r Ood. • • • The snocMsiTtt sUgm of aathoritv among Um Fijiu pcoph is first, that of tha individoal family; secondly, the aasoeiatioQ of mtf J fumiliea, which oonatitnte the Qali; and thirdly, the nnioa of thcae Qilu under their Kcognixed hereditary Chief, which constitatea the Mataaito. It li the Family, Qens, and Trihe of early history fonnd extant, and as a ^stea ttill closely ohseryed in Polyneeia at the preaeiu day."
Aryan Ancator-worship, — The more I hare looked into the evidence, the more I have marvelled at those who, in the interests of the mythological theory, assert that the Aryans have been distiDgaished from inferior races by not being ancestor- worshippers; and who ascribe sach ancestor-worship as cannot be overlooked, to imitation of inferior races. If the American filliboster Ward, now apotheosized in China, has a temple erected to him there, the fact is accepted as not unnatural among the ancestor-worshippuig Chinese. But in India, among Aryans, we mast ascribe to the bad example of lower types, the erection of a temple at Benares to the English fillibaster Warren Hastings.—:(Par^ Hist.jjcxvuy pp. 773-7) I find nothing bat such nnwarranted assumption to be pat again^ the clear evidence that ancestor-worship was dominant among primitive Aryan3, long remained dominant among civilized Aryaos sarvived in considerable strength in medieval Christendom, and hti not yet died away. When we learn that the Aoesta describei sacrifices for the dead, and contains prayers calling upon them— when we read in the Institutes of Menu (Sir W. Jones's transiaUoa, Yol. ill, p. 203) that '' an oblation by BixJimens to their ancestors transcends an oblation to the deities; because that to the deities i^ considered as the opening and completion of that to ancestors"-— when, taming to the Aryans who migrated West, we remember how dominant propitiation of the dead was among theoL calling from Grote the words '^ sepulchral duties, sacred beyond ail otberi in the eyes of a Greek" — when we are reminded how the early Romans, ascribing to their manes-gods a love of human blood, doJj administered to it; our boldness of assumption must be great if we can say that Aryan ancestor-worship was not indigenous bat adopted.
Were it true that necrolalry ^as not rooted in the primitive Aryan mind, as in other primitive minds (a marvelloos difference^ did it exist), it would be strange that though superficial it was so difficult to extirpate. Christianity spread without extinguishing it: in a capitulary of 742 Karloman prohibits " sacrifices to the dead."* Nor hsus it been extinguished by modern Christianity, as was shown in § 152. Here is farther evidence from Hanusch, SUxdsd^ "According to Oebhardi the Miiniana, Laosttziana, Biihemiana, SilesiaoSi and Poles, upon the first of March early in the BAorniog went foith with torches, guiag to the cemetery and offering np food to their anoeators. Accord' ing to Grimm, the Esthonians leave fo^ for the dead in the night of tbc aecond of November, and are glad if in tha morning aomethiog is found to be m ooviiiiti«L • • • With all Slayes it was a coatora to have a meal for the dead not only upou the day of fuaeral bat annaally; the former was intended for the perticalar dead, the latter for the dead in general. • • • At the latter they believed the aonls to be preeeot perBonaUy. Silently little bits of food were thrown fot them nnder the table. People believed they heard them rustle, and saw them feed upon the smell and vapour of the food.'* 1 may cloae with the conclasive testimoaj of one who has had onasual opportonities of stadjing Aryan saperstitions as now being generated, and whose papers in the Fortnigktly Review show how competent he is both as observer and reasoner — Mr. A. C. Lyall. In a letter to me he says: — " I do not know who may be the aathor of the statement which yon quote at p. 313, that < No IndoEaropean nation seems to have made a religion of the worship of the dead; * but it is a generalization entirely untenable. Here in Rajpntaoa, among the purest Aryan tribes, the worship of famous ancestors is most prevalent; and all their heroes are more or less deified."
