AUTHORITIES QUOTED1

Sir J. G. Frazer accuses me of having extended Darwin’s methods to subjects which only partially admit of such treatment, because my theory of the origin of exogamy attempts to explain the growth of a human institution “too exclusively from physical and biological causes without taking into account the factors of intelligence, deliberation, and will.” This, he adds, is “not science, but a bastard imitation of it.” What have I done to incur so severe an accusation? I have suggested that the instinctive aversion to sexual intercourse between persons who have been living very closely together from early youth may be the result of natural selection. I am inclined to think—and so is Frazer—that consanguineous marriages are in some way or other detrimental to the species. This fact would lead to the development of a sentiment which would be powerful enough, as a rule, to prevent injurious unions—a sentiment which would not, of course, show itself as an innate aversion to sexual connections with near relatives as such, but as an aversion on the part of individuals to union with others with whom they lived closely together from early childhood. These, as a matter of fact, would be blood-relations, and the result would consequently be the survival of the fittest. All that I have done, then, is to appeal to natural selection to explain the origin of a primeval instinctive sentiment; and I can never believe that this is to transgress the legitimate boundaries of Darwinism.

Sir J. G. Frazer himself thinks that “we may safely conclude that infertility is an inevitable consequence of inbreeding continued through many generations in the same place and under the same conditions,” and in support of this view he quotes the valuable opinions of Mr. Walter Heape and Mr. F. H. A. Marshall. He thus finds that the principles of exogamy present “a curious resemblance” to the principles of scientific breeding, but he rightly assumes that this analogy cannot be due to any exact knowledge or farseeing care on the part of its savage founders. How then shall we explain this analogy? Frazer’s answer is that “it must be an accidentalresult of a superstition, an unconscious mimicry of science.” In prohibiting incest the poor savages “blindly obeyed the impulse of the great evolutionary forces which in the physical world are constantly educing higher out of lower forms of existence and in the moral world civilisation out of savagery. If that is so, exogamy has been an instrument in the hands of that unknown power, the masked wizard of history, who by some mysterious process, some subtle alchemy, so often transmutes in the crucible of suffering the dross of folly and evil into the fine gold of wisdom and good.” I hope it will not be considered uncalled-for impertinence on my part to ask if this reasoning is a specimen of what Frazer regards as science proper in contradistinction to my own “bastard imitation of it”?

In any attempt to explain the origin of exogamy there are, in my opinion, three parallel groups of facts of general occurrence which necessarily must be taken into consideration:—Firstly, the prohibitions of incest and rules of exogamy themselves; secondly, the aversion to sexual intercourse between persons living together from early youth; thirdly, the injurious consequences of inbreeding. As for the facts of the first group, Frazer and I agree that they all have the same root, exogamy being in some way or other derived from an aversion to the marriages of near kin. As for the facts of the second group, Frazer at all events admits that “there seems to be some ground” for believing in them. As for the facts of the third group, there is complete agreement between us. I ask: Is it reasonable to think that there is no causal connection between these three groups of facts? Is it right to ignore the second group altogether, as does Frazer, and to look upon the coincidence of the first and the third as accidental? I gratefully acknowledge that Frazer’s chapter on the Origin of Exogamy has only strengthened my belief in my own theory.

Other objections to my theory have recently been made by Messrs. Hose and McDougall in their work onThe Pagan Tribes of Borneo, vol. ii., p. 197, note. They observe that intercourse between a youth and his sister-by-adoption is not regarded as incest in these tribes, and that they know at least one instance of marriage between two young Kenyahs brought up together as adopted brother and sister. “This occurrence of incest between couples brought up in the same household,” they say, “is, of course, difficult to reconcile with Professor Westermarck’s well-known theory of the ground of the almost universal feeling against incest, namely, that it depends upon sexual aversion or indifference engendered by close proximity during childhood.” They moreover maintain that “the occurrence of incest between brothers and sisters, and the strong feeling of the Sea Dyaks against incest between nephew and aunt (who often are members of distinct communities),” are facts which are fatal to this theory.

