*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 47127 ***

Transcriber's Note

This version of the text cannot represent certain typographical effects.
Italics are delimited with the '_' character as _italic_. The 'oe'
ligature is printed as separate characters.

Non-English language quotations are given as printed. Passages in Greek
are transliterated, and denoted as [Greek: Athiopas toi ...].

Footnotes have been consolidated and moved to directly follow the
paragraph where they are referenced. In the printed version, footnotes
were numbered consecutively, beginning anew with each chapter. Here,
they have been re-sequenced for uniqueness. References to those notes
in the text and the transcriber's errata are to the new numbers. There
are several footnotes that appear in other footnotes. These have been
lettered as [A], [B], [C], and follow the note containing the
reference.

In a number of places, passages are compared by placing them in
parallel columns, usually across several pages. The left hand
column is given contiguously with a wide right margin, and then the
right hand column, with a large left margin. On p. 262, four columns
are used for comparison. Each is given in turn, with no attempt to
simulate the format.

Please see the notes at the end of this text for a more detailed list
of specific issues encountered and the resolutions of each.




                               TRADITION
                      PRINCIPALLY WITH REFERENCE TO
                   MYTHOLOGY AND THE LAW OF NATIONS.

                   PRINTED BY BALLANTYNE AND COMPANY
                          EDINBURGH AND LONDON




                               TRADITION

                     PRINCIPALLY WITH REFERENCE TO

                        MYTHOLOGY AND THE LAW OF
                                NATIONS.


                                   BY

                       LORD ARUNDELL OF WARDOUR.


                                LONDON:
                        BURNS, OATES, & COMPANY,
            17 & 18 PORTMAN STREET, AND 63 PATERNOSTER ROW.
                                 1872.




CONTENTS.

 CHAP.                                                              PAGE

 PREFACE,                                                             ix

 MEMOIR OF COLONEL GEORGE MACDONELL, C.B.,                           xix

    I. THE LAW OF NATIONS,                                             1

   II. THE LAW OF NATURE,                                             20

  III. PRIMITIVE LIFE,                                                26

   IV. CHRONOLOGY FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF TRADITION,                55

    V. CHRONOLOGY FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF SCIENCE,                  72

   VI. PALMER ON EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY,                                 92

  VII. THE TRADITION OF THE HUMAN RACE,                              105

 VIII. MYTHOLOGY,                                                    157

   IX. ASSYRIAN MYTHOLOGY,                                           182

    X. THE TRADITION OF NOAH AND THE DELUGE,                         210

   XI. DILUVIAN TRADITIONS IN AFRICA AND AMERICA,                    242

  XII. SIR JOHN LUBBOCK ON TRADITION,                                283

 XIII. NOAH AND THE GOLDEN AGE,                                      323

  XIV. SIR H. MAINE ON THE LAW OF NATIONS,                           338

   XV. THE DECLARATION OF WAR,                                       386




PREFACE.


I shall have no hope of conveying to the reader, within the narrow
limits of a preface, any fuller idea of the purport of this work
than its title expresses; and as the chapters are necessarily
interdependent, I can indicate no short-cut in the perusal by which
this information can be obtained.

I venture to think that those who are interested in the special matters
referred to will find something in these pages which may attract on
account of its novelty--and some other things, new at least in their
application--_e.g._ the comparison of Boulanger's theory with the
narratives of Captain R. Burton and Catlin.

The frequent introduction and the length of the notes, must, I am
aware, give to these pages a repellent aspect, but the necessity
of bringing various points under comparison has compelled this
arrangement; and I regret to say that the argument runs through the
whole, and that almost as much matter requiring consideration will be
found in the notes and appendices as in the text.

I trust that these imperfections may not be so great as to estrange
the few, among whom only I can hope to find much sympathy, who wish
to see the true foundations of peace and order re-established in the
world, and who may therefore to some extent be indulgent towards
efforts which have for their aim and motive the attempt to erect
barriers which would render the recurrence of the evils which have
lately deluged mankind difficult, if not impossible.

There are others whom the recent scenes of horror have inspired with a
love of peace and order, or of whom it would be more true to say, that
the horrors of the late war and revolution have deepened in them the
sentiment of peace and order which they have always entertained, but
who still do not desire these things on the conditions upon which alone
they can be secured. From them I can only ask such passing examination
as may be demanded for the conscientious rejection of the evidence I
have collected, or for its adjustment with more accepted theories.

There will remain for me much ground in common with all who retain
their faith in the inspiration of Holy Writ, and who wish to see its
authority sustained against the aggressive infidelity of the day; and
even among those who reject the authority of divine revelation, there
may be still some who are wearied in the arid wastes, and who would
gladly retrace their steps to the green pastures and the abundant
streams. Among such I may perhaps expect to find friendly criticism.

At the same time, I do not disguise from myself that, in its present
mood, the world is much more anxious to be cut adrift from tradition
than to be held to its moorings; and that it will impatiently learn
that fresh facts have to be considered before its emancipation can be
declared, or before it can be let loose without the evident certainty
of shipwreck. Although the exigencies of the argument have compelled
research over a somewhat extended field of inquiry, the exploration
has no pretensions to being exhaustive, but at most suggestive; not
attempting to work the mine, or, except incidentally, to produce the
ore, but only indicating the positions in which it is likely to be
found.

In the main position of the mythological chapters, that the heroes of
mythological legend embody the reminiscences of the characters and
incidents of the biblical narrative, I do nothing more than carry on a
tradition, as the reader will see in my references to Calmet, Bryant,
Palmer, and others.[1] I should add, that I limit the full application
of De Maistre's theory to the times preceding the coming of our Lord.