Religion of the Iranians.^^ust when going to press with this Appendix, my attention has been drawn by Dr. Scheppig to some extremely important facts contained m the work of Fr. Spiegel, Erdnische Altertkumskunde^ vol. ii. (1873), pp. 91, etc. While affording the needful verification of the statement above made concerning ancestor-worship in the Zend-Avesta^ it affords highly significant evidence concerning the ideas of ghosts (frctvoMs) and of ghost-mechanism throughout creation, which were held by the Persian branch of the Aryans.
Nature of the Fravashi.— (p. 92). ^^Thefracaski is in the first place a part of the human soul. In this sense the word is used in the Avesta, • « • Later works of the Parsee give us more exact information about the activity of the fravashi. The frohar or fravashi — so It is stated in one of those works, the Sadder Bundehesh — has the task of making useful what a man eats, and removing the heavier parts. Accordingly, the fravashi is the part intermediating between body and soul; but it is conceived as a person, independent in general, and particularly from the body. The Sadder Bundehesh recognizes other psychic powers besides: the vital power {jdn\ the coD-cience {aJcho)^ the soul (rerd/i), the consciousness {b6i). Of these the vital power is so intimately connected with the body that the latter perishes as soon as the former has vanished. In a body thus doomed to perish the other psychic powers cannot stay either: they leave it; the conscience, because it has not done anything wrong, makes straightway for heaven, while soul, consciousness, and fravashi remaining together, have to answer for the deeds of the man, and are rewarded or punished."
Fravashis of Gods and Men. — (p. 94). ^' Every living being has a fravashi^ not only in the terrestrial but in the spiritual world. Not even Ahura-Mazda [the chief god] is excepted; his fravashi is freqneutly alluded to (Yd. 19, 46, Yt 13, 80) as well as the>nir8^ of the Amesha-^pentas and the other Yazatas (Y9. 23, 3, Tt 13, %t\ Most frequently the fravaskis of the Paoirydtkaesbas are iDToked, I.e., those of the pions men who lived before the appearance of the law. To them, generally, the fravaskis of the nearest relatioiis,aDd the framshi of the person himself, are added. • • • It maj appear surprising that the fravaskis of the ^bom and unborn ' are iuToM (Y9. 26, 20). The clue may be found in Yt. 13, 1 7, where it is stated that the fravaskis of the pious who lived before the lav, and of the beings who will appear in future, are more powerfil than those of other people, living or dead. Here worship of ntanes and of heroes is mixed up. Among these fravaskis the ancestors of the particular family, and of the particular clan or trlbe^ were worshipped.'' (p. 97.) <* The preceding facts are taken from the A vesta. In the western monuments the name of the fircaxukis does not occur. I have, however, no doubt that their authors were acquainted with them. In my opinion they correspond with ^ clan deities {vitkihia bagcubis) mentioned several times by Darius in his inscription H; those again are the slioi irarptfoi of the ancie&t&' Powers of the Fravashis.— (p. 95). ^^ The fravaskis were not deficient in power. Their chief task was the protection of living beii^ It is by their splendour and majesty that Ahura-Mazda is enabled to protect the Ardvi9iira Anahita (Yt. 13, 4) [a certain spring and a goddess! and the earth on which the water runs and the trees grow. The fravaskis protect, as well, the chQdren in the womb. « * « They are very important for the right distribution of terrestrial benefits. It is by their assistance that cat-tie and draught beasts can walk on the earth; and but for their help sun, moon, and star, as well as the water, would not find their way, n<^ would the trees grow (Yt 13, 53, etc.). (p. 96.) Acoordingfy, the peasant will do well to secure the assistance of these important deities. The same holds true for the warrior; for the fravaskis are helpers in battles, Mithra, Rashun, and the yictorious wind are in their company. It is of great importance that the fravaskis remain in close connection with their famQies. They demand water for their clans, each one for his kin, when it is taken out of the Lake Yourukasha; « « « each of them fights on the spot where he has got to defend a homestead, and kings and generals who want their help against tormenting enemies, must specially call on them; they then come and render assistance, provided they have been