‘This a nighte, this a nighteEvery night and alle;Fire and fleet and candle-light,And Christe receive thy saule.When thou from hence away are pasteEvery night and alle;To Whinny-moor thou comes at laste,And Christe receive thy saule.If ever thou gave either hosen or shoon,Every night and alle;Sit thee down and put them on,And Christe receive thy saule.But if hosen nor shoon thou never gave neean,Every night and alle;The Whinnes shall prick thee to the bare beean,And Christe receive thy saule.From Whinny-moore when thou may passe,Every night and alle;To Brig o’ Dread thou comes at laste,And Christe receive thy saule.From Brig o’ Dread when thou are paste,Every night and alle;To Purgatory Fire thou comes at laste,And Christe receive thy saule.If ever thou gave either milke or drink,Every night and alle;The fire shall never make thee shrinke,And Christe receive thy saule.But if milk nor drink thou never gave neean,Every night and alle;The fire shall burn thee to the bare beeanAnd Christe receive thy saule.’[824]
‘This a nighte, this a nighteEvery night and alle;Fire and fleet and candle-light,And Christe receive thy saule.When thou from hence away are pasteEvery night and alle;To Whinny-moor thou comes at laste,And Christe receive thy saule.If ever thou gave either hosen or shoon,Every night and alle;Sit thee down and put them on,And Christe receive thy saule.But if hosen nor shoon thou never gave neean,Every night and alle;The Whinnes shall prick thee to the bare beean,And Christe receive thy saule.From Whinny-moore when thou may passe,Every night and alle;To Brig o’ Dread thou comes at laste,And Christe receive thy saule.From Brig o’ Dread when thou are paste,Every night and alle;To Purgatory Fire thou comes at laste,And Christe receive thy saule.If ever thou gave either milke or drink,Every night and alle;The fire shall never make thee shrinke,And Christe receive thy saule.But if milk nor drink thou never gave neean,Every night and alle;The fire shall burn thee to the bare beeanAnd Christe receive thy saule.’[824]
‘This a nighte, this a nighteEvery night and alle;Fire and fleet and candle-light,And Christe receive thy saule.
‘This a nighte, this a nighte
Every night and alle;
Fire and fleet and candle-light,
And Christe receive thy saule.
When thou from hence away are pasteEvery night and alle;To Whinny-moor thou comes at laste,And Christe receive thy saule.
When thou from hence away are paste
Every night and alle;
To Whinny-moor thou comes at laste,
And Christe receive thy saule.
If ever thou gave either hosen or shoon,Every night and alle;Sit thee down and put them on,And Christe receive thy saule.
If ever thou gave either hosen or shoon,
Every night and alle;
Sit thee down and put them on,
And Christe receive thy saule.
But if hosen nor shoon thou never gave neean,Every night and alle;The Whinnes shall prick thee to the bare beean,And Christe receive thy saule.
But if hosen nor shoon thou never gave neean,
Every night and alle;
The Whinnes shall prick thee to the bare beean,
And Christe receive thy saule.
From Whinny-moore when thou may passe,Every night and alle;To Brig o’ Dread thou comes at laste,And Christe receive thy saule.
From Whinny-moore when thou may passe,
Every night and alle;
To Brig o’ Dread thou comes at laste,
And Christe receive thy saule.
From Brig o’ Dread when thou are paste,Every night and alle;To Purgatory Fire thou comes at laste,And Christe receive thy saule.
From Brig o’ Dread when thou are paste,
Every night and alle;
To Purgatory Fire thou comes at laste,
And Christe receive thy saule.
If ever thou gave either milke or drink,Every night and alle;The fire shall never make thee shrinke,And Christe receive thy saule.
If ever thou gave either milke or drink,
Every night and alle;
The fire shall never make thee shrinke,
And Christe receive thy saule.
But if milk nor drink thou never gave neean,Every night and alle;The fire shall burn thee to the bare beeanAnd Christe receive thy saule.’[824]
But if milk nor drink thou never gave neean,
Every night and alle;
The fire shall burn thee to the bare beean
And Christe receive thy saule.’[824]
What reader, unacquainted with the old doctrine of offerings for the dead, could realize the meaning of its remnants thus lingering in peasants’ minds? The survivals from ancient funeral ceremony may here again serve as warnings against attempting to explain relics of intellectual antiquity by viewing them from the changed level of modern opinion.
