indwelling divine soul or other deity, or as one of the myriad
representatives of the presiding god of its class, the case is included
under and explained by the general theory of fetish-worship already
discussed. Evidence which displays these two conceptions and their
blending is singularly perfect in the islands of the Pacific. In the
Georgian group, certain herons, kingfishers, and woodpeckers were held
sacred and fed on the sacrifices, with the distinct view that the
deities were embodied in the birds, and in this form came to eat the
offered food and give the oracular responses by their cries.[544] The
Tongans never killed certain birds, or the shark, whale, &c., as being
sacred shrines in which gods were in the habit of visiting earth; and if
they chanced in sailing to pass near a whale they would offer scented
oil or kava to him.[545] In the Fiji Islands, certain birds, fish,
plants, and some men, were supposed to have deities closely connected
with or residing in them. Thus the hawk, fowl, eel, shark, and nearly
every other animal became the shrine of some deity, which the worshipper
of that deity might not eat, so that some were even tabued from eating
human flesh, the shrine of their god being a man. Ndengei, the dull and
otiose supreme deity, had his shrine or incarnation in the serpent.[546]
Every Samoan islander had his tutelary deity or ‘aitu,’ appearing in
some animal, an eel, shark, dog, turtle, &c., which species became his
fetish, not to be slighted or injured or eaten, an offence which the
deity would avenge by entering the sinner’s body and generating his
proper incarnation within him till he died.[547] The ‘atua’ of the New
Zealander, corresponding with this in name, is a divine ancestral soul,
and is also apt to appear in the body of an animal.[548] If we pass to
Sumatra, we shall find that the veneration paid by the Malays to the
tiger, and their habit of apologizing to it when a trap is laid, is
connected with the idea of tigers being animated by the souls of
departed men.[549] In other districts of the world, one of the most
important cases connected with these is the worship paid by the North
American Indian to his medicine-animal, of which he kills one specimen
to preserve its skin, which thenceforth receives adoration and grants
protection as a fetish.[550] In South Africa, as has been already
mentioned, the Zulus hold that divine ancestral shades are embodied in
certain tame and harmless snakes, whom their human kinsfolk receive with
kindly respect and propitiate with food.[551] In West Africa, monkeys
near a grave-yard are supposed to be animated by the spirits of the
dead, and the general theory of sacred and worshipped crocodiles,
snakes, birds, bats, elephants, hyænas, leopards, &c., is divided
between the two great departments of the fetish-theory, in some cases
the creature being the actual embodiment or personation of the spirit,
and in other cases sacred to it or under its protection.[552] Hardly any
region of the world displays so perfectly as this the worship of
serpents as fetish-animals endowed with high spiritual qualities, to
kill one of whom would be an offence unpardonable. For a single
description of negro ophiolatry, may be cited Bosman’s description from
Whydah in the Bight of Benin; here the highest order of deities were a
kind of snakes which swarm in the villages, reigned over by that huge
chief monster, uppermost and greatest and as it were the grandfather of
all, who dwelt in his snake-house beneath a lofty tree, and there
received the royal offerings of meat and drink, cattle and money and
stuffs. So heartfelt was the veneration of the snakes, that the Dutchmen
made it a means of clearing their warehouses of tiresome visitors; as
Bosman says, ‘If we are ever tired with the natives of this country, and
would fain be rid of them, we need only speak ill of the snake, at which
they immediately stop their ears and run out of doors.’[553] Lastly,
among the Tatar tribes of Siberia, Castrén finds the explanation of the
veneration which the nomade pays to certain animals, in a distinct
fetish-theory which he thus sums up: ‘Can he also contrive to propitiate
the snake, bear, wolf, swan, and various other birds of the air and
beasts of the field, he has in them good protectors, for in them are
hidden mighty spirits.’[554]
In the lower levels of civilization the social institution known as
Totemism is of frequent occurrence. Its anthropological importance was
especially brought into notice by J. F. McLennan, whose views as to an
early totem-period of society have much influenced opinion since his
time.[555] The totemic tribe is divided into clans, the members of each
clan connecting themselves with, calling themselves by the name of, and
even deriving their mythic pedigree from some animal, plant, or thing,
but most often an animal; these totem-clans are exogamous, marriage not
being permissible within the clan, while permissible or obligatory
between clan and clan. Thus among the Ojibwa Indians of North America,
the names of such clan-animals, Bear, Wolf, Tortoise, Deer, Rabbit, &c.,
served to designate the intermarrying clans into which the tribes were
divided, Indians being actually spoken of as bears, wolves, &c., and the
figures of these animals indicating their clans in the native
picture-writing. The Ojibwa word for such a clan-name has passed into
English in the form ‘totem,’ and thus has become an accepted term among
anthropologists to denote similar clan-names customary over the world,
this system of dividing tribes being called Totemism. Unfortunately for
the study of the subject, John Long, the trader interpreter who
introduced the Ojibwa word totem into Europe in 1791, does not seem to
have grasped its meaning in the native law of marriage and clanship, but
to have confused the totem-animal of the clan with the patron or
guardian animal of the individual hunter, his manitu or ‘medicine.’[556]
Even when the North American totem-clans came to be better understood as
social institutions regulating marriage, the notion of the guardian
spirit still clung to them. Sir George Grey, who knew of the American
totem-clans from the ‘Archæologia Americana,’ put on record in 1841 a
list of exogamous classes in West Australia, and mentioned the opinion
frequently given by the natives as to the origin of these class-names,
that they were derived from some animal or vegetable being very common
in the district which the family inhabited, so that the name of this
animal or vegetable came to be applied to the family. This seems so far
valuable evidence, but Grey was evidently led by John Long’s mistaken
statement, which he quotes, to fall himself into the same confusion
between the tribal name and the patron animal or vegetable, the ‘kobong’
of his natives, which he regarded as a tribal totem.[557] In Mr. J. G.
Frazer’s valuable collection of information on totemism,[558] the use of
the self-contradictory term ‘individual totem’ has unfortunately tended
to perpetuate this confusion. In the present state of the problem of
totemism, it would be premature to discuss at length its development and
purpose. Mention may however be made of observations which tend to place
it on a new footing, as being distinctly related to the transmigration
of souls. In Melanesia men may say that after death they will reappear
for instance as sharks or bananas, and the family will acknowledge the
kinship by feeding the sharks and abstaining from the bananas. It is not
unreasonable that Dr. Codrington should suggest such practices as
throwing light on the origin of totemism.[559] The late investigations
of Spencer and Gillen, conducted with scrupulous care in an almost
untouched district of Central Australia, show totemism in the Arunta
tribe, not as the means of regulating the intermarriage of clans, but as
based on a native theory of the ancestry of the race, as descended from
the Alcheringa, quasi-human animal or vegetable ancestors, whose souls
are still reborn in human form in successive generations.[560] This
careful and definite account may be the starting-point of a new study.