satisfied and not offended (Yt 13, 69-72). TheyrarosAt^ give assistance not only as warriors; they may be invoked against any thing alanning, against bad men and bad spirits." « « « Fravashis and Stars. --(p. 94). '< We read in the Mlnd-khired: * All the innumerable stars which are yisible are called the fryxvashis of the terrestrial ones [men!]; because for the whole creation m^ created hj the creator Ormozd, for the born and the nnbom, a fravashi of the same essence is ^manifest.' Hence it appears that the fravcuhis^ or the stars, form the host that « * « fights against the demons." « * « Worship of the Frarashis. — (p. 97). ^ As in the case of other genii of the Zoroastrian religion, much depends on the satisfactory propitiation of th» Jravashi8\ for their power, and consequent activity, depends cm the sacrifices. Probably they were worshipped upon the 19th day of each month: their chief feasts, however, were on the intercalatory days added to the year at its termination. About that time the fravashis descend to the earth, and stay there for 10 nights, expecting to be met with appropriate sacrifices of meat and clothes. (TL 13, 49). [Compare with the German and Sclavonian superstitions.] There cannot be any doubt that the worship of the fravashis played an important part with the Iranians, though perhaps more in private than in public It would appear that there were two different sorts of it. General, certainly, was the heroworship — the veneration of the Paoirydtkaeshas [pious men before the law]. With this, in some ages perhaps, the worship of fravashis of the royal family was combined. The ancestor-worship, on the other hand, was of a strictly private character."
Aryan Analogie8.*-(p. 98). ''The custom of honouring the memory of ancestors by sacrifices would appear to have been characteristic of the Indo- Germans from the very first. It is for this reason that quite striking similarities are found in the cult, which no doubt refer to very olden times. « • « It has been justly pointed out that,«as ihQ fravashis are conceived as stars, so, in the opinion of the ancient Hindoos, the blessed men beam in form of stars (see Justij Warterbuch^ «.v., fravashi). Nor should it be overlooked that this star-worship is very like the worship of the heavenly host mentioned in the Old Testament" Here, then, concerning these ancient Aryans of Persia, we have, on the highest authority, statements distinctly proving a dominant ancestor-worship; and also yielding support to various of the doctrines set forth in Part I. While one of the several souls possessed by each individual (and we have seen that various savages believe in two, three, and even four souls — shadow, reflexion, breath, heart) the fravashi is the predominant and propitiated souL It is supposed to need food, like the other-self of the dead savage. Not ordinary men only, but deities, up to the supreme one, have each his ghost, implying that he was originally a man: there is god and the '' spirit of god "; as among the Hebrews. We see, too, that these fravashis which are ancestral ghosts, become the agents to whom the powers of surrounding objects are ascribed — fetich-ghosts. We see that they have peopled the heavens— have become the in-dwelling agents of sun, moon, and stars. And we Me thst wordiip of theoi, begioniiig witli worship of tlM»e of tk faoil/ and cfaui, origioates in tinie the wotvtup oi dmhw eoBspicwMi traditional persona as ancient heroes and gods; jiut na anuug tte Fijians and others at the present daj.
The AeeadUm Creed. — ^As giveo bj IL Ij«Qoniinaiy m \as U Jdagie chez Ua ChaldeeiUj the foQowing is part of na iacaiilatiai against pestilence: — **De la fi^rre, esprit da ciel, soaTiens-fai! Esprit de la terre, sonrieiis-f en! « « • Esprits in4ies et femelks, seigaeors des ^toiles, soavenez-vons en! • • m £spritR males et femelles de la moDtagne snbKrne, soarenez-rons eo! Ksf^itB miles et femelles de la lami^re de Tie, sonTenez-roos en! • • • Efprits femelles da p^re et de la m^re de Moal-ge [the Assyrian god. B^ soarenez-7oas eo! 4r ♦ « Esprit de la D^esse-oode, m^ie de El soariens-t'en I Esprit de Nioooah, fille de &a (Nooab), soanenst*ea! • • • Esprit da dlea Fea, pontife supreme sor la soiface deli tf rre, soariens-t^en I Here, then, the address is aniformij made to ghosts; and these are the ghosts of behigs allied bj name to traditional faaman beings, the ghosts of beings called gods and goddesBes, the ghosts regarded as lords and spirits of stars, moantains, fire.