Having thus surveyed at large the theory of spirits or souls of objects, it remains to point out what, to general students, may seem the most important consideration belonging to it, namely, its close relation to one of the mostinfluential doctrines of civilized philosophy. The savage thinker, though occupying himself so much with the phenomena of life, sleep, disease, and death, seems to have taken for granted, as a matter of course, the ordinary operations of his own mind. It hardly occurred to him to think about the machinery of thinking. Metaphysics is a study which first assumes clear shape at a comparatively high level of intellectual culture. The metaphysical philosophy of thought taught in our modern European lecture-rooms is historically traced back to the speculative psychology of classic Greece. Now one doctrine which there comes into view is especially associated with the name of Democritus, the philosopher of Abdera, in the fifth centuryB.C.When Democritus propounded the great problem of metaphysics, ‘How do we perceive external things?’—thus making, as Lewes says, an era in the history of philosophy,—he put forth, in answer to the question, a theory of thought. He explained the fact of perception by declaring that things are always throwing off imagesεἴδωλαof themselves, which images, assimilating to themselves the surrounding air, enter a recipient soul, and are thus perceived. Now, supposing Democritus to have been really the originator of this famed theory of ideas, how far is he to be considered its inventor? Writers on the history of philosophy are accustomed to treat the doctrine as actually made by the philosophical school which taught it. Yet the evidence here brought forward shows it to be really the savage doctrine of object-souls, turned to a new purpose as a method of explaining the phenomena of thought. Nor is the correspondence a mere coincidence, for at this point of junction between classic religion and classic philosophy the traces of historical continuity may be still discerned. To say that Democritus was an ancient Greek is to say that from his childhood he had looked on at the funeral ceremonies of his country, beholding the funeral sacrifices of garments and jewels and money and food and drink, rites which his mother and his nurse could tell him were performed inorder that the phantasmal images of these objects might pass into the possession of forms shadowy like themselves, the souls of dead men. Thus Democritus, seeking a solution of his great problem of the nature of thought, found it by simply decanting into his metaphysics a surviving doctrine of primitive savage animism. This thought of the phantoms or souls of things, if simply modified to form a philosophical theory of perception, would then and there become his doctrine of Ideas. Nor does even this fully represent the closeness of union which connects the savage doctrine of flitting object-souls with the Epicurean philosophy. Lucretius actually makes the theory of film-like images of things (simulacra, membranæ) account both for the apparitions which come to men in dreams, and the images which impress their minds in thinking. So unbroken is the continuity of philosophic speculation from savage to cultured thought. Such are the debts which civilized philosophy owes to primitive animism.
The doctrine of ideas, thus developed in the classic world, has, indeed, by no means held its course thenceforth unchanged through metaphysics, but has undergone transition somewhat like that of the doctrine of the soul itself. Ideas, fined down to the abstract forms or species of material objects, and applied to other than visible qualities, have at last come merely to denote subjects of thought. Yet to this day the old theory has not utterly died out, and the retention of the significant term ‘idea’ (ἰδέα, visible form) is accompanied by a similar retention of original meaning. It is still one of the tasks of the metaphysician to display and refute the old notion of ideas as being real images, and to replace it by more abstract conceptions. It is a striking instance that Dugald Stewart can cite from the works of Sir Isaac Newton the following distinct recognition of ‘sensible species:’ ‘Is not the sensorium of animals, the place where the sentient substance is present; and to which the sensible species of things are brought, through the nerves and brain, that there they may be perceived bythe mind present in that place?’ Again, Dr. Reid states the original theory of ideas, while declaring that he conceives it ‘to have no solid foundation, though it has been adopted very generally by philosophers.... This notion of our perceiving external objects, not immediately, but in certain images or species of them conveyed by the senses, seems to be the most ancient philosophical hypothesis we have on the subject of perception, and to have, with small variations, retained its authority to this day.’ Granted that Dr. Reid exaggerated the extent to which metaphysicians have kept up the notion of ideas as real images of things, few will deny that it does linger much in modern minds, and that people who talk of ideas do often, in some hazy metaphorical way, think of sensible images.[825]One of the shrewdest things ever said about either ideas or ghosts was Bishop Berkeley’s retort upon Halley, who bantered him about his idealism. The bishop claimed the mathematician as an idealist also, his ‘ultimate ratios’ being ghosts of departed quantities, appearing when the terms that produced them vanished.
