Powers of the Fravashis.— (p. 95). ^^ The fravaskis were not defi- cient 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 alann- ing, 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 per- haps more in private than in public It would appear that there were two different sorts of it. General, certainly, was the hero- worship — 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 me- mory of ancestors by sacrifices would appear to have been charac- teristic 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 men- tioned 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), soanens- t*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 tradi- tional 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 per- sons, three testified to having m childhood had -snch vivid dreams of flying down stairs, and being impressed so strongly with the ex- periences 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, notwith- standing the use of words implying the contrast, and not- withstanding 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, instruc- tion from the more cultivated, at the same time that they are without such organized knowledge as serves to check credulity, will in- evitably 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 excel- knce^ 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 half- man 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 de- ceased 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 son- god 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 Esqui- maux and others, Sun and Moon thus come to be residences of par- ticular 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 mean- ing 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 iadiYi- doal 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. • • • Un- fortunately the fragnianta of the papyraa of Torin, which contaiaa a ehrono- logioal 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 Ueliopo- lia), 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 fol- lowing 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 ancestor- worship, 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 develop- ment, 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.
3. In another way — allied. though different — does the method of the mythologists rererse the right method They set oat with the ideas and feelings possessed by the ciTilised. Carrying these with them they stady the ideas and feelings of the semi-ciriliEed. And thence thej descend by inference to the ideas and feelings of the nnciTilised. Beginning with the complex they get from it the factors of the simple. How g^reat are tiie errors to be antidpate4 an analogy will show. So long as biologists gathered their caitfinal conceptions from mnch-dereloped oi^anisms their interpretations were quite wrong; and they were set right only when thej began to stady littie-developed organisms — the lower types and the embryos of the higher types. * That the teeth, though rooted in the jaws, do not belong to the skeleton, but are dermal stmctores, is a truth which no anatomist, dealing with adult mammals only, woold eTsr hare imagined; and this is but a sample of mnltitndinoos reTehitions made by examining animals in the order of ascending erolution. Similarly with sodal phenomena, including the systems of beliefs men hare formed. The order of ascending erolution must be followed here too: the key to their beliefs can be found only m the ideas of the lowest races.
S. The distortmg effect of tracing the genesis of beliefs from above downwards, instead of tracing it from below upwards, is exemplified in the postulate of Prof. Max MuUer, that there was at firet a high concepUon of deity which mythology corrupted. He says that '^ the more we go back, the more we examine the earliest germs of every religion, the purer, I believe, we shall find the conceptions of the Deity.** Now, uuless we assume that Prof. Max Miiller is unacquainted with such facts as are brought together in Part L, we shall here recognize a perversion of thought caused by looking at them in the wrong order. We shall be the more obliged to recognize this, on remembering that his linguistic researches furnish him with abundant proofs that men in low stages have no terms capable of expressing the idea of a Universal Power; and can, therefore, according to his own doctrine, have no such idea. Lacking words even for low generalities and abstractions, it is utterly impossible that the savage should have words m which to frame a conception uniting high generality with high abstractness. Holding so unwarranted a postulate, it is very improbable that Prof. Max Miiller^s mythological interpretations, harmonized as we must suppose with th^ postulate, can be true.
4^ The law of rhythm in its sodal applications, implies that alter- _J nations of opinion will be violent in proportion as cpinions are extreme. Politics, Religion, Morals, all fnmish examples. After an anqnalified acceptance of the Christian creed, those who inquired passed to nnqualified rejection of it as an invention of priests: both coorses being wrong. Similarly, after belief in classic legends as entirely true, there comes repudiation of them as entirely false: now prized as historical fact, they are now thrown aside as nothing but fiction. Both of these judgments are likely to prove erroneous. Being sure that the momentum of reaction will carry opinion too far, we may conclude that these legends are neither wholly true nor wholly untrue.
5. The assumption that any decided division can be made be- tween legend and history is untenable. To suppose that at a certain stage we pass suddenly from the mythical to the historical, is absurd. Progress, growing arts, increasing knowledge, more settled life, imply a gradual transition from traditions containing little fact and much fancy, to traditions containing little fancy and much fact. There can be no break — no marked change. Hence any theory which deals with traditions as though, before the time when they are classed as historic, they are entirely nnhistoric, is inevitably wrong. It must be assumed that the earlier the story the smaller the historic nucleus $ but that some historic nucleus habitually exists. Mythologists ignore this implication.
6. If we look at the ignoring of this implication nnder another aspect, we shall be still more startled by it A growing society coming at length to recorded events, must have passed through a long series of unrecorded events. The more striking of such will be transmitted orally. That is to say, every early nation which has a written history, had, before that, an unwritten history, the most remarkable parts of which survived in traditions more or less dis- torted. If, now, the alleged doing of heroes, demi-gods, and deities, which precede definite history, are recognized as these distorted traditions, the requirement is satisfied. If, otherwise, we say that these are myths, then there comes the question — Where are all the distorted traditions of actual events? Any hypothesis which does not furnish a satisfactory answer to this question is out of court.
7. The nature of pre-historic legends suggests a further objec- tion. In the lives of savages and barbarians the chief occurrences are wars. Hence the trait common to mythologies — Indian, Greek, Babylonian, Tibetan, Mexican, Polynesian, etc. — ^that the early deeds narrated, even including the events of creation, take the form of fightings, harmonizes with the hypothesis that they are expanded and idealized stories of human transactions. But this trait is not euagiBOtts with tiie hypodiesis tiiat they are fictions densed to expUm tke genesb and order oi Nature. Thoagh the mytholo^ ■ttginas the pheBomeoa to be thus natnrallj fonnaiated; there is m cndnee that they tend thus to formulate themselTes in the vak- ▼dopeduid. To see this, it needs bat to ask whether an notaogfat child, hioking at the snrroonding world and its changes, would thJak ol thtm as the prodacts of battles.
& The stndy of soperstitions by descending analysis instead of by ascending synthesis, misleads in another way. It soggescs eassK of Natnre- worship which do not exist. The nnderebped mind has neither the emotional tendencies nor the intellectual tea- which mythologists assume.
Xoln, first, that the ideas and feelings oat of whidi worship