  [1] It has curiously happened that I have never seen the work
       which, after Bryant, would probably have afforded the largest
       repertory of facts--G. Stanley Faber's "Dissertation on the
       Mysteries of the Cabiri;" and it is only recently, since
       these pages were in print, that I have become acquainted with
       Davies' "Celtic Researches" and "The Mythology and Rites of
       the British Druids." The Celtic traditions respecting their
       god Hu, are so important from more than one point of view,
       that I cannot forbear making the following extracts from the
       latter author, which I trust the reader will refer back to and
       compare in chap. ix. with the Babylonian Hoa, at p. 66 with
       the Chinese Yu, and at p. 262 with the African Hu.

       Davies' "Celtic Researches," p. 184, says, "Though Hu Gadarn
       primarily denoted the Supreme Being [compare chap. ix.], I
       think his actions have a secondary reference to the history
       of Noah. The following particulars are told of him in the
       above-cited selection:--(1.) His branching or elevated oxen
       [compare p. 205 and chap. xi.] ... at the Deluge, drew the
       destroyer out of the water, so that the lake burst forth no
       more [compare chap. iv.] (2.) He instructed the primitive
       race in the cultivation of the earth [compare p. 239]. (3.)
       He first collected and disposed them into various tribes
       [compare p. 239]. (4.) He first gave laws, traditions, &c.,
       and adapted verse to memorials [compare p. 239]. (5.) He
       first brought the Cymry into Britain and Gaul [compare p.
       66], because he would not have them possess lands by war and
       contention, but of right and peace" [compare chaps. xiii. and
       xv.] It is true that these traditions come to us in ballads
       attributed to Welsh bards of the 13th and 14th centuries A.D.;
       but, as the Rev. Mr Davies said, "that such a superstition
       should have been fabricated by the bards in the middle ages of
       Christianity, is a supposition utterly irreconcileable with
       probability." And I think the improbability will be widely
       extended if the readers will take the trouble, after perusal,
       to make the references as above.

My attention was first drawn to the coincidences of mythology with
scriptural history by the late Colonel G. Macdonell.[2] Colonel
Macdonell's coincidences were founded upon a peculiar theory of his
own, and must necessarily have been exclusively upon the lines of
Hebrew derivation. There is nothing, however, in these pages drawn from
that source. I may add, for the satisfaction of Colonel Macdonell's
friends, that as Colonel Macdonell's MSS. exist, and are in the
possession of Colonel I. J. Macdonell, I have (except at p. 243, when
quoting from Boulanger,) expressly excluded the consideration of the
influence of the Hebrew upon general tradition, which, however, will
be necessary for the full discussion of the question.

  [2] I have appended a short biographical notice of Colonel G.
       Macdonell, which I venture to think may contain matter of
       public interest.

Whatever, therefore, Colonel Macdonell may have written will remain
over and above in illustration of the tradition. But whether on the
lines of Hebrew or primeval tradition, these views will inevitably
run counter to the mythological theories now in the ascendant. These
views, indeed, have been so long relegated to darkness, and perhaps
appropriately, on account of their opposition to the prevalent solar
theories, "flouted like owls and bats" whenever they have ventured into
the daylight, that it will be with something amounting to absolute
astonishment that the learned will hear that there are people who still
entertain them: "itaque ea nolui scribere, quæ nec indocti intelligere
possent, nec docti legere curarent" (Cic. Acad. Quæs., 1. i. § 2).

I can sincerely say, however, that although my theories place me in a
position of antagonism to modern science, yet that I have written in no
spirit of hostility to science or the cause of science.

I have throughout excluded the geological argument, for the first and
sufficient reason that I am not a geologist; and secondly, by the
same right and title, that geologists, _e.g._ Sir C. Lyell, in his
"Antiquity of Man," ignores the arguments and facts to which I have
directed special attention.

Nevertheless, I find that competent witnesses have come to conclusions
not materially different from those which have been arrived at, on the
ground of history, within their own department of geology. I have more
especially in my mind the following passage from a series of papers,
"On Some Evidences of the Antiquity of Man," by the Rev. A. Weld, in
the _Month_ (1871), written with full knowledge and in a spirit of
careful and fair appreciation of the evidence. He says:--

  "These evidences, such as they are, are fully treated in the work
  of Sir C. Lyell, entitled 'Antiquity of Man,' which exhausted the
  whole question as it stood, when the last edition was published in
  the year 1863. It is worthy of note that though the conclusion at
  which the geologist arrives is hesitating and suggestive, rather
  than decisive, and though nothing of importance, as far as we are
  aware, has been added to the geological aspect of the question
  since that time--except that the reality of the discovery of human
  remains has been verified, and many additional discoveries of a
  similar character have been made--_still the opinion_, which was
  _then new and startling, has gradually gained ground_, until we
  find writers assuming as a thing that needs no further proof, that
  the period of man's habitation on the earth is to be reckoned in
  tens of thousands of years."--_The Month_ (May and June 1871), p.
  437.

Among various works, bearing on matters contained in these pages, which
have come to hand during the course of publication, I may mention--

"The Mythology of the Aryan Nations," by the Rev. G. W. Cox, referred
to in notes at pp. 158, 165, 396.

The third edition of Sir John Lubbock's "Pre-historic Times."

Mr E. B. Tylor's "Primitive Culture," referred to in notes at pp. 41,
136, 300.

Mr St George Mivart's "Genesis of Species."

Mr F. Seebohm on "International Reform."

Sir H. S. Maine's "Village Communities."

The Archbishop of Westminster's paper, read before the Royal
Institution, "On the Dæmon of Socrates."

"Orsini's Life of the Blessed Virgin," translated by the Very Rev. Dr
Husenbeth.

"Hints and Facts on the Origin of Man," by the Very Rev. Dr P. Melia,
1872, who says (p. 59), "Considering the great length of life of
the first patriarchs, Moses must have had every information through
non-interrupted tradition. If we reflect that Shem for many years saw
Methuselah, a contemporary of Adam, and that Shem himself lived to the
time of Abraham, ... that Abraham died after the birth of Jacob, and
that Jacob saw many who were alive when Moses was born, we see that a
few generations connect Moses not only with Noah, but also with Adam."
I quote this passage as it is important to place in the foreground of
this inquiry the unassailable truth that (apart from revelation) the
historical account of the origin of the human race, to which all others
converge, is consistent with itself, and bears intrinsic evidence of
credibility.