It remains to sum up in few words the doctrine of souls, in the various phases it has assumed from first to last among mankind. In the attempt to trace its main course through the successive grades of man’s intellectual history, the evidence seems to accord best with a theory of its development, somewhat to the following effect. At the lowest levels of culture of which we have clear knowledge, the notion of a ghost-soul animating man while in the body, and appearing in dream and vision out of the body, is found deeply ingrained. There is no reason to think that this belief was learnt by savage tribes from contact with higher races, nor that it is a relic of higher culture from which the savage tribes have degenerated; for what is here treated as theprimitive animistic doctrine is thoroughly at home among savages, who appear to hold it on the very evidence of their senses, interpreted on the biological principle which seems to them most reasonable. We may now and then hear the savage doctrines and practices concerning souls claimed as relics of a high religious culture pervading the primæval race of man. They are said to be traces of remote ancestral religion, kept up in scanty and perverted memory by tribes degraded from a nobler state. It is easy to see that such an explanation of some few facts, sundered from their connexion with the general array, may seem plausible to certain minds. But a large view of the subject can hardly leave such argument in possession. The animism of savages stands for and by itself; it explains its own origin. The animism of civilized men, while more appropriate to advanced knowledge, is in great measure only explicable as a developed product of the older and ruder system. It is the doctrines and rites of the lower races which are, according to their philosophy, results of point-blank natural evidence and acts of straightforward practical purpose. It is the doctrines and rites of the higher races which show survival of the old in the midst of the new, modification of the old to bring it into conformity with the new, abandonment of the old because it is no longer compatible with the new. Let us see at a glance in what general relation the doctrine of souls among savage tribes stands to the doctrine of souls among barbaric and cultured nations. Among races within the limits of savagery, the general doctrine of souls is found worked out with remarkable breadth and consistency. The souls of animals are recognized by a natural extension from the theory of human souls; the souls of trees and plants follow in some vague partial way; and the souls of inanimate objects expand the general category to its extremest boundary. Thenceforth, as we explore human thought onward from savage into barbarian and civilized life, we find a state of theory more conformed to positive science, but in itself less complete and consistent. Far on intocivilization, men still act as though in some half-meant way they believed in souls or ghosts of objects, while nevertheless their knowledge of physical science is beyond so crude a philosophy. As to the doctrine of souls of plants, fragmentary evidence of the history of its breaking down in Asia has reached us. In our own day and country, the notion of souls of beasts is to be seen dying out. Animism, indeed, seems to be drawing in its outposts, and concentrating itself on its first and main position, the doctrine of the human soul. This doctrine has undergone extreme modification in the course of culture. It has outlived the almost total loss of one great argument attached to it,—the objective reality of apparitional souls or ghosts seen in dreams and visions. The soul has given up its ethereal substance, and become an immaterial entity, ‘the shadow of a shade.’ Its theory is becoming separated from the investigations of biology and mental science, which now discuss the phenomena of life and thought, the senses and the intellect, the emotions and the will, on a ground-work of pure experience. There has arisen an intellectual product whose very existence is of the deepest significance, a ‘psychology’ which has no longer anything to do with ‘soul.’ The soul’s place in modern thought is in the metaphysics of religion, and its especial office there is that of furnishing an intellectual side to the religious doctrine of the future life. Such are the alterations which have differenced the fundamental animistic belief in its course through successive periods of the world’s culture. Yet it is evident that, notwithstanding all this profound change, the conception of the human soul is, as to its most essential nature, continuous from the philosophy of the savage thinker to that of the modern professor of theology. Its definition has remained from the first that of an animating, separable, surviving entity, the vehicle of individual personal existence. The theory of the soul is one principal part of a system of religious philosophy which unites, in an unbroken line of mental connexion, the savage fetish-worshipperand the civilized Christian. The divisions which have separated the great religions of the world into intolerant and hostile sects are for the most part superficial in comparison with the deepest of all religious schisms, that which divides Animism from Materialism.
END OFVOL.I.
Footnotes
Footnotes
Footnotes
1.Fortnightly Review: ‘Origin of Language,’ April 15, 1866; ‘Religion of Savages,’ August 15, 1866. Lectures at Royal Institution: ‘Traces of the Early Mental Condition of Man,’ March 15, 1867; ‘Survival of Savage Thought in Modern Civilization,’ April 23, 1869. Lecture at University College, London: ‘Spiritualistic Philosophy of the Lower Races of Mankind,’ May 8, 1869. Paper read at British Association, Nottingham, 1866: ‘Phenomena of Civilization Traceable to a Rudimental Origin among Savage Tribes.’ Paper read at Ethnological Society of London, April 26, 1870: ‘Philosophy of Religion among the Lower Races of Mankind,’ &c., &c.
1.Fortnightly Review: ‘Origin of Language,’ April 15, 1866; ‘Religion of Savages,’ August 15, 1866. Lectures at Royal Institution: ‘Traces of the Early Mental Condition of Man,’ March 15, 1867; ‘Survival of Savage Thought in Modern Civilization,’ April 23, 1869. Lecture at University College, London: ‘Spiritualistic Philosophy of the Lower Races of Mankind,’ May 8, 1869. Paper read at British Association, Nottingham, 1866: ‘Phenomena of Civilization Traceable to a Rudimental Origin among Savage Tribes.’ Paper read at Ethnological Society of London, April 26, 1870: ‘Philosophy of Religion among the Lower Races of Mankind,’ &c., &c.
