Chapter XV: ANIMISM (continued) (3)

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.