseeing that it did not bind itself to the worship of the latter, but\nrendered equal homage to the two principles. This fact has an important\nbearing on the worship of the Evil Being so prevalent among the lower\nraces, in combination with the simple recognition of the existence of a\nGood Being.\n\nWhat has been said throws great light on the fundamental ideas of\ntotemism, but it does not account for the notion of protection, which\nforms the real practical feature of that system. This notion can,\nhowever, be found in certain doctrines of the ancient Persian religion.\nDr. M\u2019Lennan refers,[353] in support of his hypothesis, that animal\ngods were prolongations of the totems, to the opinion said to have\nbeen entertained by the Peruvians, that \u201cthere was not any beast or\nbird upon the earth whose shape or image did not shine in the heavens,\nby whose influence its similitude was generated on the earth, and\nits species increased.\u201d From this he assumes \u201cthat the celestial\nbeings were conceived to be in _the shape_ of the animals, and to\nhave special relations to their breed on the earth.\u201d The Peruvian\nnotion is, however, rather a phase of the ancient belief, expressed\nin the cosmogony of Zoroaster, that all things on earth had celestial\nprototypes which emanated from the Deity. As Lenormant remarks,[354]\n\u201cstars, animals, men, angels themselves\u2014in one word, every created\nbeing had his Fravishi, who was invoked in prayers and sacrifices, and\nwas the invisible protector who watched untiringly over the being to\nwhom he was attached.\u201d The Mazdian _fravishis_ answer to the personal\nspirits of nature-worship, and, according to the Accadian Magical\nTable, every man had \u201cfrom the hour of his birth a special god attached\nto him, who lived as his protector and his spiritual type.\u201d[355] We\nhave here the idea of guardianship by a mysterious being which is so\nimportant in connection with the totem, but there is no suggestion\nthat the _fravishi_ itself ever became embodied in a terrestrial form,\nalthough there does not appear to be any reason why it should not do so.\n\nWe have, in the doctrine of transmigration of souls, however, a\nsufficient explanation of the special association between a particular\ntotem and the members of the gens or family group to which it gives\nname. According to that doctrine,[356] as stated in the Hindoo code,\nknown as the Laws of Menu (chap. xii.), \u201cwith whatever disposition of\nmind a man shall perform in this life any act, religious or moral,\nin a future body endued with the same quality, shall he receive\nhis retribution.\u201d Numerous animals are named as proper for such\nre-incarnation, and even vegetables and mineral substances appear\namong them. Transmigration seems to have been considered by Oriental\nteaching essential to the attainment of perfection by the human soul,\nand the forms through which it is supposed to pass, include not only\nbeasts, birds, and fishes, but also trees, stones, and other inanimate\nobjects. The great Gautama himself is said to have passed through all\nthe existences of earth, air, and sea, as well as through all the\nconditions of human life, before he became the Buddha. Dr. M\u2019Lennan\nsays[357] it is of the essence of the doctrine of transmigration that\n\u201ceverything has a soul or spirit, and that the spirits are mostly human\nin the sense of having once been in human bodies.\u201d We have here the key\nto the problem of totemism, which receives its solution in the idea\nthat the totem is _the re-incarnated form of the legendary ancestor\nof the gens or family group allied to the totem_. The belief that\nthe spirits of the dead do take on themselves animal forms is widely\nspread.[358] The most remarkable example of this belief is that which\nviews certain snakes, not merely as re-incarnations of human souls,\nbut as re-embodiments of ancestors of the people by whom such snakes\nare venerated. Serpent-worship is, indeed, closely connected with the\nworship of ancestors. The followers of the serpent believed themselves\n\u201cto be of the serpent-breed, derived from a serpent ancestor,\u201d and we\nknow that peoples have claimed to belong to the serpent race. Such a\nclaim, or that to a monkey relationship made by some of the dark tribes\nof India, would be readily admitted by the savage mind, and it may be\nexplained on the principle that the legendary ancestor of the race is\nsupposed to have become re-incarnated in monkey or snake form, and that\nmonkeys or snakes as well as men are his descendants.\n\nAt the same time it is very probable that some savages do not\ndistinguish between the man and the animal incarnation, and that if\nthey think at all of the ancestor of the race, it is under the animal\nform. It must be remembered, however, that what to us is a monkey or\na bear is to the uncultured mind an incarnate spirit, and it is this\nspirit-existence which is referred to when men speak of their ancestors\nas animals or plants. This explanation is applicable also to the case\nwhere descent is claimed from one of the heavenly bodies. Particular\nstars are often identified with persons who, distinguished while\non earth, are thought to be no less distinguished after death. The\nspirit of the dead person thus becomes identified with the star. When,\ntherefore, a man or family claims the Sun or the Moon as an ancestor,\nthe spirit of the luminary is really referred to. In fact, to the lower\nraces the Sun and the Moon are great beings, and there is no apparent\nreason to them why a great man should not be descended from the spirit\nof the Sun or Moon, or after death be identified as that spirit.\nPerhaps, when the Egyptian Monarch was called Pharaoh, he was thought\nto be actually a descendant of Phra, the Sun.[359] Such may have been\nthe case also with the Incas and other royal families who have claimed\nto be of solar descent. Whether the Sun was regarded as the great\nancestor of the race, or only as the re-embodiment of his spirit, it\nwould be an equally powerful totem, a remark which applies as well to\nthe Moon or other heavenly bodies. In ancient times the Solar and Lunar\nraces were very powerful in the East, and their representatives are\nstill to be found in India among the Rajpoots and Jats.[360] In ancient\nphilosophy, the Sun and the Moon would represent the two realms of\nLight and Darkness, into which the visible Universe was divided, and\nas totems they probably stood at first in the same relation to other\ntotems as those of the Australian primary classes stand to the totems\nof the secondary groups or gentes. It is known that various animals\nwere anciently associated with the Sun or the Moon, or were venerated\nas emblems of the Solar or Lunar Deity. Thus, the Lion, the Bull, the\nHorse, the Elephant, the Monkey, the Ram, and the Eagle, with others,\nwere solar animals; while, among other animals, the Cow, the Hare, the\nDog, the Beaver, the Dove, and the Fish, were lunar animals.