Savages would be alive to the absurdity of naming clans after animals in
order to indicate a prohibition of marrying-in, opposed to the habit of
the animals themselves. Indeed, it seems more likely that such
animal-names may have commonly belonged to inbred clans, before the rule
of exogamy was developed. At present the plainest fact as to Totemism is
its historical position as shown by its immense geographical
distribution. Its presence in North America and Australia has been
noticed. It extends its organization through the forest-region of South
America from Guyana to Patagonia. Northward of Australia it is to be
traced among the more unchanged of the Malay populations, who underneath
foreign influence still keep remains of a totemic system like that of
the American tribes. Thence we follow the totem-clan into India, when it
appears among non-Aryan hill-tribes such as the Oraons and Mundas, who
have clans named after Eel, Hawk, Heron, and so on, and must not kill or
eat these creatures. North of the Himalaya it appears among Mongoloid
tribes in their native low cultured state, such as the Yakuts with their
intermarrying totem-clans Swan, Raven, and the like. In Africa totemism
appears in the Bantu district up to the West Coast. For example, the
Bechuana are divided into Bakuena, men of the crocodile; Batlapi, of the
fish; Balaung, of the lion; Bamorara, of the wild vine. A man does not
eat his tribe-animal, or clothe himself in its skin, and if he must kill
it as hurtful, the lion for instance, he asks pardon of it, and purifies
himself from the sacrilege. These few instances illustrate the
generalization that totemism in its complete form belongs to the savage
and early barbaric stages of culture, only partial remains or survivals
of it having lasted into the civilized period. Though appearing in all
other quarters of the globe, it is interesting to notice that there is
no distinct case of totemism found or recorded in Europe.[561]
The three motives of animal-worship which have been described, viz.,
direct worship of the animal for itself, indirect worship of it as a
fetish acted through by a deity, and veneration for it as a totem or
representative of a tribe-ancestor, no doubt account in no small measure
for the phenomena of Zoolatry among the lower races, due allowance being
also made for the effects of myth and symbolism, of which we may gain
frequent glimpses. Notwithstanding the obscurity and complexity of the
subject, a survey of Animal-worship as a whole may yet justify an
ethnographic view of its place in the history of civilization. If we
turn from its appearances among the less cultured races to notice the
shapes in which it has held its place among peoples advanced to the
stage of national organization and stereotyped religion, we shall find a
reasonable cause for its new position in the theory of development and
survival, whereby ideas at first belonging to savage theology have in
part continued to spread and solidify in their original manner, while in
part they have been changed to accommodate them to more advanced ideas,
or have been defended from the attacks of reason by being set up as
sacred mysteries. Ancient Egypt was a land of sacred cats and jackals
and hawks, whose mummies are among us to this day, but the reason of
whose worship was a subject too sacred for the Father of History to
discuss. Egyptian animal-worship seems to show, in a double line, traces
of a savage ancestry extending into ages lying far behind even the
remote antiquity of the Pyramids. Deities patronising special sacred
animals, incarnate in their bodies, or represented in their figures,
have nowhere better examples than the divine bull-dynasty of Apis, the
sacred hawks caged and fed in the temple of Horus, Thoth and his
cynocephalus and ibis, Hathor the cow and Sebek the crocodile. Moreover,
the local character of many of the sacred creatures, worshipped in
certain nomes yet killed and eaten with impunity elsewhere, fits
remarkably with that character of tribe-fetishes and deified totems with
which Mr. McLennan’s argument is concerned. See the men of Oxyrynchos
reverencing and sparing the fish oxyrynchos, and those of Latopolis
likewise worshipping the latos. At Apollinopolis men hated crocodiles
and never lost a chance of killing them, while the people of the
Arsinoite nome dressed geese and fish for these sacred creatures,
adorned them with necklaces and bracelets, and mummified them
sumptuously when they died.[562] In the modern world the most civilized
people among whom animal-worship vigorously survives, lie within the
range of Brahmanism, where the sacred animal, the deity incarnate in an
animal or invested with or symbolized by its shape, may to this day be
studied in clear example. The sacred cow is not merely to be spared, she
is as a deity worshipped in annual ceremony, daily perambulated and
bowed to by the pious Hindu, who offers her fresh grass and flowers;
Hanuman the monkey-god has his temples and his idols, and in him Siva is
incarnate, as Durga is in the jackal; the wise Ganesa wears the
elephant’s head; the divine king of birds, Garuda, is Vishnu’s vehicle;
the forms of fish, and boar, and tortoise, were assumed in those
avatar-legends of Vishnu which are at the intellectual level of the Red
Indian myths they so curiously resemble.[563] The conceptions which
underlie the Hindu creed of divine animals were not ill displayed by
that Hindu who, being shown the pictures of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and
John with their respective man, lion, ox, and eagle, explained these
quite naturally and satisfactorily as the avatars or vehicles of the
four evangelists.
In Animal-worship, some of the most remarkable cases of development and
survival belong to a class from which striking instances have already
been taken. Serpent-worship unfortunately fell years ago into the hands
of speculative writers, who mixed it up with occult philosophies,
Druidical mysteries, and that portentous nonsense called the ‘Arkite
Symbolism,’ till now sober students hear the very name of Ophiolatry
with a shiver. Yet it is in itself a rational and instructive subject of
inquiry, especially notable for its width of range in mythology and
religion. We may set out among the lower races, with such accounts as
those of the Red Indian’s reverence to the rattlesnake, as grandfather
and king of snakes, as a divine protector able to give fair winds or
cause tempests;[564] or of the worship of great snakes among the tribes
of Peru before they received the religion of the Incas, as to whom an
old author says, ‘They adore the demon when he presents himself to them
in the figure of some beast or serpent, and talks with them.’[565]
Thenceforth such examples of direct Ophiolatry may be traced on into
classic and barbaric Europe; the great serpent which defended the
citadel of Athens and enjoyed its monthly honey-cakes;[566] the Roman
genius loci appearing in the form of the snake (Nullus enim locus sine
genio est, qui per anguem plerumque ostenditur);[567] the old Prussian
serpent-worship and offering of food to the household snakes;[568] the
golden viper adored by the Lombards, till Barbatus got it in his hands
and the goldsmiths made it into paten and chalice.[569] To this day,
Europe has not forgotten in nursery tales or more serious belief the
snake that comes with its golden crown and drinks milk out of the
