Suicide and civilisation, p.229.—Suicide said to be unknown among several uncivilised races, p.229sq.—The prevalence of suicide among savages and barbarians, pp.230–232.—The causes of suicide among savages, p.232–235.—The moral valuation of suicide among savages, pp.235–241.—The fate of self-murderers after death, pp.235–239.—The treatment of the bodies of suicides among uncivilised races, pp.238–240.—The opinions as to suicide in China, pp.241–243.—In Japan, p.243sq.—Among the Hindus, pp.244–246.—Among Buddhists, p.246.—Among the Hebrews, p.246sq.—Among Muhammedans, p.247.—In ancient Greece, pp.247–249.—Among classical philosophers, pp.248–250.—In ancient Rome, p.250sq.—Among the Christians, pp.251–254.—Why suicide was condemned by the Church, pp.252–254.—The secular legislation influenced by the doctrine of the Church, p.254.—The treatment of suicides’ bodies in Europe, pp.254–257.—More humane feelings towards suicides in the Middle Ages, p.257sq.—Attacks upon the views of the Church and upon the laws of the State concerning suicide, pp.258–260.—Modern philosophers’ arguments against suicide,p.260sq.—The legislation on the subject changed, p.261.—Explanation of the moral ideas concerning suicide, pp.261–263.—Criticism of Prof. Durkheim’s opinion as to the moral valuation of suicide in the future, p.263sq.
General statements referring to the nature and origin of self-regarding duties and virtues, pp.265–268.—Man naturally inclined to idleness, pp.268–271.—Among savages either necessity or compulsion almost the sole inducement to industry,ibid.—Savages who enjoin work as a duty or regard industry as a virtue, p.271sq.—Industrial activity looked down upon as disreputable for a free man, p.272sq.—Contempt for trade, p.274. Progress in civilisation implies an increase of industry and leads to condemnation of idleness,ibid.—Idleness prohibited by law in ancient Peru p.274sq.—Industry enjoined in ancient Persia, p.275sq.—In ancient Egypt, p.276.—In ancient Greece, p.276sq.—Greek views on agriculture, p.277.—On trade and handicrafts, p.278sq.—Roman views on labour, p.279sq.—The Christian doctrine on the subject, pp.280–282.—Not applicable to laymen, p.282.—Modern views on labour, p.282sq.—Rest regarded as a duty, p.283.—Work suspended after a death, p.283sq.—On certain other occasions, especially in connection with changes in the moon, pp.284–286.—Tabooed days among the peoples of Semitic stock, pp.286–288.—The Jewish Sabbath, p.286sq.—The seventh day among the Assyrians and Babylonians, p.287sq.—The Christian Sunday, p.288sq.
The gluttony of savages and their views on it, p.290sq.—At higher stages of culture intemperance often subject to censure, p.291.—Views on pleasures of the table, p.291sq.—Fasting as a means of having supernatural converse or acquiring supernatural powers, p.292sq.—Abstinence from food before or in connection with the performance of a magical or religious ceremony, pp.293–298.—Fasting prevents pollution, pp.294–296.—Sacrificial victims should be clean, and may therefore have to fast, p.295sq.—Fasting before the performance of a sacrifice may be due to the idea that it is dangerous or improper for the worshipper to partake of food before the god has had his share, p.296–298.—Fasting after a death, pp.298–308.—Observed only in the daytime, p.299sq.—Abstinence from certain victuals only, pp.300–302.—Various attempts to explain the custom of fasting after a death, p.302sq.—Mourners fast for fear of being polluted by the food, pp.303–306.—Or because they, by eating a piece of food, might pollute all victuals belonging to the same species, p.306sq.—Or because they are supposed to be in a delicate condition imposing upon them restrictions in their diet, p.307sq.—Or because grief is accompanied by a loss of appetite, p.308.—The Lent fast, p.308sq.—Fasts connected with astronomical changes, pp.309–315.—Among the Jews, pp.310–312.—Among the Harranians and Manichæans, p.312sq.—The Muhammedanfast of Ramaḍân, pp.313–315.—Fasting as a form of penance, pp.315–318.—As a survival of an expiatory sacrifice, pp.316–318.—Fasting and almsgiving,ibid.—Fasting “the beginning of chastity,” p.318.