Mediceval Anthropomorphism, — I append part of the O/d-French yerses referred to in § 203, which have been pointed oat to me bj Mr. Collier. Tbej narrate how God went to Arras to take lessons in song- writing (Diex roloit d' Arras les mot^ aprendre); hov he fell ill; and how he was cared by langbing at a trouv^re: — Qaant Diex fa maladea, por Ini rehaitier A I'Mtel le prince ae rint acointier; CoisDaigoons manda por estadiier: Poucnina, 11 ainsD^ ki bien Bet raianier De coropleQaion, d'astrenomiier; Je vi k*il fiat Dia le conlcar caogier. Oar encontre Ini ne ae a^at aidier.
Bretiana a'est vant^ k'a Diu a*en in, Plaa que toot li autre reabaaiera: II fiat le paon, ae brail avala, Crlui de Beugin trestont porkia. Diex en eat tel joie, de ria a'eacre?a, De ae maladie treatona reapaaaa.
Or eat Diex waria de ae maladie. Garea vint laiena, ce fu vilenie, Et Baudea Becona, ki met a*eatudie Ea trafe et en yent et en roerderie. De leur roaavaist^ Diex ae regramie. Que ae grana qaartaine li eat renforeie.
-Moumarqa^ et Miohel, Thidtre Pran^U an Afojfm Age, pp. 22-8.
pi ADDENDA.
Conjusiim of Dreams and EeaUtiea, — ^Light is thrown by many daily experiences on the genesis of primitive ideas, if we do bnt note their significance. Occasionally we hear it remarked of dreams that their seeming actnality affected the feelings for some time after awakening: an impression like that, say, of escape from real danger, continuing after recognition of the fact that the danger was ideal The tendency of an extremely vivid dream thus to generate an emotion snch as accompanies reality, not nnfreqa^tly leads to belief in its reality. Since the passages of the foregoing Appendix were pnt together and stereotyped, I have met with striking proofs of this. In a company of less than a dozen persons, three testified to having m childhood had -snch vivid dreams of flying down stairs, and being impressed so strongly with the experiences as real, that they actually tried to fly down stairs; and one of them suffered from an injured ankle consequent on the attempt.
Now if dream-experiences and waking experiences can be thus confounded by children among ourselves, notwithstanding the discriminations which they have heard made by adults, notwithstanding the use of words implying the contrast, and notwithstanding the conception that has been given to them of mind as an indwelling entity distinct from body; it is obvious that primitive men, lacking this theory of mind, lacking words in which to express many perceivable distinctions, and lacking, too, instruction from the more cultivated, at the same time that they are without such organized knowledge as serves to check credulity, will inevitably make this confusion between dream-thoughts and the thoughts of the waking state. Hence on reading of savages, as for instance the Eamtschadales, that the ideas of sleeping and waking life are apt to be confounded by them, we shall see that, so far from being anomalous, a confounding of them to a greater or less extent is at first inevitable. We shall see that those beliefs in the reality of dream-adventures and of the beings seen in dreams, which we have everywhere found among the uncivilized, inevitably arose; that the notion of a wandering other-self necessarily followed; and that so this germ of all superstitions was certain to evolve.