An analogous argument with reference to Christian tradition was
sketched in a lecture by Mr Edward Lucas, and published in 1862, "On
the First Two Centuries of Christianity."

With reference to other parts of these pages, much supplemental matter
will be found in--

"Historical Illustrations of the Old Testament," by the Rev. G.
Rawlinson, M.A., Camden Prof., where, at pp. 19, 20, will be found
direct testimony to what I had conjectured from indirect evidence at
pp. 270, 271--viz., that the Polynesian islanders "have a clear and
distinct tradition of a Deluge, from which one family only, _eight in
number_, was saved in a canoe."

Also, but from a different point of view, in "Legends of Old Testament
Characters," by Rev. S. Baring Gould, M.A.

The articles in the _Tablet_ "On Arbitration instead of War," to which
I have referred in chap. xiv. at p. 380, have recently been collected
and reprinted by Lord Robert Montagu, M.P.

If I have exceeded in quotation, I must direct my readers, for the
defence of this mode of composition, from the point of view of
tradition, to a work which I trust some in this busy age still find
leisure to read, Mr Kenelm Digby's "Mores Catholici," i. 40.

I must, moreover, add a passage from the general preface to the recent
republication of Mr Disraeli's works, which I came upon too late to
introduce into the body of this book, but which I feel sure the reader,
even if he has met with it before, will not be reluctant to reperuse:--

  "The sceptical effects of the discoveries of science, and the
  uneasy feeling that they cannot co-exist with our old religious
  convictions have their origin in the circumstance that the general
  body who have suddenly become conscious of these physical truths
  are not so well acquainted as is desirable with the past history
  of man. Astonished by their unprepared emergence from ignorance to
  a certain degree of information, their amazed intelligence takes
  refuge in the theory of what is conveniently called progress, and
  every step in scientific discovery seems further to remove them
  from the path of primæval inspiration. But there is no fallacy
  so flagrant as to suppose that the modern ages have the peculiar
  privilege of scientific discovery, or that they are distinguished
  as the epochs of the most illustrious inventions. On the contrary,
  scientific invention has always gone on simultaneously with the
  revelation of spiritual truths; and more, the greatest discoveries
  are not those of modern ages. No one for a moment can pretend
  that printing is so great a discovery as writing, or algebra as
  language. What are the most brilliant of our chemical discoveries
  compared with the invention of fire and the metals? It is a vulgar
  belief that our astronomical knowledge dates only from the recent
  century, when it was rescued from the monks who imprisoned Galileo;
  but Hipparchus, who lived before our Divine Master, and who, among
  other sublime achievements, discovered the precession of the
  equinoxes, ranks with the Newtons and the Keplers; and Copernicus,
  the modern father of our celestial science, avows himself, in his
  famous work, as only the champion of Pythagoras, whose system he
  enforces and illustrates. Even the most modish schemes of the day
  on the origin of things, which captivate as much by their novelty
  as their truth, may find their precursors in ancient sages; and
  after a careful analysis of the blended elements of imagination and
  induction which characterise the new theories, they will be found
  mainly to rest on the atom of Epicurus and the monad of Thales.
  Scientific, like spiritual truth, has ever from the beginning
  been descending from Heaven to man. He is a being who organically
  demands direct relations with his Creator, and he would not have
  been so organised if his requirements could not be satisfied. We
  may analyse the sun and penetrate the stars; but man is conscious
  that he is made in God's own image, and in his perplexity he will
  ever appeal to our Father which art in Heaven."




                                 MEMOIR

                                   OF

                     COLONEL GEORGE MACDONELL, C.B.


The following notice appeared in the _Times_, May 23, 1870--"In our
obituary column of Saturday we announced the death of Colonel George
Macdonell, C.B., at the advanced age of ninety. This officer, who
was a cadet of the ancient and loyal Scottish house of Macdonell of
Glengarry, was the son of an officer who served under the flag, and
who, as we have been told, was on the staff, of Prince Charles Edward
Stuart at the battle of Culloden, where he was severely wounded.
His son, the Colonel now deceased, was born in 1779, or early in
the following year; obtained his first commission in 1796, and was
nominated a Companion of the Bath in 1817. He saw active service in the
war in North America with the 79th Foot, and received the gold medal
for the action at Châteaugay; and had he not accepted the retirement a
few years since, he would have been, at his death, almost the senior
officer in the army holding Her Majesty's commission. The late Colonel
Macdonell, who adhered to the Roman Catholic religion professed by his
ancestors, and for which they fought so gallantly under the Stuart
banners, married, in 1820, the Hon. Laura Arundell, sister of the Lord
Arundell of Wardour, but was left a widower in May 1854." His son,
Colonel I. J. Macdonell, now commands the 71st Highlanders.

I take this opportunity of adding a few facts, not without interest,
to the above brief summary of a not uneventful life, as they
might otherwise pass unrecorded. In the sentiment of the Gaelic
saying--"Curri mi clach er do cuirn" (Wilson, "Archæol. Scot.," p.
59)--"I will add a stone to your cairn."

Colonel Macdonell's father, as stated in the above account, was wounded
at Culloden in the thigh, but was able to crawl on all-fours, after
the battle, eighteen miles, to a barn belonging to a member of the
Grant family. He there remained in concealment for six months, leaving
nature to heal the wound; but the search in the neighbourhood in time
becoming too hot, he had to decamp, and walked with a stick all the way
to Newcastle, where he was not greatly re-assured by meeting a soldier
who had just been drummed out of his regiment as a Catholic, with the
word "Papist" placarded on his back. He, however, escaped all dangers,
and reached Hull, and subsequently Versailles or St Germains, where he
remained three years, or at least till the events following the Peace
of Aix-la-Chapelle dispersed the Prince's adherents. He then returned
to England under the Act of Indemnity, entered the royal army, and
was present with General Wolfe at the taking of Quebec. If I remember
rightly, he had the good fortune to take an aide-de-camp of Montcalm's
prisoner, with important dispatches.