Certain kinds of food forbidden to certain classes of persons, pp.319–324.—To young persons, p.319sq.—To women, p.320sq.—To men, p.321sq.—To priests or magicians, p.322.—Restrictions in diet connected with totemism, p.323sq.—Abstinence from animals which excite disgust by their appearance, p.324sq.—From reptiles, p.324.—From fish, p.324sq.—From fowl, p.325.—From eggs, p.325sq.—From milk,ibid.—From animals which are regarded with disgust on account of their filthy habits or the nasty food on which they live, pp.326–328.—From pork,ibid.—From foreign animals, p.327.—From animals which are supposed to be metamorphosed ancestors or which resemble men, p.328sq.—From animals which excite sympathy, pp.329–331.—From beef, p.330sq.—Restrictions in diet due to the disinclination to kill certain animals for food or, generally, to reduce the supply of a certain kind of victuals, pp.330–332.—Abstinence from domestic animals which are regarded as sacred, p.331sq.—From food which is believed to injure him who partakes of it, pp.332–334.—The sources to which the general avoidance of certain kinds of food may be traced, p.334sq.—The moral disapproval of eating certain kinds of food, p.335. The moral prohibition sanctioned by religion,ibid.—Vegetarianism, pp.335–338.—Among many peoples drunkenness so common that it can hardly be looked upon as a vice, pp.338–341.—Sobriety or total abstinence from intoxicating liquors insisted upon by Eastern religions, p.341sq.—Explanation of the moral ideas concerning drunkenness and the use of alcoholic drink, pp.342–345.—Wine or spirituous liquor inspires mysterious fear, p.344sq.—The Muhammedan prohibition of wine, p.345.
Man naturally feeling some aversion to filth, p.346.—Savages who are praised for their cleanliness, pp.346–348.—Savages who are clean in certain respects but dirty in others, p.348.—Savages who are described as generally filthy in their habits, p.348sq.—Various circumstances which may account for the prevalence of cleanly or dirty habits among a certain people, pp.349–351.—The moral valuation of cleanliness, p.351sq.—Cleanliness practised and enjoined from religious or superstitious motives, pp.352–354.—In other instances religious or superstitious beliefs have led to uncleanliness, pp.354–356.—Uncleanliness as a form of asceticism, p.355sq.—Ascetic practices, p.356sq.—The idea underlying religious asceticism derived from several different sources, pp.357–363.—Certain ascetic practices originally performed for another purpose, p.358sq.—An ascetic practice may be the survival of an earlier sacrifice, p.359.—Ascetic practices due to the idea of expiation, pp.359–361.—Self-mortification intended to excite divine compassion, p.361.—Suffering voluntarily endured with a view to preventing the commission of sin, pp.361–363.—The gratification of earthly desires deemed sinful or disapproved of,ibid.
Definition of the term “marriage,” p.364.—The horror of incest well-nigh universal in the human race, pp.364–366.—The prohibited degrees as a rule more numerous among peoples unaffected by modern civilisation than in more advanced communities, p.366.—The violation of the prohibitory rules regarded by savages as a most heinous crime, p.366sq.—The horror of incest among nations that have passed beyond savagery and barbarism, p.367sq.—Attempt to explain the prohibition of marriage between near kin, pp.368–371.—Refutation of various objections raised against the author’s theory, pp.371–378.—Incestuous unions stigmatised by religion, p.375sq.—Endogamous rules of various kinds, pp.378–382.—Marriage by capture, p.382.—Marriage by purchase, pp.382–384.—The disappearance of marriage by purchase, p.384sq.—The morning gift, p.385.—The marriage portion, p.385sq.—The form of marriage influenced by the numerical proportion between the sexes, p.387sq.—Polyandry, p.387.—Group marriage of the Toda type,ibid.—The causes of polygyny, pp.387–389.—Of monogamy, p.389. Polygyny less prevalent at the lowest stages of civilisation than at somewhat higher stages, pp.389–391.—Civilisation in its higher forms leads to monogamy, p.391.—The moral valuation of the various forms of marriage, p.392.—The assumed prevalence of group marriage in Australia, pp.392–396.—The duration of marriage and the laws of divorce, pp.396–398.
Marriage considered indispensable among savage and barbarous races of men, p.399.—Celibacy a great exception and marriage regarded as a duty among peoples of archaic culture, pp.399–403.—Why celibacy is disapproved of, p.403sq.—Modern views on celibacy, p.404sq.—Celibacy of persons whose function it is to perform religious or magical rites, pp.405–412.—Marriage looked down upon by the Essenes, p.410.—By the Christians, pp.410–412.—Religious celibacy due to the idea that the priestess is married to the god whom she is serving, pp.412–414.—Goddesses jealous of the chastity of their priests, p.414.—Religious celibacy connected with the idea that sexual intercourse is defiling, pp.414–420.—Holiness easily destroyed by pollution, pp.417–419.—Causes of religious celibacy among the Christians, p.420sq.—Religious celibacy enjoined or commended as a means of self-mortification, p.421.