[361] An\nexample of the process by which certain creatures became associated\nwith those heavenly bodies is noted by Macrobius, who says of the Lion,\n\u201cthis beast seems to derive his own nature from the Sun, being, in\nforce and heat, as superior to all other animals as the Sun is to the\nStars.\u201d Another example, but of a different character, and taken from a\nvery different quarter, may be cited.\n\nThe Mount Gambier tribe of South Australia, as we have already seen,\ndivides everything in nature between two great classes, and although\nMr. Stewart, who is responsible for the information, could not find\nany reason for the arrangement, it appears from his remarks that the\nnatives knew to which division any object belongs. Mr. Stewart asked\nwhat division a bullock belongs to. The answer was, \u201cIt eats grass, it\nis Bourtwerio.\u201d He then said, \u201cA Crayfish does not eat grass: Why is it\nBourtwerio?\u201d but the only reply he could get was, \u201cThat is what our\nfathers said it was.\u201d[362]\n\nWe are now able to qualify the definition previously given of the totem\nas a \u201cbadge of fraternity,\u201d or the \u201csymbol of a gens.\u201d We see that the\ntotem is something more than a symbol or a badge. This description\nmight answer for the pictorial representation of the totem, but not\nfor the totem itself, which is regarded as having actual vitality as\nthe embodiment or re-incarnation of an ancestral spirit. Any object\nis fitted for this spirit embodiment, and therefore totemism may be\nlooked upon, not as a phase of nature-worship, but as a combination of\nthis religion with ancestor-worship. The ancestral character of the\ntotem accounts for the association with it of the idea of protection,\nwhich is based on the existence of a fraternal relationship between\nthe totem and all the individuals belonging to a particular group of\nkin. The totem, as a badge or symbol, therefore represents the group of\nindividuals, dead or alive, towards whom a man stands in a fraternal\nrelation, and the protection of whom he is therefore entitled to, so\nlong as he performs all the obligations on his part which flow from the\nexistence of that relationship. The ideas embodied in the totem are no\ndoubt more ancient than totemism as a developed social institution.\nThis fact will furnish an answer to the objection that totemism is\nknown only to peoples of a low degree of culture, who can hardly be\nsupposed capable of rising to the conception of nature, as a whole, on\nwhich that system is founded, or the idea of a relationship existing\nbetween all the objects in nature.\n\nDr. Brinton[363] answers those who object that the cosmogonical\nmyth of the Algonkins is \u201ctoo refined for those rude savages, or\nthat it smacks too much of reminiscences of old-world teachings,\u201d\nthat \u201cit is impossible to assign to it other than an indigenous and\nspontaneous origin in some remote period of Algonkin tribal history.\u201d\nThe same reply may be given in relation to the universal totemism of\nthe Australians, with the qualification that the tribal history of\nthis race would have to be carried back to a period when it was in\ncontact, on the Asiatic Continent, with peoples among whom originated\nor developed the ideas on which totemism is based, if, indeed, they\ndid not belong with them to a common stock. The existence among the\nnatives of Australia and America of that system may have been due\nto the establishment of the gentile institution on the basis of\nfemale kinship, and the intermingling of the gentes or family groups,\nowing to wives leaving their own kin on marriage to live among their\nhusband\u2019s kin, as the result of the practice of exogamy. Some of the\nAustralian tribes have a legend according to which the use of totems\nwas introduced, by command of the Supreme Being, to put a stop to\nconsanguineous marriages. This shows that the totem was connected with\nmarriage and kinship, but, considering how universal is the objection\namong savages to marriage between near relations, it is more than\nprobable that the legend was formed to explain an already existing\nphenomenon, that of totemism. As the conditions of social life were\nchanged, totemism as a system would gradually become effete, and totems\nwould come to be regarded chiefly as curiosities of nomenclature.\nThe preference for kinship through males, in connection with the\ntracing of descent, over kinship through females, combined with\nthe practice of wives leaving their own family to live among their\nhusband\u2019s kin, would take from the totem one of its most important\nuses, as all the members of a \u201cfamily\u201d would dwell together instead of\nbeing, like the individuals belonging to the American or Australian\ntotems, intermingled in one group. Totems would then be useful chiefly\nas ensigns, or as surnames to establish community of descent, and\ntherefore the evidence of marriage disability; as with the Chinese,\namong whom no persons of the same family name can intermarry, however\ndistant may be the actual relationship. When the mere possession of\na common surname was no longer an absolute bar to intermarriage, and\nkinship came to be traced equally through both parents, totemism ceased\nto have any value, except so far as the study of its phenomena can\nthrow light on the constitution and habits of ancient society.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[303] A more remarkable case even than this was the appearance to\nProfessor De Wette of his own double.\n\n[304] This was first published in \u201cAnthropologia,\u201d in 1875.\n\n[305] See \u201cTheosophy, Religion, and Occult Science\u201d (1885), p. 236, _et\nseq._\n\n[306] Casalis\u2019 \u201cLes Basoutos,\u201d p. 221. The Hottentots are said to have\ngiven animal names, such as Horse, Lion, Sheep, Ass, &c., to their\nchildren. Kolben\u2019s \u201cCape of Good Hope,\u201d p. 147.\n\n[307] \u201cKinship and Marriage in Early Arabia,\u201d pp. 17,192, _et seq._\n\n[308] Quoted by Dr. J. F. M\u2019Lennan in the _Fortnightly Review_, vol.\nvi., new series, p. 418.\n\n[309] The \u201cGenealogical Tree of the Turks\u201d ascribes a wolf paternity\nto the sons of the Princess Choyumna Khan (Miles\u2019 Translation, p. 47).\nIs there a totemic reference in the game of K\u00f6kburi, \u201cgreen-wolf,\u201d\npractised by the Nomads of Central Asia in imitation of bride-racing?\nVambery\u2019s \u201cTravels in Central Asia,\u201d p. 323.\n\n[310] \u201cSystems of Consanguinity and Affinity,\u201d by Lewis H. Morgan, p.\n424.