In my attempt to explain the rules against incest I certainly did not overlook the fact that these rules very frequently have reference to persons who are, or may be, members of different communities, and I found no difficulty in accounting for it (seesupra,ii. 369;History of Human Marriage, p. 330sq.). Curiously enough Messrs. Hose and McDougall’s own attempt to solve the problem is, if I understand them rightly, based on the supposition that the prohibitions of intermarriage originally referred to persons who belonged to the same community. They write:—“If we accept some such view of the constitution of primitive society as has been suggested by Messrs. Atkinson and Lang (Primal Law), namely, that the social group consisted of a single patriarch and a group of wives and daughters, over all of whom he exercised unrestricted power or rights; we shall see that the first step towards the constitution of a higher form of society must have been the strict limitation of his rights over certain of the women, in order that younger males might be incorporated in the society and enjoy the undisputed possession of them. The patriarch, having accepted this limitation of his rights over his daughters for the sake of the greater security and strength of the band given by the inclusion of acertain number of young males, would enforce all the more strictly upon them his prohibition against any tampering with the females of the senior generation. Thus very strict prohibitions and severe penalties against the consorting of the patriarch with the younger generation of females,i.e.his daughters, and against intercourse between the young males admitted to membership of the group and the wives of the patriarch, would be the essential conditions of advance of social organisation. The enforcement of these penalties would engender a traditional sentiment against such unions, and these would be the unions primitively regarded as incestuous. The persistency of the tendency of the patriarch’s jealousy to drive his sons out of the family group as they attained puberty would render the extension of this sentiment to brother-and-sister unions easy and almost inevitable. For the young male admitted to the group would be one who came with a price in his hand to offer in return for the bride he sought. Such a price could only be exacted by the patriarch on the condition that he maintained an absolute prohibition on sexual relations between his offspring so long as the young sons remained under his roof.” I should like to know how Messrs. Hose and McDougall, on the basis of this theory, would explain “the strong feeling of the Sea Dyaks against incest between nephew and aunt (who often are members of distinct communities),” and, generally speaking, the rules prohibiting the intermarriage of persons belonging to different local groups. For the rest, I must confess that the assumptions on which their whole theory rests seem to me extremely arbitrary. Brothers are prohibited from marrying their sisters because the old patriarch drove away his grown-up sons out of jealousy; but his jealousy was not strong enough to prevent other young males from joining the band. On the contrary, he allowed them to be incorporated in it, because they added to its strength; nay, he gave them his own daughters in marriage, and refrained henceforth himself from intercourse with these young women so rigorously that ever since a father has been prohibited from marrying his daughter. But the young men had to pay a price for their wives. It may be asked: Why did not the old patriarch accept a price from his own sons or let them work for him, instead of mercilessly turning them out of their old home, although they would have been just as good protectors of it as anybody else? And why did he give the young men hisdaughters? He might have kept the young women for himself and let the young men have the old ones. This is what is done by the old men in Australia, where the young girls are, as a rule, allotted to old men, and the boys, whenever they are allowed to marry, get oldlubrasas wives (Malinowski,The Family among the Australian Aborigines, p. 259sqq.). Yet, in spite of this custom, there is no country where incest has been more strictly prohibited than in Australia.

Messrs. Hose and McDougall maintain that the occurrence of incest between brothers and sisters and the feeling of the Sea Dyaks against incest between nephew and aunt are facts which seem “to point strongly to the view that the sentiment has a purely conventional or customary source.” I ask: Is it reasonable to suppose that, if this were the case, the feeling against sexual intercourse between the nearest relatives could have so long survived the conditions from which it sprang without showing any signs of decay? As I have pointed out above, the prohibited degrees are very differently defined in the customs or laws of different peoples, generally being more numerous among peoples unaffected by modern civilisation than they are in more advanced communities; and it appears that the extent to which relatives are prohibited from intermarrying is closely connected with the intimacy of their social relations. Whilst among ourselves cousins are allowed to intermarry, there is still a strong sentiment against intercourse between parents and children and between brothers and sisters, who in normal cases belong to the same family circle. Why should the feeling against incest have survived in this case but not in others, if it had a purely conventional origin? And how could any lawbased on convention alone account for the normal absence of erotic feelings in the relation between parents and children and brothers and sisters? It is true that cases of intercourse between the nearest relatives do occur, but they are certainly quite exceptional. Messrs. Hose and McDougall say themselves (p. 198) that “incest of any form is very infrequent” among the tribes of Borneo, and they seem to know of only one instance of marriage between young Kenyahs brought up together as adopted brother and sister, although such marriages are allowed. To maintain that cases of this kind are fatal to my theory seems to me as illogical as it would be to assume that the occurrence of ahorror feminæin many men disproves the general prevalence of a feeling of love between the sexes.