Amnud-naming among the Semites. — ^In vol. i., p. 126, Palgrave, referring to an Arab, writes: — " Obeyd, ' the wolf,' to give him the name by which be is commonly known, a name well earned by his unrelenting cruelty and deep deceit." Now read the following from the Book of Judges^ vii. 25:— " And they took two princes of the Midianites, Oreb [raven] and Zeeb [wolf], and they slew Oreb upon the rock Oreb, and Zeeb they slew at the winepress of p2 p2 Zeeb, and parsued MidiaO) and brought the heads of Oreb and Zeeb to Gideon on the other side Jordan." Here then we bare proof that Semitic chiefs bore animal-names. With this we maj join the fact that at the present time ''the Cabjiea are said to distinguish their different tribes by figures of animals tatooed on forehead, nose, temples, or cheeks." {L, Getger^ Zeitschr. 1>. if. G, 1869, p. 169.) And here are extracts concerning Uie Aneieot Assyrians, similarly showing how names of animals became homan names: — '^The Assyrian lu Umu (buck) is occasionallj n^d to denote the king.'' (DeUtzschj Thiemamenj p. 51.) '' [ Accadiao] Jfa-ru-u, wolf (?^ • « • is certainly identical with Assyrian tna-rtc^v, male, made child. It perhaps denotes an annual as male par excelknce^ just as Aram, dSe^r, means 'man* and ' ram,' the post-biblical g^b^r * man ' and ' cock.' In Arabic too [a certain wordj meaas man and wolf." {Delitzsch^ Thiemamenj p. 60.) When we put this jeridence side by side with that given in §§ 170-4, showing bow animal-naming among savages leads to belief in animal-ancestors and to the propitiation of animals, it becomes still more manifest that among these Mesopotamian peoples, animal-gods and gods halfman hieilf-brnte, originated in the way alleged.
The Snake-Spirit among the Ancients, — ^A remarkable vmficatioii of the view set forth in §§ 167 — 8, is furnished by the following passage from the jEneid, v. 75.
'* iEneas went from the aasembly to the tomb [of his father] • • • Hen in due form, by way of libation, he ponrs on the ground to Bacchus two bowls of wine, two of new milk, two of saored blood; then ecatten blooming flowei% and thufl speake: — Hail, holy sire 1 once more hail, ye ashes • • • ye ghosts and shades of my father 1 • • • He said; when from the bottom of the ahrioa a hnge alippeiy snake trailed along • • • gently twining round the tomb^ and gliding over the altars. • • • MnetA stood amazed at the sight. At length the reptile • • a gently tasted the banquet, and harmless retired again into the bottom of the tomb, and left the altars on which he had fed. iBoeas with the more seal nursues the sacrifice begcfn in honour of his father, in doikbt whether to think it the genins of the place, or the attendant of his parent.** Though here, along with the conceptions of a higher stage than that described in §§ 167 — 8, there is not distinct identification of the snake with the ancestral ghost, some connexion between them is supposed. That a creature found in the place of the dead, or in a place supposed to be visited by the dead, is assumed to belong in some way to the dead, need no longer be entertained as an hypothesis; for here the assumption is expressed. That among the possible relations between the tomb-haunting animal and the deceased person, metamorphosis will be supposed by early peoples, is clear. And that hence results the identification of owls and bats (and possibly acarabcei) with souls, can no longer be doubted* Beliefs of the Accadians, — The distinguish^ Assyriologist^ the Rev. A. H. Sajce, in his article on the Accadions in the new edition of the Enc^clcpcBdid BritemmcOj writes as follows: — "The earliest religion of Accad was a Shamanism resembling that of the Siberian or Samoyed tribes of to^ay. E^ery object had its spirit, good or bad; and the power of controlling these spirits was in the hands of priests and sorcerers. The world swarmed with them, especially with the demons, and there was scarcely an action which did not risk demoniac possession. Diseases were regarded as caused in this way. • • • In course of time certain spirits ■ (or rather deified powers of Nature) were elevated above the rest into the position of gods. • • • The old Shamanism gradually became transformed into a religion, with a host of subordinate semi^divine beings; but so strong a hold had it upon the mind, that the new gods were still addressed by their spirits. The religion now entered upon a new phase;. the VArious epithets applied to the same deity were crystallised into fresh divinities, and the songod under a multitude of forms became the central object of worship."