\n\n[311] These and nine other animals give names to the twelve years of\nthe Mogul calendar.\n\n[312] Mahabharata.\u2014Talbot Wheeler\u2019s \u201cHistory of India,\u201d vol i., p. 412.\n\n[313] _Fortnightly Review_, vol. vi., n. s., p. 563, _et seq._\n\n[314] \u201cThe Native Tribes of South Australia,\u201d p. 260.\n\n[315] \u201cKamilaroi and Kurnai,\u201d p. 166.\n\n[316] \u201cAncient Society,\u201d p. 69.\n\n[317] \u201cTravels in North-Western Australia,\u201d vol. ii., p. 229.\n\n[318] \u201cDescription of the Coast of Guinea,\u201d p. 129.\n\n[319] \u201cLife in the Southern Isles,\u201d p. 25.\n\n[320] Turner\u2019s \u201cNineteen Years in Polynesia,\u201d p. 238.\n\n[321] See Tylor\u2019s \u201cPrimitive Culture,\u201d vol. ii., p. 213.\n\n[322] Wood\u2019s \u201cNatural History of Man,\u201d vol. ii., pp. 271, 290.\n\n[323] Seemann\u2019s \u201cMission to Viti,\u201d p. 391. On the temple at Dorey\nin New Guinea are sculptured the representations of the crocodile\nand serpent ancestors of some of the Dorean families. D\u2019Estrey\u2019s\n\u201cPapouasie,\u201d p. 132.\n\n[324] \u201cManners and Customs of the Indians,\u201d vol. i., p. 36, and vol.\nii., 247.\n\n[325] \u201cEighteen Years on the Gold Coast,\u201d vol. ii., p. 128.\n\n[326] _Fortnightly Review_, vol. vi., n. s., p. 408.\n\n[327] Ditto, p. 569, and vol. vii., n. s., p. 214.\n\n[328] \u201cKinship and Marriage,\u201d p. 186, _et seq._\n\n[329] \u201cKinship and Marriage,\u201d p. 204.\n\n[330] \u201cHistoire Ancienne des Peuples de l\u2019Orient,\u201d 4th edition, p. 28.\n\n[331] Lenormant, \u201cHistoire Ancienne de l\u2019Orient,\u201d 9th edition, t. ii.,\np. 212, _et seq._\n\n[332] \u201cOrigine de tous les Cultes,\u201d t. i., p. 77.\n\n[333] _Fortnightly Review_, vol. vi., n. s., p. 563.\n\n[334] Dupuis _Op. cit._, t. iii., \u201cDe la Sphere,\u201d p. 19.\n\n[335] \u201cCustom and Myth,\u201d 2nd edition, p. 262.\n\n[336] As to supposed use of the totem as a tattoo mark, see M\u2019Lennan,\n_loc. cit._, p. 418, and Smith\u2019s \u201cKinship and Marriage in Early\nArabia,\u201d p. 213, _et seq._\n\n[337] \u201cOrigin of Civilisation,\u201d 3rd edition, p. 199.\n\n[338] Ditto, p. 327.\n\n[339] Ditto, p. 253.\n\n[340] \u201cPrimitive Culture,\u201d vol. ii., p. 215.\n\n[341] _Loc. cit._, p. 422.\n\n[342] Dupuis \u201cAbr\u00e9g\u00e9 de l\u2019Origine,\u201d pp. 71, 83.\n\n[343] Ditto, p. 66.\n\n[344] English edition, p. 250.\n\n[345] Ditto, p. 145.\n\n[346] Ditto, p. 255.\n\n[347] _Op. cit._, p. 167, _et seq._\n\n[348] \u201cAmerican Hero-Myths,\u201d p. 65.\n\n[349] \u201cLes M\u0153urs des Sauvages,\u201d t. i., 465.\n\n[350] See Gubernatis\u2019 \u201cZoological Mythology,\u201d _passim_. Dr. Brinton\nshows that the Great Rabbit of Algonkin Mythology is the Light\nGod.\u2014_Op. cit._, p. 47.\n\n[351] \u201cChaldean Magic,\u201d p. 228.\n\n[352] Ditto, p. 231.\n\n[353] _Fortnightly Review_, vol. vii., n. s., p. 212.\n\n[354] _Op. cit._, p. 199.\n\n[355] This idea survives in the personal patron saints of the Greek\nChurch. The special god was of a peculiar character, \u201cpartaking of\nthe imperfections and foibles of human nature,\u201d and, like the Mazdian\n_fravishi_, it was part of the man\u2019s soul. Lenormant says, however,\nthat in the Mazdian books, \u201cthe conception rose to a higher degree,\ndetaching itself from the materiality and imperfections of the\nterrestrial nature.\u201d\n\n[356] See \u201cEvolution of Morality,\u201d vol. ii., p. 154, _et seq._\n\n[357] _Loc. cit._, p. 423.\n\n[358] See Tylor, _op. cit._, vol. ii., p. 6.\n\n[359] Osburn\u2019s \u201cEgypt and Her Testimony to the Truth,\u201d p. 2. The\nGod Amoun is said to address Sethos as \u201cmy beloved son, my lineal\ndescendant.\u201d\u2014Ditto, p. 49.\n\n[360] Professor Robert Smith (_op. cit._, p. 17) refers to Arab tribes,\ncalled \u201cChildren of the Sun\u201d and \u201cChildren of the Moon.\u201d\n\n[361] See De Gubernatis, _op. cit._, _passim_. He states that the stag,\nthe bear, and some other animals represent the luminous appearances in\nthe darkness, rather than the moon itself.\n\n[362] \u201cKamilaroi and Kurnai,\u201d p. 169.\n\n[363] _Op. cit._, p. 43.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER XIII.\n\nMAN AND THE APE.\n\n\nThe primary object of the present essay is to ascertain whether the\nconclusion arrived at by Mr. Darwin and other writers as to the origin\nof man\u2014that he has sprung from the ape by simple descent\u2014can be\ndepended on, and if not, what is the nature of man\u2019s relationship to\nthe animal kingdom.\n\nWithout further preface, I shall proceed to consider as briefly as\npossible the main arguments adduced by Mr. Darwin in support of this\nconclusion.[364] Those which are derived from the consideration of\nphysical data appear to me to be of comparatively small importance,\nsince they may be admitted without seriously affecting the question\nat issue. They are almost all connected with the fact that man is\n\u201cconstructed on the same general type or model with other mammals.\u201d\nThus it is with the brain, every chief fissure and fold of which is\ndeclared to be developed in the brain of the orang equally with that of\nman. Their constitutional habit, however, appears also to be the same.\nThus man and monkeys are liable to many of the same non-contagious\ndiseases; medicines produce the same effect on both, and most mammals\nexhibit the mysterious law of periodicity in various diseases. These\nare interesting facts, but the most important for the argument of the\nape-descent of man are those which show the existence in the human\nbody of certain rudimentary organs and structures which are fully\ndeveloped with some of the lower animals. It is possible, however, to\nexplain this phenomenon without having recourse to the hypothesis of\na simple ape-descent; even if it be admitted with M. Broca, that in\nthe parallel between man and the anthropoids, the comparison of organs\nshows only some slight differences.[365] This may be granted even as\nto the brain, and that \u201cthe immense superiority of man\u2019s intelligence\ndepends, not on the anatomical structure of his brain, but on its\nvolume and power.\u201d[366] But then, if such is the case, it is all the\nmore difficult to account for the vast difference which, says Broca, a\ncomparison of function reveals, and which led M. Gratiolet to exclaim\nthat, although man is indeed by his structure a monkey, yet by his\nintelligence he is a God.[367]\n\nWhile admitting that physiological considerations reveal a much\nwider interval between man and the anthropoid apes than anatomical\ndata require, M. Broca would hardly allow that the former exhibits\nanything peculiar in his mental action. So, also, Mr. Darwin says that\nman and the higher mammals \u201chave some few instincts in common. All\nhave the same senses, intuitions, and sensations\u2014similar passions,\naffections, and emotions, even the more complex ones; they feel\nwonder and curiosity; they possess the same faculties of imitation,\nattention, memory, imagination, and reason, though in very different\ndegrees.