Uncivilised peoples among whom both sexes enjoy perfect freedom previous to marriage, pp.422–424.—Among whom unchastity before marriage is looked upon as a disgrace or a crime for a woman, p.424.—The wantonness of savages in several cases due to foreign influence,ibid.—In many tribes the free intercourse which prevails between unmarried people not of a promiscuous nature, p.424sq.—Uncivilised peoples amongwhom the man who seduces a girl is subject to punishment or censure, pp.425–427.—Moral opinions as to sexual intercourse between unmarried people among the Chinese, p.427.—Among the ancient Hebrews, p.427sq.—Among Muhammedan peoples, p.428.—Among the Hindus,ibid.—In Zoroastrianism,ibid.—Among the ancient Teutons, p.429.—In ancient Greece and Rome, pp.429–431.—In Christianity, p.431sq.—During the Middle Ages, p.432sq.—After the Reformation, p.433.—In present Europe, p.433sq.—Explanation of the moral ideas concerning sexual intercourse between unmarried people, pp.434–443.—Prostitution, pp.441–443.—Religious prostitution, connected with religious celibacy, p.443sq.—Of the Babylonian type, pp.444–446.—Moral opinions as to the seduction of a married woman, pp.447–450.—As to unfaithfulness in a wife, p.450sq.—As to the remarriages of widows,ibid.—As to unfaithfulness in a husband, pp.451–455.
Homosexual practices among the lower animals, p.456.—Among various races of men, pp.456–464.—Between women, p.464sq.—The causes of homosexual practices, pp.465–471.—Congenital sexual inversion, p.465sq.—Absence of the other sex or lack of accessible women, p.466sq.—Acquired inversion, pp.467–470.—Homosexuality in ancient Greece partly due to the methods of training the youth, p.469sq.—Partly due to the great gulf which mentally separated the sexes, p.470sq.—Causes of pederasty in China and Morocco, p.471.—Moral ideas concerning homosexual practices, pp.471–489.—Among uncivilised peoples, pp.471–475.—Among the ancient Peruvians, p.473sq.—Among the ancient Mexicans, Mayas, and Chibchas, p.474.—Among Muhammedans, p.475sq.—Among the Hindus, p.476.—In China, p.476sq.—In Japan, p.477.—Among the ancient Scandinavians, p.477sq.—In ancient Greece, p.478sq.—In Zoroastrianism, p.479sq.—Among the ancient Hebrews, p.480.—In early Christianity, p.480sq.—In Pagan Rome,ibid.—In Christian Rome, p.481.—European legislation regarding homosexual practices during the Middle Ages and later, p.481sq.—Modern legislation on the subject, p.482sq.—Moral ideas concerning it in present Europe, p.483.—Why homosexual practices are frequently subject to censure, p.483sq.—Criticism of Dr. Havelock Ellis’s suggestion as to the popular attitude towards homosexuality, pp.484–486.—The excessive sinfulness attached to homosexual practices by Zoroastrianism, Hebrewism, and Christianity, due to the fact that such practices were intimately associated with unbelief, idolatry, or heresy, pp.486–489.
Animals treated with deference for superstitious reasons, pp.490–493.—Butchers regarded as unclean, p.493.—Many peoples averse from killing their cattle from economic motives, p.493sq.—Domestic animals treated kindly by savages out of sympathy, pp.494–496.—Savages who are said to be lacking in sympathy for the brute creation,p.496.—Moral valuation of men’s conduct towards the lower animals among savages, p.496sq.—In Brahmanism, p.497.—In Buddhism, pp.497, 498, 500.—In Jainism, p.498sq.—In Taouism, p.499.—In China, p.499sq.—In Japan, p.500.—In Zoroastrianism, p.501sq.—In Muhammedanism, p.502sq.—In ancient Greece and Rome, pp.503–505.—In Hebrewism, p.505sq.—In Christianity, pp.506–508.—The views of modern philosophers, p.508.—Of legislators, p.508sq.—Indifference to animal suffering a characteristic of public opinion in European countries up to quite modern times, p.509sq.—Laws against cruelty to animals, p.510.—Humane feelings towards animals in Europe, pp.510–512.—The crusade against vivisection, pp.512–514.—Explanation of the increasing sympathy with animal suffering in Europe, p.512sq.—The influence of human thoughtlessness upon the treatment of the lower animals and upon the moral ideas relating to it, pp.512–514.