P. 396,n.1.—In his recent work,The Family among the Australian Aborigines, Dr. Malinowski has come to the same conclusion. He observes that the individual family plays a foremost part in the social life of those aborigines; it has a very firm basis in their customs and ideas, and “by no means bears the features of anything like recent innovation, or a subordinate form subservient to the idea of group marriage.” The Australian husband had generally a definite sexual “over-right” over his wife, which secured to him the privilege of disposing of her, or at least of exercising a certain control over her conduct in sexual matters, even though this “over-right” did not, as a rule, amount to an exclusive right. There were customs like wife-lending, exchange of wives, ceremonial defloration of girls by old men, the different forms of licence practised at large tribal gatherings, and especially thePirraururelationship found in several of the southern central tribes. But all this does not constitute groupmarriage, the complete content of which does not consist in sexual relations alone. Dr. Malinowski emphasises the fact that marriage cannot be detached from family life; “it is defined in all its aspects by the problems of the economic unity of the family, of the bonds created by common life in one wurley, through the common rearing of, and affection towards, the offspring.” In nearly all these respects even thePirraururelationship essentially differs from marriage, and cannot, therefore, seriously encroach upon the individual family. Nor can we regard this relationship as a survival of previous group marriage. Dr. Malinowski also points out (p. 89sq.) how highly objectionable it is that “our best informants (especially Howitt and Spencer and Gillen) describe the facts of sexual life of to-day in terms of their hypothetical assumptions.”

P. 419,n.5.—For Moorish beliefs relating to contact between sexual uncleanness and holiness see my essays,The Moorish Conception of Holiness (Baraka), p. 123sqq., andCeremonies and Beliefs connected with Agriculture, certain Dates of the Solar Year, and the Weather in Morocco, pp. 17, 22, 23, 28, 46, 47, 54.

P. 463,n.8.—During the years that have passed since the first edition of this book was issued, the study of homosexuality has been carried on with remarkable activity. The following books are exclusively devoted to this subject:—Das gleichgeschlechtliche Leben der Naturvölker, by F. Karsch-Haack (1911),Intermediate Types among Primitive Folk, by Edward Carpenter (1914), andDie Homosexualität des Mannes und des Weibes, by Magnus Hirschfeld (1914). Carpenter’s book chiefly deals with the invert in early religion and in warfare. Hirschfeld’s work is a veritable encyclopædia of homosexuality—according to Dr. Havelock Ellis, “not only the largest but the most precise, detailed, and comprehensive—even the most condensed—work which has yet appeared on the subject.” In 1915 Dr. Havelock Ellis issued a third, revised and enlarged, edition of hisSexual Inversion.

P. 485,n.1.—This passage and, generally, the suggestion that there is a certain relationship between the social reaction against homosexualityand against infanticide, have been excluded from the last edition of Dr. Havelock Ellis’s book.