\u201d[368] The faculty of articulate speech, moreover, is said\nnot in itself to offer \u201cany insuperable objection to the belief that\nman has been developed from some lower form;\u201d while the taste for\nthe \u201cbeautiful\u201d is shown not to be peculiar to the human mind.[369]\nThe moral sense is supposed by Mr. Darwin to be the most distinctive\ncharacteristic of man; but even this is asserted to have been developed\nout of the social instincts which man and many of the lower animals\nhave in common.[370] Finally, self-consciousness, abstraction, &c.,\neven if peculiar to man, are declared to be \u201cthe incidental results of\nother highly-advanced intellectual faculties;\u201d[371] and these again\nare mainly due to the continued use of a highly-developed language,\nwhich originated in \u201cthe imitation and modification, aided by signs and\ngestures, of various natural sounds, the voices of other animals and\nman\u2019s own instinctive cries.\u201d[372]\n\nIf, however, all this be true, how are we to account for the wonderful\nintellectual superiority of man? Haeckel gives an explanation which,\nalthough ingenious, is far from satisfactory. He says that it is\nowing to the fact that \u201cman combines in himself several prominent\npeculiarities, which only occur separately among other animals.\u201d The\nmost important of these are the superior structure of the larynx, the\ndegree of brain or soul development, and that of the extremities, the\nupright walk, and, lastly, speech. But, says Haeckel, \u201call these\nprerogatives belong singly to other animals\u2014birds with highly-organised\nlarynx and tongue, such as the parrot, &c., can learn to utter\narticulate sounds as perfectly as man himself. The soul\u2019s activity\nexists among many of the higher animals, particularly with the dog,\nthe elephant, and the horse, in a higher degree of cultivation than\nwith man when most degraded. The hand, as a mechanical instrument,\nis as highly developed among the anthropoid apes as with the lowest\nmen. Finally, man shares his upright walk with the penguin and\nother animals, while capacity for locomotion is more fully and more\nperfectly developed among many animals than with man.\u201d Haeckel\nconcludes, therefore, that it is \u201csolely the fortunate combination of\na higher organisation of several very important organs and functions\nwhich raises most men, but not all, above the animals.\u201d[373] This\nexplanation, however, appears rather to increase the difficulty than to\nremove it. Some of Haeckel\u2019s statements might probably be challenged\nwith success; but even admitting their truth, what cause can be given\nof the marvellous combination in man, of qualities possessed separately\nby animals, the highest in the class to which they belong?\n\nMr. Darwin justly remarks, that \u201cthe belief that there exists in man\nsome close relation between the size of the brain and the development\nof the intellectual faculties, is supported by the comparison of the\nskulls of savage and civilised races of ancient and modern peoples,\nand by the analogy of the whole vertebrate series.\u201d[374] There must,\nindeed, be a certain agreement between the brain and its intellectual\nproducts, and hence the large size of the human brain requires that\nthe mental phenomena of man should be of a vastly superior nature\nto those presented by the lower animals. Whether, according to the\ndevelopmental view of the correspondence between human and brute mental\nfaculties, the lower races of man, as compared with animals, really\nexhibit an intellectual superiority commensurate with the largeness\nof their brains, may be questioned. Mr. Wallace, indeed, declares\nthat they do not, and he goes so far as to say that \u201ca brain slightly\nlarger than that of the gorilla would, according to the evidence\nbefore us, fully have sufficed for the limited mental development of\nthe savage.\u201d[375] This opinion is correct, on the assumption that\nanimal and human mental action is perfectly analogous, and Mr. Wallace\nwould undoubtedly be right in asserting that the savage possesses a\nbrain \u201cquite disproportionate to his actual requirements,\u201d if by this\nphrase is meant his mere animal wants. But the savage is a man, and\nthe size of brain required by him must be judged of, not by the degree\nof intellectual action he exhibits, but by its accompaniments\u2014not by\nquantity, but by quality.\n\nThe source of man\u2019s superiority must be sought in an examination of\nhis mental faculties, and yet the inquiry is vitiated at the very\ncommencement, by the assumption that the mind of man differs from that\nof the animal only in the degree of its activity. I am prepared to\nadmit that the higher mammalia, at least, have the power of reasoning,\nwith all the faculties which are essential to its exercise. But this\nvery fact makes it utterly incomprehensible how the result of human\nmental activity can be so superior, unless some further principle or\nfaculty than those which the animal mind possesses operates in that of\nman. What this principle or faculty is, may be shown by reference to\ncertain facts connected with language. Mr. Darwin ascribes the origin\nof human speech to imitation and modification of natural sounds and\nman\u2019s own instinctive utterances.[376] That the primitive elements\nof man\u2019s language were thus obtained is doubtless true. Something\nelse, however, is required to explain the phenomena presented by the\nlanguages of uncultured peoples. Such, for instance, cannot have been\nthe origin of certain ideas which are apparently common to the minds\nof all peoples however savage. It has been said that these peoples,\nalthough having names for every particular object, have no words to\nexpress a class of objects. This statement must be received with\ncaution. But if absolutely true in the sense intended, it cannot be\ndenied that nearly all primitive languages have words denoting colours,\nand these by their very nature, as expressive of attributes, are\napplicable to a series of objects.