2.Blackstone, ‘Commentaries on the Laws of England,’bk.II.,ch.3. The above example replaces that given in former editions. Another example may be found in his explanation of the origin of deodand,bk.I.,ch.8, as designed, in the blind days of popery, as an expiation for the souls of such as were snatched away by sudden death; see below,p.287. [Note to3rded.]
2.Blackstone, ‘Commentaries on the Laws of England,’bk.II.,ch.3. The above example replaces that given in former editions. Another example may be found in his explanation of the origin of deodand,bk.I.,ch.8, as designed, in the blind days of popery, as an expiation for the souls of such as were snatched away by sudden death; see below,p.287. [Note to3rded.]
3.G. W.Earl, ‘Papuans,’p.79;A. R.Wallace, ‘Eastern Archipelago.’
3.G. W.Earl, ‘Papuans,’p.79;A. R.Wallace, ‘Eastern Archipelago.’
4.Rochefort, ‘Iles Antilles,’pp.400-480.
4.Rochefort, ‘Iles Antilles,’pp.400-480.
5.Gibbon, ‘Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,’ch.xxxviii.
5.Gibbon, ‘Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,’ch.xxxviii.
6.De Maistre,‘Soirées de St. Pétersbourg,’vol.ii.p.150.
6.De Maistre,‘Soirées de St. Pétersbourg,’vol.ii.p.150.
7.De Brosses,‘Dieux Fétiches,’p.15;‘Formation des Langues,’vol.i.p.49;vol.ii.p.32.
7.De Brosses,‘Dieux Fétiches,’p.15;‘Formation des Langues,’vol.i.p.49;vol.ii.p.32.
8.Goguet,‘Origine des Lois, des Arts,’&c.,vol.i.p.88.
8.Goguet,‘Origine des Lois, des Arts,’&c.,vol.i.p.88.
9.Whately, ‘Essay on the Origin of Civilisation,’ in Miscellaneous Lectures, &c. His evidence is examined in detail in my ‘Early History of Mankind,’ch.vii.See alsoW.Cooke Taylor, ‘Natural History of Society.’
9.Whately, ‘Essay on the Origin of Civilisation,’ in Miscellaneous Lectures, &c. His evidence is examined in detail in my ‘Early History of Mankind,’ch.vii.See alsoW.Cooke Taylor, ‘Natural History of Society.’
10.Goguet,vol.iii.p.270.
10.Goguet,vol.iii.p.270.
11.Lecret.v.923, &c.; seeHor.Sat.i.3.
11.Lecret.v.923, &c.; seeHor.Sat.i.3.
12.‘Avesta,’trans.Spiegel & Bleeck,vol.ii.p.50.
12.‘Avesta,’trans.Spiegel & Bleeck,vol.ii.p.50.
13.Hardy, ‘Manual of Budhism,’pp.64, 128.
13.Hardy, ‘Manual of Budhism,’pp.64, 128.
14.Niebuhr,‘Römische Geschichte,’parti.p.88:‘Nur das haben sie übersehen, dasz kein einziges Beyspiel von einem wirklich wilden Volk aufzuweisen ist, welches frey zur Cultur übergegangen wäre.’
14.Niebuhr,‘Römische Geschichte,’parti.p.88:‘Nur das haben sie übersehen, dasz kein einziges Beyspiel von einem wirklich wilden Volk aufzuweisen ist, welches frey zur Cultur übergegangen wäre.’
15.Whately, ‘Essay on Origin of Civilisation.’
15.Whately, ‘Essay on Origin of Civilisation.’
16.Ovid. Ex Ponto,iii.8; see Grote, ‘History of Greece,’vol.xii.p.641.
16.Ovid. Ex Ponto,iii.8; see Grote, ‘History of Greece,’vol.xii.p.641.
17.W. C.Taylor, ‘Nat. Hist.of Society,’vol.i.p.202.
17.W. C.Taylor, ‘Nat. Hist.of Society,’vol.i.p.202.
18.Fynes Moryson, ‘Itinerary;’ London, 1617, partiii.p.162, &c.;J.Evans in ‘Archæologia,’vol.xli.See description of hide-boiling, &c., among the wild Irish, about 1550, in Andrew Boorde, ‘Introduction of Knowledge,’ed.byF. J.Furnivall, Early English TextSoc.1870.
18.Fynes Moryson, ‘Itinerary;’ London, 1617, partiii.p.162, &c.;J.Evans in ‘Archæologia,’vol.xli.See description of hide-boiling, &c., among the wild Irish, about 1550, in Andrew Boorde, ‘Introduction of Knowledge,’ed.byF. J.Furnivall, Early English TextSoc.1870.