P. 584,n.1.—There is hardly any subject which during the last four or five years has been more eagerly discussed by students of social anthropology than the relation between religion and magic. It has been dealt with,e.g., by Sir J. G. Frazer inThe Magic Art, by Professor Durkheim inLes formes élémentaires de la vie religieuse, by Dr. Marett inThe Threshold of Religionand other writings, by Dr. Irving King inThe Development of Religion, by Professor Leuba inA Psychological Study of Religion, by Mr. Sidney Hartland inRitual and Belief, and by the present Archbishop of Sweden, Nathan Söderblom, in his bookGudstrons uppkomst. According to the French school of sociologists, religion is social in its aims and magic antisocial; and this distinction has lately been accepted by Dr. Marett, who writes (Anthropology, p. 209sq.): “Magic I take to include all bad ways, and religion all good ways, of dealing with the supernormal—bad and good, of course, not as we may happen to judge them, but as the society concerned judges them.” But this use of the terms is neither in agreement with traditional usage nor, in my opinion, suitable for the purpose of scientific classification. Besides black magic, or witchcraft, there is also white magic; even a medieval theologian like Albertus Magnus asserts that “magical science is not evil, since through knowledge of it evil can be avoided and good attained.” The French distinction between magic and religion implies that a prayer to a god for the destruction of an enemy must be classified as religion if it is offered in a cause which is considered just by the community, but as magic if it is disapproved of. If a man makes a girl drink a love-potion in order to gain her favour, it is religion if their union is desirable from the society’s point of view, but if he gives the same drink to another man’s wife it is magic. The best part of what has been hitherto called imitative or homœopathic magic no longer remains magic at all; if water is poured out for the purpose of producing rain it is homœopathic magic only in case rain is not wanted by the community, but if it is done during a drought it is religion. Thus the very same practices are qualified as religious or magical according as they have social or antisocial ends; and, as Mr. Hartland rightly asks (Ritual and Belief, p. 76): “How shall we define these ends?”

It should be added, however, that the definition of religion which I have given in the text has reference only to religion in the abstract, not to the various religions. In the popular sense of the word, a religion may include many practices which are what I have called magical. As I have said above (p. 649), “both Christianity in its earlier phases and Muhammedanism are full of magical practices expressly sanctioned by their theology.” Although the magical and the strictly religious attitude differ from each other, they are not irreconcilable, and may therefore very well form parts of one and the same religion; there is no such thing as a magic being opposed to a religion. By a religion is generally understood a system of beliefs and rules of behaviour which have reference to men’s relations to one or several supernatural beings whom they call their god or gods, that is, supernatural beings who are the objects of a regular cult and between whom and their worshippers there are established and permanent relationships. If it be admitted that the word religion may be thus legitimately used in two different senses, I think there is little ground left for further controversy on the subject. After all, sociologists may more profitably occupy their time than by continuous quarrelling about the meaning of terms.

P. 608,n.4.—InThe Dying God, p. 204,n.1, Sir J. G. Frazer writes: “There is a good deal to be said in favour of Dr. Westermarck’s theory, which is supported in particular by the sanctity attributed to the regalia. But on the whole I see no sufficient reason to abandon the view adoptedin the text, and I am confirmed in it by the Shilluk evidence, which was unknown to Dr. Westermarck when he propounded his theory.”