child’s porringer; the house-snake, tame and kindly but seldom seen,
that cares for the cows and the children and gives omens of a death in
the family; the pair of household snakes which have a mystic connexion
of life and death with the husband and housewife themselves.[570]
Serpent-worship, apparently of the directest sort, was prominent in the
indigenous religions of Southern Asia. It now even appears to have
maintained no mean place in early Indian Buddhism, for the sculptures of
the Sanchi tope show scenes of adoration of the five-headed snake-deity
in his temple, performed by a race of serpent-worshippers, figuratively
represented with snakes growing from their shoulders, and whose raja
himself has a five-headed snake arching hood-wise over his head. Here,
moreover, the totem-theory comes into contact with ophiolatry. The
Sanskrit name of the snake, ‘nâga,’ becomes also the accepted
designation of its adorers, and thus mythological interpretation has to
reduce to reasonable sense legends of serpent-races who turn out to be
simply serpent-worshippers, tribes who have from the divine reptiles at
once their generic name of Nâgas, and with it their imagined ancestral
descent from serpents.[571] In different ways, these Nâga tribes of
South Asia are on the one hand analogues of the Snake Indians of
America, and on the other of the Ophiogenes or Serpent-race of the
Troad, kindred of the vipers whose bite they could cure by touch, and
descendants of an ancient hero transformed into a snake.[572]
Serpents hold a prominent place in the religions of the world, as the
incarnations, shrines, or symbols of high deities. Such were the
rattlesnake worshipped in the Natchez temple of the Sun, and the snake
belonging in name and figure to the Aztec deity Quetzalcoatl;[573] the
snake as worshipped still by the Slave Coast negro, not for itself but
for its indwelling deity;[574] the snake kept and fed with milk in the
temple of the old Slavonic god Potrimpos;[575] the serpent-symbol of the
healing deity Asklepios, who abode in or manifested himself through the
huge tame snakes kept in his temples[576] (it is doubtful whether this
had any original connexion with the adoption of the snake, from its
renewal by casting its old slough, as the accepted emblem of new life or
immortality in later symbolism); and lastly, the Phœnician serpent with
its tail in its mouth, symbol of the world and of the Heaven-god Taaut,
in its original meaning perhaps a mythic world-snake like the
Scandinavian Midgard-worm, but in the changed fancy of later ages
adapted into an emblem of eternity.[577] It scarcely seems proved that
savage races, in all their mystic contemplations of the serpent, ever
developed out of their own minds the idea, to us so familiar, of
adopting it as a personification of evil.[578] In ancient times, we may
ascribe this character perhaps to the monster whose well-known form is
to be seen on the mummy-cases, the Apophis-serpent of the Egyptian
Hades;[579] and it unequivocally belongs to the destroying serpent of
the Zarathustrians, Azhi Dahâka,[580] a figure which bears so remarkable
a relation to that of the Semitic serpent of Eden, which may possibly
stand in historical connexion with it. A wondrous blending of the
ancient rites of Ophiolatry with mystic conceptions of Gnosticism
appears in the cultus which tradition (in truth or slander) declares the
semi-Christian sect of Ophites to have rendered to their tame snake,
enticing it out of its chest to coil round the sacramental bread, and
worshipping it as representing the great king from heaven who in the
beginning gave to the man and woman the knowledge of the mysteries.[581]
Thus the extreme types of religious veneration, from the soberest
matter-of-fact to the dreamiest mysticism, find their places in the
worship of animals.[582]
Hitherto in the study of animistic doctrine, our attention has been
turned especially to those minor spirits whose functions concern the
closer and narrower detail of man’s life and its surroundings. In
passing thence to the consideration of divine beings whose functions
have a wider scope, the transition may be well made through a special
group. An acute remark of Auguste Comte’s calls attention to an
important process of theological thought, which we may here endeavour to
bring as clearly as possible before our minds. In his ‘Philosophie
Positive,’ he defines deities proper as differing by their general and
abstract character from pure fetishes (i.e., animated objects), the
humble fetish governing but a single object from which it is
inseparable, while the gods administer a special order of phenomena at
once in different bodies. When, he continues, the similar vegetation of
the different oaks of a forest led to a theological generalization from
their common phenomena, the abstract being thus produced was no longer
the fetish of a single tree, but became the god of the forest; here,
then, is the intellectual passage from fetishism to polytheism, reduced
to the inevitable preponderance of specific over individual ideas.[583]
Now this observation of Comte’s may be more immediately applied to a
class of divine beings which may be accurately called species-deities.
It is highly suggestive to study the crude attempts of barbaric theology
to account for the uniformity observed in large classes of objects, by
making this generalization from individual to specific ideas. To explain
the existence of what we call a species, they would refer it to a common
ancestral stock, or to an original archetype, or to a species-deity, or
they combined these conceptions. For such speculations, classes of
plants and animals offered perhaps an early and certainly an easy
subject. The uniformity of each kind not only suggested a common
parentage, but also the notion that creatures so wanting in
individuality, with qualities so measured out as it were by line and
rule, might not be independent arbitrary agents, but mere copies from a
common model, or mere instruments used by controlling deities. Thus in
Polynesia, as has been just mentioned, certain species of animals were
considered as incarnations of certain deities, and among the Samoans it
appears that the question as to the individuality of such creatures was
actually asked and answered. If, for instance, a village god were
accustomed to appear as an owl, and one of his votaries found a dead owl
by the roadside, he would mourn over the sacred bird and bury it with
much ceremony, but the god himself would not be thought to be dead, for
he remains incarnate in all existing owls.[584] According to Father
Geronimo Boscana, the Acagchemen tribe of Upper California furnish a
curious parallel to this notion. They worshipped the ‘panes’ bird, which
seems to have been an eagle or vulture, and each year, in the temple of
each village, one of them was solemnly killed without shedding blood,
and the body burned. Yet the natives maintained and believed that it was
the same individual bird they sacrificed each year, and more than this,
that the same bird was slain by each of the villages.[585] Among the
comparatively cultured Peruvians, Acosta describes another theory of
celestial archetypes. Speaking of star-deities, he says that shepherds
venerated a certain star called Sheep, another star called Tiger
protected men from tigers, &c.: ‘And generally, of all the animals and