Colonel Macdonell's maternal uncle, Major Macdonald (Keppoch), was
taken prisoner at the battle of Falkirk. He was said to have been
the first man who drew blood in the war. By a curious revenue of
fortune, he was carried back into the enemy's ranks by the horse of
a trooper whom he had captured. He was executed at Carlisle, and the
circumstances of his execution supplied Sir Walter Scott, I believe,
with the incidents which he worked up into the narrative of MacIvor's
execution in "Waverley." His sword is in the possession of Mr P. Howard
of Corby Castle, near Carlisle.

Fortune, however, had in store another revenge; for the Duke of
Cumberland being present, many years afterwards, at a ball at Bath, by
a most unhappy selection indicated as the person with whom he wished to
dance a beautiful girl who turned out to be no other than the daughter
of Major Macdonald (afterwards married to Mr Chichester of Calverley)
the circumstances of whose execution have just been referred to. She
rose in deference to royalty, but replied, in a tone which utterly
discomfited, and put his Royal Highness to flight--"No, I will never
dance with the murderer of my father!"

With these antecedents, it is needless to add that Colonel G. Macdonell
was a warm admirer of the Stuarts, and not unnaturally extended his
sympathy and adhesion to the kindred cause of legitimacy in France;
and the one event to which he always looked forward, and confidently
predicted--the restoration of the monarchy in the person of Henri
V.--is now, if not imminent, at least "the more probable of possible
events." There was, however, a belief which somewhat conflicted in his
mind with the above anticipation--namely, his unshaken conviction that
the Dauphin did not die in the Temple. He was frequently at Holyrood
when the palace was occupied by Charles X., and he accompanied the
Duchess de Berri to the place of embarkation for her unfortunate
expedition to France. Colonel Macdonell also acted as the medium of
communication between the French Royalists and the English Government;
and on one important occasion conveyed intelligence to Lord Bathurst or
Lord Sidmouth respecting the movements of the secret societies in Spain
in 1823 some hours before it reached them by the ordinary channel.
Part of the communication was made on information supplied by the Abbé
Barruel; and in reply, Lord Sidmouth said--"Well, I remember Edmund
Burke telling me that he believed every word that Barruel had written,
and I fully accept the authority."

Colonel Macdonell was under the impression that he was unwittingly
and remotely the cause of the break up of the Ministry of "all the
talents." As this is an obscure point in history, it may be worth while
to give the following facts. The impression produced by Marengo and
Austerlitz had led to the Army Reform Bill of 1806, in which the points
discussed were almost identical with those which lately excited the
public mind. The disasters which accompanied our descent on Egypt in
1807, and the consequent evacuation of Alexandria, created considerable
discontent and re-opened the question, and as further reforms on minor
points were contemplated, suggestions from officers in the army were
invited.

Colonel Macdonell (then only lieutenant), wrote to Mr Windham, the
Secretary at War, to point out that any broken attorney might create
considerable embarrassment at any critical moment, seeing that, as
the law then stood (an Act of George I. had extended the obligation
of taking the sacrament to privates), any soldier could obtain, if
not his own, his comrade's discharge by pointing him out as a Papist.
The danger was recognised, and Mr Windham brought in a bill directed
to meet the case, but its introduction revived the larger question
of the repeal of the Tests' Acts and of the Catholic claims; and the
discussion eventuated in Lord Howick's bill, which was met by the
King's refusal, and the consequent resignation of the Ministry. This
may explain the statement (mentioned in the obituary notice in the
Times of the Marquis of Lansdowne), that he (Lord Lansdowne) could
never understand how the Ministry came to be dissolved. "He had heard
instances of men running their heads against a wall, but never of men
building up a wall against which to run their heads."[3]

  [3] Sir H. Lytton Bulwer, in his "Life of Lord Palmerston," says,
       i. p. 62, "There has seldom happened in this country so sudden
       and unexpected a change of Ministers as that which took place
       in March 1807."

It has been mentioned that Colonel Macdonell entered the army when
quite a boy; and there were few men, I fancy, living, when he died last
year, who could boast, as he could, of having served in the Duke of
York's campaign in the last century, but I am not able to state in what
regiment. He was for some time previously in Lord Darlington's regiment
of Fencibles. He was at one period in the 8th, and at another in the
50th regiment, in which latter, I think, he went out to the West Indies
and Canada.

It was in Canada, however, that his principal services were rendered,
which indeed were considerable, and have never been adequately
acknowledged.

When the Americans invaded Canada upon the declaration of war in
1812, it is hardly necessary to remind the reader that almost all our
available troops were engaged in the Peninsula, and that Canada was
pretty well left to its own resources.

Under these circumstances it will be recognised as of some importance
that Colonel Macdonell was able to raise a regiment among the
Macdonells of his clan who had settled there. But the conditions made
with him were not fulfilled, and the command of the regiment, almost
immediately after it was raised, was transferred to the command of
a Protestant and an Orangeman, which caused a mutiny which was with
difficulty suppressed. Now, it must be borne in mind that the regiment
was only raised through his personal influence with the clan, and
through that of its pastor, Bishop Macdonell, and that the adhesion
of the Catholic Macdonells went far to determine the attitude of the
French Canadians also. There were not more than 1200 regular troops in
Upper Canada during the war.[4]

  [4] W. James, "Military Occurrences of Late War," i. 56, says,
       1450 regular troops; Murray, "History of British America," i.
       189, says, 2100 troops.