According to Professor C. G. Seligman to whom Frazer is indebted for detailed information on the subject (op. cit.p. 17sqq.) it is a fundamental article of the Shilluk creed that the spirit of Nyakang, the divine or semi-divine hero who settled the Shilluk in their present territory and founded the dynasty of their kings, is incarnate in the reigning king, who is accordingly himself invested to some extent with the character of a divinity. But while the Shilluk hold their kings in high, indeed religious, reverence and take every precaution against their accidental death, nevertheless they cherish the conviction that the king must not be allowed to become ill or senile, lest with his diminishing vigour the cattle should sicken and fail to bear their increase, the crops should rot in the fields, and man, stricken with disease, should die in ever-increasing numbers. To prevent these calamities it used to be the regular custom with the Shilluk to put the king to death whenever he showed signs of ill-health or failing strength. Nay, from Dr. Seligman’s enquiries it appears that even while the king was yet in the prime of health and strength he might at any time be attacked by a rival and have to defend his crown in a combat to the death. According to the common Shilluk tradition any son of a king had the right thus to fight the king in possession and, if he succeeded in killing him, to reign in his stead. Now “an important part of the solemnities attending the accession of a Shilluk king appears to be intended to convey to the new monarch the divine spirit of Nyakang, which has been transmitted from the founder of the dynasty to all his successors on the throne. For this purpose a sacred four-legged stool and a mysterious object which bears the name of Nyakang himself are brought with much solemnity from the shrine of Nyakang at Akurwa to the small village of Kwom near Fashoda, where the king elect and the chiefs await their arrival. The thing called Nyakang is said to be of cylindrical shape, some two or three feet long by six inches broad. The chief of Akurwa informed Dr. Seligman that the object in question is a rude wooden figure of a man, which was fashioned long ago at the command of Nyakang in person. We may suppose that it represents the divine king himself and that it is, or was formerly, supposed to house his spirit, though the chief of Akurwa denied to Dr. Seligman that it does so now…. The image of Nyakang is placed on the stool; the king elect holds one leg of the stool and an important chief holds another…. A bullock is killed and its flesh eaten by the men of certain families calledororo, who are said to be descended from the third of the Shilluk kings. Then the Akurwa men carry the image of Nyakang into the shrine, and theororomen place the king elect on the sacred stool, where he remains seated for some time, apparently till sunset. When he rises, the Akurwa men carry the stool back into the shrine, and the king is escorted to three new huts, where he stays in seclusion for three days. On the fourth night he is conducted quietly, almost stealthily, to his royal residence at Fashoda, and next day he shows himself publicly to his subjects.”

As regards this so-called evidence it should, first, be noticed that it is only Dr. Seligman’s own conjecture that the mysterious object called Nyakang is or has been supposed to contain the spirit of the holy founder of the dynasty, and that this conjecture is expressly said to be opposed to the present beliefs of the natives. On the other hand it is obvious that the object in question is regarded as a holy object, and that its holiness, or a particle of it, is supposed to be transmitted to the new king through material contact—an idea which well agrees with my own theory. But even if the Shilluk had once believed that their king was a reincarnation of the spirit of Nyakang, that belief could hardly be regarded as a direct proof of the idea that the soul of the slain man-god is transmitted to his royal successor. The Shilluk believe that Nyakang, unlike his royal descendants of more recent times, did not die but simply disappeared.

1Of articles in periodicals only some of the more important have been included in this list.

A Voice for South America. London.

Aas (Einar),Sjaeleliv og intelligens hos dyr. Kristiania, 1893.

Abbot (Ezra), ‘Literature of the Doctrine of a Future Life’; in Alger,A Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life. Philadelphia, 1864.

ʿAbd-Allatif,Relation de l’Égypte. Trans. by S. de Sacy. Paris, 1810.

ʿAbd-es-Salâm Shabeeny,An Account of Timbuctoo and Housa. Ed. by J. G. Jackson. London, 1820.

Abegg (J. F. H.),Die verschiedenen Strafrechtstheorieen. Neustadt a.d.O., 1835.

Abel (Charles W.),Savage Life in New Guinea. London, [1901].

Abercromby (John),The Pre- and Proto-Historic Finns. 2 vols. London, 1898.

Abreu de Galindo (Juan de),The History of the Discovery and Conquest of the Canary Islands. Trans. London, 1764.

Academy (The). London.

Achelis (Th.), ‘Animal Worship’; inThe Open Court, vol. xi. Chicago, 1897.

——Moderne Völkerkunde. Stuttgart, 1896.

Achery (L. d’),Spicilegium sive collectio veterum aliquot scriptorum qui in Galliæ bibliothecis delituerant. 3 vols. Parisiis, 1723.

Acosta (Joseph de),The Natural and Moral History of the Indies. Trans. ed. by C. R. Markham. 2 vols. London, 1880.

Acta Societatis Scientiarum Fennicæ. Helsingfors.

Adair (James),The History of the American Indians. London, 1775.

Adalbero, ‘Carmen ad Rotbertum regem Francorum’; in Bouquet,Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France, vol. x. Paris, 1760.