birds there are on the earth, they believed that a like one lived in
heaven, in whose charge were their procreation and increase, and thus
they accounted of divers stars, such as that they call Chacana, and
Topatorca, and Mamana, and Mizco, and Miquiquiray, and other such, so
that in a manner it appears that they were drawing towards the dogma of
the Platonic ideas.’[586] The North American Indians also have
speculated as to the common ancestors or deities of species. One
missionary notes down their idea as he found it in 1634. ‘They say,
moreover, that all the animals of each species have an elder brother,
who is as it were the principle and origin of all the individuals, and
this elder brother is marvellously great and powerful. The elder brother
of the beavers, they told me, is perhaps as large as our cabin.’ Another
early account is that each species of animals has its archetype in the
land of souls; there exists, for example, a manitu or archetype of all
oxen, which animates all oxen.[587] Here, again, occurs a noteworthy
correspondence with the ideas of a distant race. In Buyán, the island
paradise of Russian myth, there are to be found the Snake older than all
snakes, and the prophetic Raven, elder brother of all ravens, and the
Bird, the largest and oldest of all birds, with iron beak and copper
claws, and the Mother of Bees, eldest among bees.[588] Morgan’s
comparatively modern account of the Iroquois mentions their belief in a
spirit of each species of trees and plants, as of oak, hemlock, maple,
whortleberry, raspberry, spearmint, tobacco; most objects of nature
being thus under the care of protecting spirits.[589] The doctrine of
such species-deities is perhaps nowhere more definitely stated than by
Castrén in his ‘Finnish Mythology.’ In his description of the Siberian
nature-worship, the lowest level is exemplified by the Samoyeds, whose
direct worship of natural objects for themselves may perhaps indicate
the original religious condition of the whole Turanian race. But the
doctrine of the comparatively cultured heathen Finns was at a different
stage. Here every object in nature has a ‘haltia,’ a guardian deity or
genius, a being which was its creator and thenceforth became attached to
it. These deities or genii are, however, not bound to each single
transitory object, but are free personal beings which have movement,
form, body, and soul. Their existence in no wise depends on the
existence of the individual objects, for although no object in nature is
without its guardian deity, this deity extends to the whole race or
species. This ash-tree, this stone, this house, has indeed its
particular ‘haltia,’ yet these same ‘haltiat’ concern themselves with
other ash-trees, stones, and houses, of which the individuals may
perish, but their presiding genii live on in the species.[590] It seems
as though some similar view ran through the doctrine of more civilized
races, as in the well-known Egyptian and Greek examples where whole
species of animals, plants, or things, stand as symbolic of, and as
protected by, particular deities. The thought appears with most perfect
clearness in the Rabbinical philosophy which apportions to each of the
2100 species, of plants for instance, a presiding angel in heaven, and
assigns this as the motive of the Levitical prohibition of mixtures
among animals and plants.[591] The interesting likeness pointed out by
Father Acosta between these crude theological conceptions and the
civilized philosophical conceptions which have replaced them, was again
brought into view in the last century by the President De Brosses, in
comparing the Red Indians’ archetypes of species with the Platonic
archetypal ideas.[592] As for animals and plants, the desire of
naturalists to ascend to primal unity to some extent finds satisfaction
in a theory tracing each species to an origin in a single pair. And
though this is out of the question with inanimate objects, our language
seems in suggestive metaphor to lay hold on the same thought, when we
say of a dozen similar swords, or garments, or chairs, that they have
the same _pattern_ (patronus, as it were father), whereby they were
shaped from their _matter_ (materia, or mother substance).
Footnote 388:
F. R. Nixon, ‘Cruise of the Beacon’; Bonwick, p. 182.
Footnote 389:
Oldfield in ‘Tr. Eth. Soc.’ vol. iii. p. 228.
Footnote 390:
Schoolcraft, ‘Algic Res.’ vol. i. p. 41. ‘Indian Tribes,’ vol. iii. p.
327. Waitz, vol. iii. p. 191. See also J. G. Müller, p. 175. (Antilles
Islanders); Brasseur, ‘Mexique,’ vol. iii. p. 482.
Footnote 391:
Macpherson, ‘India,’ p. 90. See also Cross, ‘Karens,’ in ‘Journ. Amer.
Or. Soc.’ vol. iv. p. 315; Williams, ‘Fiji,’ vol. i. p. 239.
Footnote 392:
Castrén, ‘Finn. Myth.’ p. 114, 182, &c.
Footnote 393:
J. L. Wilson, ‘W. Afr.’ p. 218, 388; Waitz, vol. ii. p. 171.
Footnote 394:
Philo, De Gigant. I. iv.
Footnote 395:
Iamblichus, ii.
Footnote 396:
Collected passages in Calmet, ‘Diss. sur les Esprits’; Horst,
‘Zauber-Bibliothek,’ vol. ii. p. 263, &c.; vol. vi. p. 49, &c.; see
Migne’s Dictionaries.
Footnote 397:
Calmet, ‘Dissertation sur les Esprits,’ vol. i. ch. xlviii.
Footnote 398:
Gaume, ‘L’Eau Bénite au XIXme Siècle,’ pp. 295, 341.
Footnote 399:
Ellis, ‘Polyn. Res.’ vol. i. p. 331.
Footnote 400:
Backhouse, ‘Australia,’ p. 555; Grey, ‘Australia,’ vol. ii. p. 337.
Footnote 401:
Mason, ‘Karens,’ l.c. p. 211.
Footnote 402:
Schoolcraft, ‘Indian Tribes,’ part iii. p. 226.
Footnote 403:
Rochefort, ‘Antilles,’ p. 419.
Footnote 404:
Grimm, ‘D. M.’ p. 1193; Hanusch, ‘Slaw. Myth.’ p. 332; St. Clair and
Brophy, ‘Bulgaria,’ p. 59; Wuttke, ‘Volksaberglaube,’ p. 122; Bastian,
‘Psychologie,’ p. 103; Brand, vol. iii. p. 279. The _mare_ in
_nightmare_ means spirit, elf, or nymph; compare Anglo-Sax. _wudumære_
(wood-mare) = echo.
Footnote 405:
‘Vita del Amm. Christoforo Colombo,’ ch. xiii.; and ‘Life of Colon,’
in Pinkerton, vol. xii. p. 84.
Footnote 406:
Taylor, ‘New Zealand,’ pp. 149, 389. Mariner, ‘Tonga Is.’ vol. ii. p.
119.
Footnote 407:
Högström, ‘Lapmark,’ ch. xi.
Footnote 408:
Ward, ‘Hindoos,’ vol. ii. p. 151. See also Borri, ‘Cochin-China,’ in
Pinkerton, vol. ix. p. 823.
Footnote 409:
Augustin. ‘De Civ. Dei,’ xv. 23: ‘Et quoniam creberrima fama est,
multique se expertos, vel ab eis qui experti essent, de quorum fide
dubitandum non esset, audisse confirmant, Silvanos et Faunos, quos
vulgo incubos vocant, improbos sæpe extitisse mulieribus, et earum
appetisse ac peregisse concubitum; et quosdam dæmones, quos Dusios
Galli nuncupant, hanc assidue immunditiam et tentare et efficere;
plures talesque asseverant, ut hoc negare impudentiæ videatur; non
hinc aliquid audeo definire, utrum aliqui spiritus ... possint etiam
hanc pati libidinem; ut ... sentientibus feminibus misceantur.’ See
also Grimm, ‘D. M.’ pp. 449, 479; Hanusch, ‘Slaw. Myth.’ p. 332;
Cockayne, ‘Leechdoms of Early England,’ vol. i. p. xxxviii., vol. ii.
p. 345.
Footnote 410:
The ‘Malleus Maleficarum’ was published about 1489. See on the general
subject, Horst, ‘Zauber-Bibliothek,’ vol. vi.; Ennemoser, ‘Magic,’
vol. ii.; Maury, ‘Magie,’ &c. p. 256; Lecky, ‘Hist, of Rationalism,’
vol. i.
Footnote 411:
Burton, ‘Anatomy of Melancholy,’ iii. 2. ‘Unum dixero, non opinari me
ullo retro ævo tantam copiam Satyrorum, et salacium istorum Geniorum
se ostendisse, quantum nunc quotidianæ narrationes, et judiciales
sententiæ proferunt.’