Before referring to the actions in which Colonel Macdonell was engaged,
I will add the following particulars as to the Highland settlement
which Colonel Macdonell gave me. In 1798, the submission of the
Highland chiefs to the House of Hanover having been of some standing,
and their adhesion being, moreover, cemented in a common sentiment of
abhorrence of the French Revolution, they were willingly induced to
raise regiments among their clans. This was done by Glengarry, Macleod,
and others. At the peace these regiments were disbanded, but finding
that complications of various sorts had necessarily arisen during their
absence respecting their lands and holdings at home, and, in point of
fact, that they had no homes to return to, the greater part remained
temporarily domiciled at Glasgow, the place of their disbandment. I
infer that they remained under the charge and direction of Bishop
Macdonell, who had accompanied them in their campaigns as chaplain, and
was the first Catholic priest officially recognised in the capacity of
regimental chaplain. At Glasgow (previously only served as a flying
mission), he hired a storehouse, which he opened as a chapel, but
stealthily only, as two of the congregation were always posted as a
guard at the entrance on Sunday. He found only eighteen Catholics at
Glasgow at that time, i.e., I suppose, previously to the disbandment
of the Highlanders. Through Bishop Macdonell's influence with Lord
Sidmouth--who, although a strong opponent of the Catholic claims,
always acted in his relations with him, he said, in the most honourable
and straightforward way--the emigration of the Highlanders to Canada
was shortly afterwards arranged.

Colonel Macdonell was subsequently partially reinstated in his command
of the Glengarry regiment. The important services rendered by Colonel
Macdonell in Canada, to which I have alluded, were--1. The taking
of Ogdensburg at a critical moment, on his own responsibility, and
contrary to orders, which had the effect of diverting the American
attack from Upper Canada at a moment when it was entirely undefended;
and, 2. Bringing the regiment of French Canadian militia, then
temporarily under his command, from Kingston, by a forced run down
the rapids of the St Lawrence without pilots (passing the point where
Lord Amherst lost eighty men), in time enough (he arrived the day
before, unknown to the Americans) to support De Saluberry at the
decisive action at Chateaugay. De Saluberry indeed had only 300 French
Canadians under his command, which, with the 600 brought up by Colonel
Macdonell, only made up a force of 900 (with about 100 Indians), with
which to check General Hampton's advance with some 7000 (the Americans
stated the force at 5520 infantry and 180 cavalry, James, i. 305) in
his advance on Montreal. In point of fact, Colonel Macdonell must be
considered, on any impartial review of the facts, to have won the day
(_vide infra_), yet he was not even mentioned in Sir G. Prevost's
dispatch.

Colonel Macdonell received the Companionship of the Bath for the taking
of Ogdensburg, and the gold medal for his conduct in the action at
Chateaugay.

I append the following accounts of the affairs at Ogdensburg
and Chateaugay, adding a few particulars in correction and
explanation--Alison, "History of Europe," xix. 121 (7th ed.),
says--"Shortly after Colonel M'Donnell (Macdonell), with two companies
of the Glengarry Fencibles, and two of the 8th, converted a _feigned_
attack which he was ordered to make on Fort Ogdensburg into a real one.
The assault was made under circumstances of the utmost difficulty;
deep snow impeded the assailants at every step, and the American
marksmen, from behind their defences, kept up a very heavy fire; but
the gallantry of the British overcame every obstacle, and the fort was
carried, with _eleven guns, all its stores_, and _two armed schooners_
in the harbour." The difficulties, as I have understood from Colonel
Macdonell, were not so much from the impediments of the snow, as from
the dangerous state of the St Lawrence at the time, the ice literally
waving under the tramp of his men as he passed them over (ten paces
apart). The stroke of the axe, by which they judged, told it indeed to
be only barely safe, and it had never been crossed by troops before at
that point, as it was deemed insecure, being within three miles of the
Gallops Rapids. (Among the guns were some taken from General Burgoyne.)

A fuller account of the taking of Ogdensburg may be read in Mr W.
James' "Full and Correct Account of the Military Occurrences of the
late War between Great Britain and the United States of America," vol.
i. p. 135-141: London, 1818; he adds, "Previously to dismissing the
affair at Ogdensburg it may be right to mention that Sir G. Prevost's
secretary, or some person who had the transcribing of Major (Colonel)
Macdonnell's (Macdonell's) official letter, must have inserted by
mistake the words 'In consequence of the commands of his Excellency.'
Of this there needs no stronger proof than that Major (Colonel)
Macdonnell (Macdonell) while he was in the heat of the battle,
received a private note from Sir G. dated from 'Flint's Inn at 9
o'clock,' repeating his orders not to make the attack; and even in the
first private letter which Sir G. wrote to Major Macdonnell (Colonel
Macdonell) after being informed of his success, he could not help
qualifying his admiration of the exploit with a remark that the latter
had _rather_ exceeded his instructions--(_Note._--Both of these letters
the author has seen"), vol. i. 140. Colonel Macdonell's explanation to
me of his taking this responsibility on himself was simply that he saw
that the fate of the whole of Upper Canada depended upon it. Colonel
Macdonell had received information that 5000 American troops were
moving up in the direction of Ogdensburg, and they, in fact, came up
a week after it was taken, under General Pike; but seeing the altered
aspect of affairs, they moved off, and fell back upon Sackett's
Harbour, anticipating a similar attack at that point.

Colonel Macdonell always spoke with much emotion of the gallant conduct
of a Captain Jenkins, a young officer under his command, who, although
he had both arms shattered by two successive shots, struggled on at the
head of his men until he swooned. He survived some years, but died of
the overcharge of blood to the head consequent on the loss of his limbs.

As Ogdensburg was a frontier town on the American side of the St
Lawrence, Sir G. Prevost authorised payment for any plunder by
the troops, but Colonel Macdonell received a certificate from the
inhabitants that they had not lost a single shilling--which must be
recorded to the credit of the Glengarry Highlanders under his command.