19.Buchanan, ‘Rerum Scoticarum Historia;’ Edinburgh, 1528,p.7. See ‘Early History of Mankind,’2nded.p.272.
19.Buchanan, ‘Rerum Scoticarum Historia;’ Edinburgh, 1528,p.7. See ‘Early History of Mankind,’2nded.p.272.
20.Martin, ‘Description of Western Islands,’ in Pinkerton,vol.iii.p.639.
20.Martin, ‘Description of Western Islands,’ in Pinkerton,vol.iii.p.639.
21.Barrow, ‘Mutiny of the Bounty’;W.Brodie, ‘Pitcairn’s Island.’
21.Barrow, ‘Mutiny of the Bounty’;W.Brodie, ‘Pitcairn’s Island.’
22.Wallace, ‘Malay Archipelago,’vol.i.pp.42, 471;vol.ii.pp.11, 43, 48; Latham, ‘Descr. Eth.,’vol.ii.pp.492-5;D.andC.Livingstone, ‘Exp. to Zambesi,’p.45.
22.Wallace, ‘Malay Archipelago,’vol.i.pp.42, 471;vol.ii.pp.11, 43, 48; Latham, ‘Descr. Eth.,’vol.ii.pp.492-5;D.andC.Livingstone, ‘Exp. to Zambesi,’p.45.
23.Southey, ‘History of Brazil,’vol.iii.p.422.
23.Southey, ‘History of Brazil,’vol.iii.p.422.
24.J. L.Wilson, ‘W.Afr.,’p.189.
24.J. L.Wilson, ‘W.Afr.,’p.189.
25.Waitz, ‘Anthropologie,’vol.ii.p.359, see 91; Du Chaillu, ‘Ashangoland,’p.116;T. H.Bent, ‘Ruined Cities of Mashonaland.’
25.Waitz, ‘Anthropologie,’vol.ii.p.359, see 91; Du Chaillu, ‘Ashangoland,’p.116;T. H.Bent, ‘Ruined Cities of Mashonaland.’
26.Charlevoix,‘Nouvelle France,’vol.vi.p.51.
26.Charlevoix,‘Nouvelle France,’vol.vi.p.51.
27.Irving, ‘Astoria,’vol.ii.ch.v.
27.Irving, ‘Astoria,’vol.ii.ch.v.
28.Milton and Cheadle, ‘North West Passage by Land,’p.241; Waitz,vol.iii.pp.74-6.
28.Milton and Cheadle, ‘North West Passage by Land,’p.241; Waitz,vol.iii.pp.74-6.
29.‘Early History of Mankind,’p.187.
29.‘Early History of Mankind,’p.187.
30.Schoolcraft, ‘Algic Res.,’vol.i.p.50.
30.Schoolcraft, ‘Algic Res.,’vol.i.p.50.
31.Steller, ‘Kamtschatka,’p.272.
31.Steller, ‘Kamtschatka,’p.272.
32.SeeG.Campbell, ‘Ethnology of India,’ inJourn.As.Soc.Bengal, 1866 partii.
32.SeeG.Campbell, ‘Ethnology of India,’ inJourn.As.Soc.Bengal, 1866 partii.
33.J.Bailey, ‘Veddahs,’ in Tr. Eth.Soc.,vol.ii.p.278; seevol.iii.p.70; Knox, ‘Historical Relation of Ceylon,’ London, 1681, partiii.chap.i.SeeA.Thomson, ‘Osteology of the Veddas,’ inJourn.Anthrop. Inst. 1889,vol.xix.p.125; L. de Zoysa, ‘Origin of Veddas,’ inJourn.Ceylon Branch Royal AsiaticSoc.,vol.vii.;B. F.Hartshorne in Fortnightly Rev., Mar. 1876. [Note to3rdedition.]
33.J.Bailey, ‘Veddahs,’ in Tr. Eth.Soc.,vol.ii.p.278; seevol.iii.p.70; Knox, ‘Historical Relation of Ceylon,’ London, 1681, partiii.chap.i.SeeA.Thomson, ‘Osteology of the Veddas,’ inJourn.Anthrop. Inst. 1889,vol.xix.p.125; L. de Zoysa, ‘Origin of Veddas,’ inJourn.Ceylon Branch Royal AsiaticSoc.,vol.vii.;B. F.Hartshorne in Fortnightly Rev., Mar. 1876. [Note to3rdedition.]
34.Journ.Ind. Archip.,vol.i.pp.295-9;vol.ii.p.237.
34.Journ.Ind. Archip.,vol.i.pp.295-9;vol.ii.p.237.