Footnote 412:
J. R. Forster, ‘Observations during Voyage round World,’ p. 543.
Footnote 413:
Cross, ‘Karens,’ l.c. p. 312.
Footnote 414:
‘Journ. Ind. Archip.’ vol. i. p. 307.
Footnote 415:
J. V. Grohmann, ‘Aberglauben aus Böhmen,’ &c., p. 24; Calmet, ‘Diss.
sur les Esprits,’ vol. ii.; Grimm, ‘D. M.’ p. 1048, &c.; St. Clair and
Brophy, ‘Bulgaria,’ p. 49; see Ralston, ‘Songs of Russian People,’ p.
409.
Footnote 416:
Cranz, ‘Grönland,’ p. 268. Callaway, ‘Rel. of Amazulu,’ p. 246, &c.
Footnote 417:
Grey, ‘Australia,’ vol. ii. p. 302. See also Bonwick, ‘Tasmanians,’ p.
180.
Footnote 418:
Southey, ‘Brazil,’ part i. p. 238. See also Rochefort, p. 418; J. G.
Müller, p. 273 (Caribs); Cranz, ‘Grönland,’ p. 301; Schoolcraft,
‘Indian Tribes,’ part iii. p. 140.
Footnote 419:
‘Journ. Ind. Archip.’ vol. i. pp. 270, 298; vol. ii. ‘N. S.’ p. 117.
Footnote 420:
Roberts, ‘Oriental Illustrations,’ p. 531; Colebrook in ‘As. Res.’
vol. vii. p. 274.
Footnote 421:
Doolittle, ‘Chinese,’ vol. i. p. 77.
Footnote 422:
Hylten-Cavallius, ‘Wärend och Wirdarne,’ vol. i. p. 191; Atkinson,
‘Glossary of Cleveland Dial.’ p. 597. (Prof. Liebrecht, in
‘Zeitschrift für Ethnologie,’ vol. v. 1873, p. 99, adds comparison of
the still usual German custom of keeping a light burning in the
lying-in room till the child is baptized (Wuttke, 2nd ed. No. 583),
and the similar ancient Roman practice whence the goddess Candelifera
had her name (note to 2nd. ed.).)
Footnote 423:
Martin, ‘Western Islands,’ in Pinkerton, vol. iii. p. 612.
Footnote 424:
St. Clair and Brophy, ‘Bulgaria,’ p. 44.
Footnote 425:
Rituale Romanum; Benedictio Candelarum. Brand, ‘Popular Antiquities,’
vol. i. p. 46.
Footnote 426:
Cranz, ‘Grönland,’ p. 267, see 296.
Footnote 427:
Macpherson, ‘India,’ p. 100.
Footnote 428:
Homer, Odyss, xvi. 160.
Footnote 429:
Grimm, ‘D. M.’ p. 632.
Footnote 430:
Eisenmenger, ‘Judenthum,’ part i. p. 872. Lane, ‘Thousand and One
Nights,’ vol. ii. p. 56.
Footnote 431:
Bastian, ‘Psychologie,’ p. 162. Other localities in ‘Journ. Ind.
Archip.’ vol. iv. p. 333.
Footnote 432:
Tickell in ‘Journ. As. Soc. Bengal,’ vol. ix. p. 795. The dirge is
given above, p. 32.
Footnote 433:
De Brosses, ‘Dieux Fétiches,’ p. 46.
Footnote 434:
Clavigero, ‘Messico,’ vol. ii. p. 79.
Footnote 435:
Tractat. Berachoth.
Footnote 436:
Grimm, ‘D. M.’ pp. 420, 1117; St. Clair and Brophy, ‘Bulgaria,’ p. 54.
See also Bastian, ‘Mensch,’ vol. ii. p. 325; Tschudi, ‘Peru,’ vol. ii.
p. 355.
Footnote 437:
Brand, ‘Popular Antiquities,’ vol. i. p. 193. See Boecler, ‘Ehsten
Abergl.’ p. 73.
Footnote 438:
Tertullian, De Carne Christi, vi.; Adv. Marcion, ii.; Origen, De
Princip. i. 7. See Horst, l.c. Calmet, ‘Dissertation,’ vol. i. ch.
xlvi.
Footnote 439:
J. L. Wilson, ‘W. Afr.’ p. 217. See Bosman, ‘Guinea,’ in Pinkerton,
vol. xvi. p. 402.
Footnote 440:
Pallas, ‘Reisen,’ vol. i. p. 360.
Footnote 441:
Grimm, ‘D. M.’ p. 1212; Wuttke, ‘Volksaberglaube,’ p. 119; see
Hyltén-Cavallius, part i. p. 178 (Sweden).
Footnote 442:
Oldfield, ‘Abor. of Australia,’ in ‘Tr. Eth. Soc.’ vol. iii. p. 240.
Footnote 443:
Bonwick, ‘Tasmanians,’ p. 182.
Footnote 444:
Cranz, ‘Grönland,’ p. 268; Egede, p. 187.
Footnote 445:
Molina, ‘Chili,’ vol. ii. p. 86.
Footnote 446:
Rochefort, ‘Iles Antilles,’ pp. 416, 429; J. G. Müller, ‘Amer. Urrel.’
pp. 171, 217.
Footnote 447:
Waitz, vol. ii. p. 182; J. L. Wilson, ‘W. Afr.’ p. 387; Steinhauser,
l.c. p. 134. Compare Callaway, p. 327, &c.
Footnote 448:
Bastian, ‘Psychologie,’ p. 77.
Footnote 449:
Bastian, ‘Oestl. Asien,’ vol. iii. p. 275.
Footnote 450:
Grimm, ‘D. M.’ p. 829; Rochholz, ‘Deutscher Glaube,’ part i. p. 92;
Hanusch, ‘Slaw. Myth.’ p. 247.
Footnote 451:
Menander, 205, in Clement. Stromat.; Xenophon, Memor. Socr.; Plato,
Apol. Socr. &c. See Plotin. Ennead. iii. 4; Porphyr. Plotin.
Footnote 452:
Paulus Diaconus: ‘_Genium_ appellant Deum, qui vim obtineret rerum
omnium _generandarum_.’ Censorin. de Die Natali, 3: ‘Eundem esse
genium et larem, multi veteres memoriæ prodiderunt.’ Tibull. Eleg. i.
2, 7; Ovid. Trist. iii. 13, 18, v. 5, 10; Horat. Epist. ii. 1, 140,
Od. iv. 11, 7. Appian. de Bellis Parth. p. 156. Tertullian, Apol.
xxiii.
Footnote 453:
Serv. in Virg. Æn. vi. 743: ‘Cum nascimur, duos genios sortimur: unus
hortatur ad bona, alter depravat ad mala, quibus assistentibus post
mortem aut asserimur in meliorem vitam, aut condemnamur in
deteriorem.’ Horat. Epist. ii. 187; Valer. Max. i. 7; Plutarch,
Brutus. See Pauly, ‘Real-Encyclop.;’ Smith’s ‘Dic. of Biog. & Myth.’
s.v. ‘genius.’