\n\nNow there is not the slightest reason to believe that animals have\nany idea of qualities, as such. Even the taste for the beautiful,\nwhich Mr. Darwin tells us is not unknown to various animals\u2014especially\nbirds, has relation to the object which attracts by its colour, &c.,\nand not to the colour itself. But it is just this perception of the\nqualities of objects which is at the foundation, and forms the starting\npoint, of all human progress. The essential instrument of intellectual\ndevelopment, articulate language, was first prompted by such a\nperception, and it was in the recognition of the qualities of actions,\nby reflection on their consequences, that the moral sense was gradually\nevolved. It can hardly be that a power which has had so wonderful an\neffect, and one which is so different from anything met with among the\nlower animals, can be referred to any of the ordinary faculties which\nthese possess. If not, we must ascribe it to a new faculty altogether,\na kind of spiritual insight, which can be explained only as resulting\nfrom the addition of a principle of activity superior to that which is\nthe seat of the animal life. If we were to trace the beginning of every\nsingle branch of human culture, it would be found to have originated in\nthe exercise of such a faculty of reflection as that here described.\nThe elements of knowledge man possesses in common with the animals\naround him; but these have not built up any superstructure, because\nthey have no spiritual insight such as will enable them to analyse\nthose elements, and thus to fit them for re-combination into that\nwonderful series of forms which they have taken in the human mind.\n\nIt is hardly necessary to discuss here the nature of the principle\nwhich thus shows its energy in the mind of man. Whether it is the\ncause or the effect of the refined organisation exhibited by the human\nbody need not now be considered. If the latter, however, it may be\nobjected that\u2014assuming the human bodily organism to have been derived\nby descent from a lower animal form, according to the principles of\nnatural selection\u2014the intellectual faculty peculiar to man must have\nhad analogous origin. To this it might be answered that man\u2019s special\nfaculty could not have been derived from an animal organism which\ndoes not itself possess it; but it is advisable rather to test that\nconclusion by a consideration of the physical data, and to see how far\nthe argument for natural descent can be supported. According to this\nview, the tendency to the bipedal character was the first to become\noperative in the gradual development of man out of the ape. The erect\nform is supposed, however, to have been assumed that the arms and hands\nmight have full play,[377] and it is evident that the free use of these\nwould not have been of any special advantage without an increased\nbrain-activity to guide them. Probably the changes required in the\nphysical structure would be concomitant, but if they had a starting\npoint it would surely be in the brain rather than in the extremities.\n\nThe great development of the encephalon in man as compared with\nthe monkey tribe would, in fact, require all the other supposed\nchanges. Thus the greatly increased size and weight of the brain and\nits bony case, combined with the position of the foramen magnum\nat the base of the skull, would necessitate the erect position of\nthe body, and this would supply the arms and upper part of the\ntrunk with the required freedom of movement. These changes would be\naccompanied by the modification of the pelvis and lower limbs, while\nthe increased sensitiveness of the skin, resulting from man\u2019s more\nrefined nervous structure, will sufficiently account for its general\nnakedness,[378] without supposing, with Mr. Darwin, the influence of\nsexual selection.[379] It is therefore in reality only the large size\nof the human brain that has to be accounted for, and this is by no\nmeans easy on the principle of natural selection. No doubt, with the\nincreased activity of the mental powers, the brain would become more\nvoluminous. But what was to determine that increased activity? It can\nonly have been an improvement in the conditions of existence, to which\nman\u2019s supposed ape progenitors were subjected, for which no sufficient\nreason can be given. Moreover, those progenitors would be subjected\nto the inevitable struggle for existence\u2014a struggle which, even with\nman, in an uncivilised state, has a tendency to brutalise rather than\nto humanise. Under these conditions it would seem to be impossible for\nman to have raised himself to so great a superiority over his nearest\nallies as even the lowest savage exhibits. \u201cHis absolute erectness of\nposture, the completeness of his nudity, the harmonious perfection of\nhis hands, the almost infinite capacities of his brain, constitute,\u201d\nsays Mr. Wallace, \u201ca series of correlated advances too great to be\naccounted for by the struggle for existence of an isolated group of\napes in a limited area,\u201d[380] as Mr. Darwin\u2019s hypothesis supposes.\n\nWhile firmly convinced, on the grounds already stated, that man cannot\nhave been derived from the ape by descent with natural selection, I\nam by no means prepared to admit that he may not have been so derived\nunder other conditions. Although man undoubtedly has a mental faculty\nof the utmost importance which the animals do not possess, agreeing\nwith his superiority of physical structure, there can be no question\nthat, both physically and mentally, he is most intimately allied to\nthe members of the animal kingdom. Before endeavouring to furnish a\nsolution of the difficult question of the origin of man under these\nconditions, I would point out, what is so ably insisted on by M.\nBroca,[381] that _transformism_, to use the continental term, is wholly\ndistinct from \u201cnatural selection,\u201d or any other mode by which the\ntransformation may be originated or effected. This is a most important\nconsideration, and one which Mr. Darwin has incidentally referred\nto.[382] That man is the final term in a process of evolution, the\nbeginning of which we cannot yet trace, appears to me to be a firmly\nestablished truth. The descent of man from the ape under the influence\nof external conditions is, however, a totally different proposition,\nand one of which no actual proof has yet been furnished, the argument\nreally amounting to this, that the correspondences between man and the\nhigher mammals render it more likely that he has descended from the\nape than that he has been specially created. This may be true, and yet\nthose correspondences be owing to a very different cause from the one\nthus supposed for them.\n\nMr. Herbert Spencer affirms that \u201csuccessive changes of conditions\nwould produce divergent varieties or species\u201d of the organisms subject\nto them, apart from the influence of \u201cnatural selection,\u201d which, in\nthe absence of such successive changes of conditions, would effect\n\u201ccomparatively little.