Adam of Bremen, ‘Gesta Hammaburgensis ecclesiæ pontificum’; in Migne,Patrologiæ cursus completus, vol. cxlvi. Parisiis, 1853.

Adams (John),Sketches taken during Ten Voyages to Africa, Between the Years 1786 and 1800. London, [1825].

Addis (W. E.) and Arnold (Thomas),A Catholic Dictionary. London, 1903.

Addosio (Carlo d’),Bestie delinquenti. Napoli, 1892.

Aelian,De natura animalium, Varia historia, &c.Ed. by R. Hercher. Parisiis, 1858.

Aeschines, ‘Orationes’; inOratores Attici, ed. by C. Müller, vol. ii. Parisiis, 1858.

Aeschylus,Tragœdiæ et fragmenta. Ed. by E. A. J. Ahrens. Parisiis, 1842.

Aethelbirht (King), ‘The Laws of’; inAncient Laws and Institutes of England. London, 1840.

Aethelstan (King), ‘The Laws of’; inAncient Laws and Institutes of England. London, 1840.

Afzelius (A. A.),Swenska Folkets Sago-Häfder. 11 vols. Stockholm, 1839–70.

Agathias, ‘Historiarum libri quinque’; in Migne,Patrologiæ cursus, Ser. Graeca, vol. lxxxviii. Parisiis, 1860.

Ahlqvist (A.), ‘Unter Wogulen nnd Ostjaken’; inActa Societatis Scientiarum Fennicæ, vol. xiv. Helsingfors, 1885.

Ahrens (Heinrich),Naturrecht. 2 vols. Wien, 1870–71.

Aitareya Brahmanam of the Rigveda (The). Ed. and trans. by M. Haug. 2 vols. Bombay, 1863.

Alabaster (Chal.), ‘The Law of Inheritance’; inThe China Review, vol. v. Hongkong, 1876–77.

Alabaster (Ernest),Notes and Commentaries on Chinese Criminal Law. London, 1899.

Alabaster (Henry),The Wheel of the Law. London, 1871.

Alagona (Petrus),Compendium manualis D. Navarri. Lugduni, 1603.

Alard (Paul),Condition et droits des enfants naturels. Paris, 1896.

Albericus,Visio. Ed. by Catello de Vivo. Ariano, 1899.

Alberti (L.),De Kaffers aan de Zuidkust van Afrika. Amsterdam, 1810.

Alden (T. J. Fox) and Hoesen (J. A. van),A Digest of the Laws of Mississippi. New York, 1839.

Alexander (S.),Moral Order and Progress. London, 1896.

Alfonso de’ Liguori,Theologia moralis. 3 vols. Bassani, 1822.

Alfred (King), ‘The Laws of’; inAncient Laws and Institutes of England. London, 1840.

Alger (W. R.),A Critical History of the Doctrine of a Future Life. Philadelphia, 1864.

Alienist and Neurologist (The). St. Louis.

Allard (Paul),Les esclaves chrétiens depuis les premiers temps de l’Église jusqu’à la fin de la domination romaine en Occident. Paris, 1876.

Allardt (Anders),Nyländska folkseder och bruk. (Nyland, vol. iv.) Helsingfors, 1889.

Allen (Grant),The Evolution of the Idea of God. London, 1897.

Allen (John),Modern Judaism.London, 1830.

Allen (W.) and Thomson (T. R. H.),A Narrative of the Expedition sent by Her Majesty’s Government to the River Niger, in 1841. 2 vols. London, 1848.

Am Ur-Quell. Monatsschrift für Volkskunde. Ed. by F. S. Krauss. Lunden.

Amadori-Virgilj (Giovanni),L’Istituto famigliare nelle Società primordiali. Bari, 1903.

Ambrose (Saint),Opera omnia. (Migne,Patrologiæ cursus, vols. xiv.-xvii.) Parisiis, 1845.

Ameer Ali (Syed),The Ethics of Islâm. Calcutta, 1893.

——The Life and Teachings of Mohammed or the Spirit of Islâm. London, 1891.