Footnote 454:
Acta Sanctorum Bolland.: S. Francisca Romana ix. Mart. Calmet,
‘Dissertation,’ ch. iv. xxx.; Bastian, ‘Mensch,’ vol. ii. pp. 140,
347, vol. iii. p. 10; Wright, ‘St. Patrick’s Purgatory,’ p. 33.
Footnote 455:
Rochholz, p. 93.
Footnote 456:
Bull, ‘Sermons,’ 2nd ed. London, 1714, vol. ii. p. 506.
Footnote 457:
Swedenborg, ‘True Christian Religion,’ p. 380. See also A. J. Davis,
‘Philosophy of Spiritual Intercourse,’ p. 38.
Footnote 458:
D. Monnier, ‘Traditions Populaires,’ p. 7.
Footnote 459:
L. H. Morgan, ‘Iroquois,’ p. 64. Brebeuf in ‘Rel. des Jés.’ 1636, p.
107. See Schoolcraft, ‘Tribes,’ vol. iii. p. 337.
Footnote 460:
Steinhauser, ‘Religion des Negers,’ in ‘Magazin der Evang. Missionen,’
Basel, 1856; No. 2, p. 127, &c.
Footnote 461:
Plath, ‘Religion der alten Chinesen,’ part i. p. 44.
Footnote 462:
Oldfield, ‘Abor. of Austr.’ in ‘Tr. Eth. Soc.’ vol. iii. p. 232.
Footnote 463:
Steller, ‘Kamtschatka,’ pp. 47, 265.
Footnote 464:
Oviedo, ‘Nicaragua,’ in Ternaux-Compans, part xiv. pp. 132, 160.
Compare Catlin, ‘N. A. Ind.’ vol. ii. p. 169.
Footnote 465:
Creswick, ‘Veys,’ in ‘Tr. Eth. Soc.’ vol. vi. p. 359. See Du Chaillu,
‘Ashango-land,’ p. 106.
Footnote 466:
Brebeuf in ‘Rel. des Jés.’ 1636, p. 108. Long’s Exp. vol. i. p. 46.
See Loskiel, ‘Indians of N. A.’ part i. p. 45.
Footnote 467:
For details of the belief in water-spirits as the cause of drowning,
see ante, vol. i. p. 109.
Footnote 468:
Oldfield in ‘Tr. Eth. Soc.’ vol. iii. p. 328; Eyre, vol. ii. p. 362;
Grey, vol. ii. p. 339; Bastian, ‘Vorstellungen von Wasser und Feuer,’
in ‘Zeitschrift für Ethnologie,’ vol. i. (contains a general
collection of details as to water-worship).
Footnote 469:
Compare John Morgan, ‘Life of William Buckley’; Bonwick, p. 203;
Taylor, ‘New Zealand,’ p. 48, with Forbes Leslie, Brand, &c.
Footnote 470:
Cranz, ‘Grönland,’ p. 267.
Footnote 471:
Tanner, ‘Narr.’ p. 341; Carver, ‘Travels,’ p. 383; Franklin, ‘Journey
to Polar Sea,’ vol. ii. p. 245; Lubbock, ‘Origin of Civilization,’ pp.
213-20 (contains details as to water-worship); see Brinton, p. 124.
Footnote 472:
Rivero and Tschudi, ‘Peruvian Ant.’ p. 161; Garcilaso de la Vega,
‘Comm. Real.’ i. 10. See also J. G. Müller, ‘Amer. Urrelig.’ pp. 258,
260, 282.
Footnote 473:
Krapf, ‘E. Afr.’ p. 198; Steinhauser, l.c. p. 131; Villault in Astley,
vol. i. p. 668; Backhouse, ‘Afr.’ p. 230; Callaway, ‘Zulu Tales,’ vol.
i. p. 90; Bastian, l.c.
Footnote 474:
Castrén, ‘Vorlesungen über die Altaischen Völker,’ p. 114. ‘Finn.
Myth.’ p. 70. Atkinson, ‘Siberia,’ p. 444. Boecler, ‘Ehsten Abergläub.
Gebräuche,’ ed. Kreutzwald, p. 6.
Footnote 475:
Hodgson, ‘Abor. of India,’ p. 164; Hunter, ‘Rural Bengal.’ p. 184. See
also Lubbock, l.c.; Forbes Leslie, ‘Early Races of Scotland,’ vol. i.
p. 163, vol. ii. p. 497.
Footnote 476:
Ward, ‘Hindoos,’ vol. ii. p. 206, &c.
Footnote 477:
Homer, Il. xx. xxi. See Gladstone, ‘Juventus Mundi,’ pp. 190, 345,
&c., &c.
Footnote 478:
Cosmas, book iii. p. 197, ‘superstitiosas institutiones, quas villani
adhuc semipagani in Pentecosten tertia sive quarta feria observabant
offerentes libamina super fontes mactabant victimas et dæmonibus
immolabant.’
Footnote 479:
Poenitentiale Ecgberti, ii. 22, ‘gif hwilc man his ælmessan gehâte
oththe bringe to hwilcon wylle;’ iv. 19, ‘gif hwâ his wæccan æt ænigum
wylle hæbbe.’ Grimm, ‘D. M.’ p. 549, &c. See Hyltén-Cavallius, ‘Wärend
och Wirdarne,’ part i. pp. 131, 171 (Sweden).
Footnote 480:
Grohmann, ‘Aberglauben aus Böhmen und Mähren,’ p. 43, &c. Hanusch,
‘Slaw. Myth.’ p. 291, &c. Ralston, ‘Songs of Russian People,’ p. 139,
&c.
Footnote 481:
St. Clair and Brophy, ‘Bulgaria,’ p. 46. Similar ideas in Grohmann, p.
44. Eisenmenger, ‘Entd. Judenthum,’ part i. p. 426.
Footnote 482:
Maury, ‘Magie,’ &c., p. 158. Brand, ‘Pop. Ant.’ vol. ii. p. 366, &c.
Hunt, ‘Pop. Rom. 2nd Series,’ p. 40, &c. Forbes Leslie, ‘Early Races
of Scotland,’ vol. i. p. 156, &c.
Footnote 483:
‘Journ. Ind. Archip.’ vol. i. p. 307.
Footnote 484:
Beeker, ‘Dyaks,’ in ‘Journ. Ind. Archip.’ vol. iii. p. 111.
Footnote 485:
Marsden, ‘Sumatra,’ p. 301.
Footnote 486:
S. S. Farmer, ‘Tonga,’ p. 127.
Footnote 487:
Bastian, ‘Der Baum in vergleichender Ethnologie,’ in Lazarus and
Steinthal’s ‘Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie,’ &c., vol. v. 1868.
Footnote 488:
Chr. Colombo, ch. xix.; and in Pinkerton, vol. xii. p. 87.