The belief in a future life, p.515sq.—Notions as regards the disembodied soul, p.516.—The dead considered to have rights very similar to those they had whilst alive, pp.516–520.—The soul must not be killed or injured, p.516sq.—Its living friends must positively contribute to its comfort and subsistence, p.517sq.—The right of ownership does not cease with death, p.518sq.—Robbery or violation committed at a tomb severely condemned,ibid.—Respect must be shown for the honour and self-regarding pride of the dead, p.519.—The dead demand obedience, p.519sq.—The sacredness attached to a will, p.519.—The rigidity of ancestral custom, p.519sq.—Duties to the dead that arise from the fact of death itself, pp.520–524.—The funeral, the rites connected with it, and the mourning customs, largely regarded as duties to the dead,ibid.—The duties to the dead influenced by the relationship between the parties, p.524sq.—By the age and sex of the departed, pp.525–527.—By class distinctions, p.527.—By moral distinctions, p.527sq.—The causes from which the duties to the dead have sprung, p.528–549.—These duties partly based on sympathetic resentment, p.528.—The dead regarded as guardians of their descendants, p.529sq.—But the ancestral guardian spirit does not bestow his favours for nothing, p.530sq.—The dead more commonly regarded as enemies than friends, pp.531–534.—Explanation of the belief in the irritable or malevolent character of the dead, p.534sq.—The fear of death and the fear of the dead, pp.535–538.—The conduct of the survivors influenced by their beliefs regarding the character, activity, and polluting influence of the dead, pp.538–546.—The origin of funeral and mourning customs, pp.541–547.—Why practices connected with death which originally sprang from self-regarding motives have come to be enjoined as duties, p.547sq.—Why the duties to the dead are rarely extended to strangers, p.548sq.—Explanation of the differences in the treatment of the dead which depend upon age, sex, social position, and moral distinctions, p.549.—The duties to the departed become less stringent as time goes on, p.549sq.—The duties to the dead affected by progress in intellectual culture, pp.550–552.—The funeral sacrifice continued as a mark of respect or affection, p.550.—Offerings made to the dead become alms given to the poor, pp.550–552.
The prevalence of cannibalism, p.553.—Various forms of it, p.554.—Cannibalism due to scarcity or lack of animal food, p.555.—Togourmandisepp.555–557.—To revenge, pp.557–559.—The practice of eating criminals, p.558sq.—Cannibalism a method of making a dangerous individual harmless after death, p.559sq.—Due to the idea that the cannibal, by eating the supposed seat of a certain quality in a person, incorporates it with his own system, pp.560–562.—Cannibalism in connection with human sacrifice, p.562sq.—The eating of man-gods, p.563sq.—Other instances in which a supernatural or medicinal effect is ascribed to human flesh or blood, pp.564–566.—Cannibalism as a covenant rite, p.566sq.—Special reasons given for the practice of eating relatives or friends, pp.567–569.—The cannibalism of modern savages represented as the survival of an ancient practice which was once universal in the human race, p.569sq.—Criticism of this theory pp.570–580.—Savages who feel the greatest dislike of cannibalism, p.570sq.—Cannibals often anxious to deny that they are addicted to this practice, p.572.—The rapid extinction of it among certain savages p.572sq.—Even among peoples very notorious for cannibalism there are individuals who abhor it, p.573.—The aversion to cannibalism may be due to sympathy for the dead, p.574.—In the first instance it is probably an instinctive feeling akin to those feelings which regulate the diet of the various animal species,ibid.—The eating of human flesh regarded with superstitious dread, pp.574–576.—The feeling of reluctance may be overcome by other motives and may be succeeded by a taste for human flesh, p.577sq.—Early man probably not addicted to cannibalism, pp.578–580.—Cannibalism much less prevalent among the lowest savages than among races somewhat more advanced in culture, p.578sq.—Among some savages cannibalism known to be of modern origin or to have spread in recent times, p.579sq.—The moral valuation of cannibalism, p.580sq.