Amélineau (E.),Essai sur l’évolution historique et philosophique des idées morales dans l’Égypte ancienne. Paris, 1895.

American Anthropologist (The). Washington.

American Antiquarian and Oriental Journal (The). Chicago.

American Journal of Psychology (The). Worcester.

American Journal of Theology (The). Chicago.

American Naturalist (The). Philadelphia.

Amira (Karl von),Nordgermanisches Obligationenrecht. 2 vols. Leipzig, 1882–95.

—— ‘Recht’; in Paul,Grundriss der germanischen Philologie, vol. ii. Strassburg, 1893.

——Thierstrafen und Thierprocesse. Innsbruck, 1891.

Ammianus Marcellinus. SeeMarcellinus (A.).

Amos (Andrew),Ruins of Time exemplified in Sir Matthew Hale’s History of the Pleas of the Crown. London, 1856.

‘Ancien Coutumier de Bourgogne,’ ed. by A.-J. Marnier; inRevue historique de droit français et étranger, vol. iii. Paris, 1857.

Ancient Laws and Institutes of England. London, 1840.

Ancient Laws and Institutes of Ireland. 4 vols. Dublin & London, 1865–79.

Ancient Laws and Institutes of Wales. London, 1841.

Ancient Sea-Laws of Oleron, Wisby, and the Hanse-Towns (The). Trans. London, 1686.

Ancona (A. d’),Origini del teatro italiano. 2 vols. Torino, 1891.

Anderson (John),Mandalay to Momien. London, 1876.

Anderson (John W.),Notes of Travel in Fiji and New Caledonia. London, 1880.

Andersson (C. J.),Lake Ngami. London, 1856.

——Notes on Travel in South Africa. London, 1875.

André (Tony),L’esclavage chez les anciens Hébreux. Paris, 1892.

Andree (Richard),Die Anthropophagie. Leipzig, 1887.

—— ‘Ethnographische Bemerkungen zu einigen Rechtsgebräuchen. I. Jagdrecht. II. Die Asyle’; inGlobus, vol. xxxviii. Braunschweig, 1880.

——Ethnographische Parallelen und Vergleiche. 2 vols. Stuttgart, 1878–89.

——Zur Volkskunde der Juden. Bielefeld & Leipzig, 1881.

Andrews (William),Old-Time Punishments. Hull & London, 1890.

Angas (G. F.),Polynesia. London, [1866].

——Savage Life and Scenes in Australia and New Zealand. London, 1850.

Annales du Musée Guimet. Paris.

Année sociologique (L’). Ed. by É. Durkheim. Paris.

Annual Reports of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, Washington.

Annual Reports of the Bureau of Ethnology. Washington.

Anrich (G.),Das antike Mysterienwesen in seinem Einfluss auf das Christentum. Göttingen, 1894.

Antananarivo Annual and Madagascar Magazine. Antananarivo.

Ante-Nicene Christian Library. Ed. by A. Roberts and J. Donaldson. 24 vols. Edinburgh, 1867-72.

Anthropological Essays presented to E. B. Tylor. Oxford, 1907.

Anthropologie (L’). Paris.

Antiquary (The). London.

‘Anugitâ (The),’ trans. by K. T. Telang; inThe Sacred Books of the East, vol. viii. Oxford, 1898.

‘Âpastamba,’ trans. by G. Bühler; inThe Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii. Oxford, 1897.

Apocryphal Books (The). Trans. London, 1880.

Apollodorus Atheniensis,Bibliotheca. Lipsiae, 1854.

Apollonius Rhodius,Argonautica. Ed. by F. S. Lehrs. Parisiis, 1840.

Apuleius (L.),Opera omnia. 7 vols. Londini, 1825.

Arbois de Jubainville (H. d’), ‘Des attributions judiciaires de l’autorité publique chez les Celtes’; inRevue Celtique, vol. vii. Paris, 1886.

——La civilisation des Celtes et celle de l’épopée Homérique. Paris, 1899.