As I have already said, although Colonel Macdonell commanded the larger
force, and by an independent command, at the action of Chateaugay, his
name is not mentioned in Sir G. Prevost's dispatch, nor in Alison,
who apparently follows the official account (xix. 131, 7th ed.) In
Alison, De Saluberry is called, by a clerical error, De Salavary--such,
after all, is fame! saith Hyperion. Although his troops, raw levies,
broke, and Colonel De Saluberry was virtually a prisoner when Colonel
Macdonell came up to the support, it was through no fault of his
disposition of his men--(Colonel Macdonell always spoke of him as an
excellent officer, who behaved on the occasion in the most noble and
intrepid manner).

The American troops at Chateaugay are variously stated at 7000 to
5700 (Alison says, "4000 effective infantry and 2000 militia, and 10
guns," xix. 131). The British, 300 French Canadian militia, under De
Saluberry; 600 under Colonel Macdonell, and some Indians, without
artillery.

A full, but, Colonel Macdonell said, inaccurate account (from
imperfect information) will be found in Mr W. James' "Military
Occurrences," above referred to.

I extract the following passages, i. 307:--"The British advanced corps,
stationed near the frontiers, was commanded by Lieutenant-Colonel De
Saluberry of the Canadian Fencibles, and consisted of the two flank
companies of that corps and four companies of voltigeurs, and six
flank companies of embodied militia and Chateaugay chasseurs, placed
under the immediate orders of Lieutenant-Colonel Macdonell, late of
the Glengarrys, who so distinguished himself at Ogdensburg. The whole
of this force did not exceed 800 rank and file. There were also at the
post 172 Indians under Captain Lamotte." Colonel Macdonell's account
differed substantially. It has been already mentioned that he had
brought up his troops by a forced march the night before, and held
them under a separate command. I conclude with the following passage
as bearing out Colonel Macdonell's version:--"The Americans, although
they did not occupy one foot of the 'abatis,' nor Lieutenant-Colonel
De Saluberry retire one inch from the ground on which he had been
standing, celebrated this partial retiring as a retreat.... By way of
animating his little band when thus momentarily _pressed_" [Colonel
Macdonell's version was, that although the troops were driven back,
Colonel De Saluberry literally "refused to retire one inch himself,"
and virtually remained a prisoner until--] Colonel De Saluberry
ordered the bugleman to sound "the advance. This was heard by
Lieutenant-Colonel Macdonell, who thinking the Colonel was in want of
support, caused his own bugles to answer, and immediately advanced with
two ['six'] of his companies. He at the same time sent ten or twelve
buglemen into the adjoining woods with orders to separate ['widely'],
and blow with all their might. This little 'ruse de guerre' led the
Americans to believe that they had more thousands than hundreds to
contend with, and deterred them from even attempting to penetrate the
'abatis.'"

For the rest of the account I must refer my readers to Mr W. James'
"History," as above; though, if a complete and accurate account of
an engagement which probably saved British Canada were ever thought
desirable, Colonel Macdonell's commentaries (MS.) on the above and the
official accounts, would afford valuable supplementary information.[5]

  [5] The following corrections have been supplied to me by the
       Hon. L. D.:--"Lieut.-Colonel George Macdonell was born on
       the 12th August 1780, at St Johns, Newfoundland, where his
       father, Captain Macdonell, was stationed. He was the second
       son of Captain Macdonell (who had been one of the body-guard
       of Prince Charles), by his wife, Miss Leslie of Fetternear,
       Aberdeenshire. George was rated on the navy by the Admiral of
       the station, who was a personal friend of Captain Macdonell,
       and his name accordingly remained on the list for years, but
       he never joined. I believe he entered in 1795 the regiment
       raised by Lord Darlington, and afterwards served with the Duke
       of York in the war in Holland. He was, I know, at one time in
       the 8th infantry, for I remember Sir Greathed Harris saying
       that he was always a well-remembered and honoured officer
       in that regiment. He ultimately had the post of Inspecting
       Field-Officer in Canada."




                               TRADITION

                     PRINCIPALLY WITH REFERENCE TO

                   MYTHOLOGY AND THE LAW OF NATIONS.




                               TRADITION

                     PRINCIPALLY WITH REFERENCE TO

                   MYTHOLOGY AND THE LAW OF NATIONS.




                               CHAPTER I.

                       _THE LAW OF NATIONS._


The increasing number of essays, pamphlets, works, and reviews of
works on speculative subjects, with which the literature of England at
present teems, compels the conclusion that the public mind has been
greatly unsettled or strangely transformed since the days when John
Bull was the plain matter-of-fact old gentleman that Washington Irving
pleasantly described him.

Remembering the many sterling and noble qualities whimsically
associated with this practical turn of mind, it will be felt by many to
be a change for the worse. But if old English convictions, maxims, and
ways of thought have lost their meaning; if in fine it is true that the
mind of England has become unsettled, it says much for the practical
good sense of Englishmen that they should have overcome their natural
repugnances, and should so earnestly turn to the discussion of these
questions, not indeed with the true zest for speculation, but in the
practical conviction that it is in this arena that the battle of the
Constitution must be fought.

  There is, as it has been truly observed,[6] "an instinctive feeling
  that any speculation which affects this" (the speculation in
  question being the effect of the Darwinian theory on conscience),
  "must also affect, sooner or later, the practical principles and
  conduct of men in their daily lives. This naturally comes much
  closer to us than any question as to the comparative nearness of
  our kinship to the gorilla or the orang can be expected to do. _No
  great modification of opinion takes place with respect to the moral
  faculties, which does not ultimately and in some degree modify the
  ethical practice and political working of the society in which it
  comes to prevail._"

  [6] _Pall Mall Gazette_, April 12, 1871; article, "Mr Darwin on
       Conscience."

There is perhaps no question which lies more at the root of political
constitutions, and which must more directly determine the conduct of
states in their relations to each other, than the question whether or
not, or in what sense, there was such a thing as natural law, _i.e._ a
law antecedent to the formation of individual political societies, and
which is common to and binding on them all.