35.For the connexion between the Aztec language and the Sonoran family extendingN. W.toward the sources of the Missouri, see Buschmann,‘Spuren der Aztekischen Sprache im Nördlichen Mexico,’&c., inAbh. der Akad. der Wissensch, 1854; Berlin, 1859; also Tr. Eth.Soc.,vol.ii.p.130. For the connexion between the Natchez and Maya languages see DanielG.Brinton, in ‘American Historical Magazine,’ 1867,vol.i.p.16; and ‘Myths of the New World,’p.28.
35.For the connexion between the Aztec language and the Sonoran family extendingN. W.toward the sources of the Missouri, see Buschmann,‘Spuren der Aztekischen Sprache im Nördlichen Mexico,’&c., inAbh. der Akad. der Wissensch, 1854; Berlin, 1859; also Tr. Eth.Soc.,vol.ii.p.130. For the connexion between the Natchez and Maya languages see DanielG.Brinton, in ‘American Historical Magazine,’ 1867,vol.i.p.16; and ‘Myths of the New World,’p.28.
36.J. H.Lamprey, in Trans. of Prehistoric Congress, Norwich, 1868,p.60;J.Linton Palmer, inJourn.Eth.Soc.,vol.i.1869.
36.J. H.Lamprey, in Trans. of Prehistoric Congress, Norwich, 1868,p.60;J.Linton Palmer, inJourn.Eth.Soc.,vol.i.1869.
37.Squier and Davis, ‘Mon. of Mississippi Valley,’ &c., in Smithsonian Contr.,vol.i.1848; Lubbock, ‘Prehistoric Times,’chap.vii.; Waitz, ‘Anthropologie,’vol.iii.p.72; Bartram, ‘Creek and Cherokee Ind.,’ in Tr.Amer.Ethnol.Soc.,vol.iii.parti.See Petrie, ‘Inductive Metrology,’ 1877,p.122. [Note to3rded.]
37.Squier and Davis, ‘Mon. of Mississippi Valley,’ &c., in Smithsonian Contr.,vol.i.1848; Lubbock, ‘Prehistoric Times,’chap.vii.; Waitz, ‘Anthropologie,’vol.iii.p.72; Bartram, ‘Creek and Cherokee Ind.,’ in Tr.Amer.Ethnol.Soc.,vol.iii.parti.See Petrie, ‘Inductive Metrology,’ 1877,p.122. [Note to3rded.]
38.St.John, ‘Life in Forests of Far East,’vol.ii.p.327.
38.St.John, ‘Life in Forests of Far East,’vol.ii.p.327.
39.Rafn, ‘Americas Arctiske Landes Gamle Geographic,’pl.vii.,viii.
39.Rafn, ‘Americas Arctiske Landes Gamle Geographic,’pl.vii.,viii.
40.Lubbock (Lord Avebury), in ‘Report of British Association, 1867,’p.121.
40.Lubbock (Lord Avebury), in ‘Report of British Association, 1867,’p.121.
41.Lyell, ‘Antiquity of Man,’chap.xix.
41.Lyell, ‘Antiquity of Man,’chap.xix.
42.Frere, in ‘Archæologia,’ 1800.
42.Frere, in ‘Archæologia,’ 1800.
43.J.Evans, in ‘Archæologia,’ 1861; Lubbock,’Prehistoric Times,’2nded.,p.335.
43.J.Evans, in ‘Archæologia,’ 1861; Lubbock,’Prehistoric Times,’2nded.,p.335.
44.See ‘Early History of Mankind,’2nded.chap.viii.
44.See ‘Early History of Mankind,’2nded.chap.viii.
45.Argyll, ‘Primeval Man,’p.129.
45.Argyll, ‘Primeval Man,’p.129.
46.Lecret.De Rerum Natura,v.1281.
46.Lecret.De Rerum Natura,v.1281.
47.See Lyell, ‘Antiquity of Man,’3rded.1863; Lubbock, ‘Prehistoric Times,2nded.1870; ‘Trans. of Congress of Prehistoric Archæology’ (Norwich, 1868); Stevens, ‘Flint Chips, &c.,’ 1870; Nilsson, ‘Primitive Inhabitants of Scandinavia’ (ed.by Lubbock, 1868); Falconer, ‘Palæontological Memoirs, &c.’; Lartet and Christy, ‘Reliquiæ Aquitanicæ’ (ed.byT. R.Jones); Keller, ‘Lake Dwellings’ (Tr.andEd.byJ. E.Lee), &c., &c.