Arbousset (T.) and Daumas (F.),Narrative of an Exploratory Tour to the North-East of the Colony of the Cape of Good Hope. Trans. London, 1852.

Archilochus,Reliquiæ. Ed. by I. Liebel. Lipsiae, 1818.

Archiv für Anthropologie. Braunschweig.

——für Religionswissenschaft. Leipzig.

——für wissenschaftliche Kunde von Russland. Ed. by A. Erman. Berlin.

Archives d’anthropologie criminelle. Paris.

Archives de Neurologie. Paris.

Archivio per l’antropologia e la etnologia. Firenze.

Archivio per lo studio delle tradizioni popolari. Palermo.

Arda Viraf. Ed. and trans. by M. Haug and E. W. West. Bombay & London, 1872.

Argentré (Bertrand d’),L’histoire de Bretaigne. Paris, 1618.

Aristophanes,Comœdiæ. Parisiis, 1838.

Aristotle,De republica Atheniensium. Ed. by J. E. Sandys. London, 1893.

—— The same work. Trans. by E. Poste. London, 1891.

——Opera omnia. 5 vols. Parisiis, 1848–74.

——Politica et Œconomica. 2 vols. Oxonii, 1810.

——The Politics. Trans. by B. Jowett. 2 vols. Oxford, 1885.

Armstrong (Alex.),A Personal Narrative of the Discovery of the North-West Passage. London, 1857.

Arnesen (John),Historisk Indledning til den gamle og nye Islandske Rættergang. Kiöbenhavn, 1762.

Arnobius, ‘Disputationum adversus gentes libri septem’; in Migne,Patrologiæ cursus, vol. v. Parisiis, 1844.

Arnold (Thomas),Fragment on the Church. London, 1845.

Arnold (Wilhelm),Deutsche Urzeit. Gotha, 1879.

Arnot (Fred.),Garenganze; or, Seven Years’ Pioneer Mission Work in Central Africa. London, [1889].

Arrian,Anabasis et Indica. Ed. by Fr. Dübner. Parisiis, 1846.

Arvieux (Chevalierd’),Travels in Arabia the Desart. Trans. London, 1718.

Ashe (R. P.),Two Kings of Uganda. London, 1889.

Asiatic(k) Researches. Calcutta.

Atharva-Veda, Hymns of the. Trans. by M. Bloomfield. (The Sacred Books of the East, vol. xlii.). Oxford, 1897.

Athenaeus,Dipnosophistarum libri quindecim. Ed. by G. Kaibel. 3 vols. Lipsiae, 1887–90.

Athenagoras, ‘Legatio pro Christianis’; in Migne,Patrologiæ cursus, Ser. Graeca, vol. vi. Parisiis, 1857.

Atkinson (E. T.), ‘Notes on the History of Religion in the Himálaya of the N.W. Provinces’; inJournal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, vol. liii. pt. i. Calcutta, 1884.

Atkinson (J. C.),Forty Years in a Moorland Parish. London, 1891.

Atkinson (J. J.), ‘The Natives of New Caledonia’; inFolk-Lore, vol. xiv. London, 1903.

——Primal Law. London, 1903.

Augustana Confessio. Lipsiae, 1730.

Augustine (Saint),Opera omnia. 16 vols. (Migne,Patrologiæ cursus, vols. xxxii.-xlvii.) Parisiis, 1845–49.

Aurelius Victor (Sextus),Libri de Romanæ gentis origine, Viris illustribus, Imperatoribus, Epitome. Lipsiae & Francofurti, 1704.

Ausland (Das). Stuttgart & Augsburg.

Aust (Emil),Die Religion der Römer. Münster i. W., 1899.

Austin (John),Lectures on Jurisprudence. 2 vols. London, 1873.

Avebury (Lord),The Origin of Civilisation. London, 1902.

Ayala (Balthazar),De jure et officiis bellicis et disciplina militari, libri III.Duaci, 1582.

Ayrault (Pierre),Des procez faicts au cadaver, aux cendres, a la mémoire, aux bestes brutes, &c.Angers, 1591.

Back to Index Next