Distinction between “natural” and “supernatural” phenomena, p.582sq.—Supernatural mechanical energy, p.583sq.—Supernatural qualities attributed to the mental constitution of animate beings, especially to their will, p.584.—The difference between religion and magic,ibid.—The meaning of the wordreligio, pp.584–586.—That mystery is the essential characteristic of supernatural beings is testified by language, p.586sq.—This testimony corroborated by facts referring to the nature of such objects or individuals as are most commonly worshipped, pp.587–593.—Startling events ascribed to the activity of invisible supernatural agents, p.593sq.—The origin of animism, p.594sq.—A mind presupposes a body, p.595sq.—The animist who endows an inanimate object with a soul regards the visible thing itself as its body, p.596sq.—The origin of anthropomorphism, p.597sq.—The difference between men and gods, p.599.—Materiality at last considered a quality not becoming to a god, pp.599–601.
Definition of the term “god,” p.602.—Gods have the rights to life and bodily integrity, pp.602–604.—Not necessarily considered immortal, p.602sq.—The killing of totemic animals, p.603sq.—Divine animals killed as a religious or magical ceremony, pp.604–606.—The killing of man-gods or divine kings, pp.606–610.—The right to bodily integrity granted to gods occasionally suspended, p.610.—Supernatural beings believed to be subject to human needs, p.610sq.—To require offerings, p.611sq.—Sacrificial gifts offered to supernatural beings with a view to averting evils, pp.612–614.—With a view to securing positive benefits, pp.614–616.—Thank-offerings, p.615sq.—Sacrificial victims intended to serve as substitutes for other individuals, whose lives are in danger, pp.616–618.—Occasionally regarded as messengers, p.618.—Sacrifices offered for the purpose of transferring curses, pp.618–624.—The covenant sacrifice, pp.622–624.—The sacrificial victim or offered article a vehicle for transferring benign virtue to him who offered it or to other persons, p.624sq.—Sacrifice becomes a symbol of humility and reverence, p.625sq.—Sacrifice as a duty, p.626.—Supernatural beings possess property, and this must not be interfered with, p.626sq.—Sacred objects must not be appropriated for ordinary purposes, p.627sq.—The right of sanctuary, pp.628–638.—Its prevalence, pp.628–634.—Explanation of this right, pp.634–638.
Supernatural beings sensitive to insults and disrespect, p.639sq.—Irreverence to gods punished by men,ibid.—The names of supernatural beings tabooed, pp.640–643.—Explanation of these taboos, p.642sq.—Atheism, p.643sq.—Unbelief, pp.644–646.—Heresy, p.646sq.—Polytheism by nature tolerant, pp.647–649.—The difference in toleration between monotheistic and polytheistic religions shows itself in their different attitudes towards witchcraft, pp.649–652.—The highest stage of religion free from intolerance, p.652sq.—Prayer a tribute to the self-regarding pride of the god to whom it is addressed, pp.653–655.—Prayers connected with offerings, p.655sq.—Magic efficacy ascribed to prayer, pp.656–659.—Gods demand obedience, p.659.—The influence of this demand upon the history of morals, p.659sq.—Explanation of the obligatory character attached to men’s conduct towards their gods, pp.660–662.
The supernatural beings of savage belief frequently described as utterly indifferent to all questions of worldly morality, pp.663–665.—The gods of many savages mostly intent on doing harm to mankind, pp.665–667.—Adoration of supernatural beings which are considered at least occasionally beneficent also very prevalent among uncivilised peoples,pp.667–669.—Their benevolence, however, does not prove that they take an active interest in morality at large, p.669.—Instances in which savage gods are supposed to punish the transgression of rules relating to worldly morality, pp.669–687.—Savages represented as believing in the existence of a supreme being who is a moral law-giver or judge, pp.670–687.—The prevalence of such a belief in Australia, pp.670–675.—In Polynesia and Melanesia, p.675.—In the Malay Archipelago, p.675sq.—In the Andaman Islands, p.676.—Among the Karens of Burma, p.677.—In India, p.677sq.—Among the Ainu of Japan, p.678.—Among the Samoyedes,ibid.—Among the Greenlanders,ibid.—Among the North American Indians, pp.679–681.—Among the South American Indians, p.681sq.—In Africa, pp.682–685.—Explanation of this belief, pp.685–687.—The supreme beings of savages invoked in curses or oaths, p.686sq.—The oath and ordeal do not involve a belief in the gods as vindicators of truth and justice, pp.687–690.—The ordeal essentially a magical ceremony,ibid.—Ordeals which have a different origin, p.690.—The belief in a moral retribution after death among savages, pp.690–695.—The sources to which it may be traced, pp.691–695.—The influence of religion upon the moral consciousness of savages, p.695sq.