Now though Mr. Sayce espouses the theory of the mytnologists concerning the origin of Nature-worship, it seems to me that this description tallies much better with the theory 1 have opposed to it. The earliest stage indicated is that m which ghosts, originally human, have become identified with various surrounding objects, as we saw they everywhere tend to do; and just as among the Esquimaux and others, Sun and Moon thus come to be residences of particular ghosts, so with the Accadians. As described by Mr. Sayce, this Accadian Nature-worship, instead of being primordial, was developed out of ghost-worship.
Origin of Egyptian Gods. — Amid incongruities, the general meaning of the passages which follow is sufi&ciently clear. The first is from Eusebius, Arm. Chron., p. 93 (ed. Mai.): — '* FrovL the Egyptian monuments of Manetho, who distributed his history into three books. On gods and on heroes, on. manes, and on mortal kings who ruled over Egypt down to the Persian King Darius. The first man [god] with the fjgyptians was Yulcanus, who is praised as the inventor of fire. ^ • • • After the ^ods ruled heroes • • • arid again other kings • • • and other 80 MtmpkUic kings • • • and again otiker 2$0 Thinite kings • • • These followed the domination of tbe manes and heroes^" Whether, as supposed by some, the dynasties marked in italics have crept in by mistake {Lauth^ p. 31), or whether they are, as others think, local dynasties, the general filiation of gods, heroes, and kings is otherwise manifest. Bunsen says (Egypt^ i., pp. 70 — 1): — "The expression, 'Reign of Manes and Heroes,' is inaccurate, for the Heroes immediately succeed the Oods. Eusebius, aft«;r mentioning Bitys, introduces the former with these words: 'After the Gods, the Heroes ruled 1255 years.' And this must necessarily be the proper order; for the term. Manes, implies Mortals. It is difficult, in fact, to discover the old Egyptian idea conveyed by the expression, Heroes. Heroes, in the strict sense of tbe word, that is to say. Sons of God bom of mortal mothers, were, as we learu from Herodotus, confirmed by the Egyptian monuments, entirely unknown tp this people. The expression is used, therefore^ in the sense of Demi-Gtods.
This same expression occurs in the extracts of the historical period, in the opening of which it is said that the reign of Manes succeeded that of the 'Manes and Demi-Gods.' The Manes seem, to have represented such kings of tbi primoral tlntp M ww* ■feriefly ipMldiig dmmA ai mortalt but who neT^rthelMi wm held in peeolUr rupeet frou being tb« anoevton of iadiYidoal tiibee» ■• the Pituii weraof the lodians for ezAmple.'*/ Oo this qoestioQ Brugsch writes in hi« Hisloire dEgypU^ L, p. 23:— '*The k|{jptiuu rappoeed that three agee preceded the time of their fint king. The tint, in their fancy, vae that of the dynaatj of the goda, tho aeoond the dvnaaty of the demi-goda, tlia third that of the Manea. • • • Unfortunately the fragnianta of the papyraa of Torin, which contaiaa a ehronologioal list of the Egyptian kinga, have not pruairred eonoeptiona of the royal diTiniiJM of either of theaiL One fragment, however, dimly ahowa that the aaered animala (aoeh aa the boUa Apia, of Mamphia, and Mnavia, of Ueliopolia), belonged to thoae dirine dynaatiea."
The oontioaity of the teriet from these early dirine personageSy some of them figured as aaimals and half-animals, down to gods who were nnqaestionably deified men, is farther shown by the following passage from Bansen's Egypt^ i^ p. 69: — '* Eoaebioa calla the laat of the mlera who aucceeded the Great Goda— bat whom he omita more nearly to apecify — Bytia. Aooording to Jamblichoa (De MyderiU^ Tiil, S, iz., 7)', Bitya (or Bitia, which li clearly the aame name), waa a prophet of Ammon, tha Kins — t.e., Hyk, Ammon'a peonliar title. He interpretea the religiona booka of Uarmea. Ueie we have a being componnded of the Demi-God, the Hero, and the Prophet. Hermea-Thoth, deciaedlT an Egyptian God, waa alao the interpreter of the Divine Word, and the minuter and aaaietant of Ammon."