It may be worth while, therefore, to examine whether a stricter
discrimination may not be made between things which are sometimes
confounded, viz.:--The Law of Nations and International Law, natural
law and the state of nature; and even if the attempt at discrimination
should fail in exactitude, it may yet, by opening out fresh views,
contribute light to minds of greater precision, who may thus be enabled
to hit upon the exact truth.

This view was partially exposed in an article which was inserted in
the _Tablet_, September 28, 1861,[7] entitled "International Law and
the Law of Nations," and, all things considered, I do not think that I
can better consult the interests of my readers, than by reproducing an
extract from it here, as a convenient basis of operation from which to
advance into a somewhat unexplored country:--

  "It has been the fashion since Bentham's[8] time, to substitute
  the phrase 'International Law' for the 'Law of Nations,' as if
  they were convertible terms. The substitution, however, covers a
  distinction sufficiently important.

  "The 'Law of Nations' is an obligation which binds the consciences
  of nations to respect the eternal principle of justice in their
  relations with each other. 'International law' is the system of
  rules, precedents, and maxims accumulated in recognition of the
  eternal law. But as men may build a theatre or a gambling-house
  upon the foundations constructed for a religious edifice, and
  upon a stone consecrated for an altar, so has it been possible
  for diplomacy to substitute a system of chicanery for the simple
  laws which were intended to facilitate the intercourse of nations,
  and with such effect as in a great number of cases to place
  international law in contradiction with the law of nations--as,
  for instance, when in a certain case the law of nations says that
  it is wrong to invade a neighbour's territory, international law
  is made to say that it is lawful to invade in such a case, because
  such-and-such monarchs in past history have done so.

  "Practically the effect of the substitution is, that the sentiment
  of justice disappears, that wars which formerly were called unjust,
  are now called inevitable, so that good men, disheartened at the
  conflicting evidence of precedents, yield their sense of right
  and wrong, and defer to the adjudication of diplomatists. This is
  particularly satisfactory to the modern spirit which will admit
  nothing to be law which is superior to, and distinct from, that
  which the human intellect has determined to be law.

  "But the sense of right and wrong in good men is that which gives
  its whole efficacy to the law of nations. There is nothing else in
  the last resort, to restrain the ambition and passion of princes,
  but the reprobation of mankind--nothing but the fear of invading
  that "moral territory"[9] which even bad men find it necessary
  to conquer, '_dans l'ame des peuples ses voisins_.' On the other
  hand, the whole mass of precedents to which diplomatists appeal,
  which are rarely carefully collated with those which legists have
  accumulated and digested, is nothing but a veil which thinly covers
  the supremacy of might and the right of force.

  "In fact, the conventional deference which is paid to them, is at
  best only the hypocritical homage which force is constrained to pay
  to justice before it strikes its blow.

  "International law, therefore, as _accumulated in the precedents
  of diplomatists_, is a parasitical growth upon that tree which has
  its roots in the hearts of nations, and which may be compared to
  one of those old oaks under which kings used to sit and administer
  justice. It was a dream of Dodwell's that the 'law of nations was a
  divine revelation made to the family preserved in the ark.' In the
  grotesqueness and wildness of this theory we detect a true idea.
  The law of nations is an unwritten law, tradited in the memories
  of the people, or, so far as it is written, to be found in the
  works of writers on public law, like Grotius, whose authorities, as
  Sir J. Mackintosh remarks, are in great part, and very properly,
  made up of the sayings of the poets and orators of the world, 'for
  they address themselves to the general feelings and sympathies
  of mankind.' It is in this that the Scriptural saying about the
  people is so true--'But they will maintain the state of the world.'
  And it is a just observation, that 'the people are often wrong in
  their opinions, but in their sentiments rarely.' You may produce
  state papers and manifestoes, written with all the dexterity of
  Talleyrand, and the lying tact of Fouché, but you will not convince
  the people. You have your opportunity. The Liberal press of Europe,
  at this moment, may be said to be in possession of the whole field
  of political literature; nevertheless, nothing will prevent its
  being recorded in history,[10] that Victor Emmanuel in seizing
  upon the patrimony of St Peter was a robber, and his conquest an
  usurpation."

   [7] This article, and perhaps four or five others on miscellaneous
       subjects, written within a few weeks of the above date, were
       my only contributions to the _Tablet_, at that time owned and
       edited by my friend Mr J. E. Wallis, who, during some ten
       or twelve eventful years, continued to uphold the standard
       of Tradition, with singular ability and at great personal
       sacrifice.

   [8] "All that Bentham wrote on this subject ("International Law")
       is comprised within a comparatively small compass (Works,
       vol. ii. 535-560, iii. 200-611, ix. 58-382). But it would be
       unpardonable to omit all mention of a science which he was
       the means of _revolutionising_, and which, previously to his
       taking it in hand, had _not even received a proper distinctive
       name_."--John Hill Burton, "Benthamiana," p. 396. From
       Bentham's point of view, "International Law" is the proper
       distinctive name.

   [9] Montalembert, _Correspondant_, Aout, 1861.

  [10] C'est une des plus admirables choses de ce monde que jamais
       nul empire, et nul succès n'ont pu s'assujetir l'histoire
       et en imposer par elle à la posterité. Des generations de
       rois issus du même sang se sont succédé pendant dix siècles
       au gouvernement du même peuple, et malgré cette perpetuité
       d'intérêt et de commandement, ils n'ont pu couvrir aux yeux du
       monde les fautes de leurs pères et maintenir sur leur tombe le
       faux éclat de leur vie.--_Lacordaire_: vid. _Correspondant_,
       Nov. 1856.