\u201d[383] It is to the latter especially Mr. Spencer\ntraces the gradual evolution of nature, on the process of which he has\nthrown so much light. Thus, when treating elsewhere of that evolution,\nhe says, \u201cWhile we are not called on to suppose that there exists in\norganisms any primordial impulse which makes them continually unfold\ninto more heterogeneous forms; we see that a liability to be unfolded\narises from the actions and reactions between organisms and their\nfluctuating environments. And we see that the existence of such a\ncause of development pre-supposes the non-occurrence of development\nwhere this fluctuation of actions and reactions does not come into\nplay.\u201d[384] It is evident that this theory, like that of Mr. Darwin,\nsupposes the occurrence of slight structural changes which, in the\nabsence of knowledge as to their exciting causes, may be described as\n\u201cspontaneous,\u201d and the perpetuation of which is the establishment of\nnew forms or species. But among domestic animals, and by analogy we may\nassume, therefore, among wild animals, variation in the way supposed\nis not the only mode by which the physical structure may be modified.\nVarious instances of sudden change have been collected which are very\ndifficult to deal with, and they have led Mr. Huxley to remark that Mr.\nDarwin\u2019s position \u201cmight have been even stronger than it is if he had\nnot embarrassed himself with the aphorism \u2018_natura non facit saltum_,\u2019\nwhich turns up so often in his pages.\u201d Mr. Huxley adds \u201cthat nature\ndoes make jumps now and then, and a recognition of the fact is of no\nsmall importance in disposing of many minor objections to the doctrine\nof transmutation.\u201d[385] Minor objections may certainly be thus removed,\nbut only by introducing one of much greater moment. If, as Mr. Spencer\nsays, \u201cnatural selection is capable of _producing_ fitness between\norganisms and their circumstances,\u201d[386] it must be by the perpetuation\nof slight changes, and there does not, indeed, appear to be any room in\nthe hypothesis of natural selection for the saltatory movements which it\nis so necessary to explain.\n\nThe changes which organisms undergo, whether sudden or gradual, and\nwhatever their approximate exciting cause, take place in pursuance of\nthe evolution of organic nature, and there can be no doubt that this\nproceeds under the guidance of law. Professor Owen expresses this fact\nin saying that \u201cgenerations do not vary accidentally in any and every\ndirection, but in preordained, definite, and correlated courses.\u201d[387]\nThis may be accepted as expressing a general truth, subject to some\nqualification of the word \u201cpreordained.\u201d It is not exactly true,\nhowever, for variations are not always regular and orderly. Within\ncertain limits, indeed, they would seem to take place in any direction,\nbut there is always a tendency for them to accumulate in that course\nalong which they meet with the least resistance. This is in accordance\nwith the principle laid down by Mr. Herbert Spencer, that everything\ntends towards equilibration, the state being one not of absolute but of\nmoving equilibrium, while \u201cthroughout evolution of all kinds there is a\ncontinual approximation, and more or less complete maintenance of this\nmoving equilibrium.\u201d[388] The ultimate result is that, \u201cwhen through\na change of habit or circumstance an organism is permanently subject\nto some new influence, or different amount of an old influence, there\narises, after more or less disturbance of the old rhythms, a balancing\nof them around the new average conditions produced by this additional\ninfluence.\u201d[389] It is evident that the variations which have been\noriginated before the attainment of the state of temporary stability\nthus established would have little chance of being perpetuated; and we\nhave probably here the explanation of the fact that the progress of\nevolution reveals itself so often by sudden movements. In these cases,\nwhere the disturbing influence has rendered the equilibrium of the\norganism affected more or less unstable, a new centre of equilibrium\nwill be formed, and the appearance of a fresh specific form be the\nresult.\n\nHowever fitted this explanation may be to account for the gaps\nwhich so often present themselves in developmental series of animal\nstructures, it is far from sufficient to account for the origin of\nman, at least on the assumption of evolution governed merely by\nmechanical principles. Neither man nor animals, in fact, could have\ncome into being at all unless there had been an organic necessity,\nquite independent even of the general average effects of the relations\nof living bodies to their environments, insisted on by Mr. Spencer.\nThat these agencies have been very influential in the evolution of\norganic nature is undoubtedly true. But their influence in this\nrespect depends altogether on the organism on which they act being\nin a condition of unstable equilibrium. Mr. Spencer declares, when\nspeaking of the condition of homogeneity being a condition of unstable\nequilibrium, that this instability is \u201cconsequent on the fact that the\nseveral parts of any homogeneous aggregation are necessarily exposed\nto different forces\u2014forces that differ either in kind or amount.\u201d[390]\nThis may be true in relation to animal and vegetable forms, whose germs\nare supposed not to show the slightest trace of the future organism,\nalthough even as to these Mr. Spencer can say that \u201cdoubtless we are\nstill in the dark respecting those mysterious properties which make\nthe germ, when subject to fit influences, undergo the special changes\nbeginning this series of transformations.\u201d[391] But the unstable\ncondition of the primeval homogeneous substance of nature could not\nbe due to the cause assigned. For it requires the impossible case\nof certain forces, the action of which is supposed to result in the\ncondition of instability, existing _outside_ of that substance which,\nas being identified with the Absolute, we must assume to be present\nthroughout all space. The notion of an universally diffused homogeneous\nsubstance, acted on by external forces, appears to be contrary to\nreason; and the proper explanation of the original condition of\ninstability would seem to be that it is natural to the primeval\nsubstance as the result of an innate energy, the internal force which\nconstitutes its vitality. But this substance cannot have been merely\n\u201cmaterial.\u201d There is just as little room for transition from the\ninorganic to the organic as from the animal to man; there is but one\nsatisfactory starting-point\u2014nature itself viewed as organic.