47.See Lyell, ‘Antiquity of Man,’3rded.1863; Lubbock, ‘Prehistoric Times,2nded.1870; ‘Trans. of Congress of Prehistoric Archæology’ (Norwich, 1868); Stevens, ‘Flint Chips, &c.,’ 1870; Nilsson, ‘Primitive Inhabitants of Scandinavia’ (ed.by Lubbock, 1868); Falconer, ‘Palæontological Memoirs, &c.’; Lartet and Christy, ‘Reliquiæ Aquitanicæ’ (ed.byT. R.Jones); Keller, ‘Lake Dwellings’ (Tr.andEd.byJ. E.Lee), &c., &c.
48.Wallace, ‘Indian Archipelago,’vol.i.p.357.
48.Wallace, ‘Indian Archipelago,’vol.i.p.357.
49.‘Early History of Mankind,’pp.192, 243, &c., &c.
49.‘Early History of Mankind,’pp.192, 243, &c., &c.
50.Nilsson, ‘Primitive Inhabitants of Scandinavia,’p.104.
50.Nilsson, ‘Primitive Inhabitants of Scandinavia,’p.104.
51.Klemm,‘Allg. Culturwissenschaft,’partii.,Werkzeuge und Waffen.
51.Klemm,‘Allg. Culturwissenschaft,’partii.,Werkzeuge und Waffen.
52.Lane Fox (Pitt-Rivers), ‘Lectures on Primitive Warfare,’Journ.United Service Inst., 1867-9.
52.Lane Fox (Pitt-Rivers), ‘Lectures on Primitive Warfare,’Journ.United Service Inst., 1867-9.
53.Evans in ‘Trans. of Congress of Prehistoric Archæology’ (Norwich, 1868),p.191; Rau in ‘Smithsonian Reports,’ 1868; SirE.Belcher in Tr. Eth.Soc.,vol.i.p.129.
53.Evans in ‘Trans. of Congress of Prehistoric Archæology’ (Norwich, 1868),p.191; Rau in ‘Smithsonian Reports,’ 1868; SirE.Belcher in Tr. Eth.Soc.,vol.i.p.129.
54.See details in ‘Early History of Mankind,’chap.vii.-ix.
54.See details in ‘Early History of Mankind,’chap.vii.-ix.
55.Will. de Rubruquis in Pinkerton,vol.vii.pp.46, 67, 132; Michie, ‘Siberian Overland Route,’p.96.
55.Will. de Rubruquis in Pinkerton,vol.vii.pp.46, 67, 132; Michie, ‘Siberian Overland Route,’p.96.
56.Ovid. Fast.v.487. For modern Italy and France, see Edélestane du Méril,‘Études d’Archéol.’p.121.
56.Ovid. Fast.v.487. For modern Italy and France, see Edélestane du Méril,‘Études d’Archéol.’p.121.
57.‘Journ.Ind. Archip.’ (ed.byJ. R.Logan),vol.ii.p.liv.
57.‘Journ.Ind. Archip.’ (ed.byJ. R.Logan),vol.ii.p.liv.
58.Klemm,‘Cultur-Geschichte,’vol.ii.p.209.
58.Klemm,‘Cultur-Geschichte,’vol.ii.p.209.
59.Oldfield in ‘Tr. Eth.Soc.’vol.iii.p.266; Dumont d’Urville,‘Voy. de l’Astrolabe,’vol.i.p.411.
59.Oldfield in ‘Tr. Eth.Soc.’vol.iii.p.266; Dumont d’Urville,‘Voy. de l’Astrolabe,’vol.i.p.411.
60.Strutt, ‘Sports and Pastimes,’ bookii.chap.ii.
60.Strutt, ‘Sports and Pastimes,’ bookii.chap.ii.
61.Polack, ‘New Zealanders,’vol.ii.p.171.
61.Polack, ‘New Zealanders,’vol.ii.p.171.
62.Polack, ibid.; Wilkes, ‘U. S.Exp.’vol.i.p.194. See the account of the game of liagi in Mariner, ‘Tonga Is.’vol.ii.p.339; and Yate, ‘New Zealand,’p.113.
62.Polack, ibid.; Wilkes, ‘U. S.Exp.’vol.i.p.194. See the account of the game of liagi in Mariner, ‘Tonga Is.’vol.ii.p.339; and Yate, ‘New Zealand,’p.113.
63.Petron. Arbitri Satiræ rec. Büchler,p.64 (other readings arebuccæorbucco).
63.Petron. Arbitri Satiræ rec. Büchler,p.64 (other readings arebuccæorbucco).
64.Compare Davis, ‘Chinese,’vol.i.p.317; Wilkinson, Ancient Egyptians,vol.i.p.188; Facciolati, Lexicon,s.v.‘micare’; &c.
64.Compare Davis, ‘Chinese,’vol.i.p.317; Wilkinson, Ancient Egyptians,vol.i.p.188; Facciolati, Lexicon,s.v.‘micare’; &c.