Footnote 489:
Burton, ‘W. & W. fr. W. Afr.’ pp. 205, 243.
Footnote 490:
Waitz, vol. ii. p. 188.
Footnote 491:
Bosman, letter 19, and in Pinkerton, vol. xvi. p. 500.
Footnote 492:
Krapf, ‘E. Afr.’ p. 77; Prichard, ‘N. H. of Man,’ p. 290; Waitz, vol.
ii. p. 518. See also Merolla, ‘Congo,’ in Pinkerton, vol. xvi. p. 236.
Footnote 493:
Bastian, ‘Oestl. Asien,’ vol. ii. pp. 457, 461, vol. iii. pp. 187,
251, 289, 497. For details of tree-worship from other Asiatic
districts, see Ainsworth, ‘Yezidis,’ in ‘Tr. Eth. Soc.’ vol. i. p. 23;
Jno. Wilson, ‘Parsi Religion,’ p. 262.
Footnote 494:
Hardy, ‘Manual of Budhism,’ pp. 100, 443.
Footnote 495:
Fergusson, ‘Tree and Serpent Worship,’ pl. xxiv. xxvi. &c.
Footnote 496:
Tabary in Bastian, l.c. p. 295.
Footnote 497:
Hartknoch, ‘Alt. und Neues Preussen,’ part i. ch. v.
Footnote 498:
See Pauly, ‘Real-Encyclopedie.’ Homer. Odyss. xiv. 327, xix. 296.
Footnote 499:
Hymn. Homer. Aphrod. 257.
Footnote 500:
Ausonii Idyll. De Histor. 7.
Footnote 501:
Apollon. Rhod. Argonautica, ii. 476. See Welcker, ‘Griech. Götterl.’
vol. iii. p. 57.
Footnote 502:
Ovid. Metamm. i. 452, ii. 345, xi. 67.
Footnote 503:
Dante, ‘Divina Commedia,’ ‘Inferno,’ canto xiii.
Footnote 504:
Ariosto, ‘Orlando Furioso,’ canto vi.
Footnote 505:
Grimm, ‘D. M.’ p. 615, &c. Bastian, ‘Der Baum,’ l.c. p. 297; Hanusch,
‘Slaw. Myth.’ p. 313.
Footnote 506:
Wuttke, ‘Volksaberglaube,’ p. 57, see 183.
Footnote 507:
Euseb. ‘Præp. Evang.’ i. 10.
Footnote 508:
Further details as to tree-worship in Bastian, ‘Der Baum,’ &c., here
cited; Lubbock, ‘Origin of Civilization,’ p. 206, &c.; Fergusson,
‘Tree and Serpent Worship,’ &c.
Footnote 509:
Bastian, ‘Der Baum,’ l.c. &c.
Footnote 510:
Irving, ‘Astoria,’ vol. ii. ch. viii.
Footnote 511:
Darwin, ‘Journal,’ p. 68.
Footnote 512:
Polack, ‘New Z.’ vol. ii. p. 6; Taylor, p. 171, see 99.
Footnote 513:
St. John, ‘Far East,’ vol. i. p. 89.
Footnote 514:
Wallace, ‘Eastern Archipelago,’ vol. i. p. 338.
Footnote 515:
Prichard, ‘Nat. Hist. of Man,’ p. 531.
Footnote 516:
Merolla in Pinkerton, vol. xvi. p. 236.
Footnote 517:
Lubbock, p. 193; Bastian, l.c.; Park, ‘Travels,’ vol. i. pp. 64, 106.
Footnote 518:
Castrén, ‘Finn. Myth.’ p. 86, &c., 191, &c.; Latham, ‘Descr. Eth.’
vol. i. p. 363; Simpson, ‘Journey,’ vol. ii. p. 261.
Footnote 519:
Boecler, ‘Ehsten Abergläubische Gebräuche,’ &c., ed. Kreutzwald, pp.
2, 112, 146.
Footnote 520:
Hodgson, ‘Abor. of India,’ pp. 165, 173.
Footnote 521:
Macpherson, p. 61.
Footnote 522:
Dalton, ‘Kols,’ in ‘Tr. Eth. Soc.’ vol. vi. p. 34. Bastian, ‘Oestl.
Asien.’ vol. i. p. 134, vol. iii. p. 252.
Footnote 523:
Deut. xii. 3; xvi. 21. Judges vi. 25. 1 Kings xiv. 23; xv. 13; xviii.
19. 2 Kings xvii. 10; xxiii. 4. Is. lvii. 5. Jerem. xvii. 2. Ezek. vi.
13; xx. 28. Hos. iv. 13, &c., &c.
Footnote 524:
Sil. Ital. Punica, iii. 675, 690. Harduin, Acta Conciliorum, vol. i.
For further evidence as to Semitic tree-and-grove worship, see Movers,
‘Phönizier,’ vol. i. p. 560, &c.
Footnote 525:
Hunter, ‘Rural Bengal,’ pp. 131, 194.
Footnote 526:
Boehtlingk and Roth, s.v. ‘chaityataru.’ Ward, ‘Hindoos,’ vol. ii. p.
204.
Footnote 527:
Ovid. Metamm. viii. 741.
Footnote 528:
Cato de Re Rustica, 139; Plin. xvii. 47.
Footnote 529:
Hanusch, ‘Slaw. Myth.’ pp. 98, 229. Hartknoch, part i. ch. v. vii.;
Grimm, ‘D. M.’ p. 67.
Footnote 530:
Maxim. Tyr. viii.; Plin. xvi. 95.
Footnote 531:
Tacit. Germania, 9, 39, &c.; Grimm, ‘D. M.’ p. 66.
Footnote 532:
Hyltén-Cavallius, ‘Wärend och Wirdarne,’ part i. p. 142.
Footnote 533:
Ralston, ‘Songs of Russian People,’ p. 153, see 238.
Footnote 534:
Grimm, ‘D. M.’ p. 62, &c.
Footnote 535:
Steller, ‘Kamtschatka,’ p. 276.
Footnote 536:
Garcilaso de la Vega, ‘Comentarios Reales,’ i. ch. ix. &c.
Footnote 537:
Marsden, ‘Sumatra,’ p. 303.
Footnote 538:
Petron. Arb. Fragm.; Statius, iii. Theb. 661.
Footnote 539:
See ante, ch. xi.
Footnote 540:
Mouhot, ‘Indo-China,’ vol. i. p. 252.
Footnote 541:
Charlevoix, ‘Nouvelle France,’ vol. v. p. 443.
Footnote 542:
W. M. Wood in ‘Tr. Eth. Soc.’ vol. iv. p. 36.
Footnote 543:
Simpson, ‘Journey,’ vol. ii. p. 269; Erman, ‘Siberia,’ vol. i. p. 492;
Latham, ‘Descr. Eth.’ vol. i. p. 456; ‘Journ. Ind. Archip.’ vol. iv.
p. 590.
Footnote 544:
Ellis, ‘Polyn. Res.’ vol. i. p. 336.