\n\nIf such is the case when the changes observable in nature are viewed\nas strictly evolutional, much more so is it when they are traced to\nthe lower activity of natural selection. Mr. J. J. Murphy well remarks\nthat \u201cthe facts of variability being the greatest in the lowest\norganisms, while progress has been most rapid among the higher ones,\nshows that there is something in organic progress which mere natural\nselection among spontaneous variations will not account for.\u201d[392]\nElsewhere the same writer declares that \u201cno solution of the questions\nof the origin of organisation and the origin of organic species can be\nadequate which does not recognise an organising intelligence over and\nabove the common laws of matter\u201d\u2014_i.e._, the laws of self-adaptation to\ncircumstances and natural selection.[393] This organising intelligence\nis supposed to have been bestowed once for all on vitalised matter by\nthe Creator, so as to prevent the necessity of separately organising\neach particular structure,[394] although it is suggested that man\u2019s\nspiritual nature may be a direct result of creative power.[395] Mr.\nWallace objects to the law of \u201cunconscious intelligence,\u201d that \u201cit has\nthe double disadvantage of being both unintelligible and incapable of\nany kind of proof.\u201d[396] This is true enough, but it has the equally\nserious defect of reintroducing the notion of special \u201ccreation,\u201d\nwith all the difficulties attendant on the origin of matter, and the\nseparate existence of independent spiritual and material substances.\n\nMr. Wallace himself is so much struck with the imposing position\noccupied by man that he thinks that \u201ca superior intelligence has\nguided the development of man in a definite direction and for a\nspecial purpose, just as man guides the development of many animal\nand vegetable forms.\u201d[397] He supposes, moreover, that \u201cthe whole\nuniverse is not merely dependent on, but actually _is_, the WILL of\nhigher intelligences, or of one supreme intelligence.\u201d[398] It seems to\nme, although Mr. Wallace thinks otherwise, that this notion completely\nundermines the hypothesis of natural selection. If not only the whole\nuniverse, but also a particular portion of it\u2014man\u2014has been divinely\n\u201cwilled,\u201d analogy will lead us to believe that every other portion of\nthe whole has thus originated.\n\nThe difficulties attendant on theories such as those of Mr. Murphy and\nMr. Wallace, and the unsatisfactory explanation afforded by the theory\nof evolution, as usually understood, of the origin of man, have led\nme to the opinion that nature as a whole is organic, and that man is\nthe necessary result of its evolution. Not only so, however; man must\nbe viewed as the real object of the evolution of nature viewed as a\nliving organism. Without him nature itself would be imperfect, and all\nlower animal forms must, therefore, be considered as subsidiary to the\nhuman organism, and as so many stages only towards its attainment.\nBut if living nature is an organic whole, its several parts must be\nintimately connected. Hence the numerous correspondences between man\nand the higher mammals cannot be accidental or even merely designed\nsimilarities. They betoken an actual and intimate connection between\nthe organisms presenting them, and such an one as is consistent only\nwith a derivation of one from the other. This view differs from that\nof Mr. Darwin, not in the fact of man\u2019s derivation from the ape, but\nin the mode and conditions under which it has taken place. Derivation,\nby virtue of an inherent evolutional impulse, is totally different\nfrom simple descent, aided by natural selection. In the latter case\nthe appearance of man may be described as in some sense accidental;\nin the former, not only is it necessary, but it is that for which all\nevolution has taken place, the only condition, in fact, under which\nevolution was possible.\n\nHow far such a development of organic forms as I have supposed is\nconsistent with design is a difficult question. It is apparent that\nwhen nature is conceived of as forming an organic whole, the universe\nbecomes identified with the Absolute, of whose being relative nature is\nmerely an expression. But is not the possession by relative existences\nof intellectual faculties, and of the marvellous power of insight or\nreflection, evidence that the same powers belong also to the absolute\nBeing? The possession by man of intelligence is, in fact, proof that\norganic nature is intelligent. Still, however, the need of design is\nnot apparent. Granting that relative nature has been evolved out of the\nabsolute existence, such evolution can have taken only one course\u2014that\nwhich led to man, who could appear only when the conditions of nature\nwere fitted for him, and who _must_ appear when those conditions were\nso fitted. Moreover, as man was from the beginning the object of\norganic evolution, this must have taken place along the line which led\nto him, without any actually preconceived design or intention other\nthan that which is implied in the preknowledge of man\u2019s appearance. It\ndoes not follow, however, that other branches of organic nature besides\nthat which ended in man may not have reached a stage of structural\nperfection. No doubt they have so done, and thus we can understand\nhow it is that certain animals seem to have been, as Professor Owen\nasserts, \u201cpredestined and prepared for man.\u201d The fitness pointed out by\nour great anatomist \u201cof the organisation of the horse and ass for the\nneeds of mankind, and the coincidence of the origin of the Ungulates\nhaving equine modifications of the perissodactyle structure with\nthe period immediately preceding, or coincident with, the earliest\nevidence of the human race,\u201d is certainly remarkable.[399] I cannot see\nin these facts, however, anything more than a necessary coincidence\narising from the progress of evolution along different planes. It\nis possible, however, that Professor Owen may mean little more than\nthis, and that he would be satisfied to admit the identity between the\n\u201cpredetermining\u201d agent and organic nature, acting by virtue of the laws\nof its own evolutional impulse. So at least may be supposed from the\nfact that he rejects \u201cthe principle of direct or miraculous creation,\u201d\nand recognises \u201ca \u2018natural law or secondary cause\u2019 as operative in the\nproduction of species in orderly succession and progression.\u201d[400] It\nis difficult to understand how otherwise there could be an \u201cinnate\ntendency to deviate from the parental type.\u201d\n\nBefore concluding, reference should be made to certain facts\nconnected with the development of the brain and the human organism\ngenerally, which at first sight seem to be quite irreconcilable with\nthe notion of man\u2019s derivation from the ape, even under the conditions\nI have proposed. Thus, M. Pruner Bey has shown that in man and the\nanthropomorphous apes there exists \u201can _inverse order_ of the final\nterm of development in the sensitive and vegetative apparatus, and in\nthe systems of locomotion and reproduction.