65.Jamieson, ‘Dict. of Scottish Lang.’s.v.
65.Jamieson, ‘Dict. of Scottish Lang.’s.v.
66.‘Early History of Mankind,’p.244, &c.; Grimm, ‘Deutsche Myth.,’p.573.
66.‘Early History of Mankind,’p.244, &c.; Grimm, ‘Deutsche Myth.,’p.573.
67.Grimm,ibid.,p.1200.
67.Grimm,ibid.,p.1200.
68.Halliwell, ‘Popular Rhymes,’p.112; Grimm, ‘D. M.’p.812. Bastian, ‘Mensch,’vol.iii.p.106. Johannis Philosophi Ozniensis Opera (Aucher), Venice, 1834,pp.78-89.‘Infantium sanguini similam commiscentes illegitimam communionem deglutiunt; quo pacto porcorum suos fœtus immaniter vescentium exsuperant edacitatem. Quique illorum cadavera super tecti culmen celantes, ac sursum oculis in cœlum defixis respicientes, jurant alieno verbo ac sensu:Altissimus novit.Solem vero deprecari volentes, ajunt:Solicule,Lucicule; atque aëreos, vagosque dæmones clam invocant, juxta Manichæorum Simonisque incantatoris errores. Similiter et primum parientis fœminæ puerum de manu in manum inter eos invicem projectum, quum pessimâ morte occiderint, illum, in cujus manu exspiraverit puer, ad primam sectæ dignitatem provectum venerantur; atque per utriusque nomen audent insane jurare;Juro, dicunt,per unigenitum filium: et iterum:Testem babeo tibi gloriam ejus, in cujus manum unigenitus filius spiritum suum tradidit.... Contra hos [the orthodox] audacter evomere præsumunt impietatis suæ bilem, atque insanientes, ex mali spiritus blasphemiâ,Sculpticolasvocant.’
68.Halliwell, ‘Popular Rhymes,’p.112; Grimm, ‘D. M.’p.812. Bastian, ‘Mensch,’vol.iii.p.106. Johannis Philosophi Ozniensis Opera (Aucher), Venice, 1834,pp.78-89.‘Infantium sanguini similam commiscentes illegitimam communionem deglutiunt; quo pacto porcorum suos fœtus immaniter vescentium exsuperant edacitatem. Quique illorum cadavera super tecti culmen celantes, ac sursum oculis in cœlum defixis respicientes, jurant alieno verbo ac sensu:Altissimus novit.Solem vero deprecari volentes, ajunt:Solicule,Lucicule; atque aëreos, vagosque dæmones clam invocant, juxta Manichæorum Simonisque incantatoris errores. Similiter et primum parientis fœminæ puerum de manu in manum inter eos invicem projectum, quum pessimâ morte occiderint, illum, in cujus manu exspiraverit puer, ad primam sectæ dignitatem provectum venerantur; atque per utriusque nomen audent insane jurare;Juro, dicunt,per unigenitum filium: et iterum:Testem babeo tibi gloriam ejus, in cujus manum unigenitus filius spiritum suum tradidit.... Contra hos [the orthodox] audacter evomere præsumunt impietatis suæ bilem, atque insanientes, ex mali spiritus blasphemiâ,Sculpticolasvocant.’
69.Polack,vol.i.p.270.
69.Polack,vol.i.p.270.
70.Bosman, ‘Guinese Kust,’ letterx.;Eng.Trans. in Pinkerton,vol.xvi.p.399.
70.Bosman, ‘Guinese Kust,’ letterx.;Eng.Trans. in Pinkerton,vol.xvi.p.399.
71.Homer, Iliad,vii.171; Pindar, Pyth.iv.338.
71.Homer, Iliad,vii.171; Pindar, Pyth.iv.338.
72.Tacit. Germania. 10.
72.Tacit. Germania. 10.
73.Smith’s ‘Dic.ofGr.and Rom. Ant.,’arts.‘oraculum,’ ‘sortes.’
73.Smith’s ‘Dic.ofGr.and Rom. Ant.,’arts.‘oraculum,’ ‘sortes.’
74.Roberts, ‘Oriental Illustrations,’p.163.
74.Roberts, ‘Oriental Illustrations,’p.163.
75.Gataker,pp.91, 141; see Lecky, ‘History of Rationalism,’vol.i.p.307.
75.Gataker,pp.91, 141; see Lecky, ‘History of Rationalism,’vol.i.p.307.
76.Jeremy Taylor, ‘Ductor Dubitantium,’ in Works,vol.xiv.p.337.
76.Jeremy Taylor, ‘Ductor Dubitantium,’ in Works,vol.xiv.p.337.