And then, completing the proof, we hare the fact that to the worship of those earliest rulers whose ragne personalities, sonrinng from remote times, had become gods proper, there was joined a worship of early historic kings, which, similar in nature, similarly lasted through many ages. Here is a passage from Maspero's Um EnquHe Judiciaire a Thibes^ pp. 62—3: — "A Memphia on tronve, joaqoa aooa lea Ptol^m^ea, daa prStraa da M^n^ d* Ata, de Sandra et d'antrea pharaona appartenant anx ploe anciennea dynaatiea (De Bong^ £tude but Um manummUB fu'tmpaU aUriimgr aux tix premUtr§ djfAotUea de ManSlfum^ pp. SI, 53. 83); a Th^bea, le onlte dea Uaorteien, dea Ahoi^ dea Am^nophii (voir an PapyruM AbboU pL L L 18» la mention d*an pr^tre d'Am^nophia), on de certainea reinee comma la reine.^f^er-i-arf (Lieblein, Deux papyrue, etc^ p^ 81, pL iii. L 6; Sharpe, J^. Inec, iL), fat floriaeant pendant dea ai^lea. Si nona ne aeiaimona paa olies lea particoliera les indices d'one v^ndration aami vivace, c*eet que, dana lea tombea priv^ lea c^r^monies ^talent accompliea non par dea prStrea ap^ianz, mait par lea fiU on lee deaeend^nta da d^faat Sonvent, an Dout de qaelqnea g^nvadona, aoit B^ligenoe, aoit d^placement, mine, on extinction de la famiUe, le cnlte 4tait anapenda et la mtooire dea morta ae perdait."
To which passage, clearly implying that tiie permanent worship of the dead kings was a more developed form of the ordinary ancestorworship, I may add a confirmatory passage from De Roog^: — " Each pyramid had by ita aide a faneral bailding, a aort of temple, where were performed the ceremoniea of a cult dedicated to the deified aovereigna. I hiive no doubt that thia cult commenced daring their lifetime^" — (if dm. de And yet in face of snch evidence, harmonizing witii all the other evidences we have foond, it is alleged that the early Egyptian gods were personalized powers of natnre!
APPENDIX B.
[^Though in the text, while setting forth that negative criticism on the mythological theory which is constituted by an opposed theory, I have incidentally made some positive criticisms* I have preferred not to encumber the argument with many of these; nor can I here afford space for a lengthened exposition of reasons for rejecting the mythological theory. What follow must be regarded as merely the heads of an argument, the elaboration of which must be left to the reader.^ 1. That a more special science cannot be fully anderstood nntil the more general science including it is anderstood, is self-evident; and It is a corollary that conclasions drawn from the more special cannot be depended on in the absence of conclasions drawn from the more general. Hence philological proofs are nntrnstworthy unless supported by psychological proofs. Not to study the phenomena of mind by immediate observation, but to study them mediately through the phenomena of language, is necessarily to introduce additional sources of error. In the interpretation of evolving thoughts, there are liabilities to mistake. In the interpretation of evolving words and verbal forms, there are other liabilities to mistake. And to contemplate the mental development through the lingaistic development, is to encounter a double set of risks. Though evidence derived from the growth of words is useful as collateral evidence, it is of little use by itself; and cannot compare in validity with evidence derived from the growth of ideas. Hence the method of the mythologists, who argue from the phenomena which the symbols present, instead of arguing from the phenomena symbolized, is a misleading method.
One illustration will suffice. In a lecture delivered at the Royal Institution, on March 81st, 1871, Prof. Max Muller said— "The Zulus call the soul the shadow, and such is the influence of language that, even against the evidence of the senses, the Zulus believe that a dead body can cast no shadow, because the shadow — or, as we should say, the ghost — has departed from it." Here the explanation is regarded as entirely linguistic. The course of thought which, among so many races, has led to identification of soul and shadow, and which has for its corollary the departure of the soul or shadow at death, is ignored. Those whoibave digested the abundant eridence given in the tezt^ will see how profomid is the misconception cansed.