Footnote 545:
Farmer, ‘Tonga,’ p. 126; Mariner, vol. ii. p. 106.
Footnote 546:
Williams, ‘Fiji,’ vol. i. p. 217, &c.
Footnote 547:
Turner, ‘Polynesia,’ p. 238.
Footnote 548:
Shortland, ‘Trads. of N. Z.’ ch. iv.
Footnote 549:
Marsden, ‘Sumatra,’ p. 292.
Footnote 550:
Loskiel, ‘Ind. of N. A.’ part i. p. 40; Catlin, ‘N. A. Ind.’ vol. i.
p. 36; Schoolcraft, ‘Tribes,’ part i. p. 34, part v. p. 652; Waitz,
vol. iii. p. 190.
Footnote 551:
See ante, p. 8; Callaway, ‘Rel. of Amazulu,’ p. 196.
Footnote 552:
Steinhauser, ‘Religion des Negers,’ l.c. p. 133. J. L. Wilson, ‘W.
Afr.’ pp. 210, 218. Schlegel, ‘Ewe-Sprache,’ p. xv.
Footnote 553:
Bosman, ‘Guinea,’ letter 19; in Pinkerton, vol. xvi. p. 499. See
Burton, ‘Dahome,’ ch. iv., xvii. An account of the Vaudoux
serpent-worship still carried on among the negroes of Hayti, in
‘Lippincott’s Magazine,’ Philadelphia, March, 1870.
Footnote 554:
Castrén, ‘Finn. Myth.’ p. 196, see 228.
Footnote 555:
J. F. McLennan in ‘Fortnightly Review,’ 1869-70; reprinted in ‘Studies
in Ancient History,’ 2nd Series, pp. 117, 491.
Footnote 556:
John Long, ‘Voyages and Travels of an Indian Interpreter,’ London,
1791, p. 86. See pp. 233, 411 of present volume.
Footnote 557:
Grey, ‘Journals of Expeditions in N. W. & W. Australia,’ vol. ii. pp.
225-9; ‘Archæologia Americana,’ vol. ii. p. 109.
Footnote 558:
J. G. Frazer, ‘Totemism,’ p. 53; ‘Golden Bough,’ 2nd ed. vol. iii. pp.
419, 423.
Footnote 559:
Codrington, ‘Melanesians,’ pp. 32-3, 170.
Footnote 560:
Spencer and Gillen, ‘Native Tribes of Central Australia,’ 1899, pp.
73, 121.
Footnote 561:
General references in J. F. McLennan, ‘Studies in Ancient History;’ J.
G. Frazer, ‘Totemism.’
Footnote 562:
Herod. ii.; Plutarch, De Iside & Osiride; Strabo, xvii. 1; Wilkinson,
‘Ancient Eg.,’ edited by Birch, vol. iii.; Bunsen, 2nd Edition, with
notes by Birch, vol. i.
Footnote 563:
Ward, ‘Hindoos,’ vol. ii. p. 195, &c.
Footnote 564:
Schoolcraft, part iii. p. 231; Brinton, p. 108, &c.
Footnote 565:
Garcilaso de la Vega, ‘Comentarios Reales,’ i. 9.
Footnote 566:
Herodot. viii. 41.
Footnote 567:
Servius ad Æn. v. 95.
Footnote 568:
Hartknoch, ‘Preussen,’ part i. pp. 143, 162.
Footnote 569:
Grimm, ‘D. M.’ p. 648.
Footnote 570:
Grimm, ‘D. M.’ p. 650. Rochholz, ‘Deutscher Glaube,’ &c., vol. i. p.
146. Monnier, ‘Traditions Populaires,’ p. 644. Grohmann, ‘Aberglauben
aus Böhmen,’ &c., p. 78. Ralston, ‘Songs of Russian People,’ p. 175.
Footnote 571:
Fergusson ‘Tree and Serpent Worship,’ p. 55, &c., pl. xxiv. McLennan
l.c. p. 563, &c.
Footnote 572:
Strabo, xiii. 1, 14.
Footnote 573:
J. G. Müller, ‘Amer. Urrel.’ pp. 62, 585.
Footnote 574:
J. B. Schlegel, ‘Ewe-Sprache,’ p. xiv.
Footnote 575:
Hanusch, ‘Slaw. Myth.’ p. 217.
Footnote 576:
Pausan. ii. 28; Ælian, xvi. 39. See Welcker, ‘Griech. Götterl.’ vol.
ii. p. 734.
Footnote 577:
Macrob. Saturnal. i. 9. Movers, ‘Phönizier,’ vol. i. p. 500.
Footnote 578:
Details such as in Schoolcraft, ‘Ind. Tribes,’ part i. pp. 38, 414,
may be ascribed to Christian intercourse. See Brinton, p. 121.
Footnote 579:
Lepsius, ‘Todtenbuch,’ and Birch’s transl. in Bunsen’s ‘Egypt,’ vol.
v.
Footnote 580:
Spiegel, ‘Avesta,’ vol. i. p. 66, vol. iii. p. lix.
Footnote 581:
Epiphan. Adv. Hæres. xxxvii. Tertullian. De Præscript. contra
Hæreticos, 47.
Footnote 582:
Further collections of evidence relating to Zoolatry in general may be
found in Bastian, ‘Das Thier in seiner mythologischen Bedeutung,’ in
Bastian and Hartmann’s ‘Zeitschrift für Ethnologie,’ vol. i., Meiners,
‘Geschichte der Religionen,’ vol. i.
Footnote 583:
Comte, ‘Philosophie Positive,’ vol. v. p. 101.
Footnote 584:
Turner, ‘Polynesia,’ p. 242.
Footnote 585:
Brinton, ‘Myths of New World,’ p. 105.
Footnote 586:
Acosta, ‘Historia de las Indias,’ book v. c. iv.; Rivero & Tschudi,
pp. 161, 179; J. G. Müller, p. 365.
Footnote 587:
Le Jeune in ‘Rel. des Jés. dans la Nouvelle France,’ 1634, p. 13.
Lafitau, ‘Mœurs des Sauvages,’ vol. i. p. 370. See also Waitz, vol.
iii. p. 194; Schoolcraft, part iii. p. 327.
Footnote 588:
Ralston, ‘Songs of the Russian People,’ p. 375. The Slavonic myth of
Buyán with its dripping oak and the snake Garafena lying beneath, is
obviously connected with the Scandinavian myth of the dripping ash,
Yggdrasill, the snake Nidhögg below, and the two Swans of the
Urdharfount, parents of all swans.
Footnote 589:
Morgan, ‘Iroquois,’ p. 162.
Footnote 590:
Castrén, ‘Finn. Myth.’ pp. 106, 160, 189, &c.
Footnote 591:
Eisenmenger, ‘Judenthum,’ part ii. p. 376; Bastian, ‘Mensch,’ vol.
iii. p. 194.
Footnote 592:
De Brosses, ‘Dieux Fétiches,’ p. 58.