\u201d The same inverse order\nis exhibited in the development of individual organs. Thus it is,\nsays Pruner Bey, with a portion of the permanent teeth; Welcher makes\na similar remark as to the modifications of the base of the skull in\nrelation to the sphenoidal angle of Virchow; and Gratiolet points out\nan analogous fact in the development of the brain. The language of\nthe great French anatomist is very precise. He says: \u201cWith man and\nthe adult anthropormorphous apes there exists a certain resemblance\nin the mode of arrangement in the cerebral folds which has imposed\non some persons and on which they have strongly insisted. But this\nresult is attained _by an inverse process_ (_marche inverse_). In\nthe monkey the temporosphenoidal convolutions which form the middle\nlobe appear and perfect themselves before the anterior convolutions\nwhich form the frontal lobe. With man, on the contrary, the frontal\nconvolutions appear the first, and those of the middle lobe show\nthemselves the last.\u201d In referring to these facts, M. de Quatrefages\ndeclares that \u201cwhen two organised beings follow an inverse course\nin their development, the more highly developed of the two cannot\nhave descended from the other by means of evolution.\u201d[401] If by\nevolution is meant simple descent under the influence of natural\nselection and modification of external conditions, this conclusion is\ncertainly correct. It is true that, contrary to the opinion expressed\nby Gratiolet, that \u201cthe human brain differs the more from that of the\nmonkey the less it is developed, and an arrest of development can only\nexaggerate this natural difference.\u201d[402] M. Carl Vogt declares that\nthe human brain may, under certain conditions, not only externally\nresemble that of the higher apes, but also that the superior portion\nof it (_parties vo\u00fbt\u00e9es_) in microcephalic idiots is really developed\nafter the simian type,[403] the skull itself having both simian and\nhuman elements.[404] But does not the fact that the lower part of the\nmicrocephalic skull, and the portion of the brain which is the earliest\ndeveloped, are formed on the human type, amply justify the assertion of\nGratiolet that \u201cthe microcephale, however degraded, is not a brute, but\nonly a modified man?\u201d Is it not evident, moreover, that however highly\nan ape brain may be developed, it could not become like that of a man,\nat least by descent with natural selection? It is different, however,\nif we view man as the necessary product of the evolution of organic\nnature. We may well believe that when the sudden advance from the ape\nstructure to that of man was made, under the conditions above proposed,\nthe great increase in the size of the brain and the change in the\nposition of the foramen magnum were accompanied by an alteration in the\norder of development, not only of the different parts of the brain,\nbut also of the internal apparatus as pointed out by M. Pruner Bey.\nBut the advance having once taken place, the human type can no more be\nlost; and although the approach to the simian type which appears in the\nabnormal microcephalic brain evidences the intimate connection between\nman and the ape, yet it furnishes no disproof of derivation, one from\nthe other, by the agency of internal evolutional impulse.\n\nIn conclusion, I would again refer to the fact, so strongly insisted\non by M. Broca, that the truth of the theory of evolution is not\ndependent on that of the hypothesis of natural selection. The great\ndefect of \u201cnatural selection\u201d as an agent in organic evolution, is that\nit cannot do more than perpetuate certain structural peculiarities,\nthe appearance of which it is powerless to explain. The hypothesis is\nproperly defined as \u201cnatural selection among spontaneous variations;\u201d\nand it is the appearance of these variations which constitutes the\nmost important part of the problem. They can be explained only on the\nassumption of \u201can internal tendency to deviate from the parental type;\u201d\nand granting that this tendency results from a necessary evolution\nof nature viewed as an organic whole, there is no difficulty in\naccounting for all the facts dwelt on by Mr. Darwin without supposing\nthe derivation of man from the ape by simple descent, although not\nwithout identifying the universe with Deity, and viewing its various\nmanifestations as His organs.\n\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[364] \u201cThe Descent of Man,\u201d vol. i., p. 10, _et seq._\n\n[365] \u201cL\u2019Ordre des Primates,\u201d p. 173 (1870).\n\n[366] _Ibid._, p. 168.\n\n[367] _Ibid._, p. 173.\n\n[368] _Op. cit._, vol. i., p. 48.\n\n[369] _Ibid._, p. 63.\n\n[370] _Ibid._, p. 70, _et seq._\n\n[371] _Ibid._, p. 105.\n\n[372] _Ibid._, p. 56.\n\n[373] \u201cGenerelle Morphologie der Organismen,\u201d vol. ii., p. 430 (1866).\n\n[374] _Op. cit._, vol. i., p. 145.\n\n[375] \u201cNatural Selection,\u201d p. 343 (1870).\n\n[376] _Op. cit._, vol. i., p. 56.\n\n[377] Darwin, _op. cit._, vol. i., p. 141.\n\n[378] See Owen\u2019s \u201cAnatomy of the Vertebrates,\u201d vol. iii., p. 186.\n\n[379] _Op. cit._, vol. ii., p. 376.\n\n[380] The \u201cAcademy,\u201d No. 20, p. 183 (1871).\n\n[381] \u201cRevue des Cours Scientifiques,\u201d 30th July, 1870, p. 558.\n\n[382] \u201cDescent of Man,\u201d vol. i., p. 152.\n\n[383] \u201cFirst Principles,\u201d 2nd edition, p. 447, n.\n\n[384] \u201cPrinciples of Biology,\u201d vol. i., p. 430.\n\n[385] \u201cLay Sermons,\u201d p. 326.\n\n[386] \u201cPrinciples of Biology,\u201d vol. i., p. 446.\n\n[387] _Op. cit._, vol. iii., p. 808.\n\n[388] \u201cFirst Principles,\u201d 2nd edition, p. 489.\n\n[389] _Ibid._, p. 500.\n\n[390] \u201cFirst Principles,\u201d 2nd edition, p. 404.\n\n[391] _Ibid._, p. 444.\n\n[392] \u201cHabit and Intelligence,\u201d vol. i., p. 348 (1869).\n\n[393] _Ibid._, vol. i., p. 295.\n\n[394] _Ibid._, vol. ii., p. 8.\n\n[395] _Ibid._, vol. i., p. 331.\n\n[396] _Op. cit._, p. 360.\n\n[397] _Op. cit._, p. 359.\n\n[398] _Ibid._, p. 368.\n\n[399] _Op. cit._, vol. iii., p. 795.\n\n[400] _Ibid._, p. 789.\n\n[401] \u201cRapport sur les Progr\u00e8s de l\u2019Anthropologie,\u201d p. 247 (1867).\n\n[402] _Ibid._\n\n[403] \u201cM\u00e9moire sur les Microc\u00e9phales,\u201d p. 197.\n\n[404] _Ibid._, p. 81.\n\n\n                                LONDON:\n\n                         PRINTED BY JAS. WADE,\n\n                   TAVISTOCK STREET, COVENT GARDEN.","title":"Serpent-Worship, and Other Essays, with a Chapter on Totemism","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":82478}