I have observed that International Law is the more appropriate term
from Bentham's point of view, and as Bentham is the most redoubtable
opponent of natural right and the law of nations, I will quote him at
some length:--

  "Another man says that there is an eternal and immutable rule of
  right, and that that rule of right dictates so-and-so. And then
  he begins giving you his sentiments upon anything that comes
  uppermost; and these sentiments (you are to take it for granted)
  are so many branches of the eternal rule of right.... A great
  multitude of people are continually talking of the law of nature;
  and they go on giving you their sentiments about what is right and
  what is wrong, and these sentiments, you are to understand, are so
  many chapters and sections of the law of nature. Instead of the
  phrase, law of nature, you have sometimes law of reason, right
  reason, natural justice, natural equity, good order. Any of them
  will do equally well. This latter is most used in politics. The
  three last are much more tolerable than the others, because they
  do not very explicitly claim to be anything more than phrases.
  They insist, but feebly, upon the being looked upon as so many
  positive standards of themselves, and seem content to be taken,
  upon occasion, for phrases expressive of the conformity of the
  thing in question to the proper standard, whatever that may be. On
  most occasions, however, it will be better to say utility--utility
  is clearer, as referring more especially to pain and pleasure."

In truth, although Mr Bentham indulges a pleasant ridicule, yet the
ridicule and the thing ridiculed being eliminated, the fact that there
is a belief in a law of nature remains untouched. It is probable,
therefore, that appeals will be frequent to what is believed to be
"the eternal and immutable rule of right," "to the law of nature,"
&c., _i.e._ each and every individual, all mankind distributively, so
appeal, because there is a deep conviction among mankind, severally
and collectively, that there is this eternal and immutable rule of
right, blurred and obscured though it may be, or concealed behind a
cloud of human passion and error: and most men, moreover, will have an
instinct which will tell them when an individual is substituting his
own ideas for the eternal and immutable law,--as, for instance, when at
the conclusion of the sentence quoted, Mr Bentham seeks to substitute
his own peculiar crochet, as embodied in the word "utility" (which may
be used indifferently in the sense of the absolute or relative, the
supernatural or the natural, the immediate or the remote utility), as
synonymous with "natural justice," "natural equity," and "good order."

So, again, when Mr Bentham comes to the discussion of "International
Law," after pointing out, very properly, that whereas internal laws
have always a super-ordinate authority to enforce them, "that when
nations fall into disputes there is no such super-ordinate impartial
authority to bind them to conformity with any fixed rules," Mr Bentham
goes on to say, "though there is no distinct official authority capable
of enforcing right principles of international law, there is a power
bearing with more or less influence on the conduct of all nations, as
of all individuals, however transcendently potent they may be, this
is the power of public opinion." Public opinion! not then of public
opinion threatening coercion, for in that case we should have "a
super-ordinate impartial authority binding to conformity with fixed
rules," but public opinion as a moral expression. If, however, you take
from it the expression of right and wrong, of natural justice, and of
the eternal and immutable law; if its expression is not reprobation,
and, so to speak, a fore-judgment of the retribution of the Most High,
but only dissatisfaction or the mere pronouncement of the inutility
of the action, whatever it may be, what even with Benthamites can be
its efficacy and worth? The vanquished say to their conqueror, the
multitudes to their oppressor, this oppression is not according to
utility. Utility! he replies, useful to whom? To you! Fancy the look
of Prince Bismarck as he would reply to such an address. What are
men if you take away the notion of right and wrong but "the flies of
a summer?" How different was the expression of Napoleon after his
ill-usage of Pius VII., "J'ai frissonè les nations." Napoleon had a
conscience,[11] and in his moments of calm reflection felt in its full
force the reprobation of mankind.

  [11] _Vide_ "Sentiment de Napoleon I. sur Le Christianisme,"
       d'apres des temoignages recueillis par feu le Chevalier de
       Beauterne. Nouvelle edition, par M. ----; Bray, Paris, 1860.

When Bentham, still speaking of public opinion, adds:--

  "The power in question has, it is true, various degrees of
  influence. The strong are better able to put it at defiance than
  the weak. Countries which, being the most populous, are likely also
  to be the strongest, carry a certain support of public opinion
  with all their acts _whatever they may be_. But still it is the
  only power which can be moved to good purposes in this case; and,
  however high some may appear to be above it, there are in reality
  none who are not more or less subject to its influence."

Here Bentham is again in imagination gathering men together like the
flies of a summer,--the force of their opinion depending on their
numbers. But what, again, is the force of all this buzzing if it is
the mere expression of "pleasure," or "pain," of satisfaction or
dissatisfaction in the masses? Conquerors may not always be relentless,
they may at times exhibit some sympathy with their fellow men; but as
a rule they are so dominated by some one idea or passion, or at best
are so absorbed in the interests of their own people, as to be deaf to
such appeals. Prince Bismarck's sentiments towards France during the
late war are pretty well known; but it is said that after the conflict
was over, and when France was in the throes of its terrible internecine
conflict, he was asked, "What is your Excellency's opinion of the
present state of France?" he replied, "Das ist mit ganz wurst," which
is equivalent to "I don't care two straws about it."[12] How are men
of this stamp to be affected by any exclamations of pleasure or pain?
If on the contrary it is the voice of reprobation which they hear, and
if in their case the saying "vox populi vox Dei" is felt to have its
full application, there is then a public opinion expressed which is
calculated to strike the conscience and inspire terror, and that is
quite another matter.

  [12] _Neue Freie Presse_ of Vienna. _Pall Mall Gazette_, May 4,
       1871.

De Tocqueville, from his own point of view, puts the argument in favour
of natural justice very forcibly, and in a certain construction would
express the identical truth for which I contend.

  "I hold it to be an impious and an execrable maxim that,
  politically speaking, a people has a right to do whatever it
  pleases; and yet I have asserted that all authority originates in
  the will of the majority. Am I, then, in contradiction with myself?
  A general law which bears the name of Justice has been made and
  sanctioned, not only by a majority of this or that people, but by
  a majority of mankind. The rights of every people are consequently
  confined within the limits of what is just. A nation may be
  considered in the light of a jury which is empowered to represent
  society at large, and to apply the great general law of justice.
  Ought such a jury, which represents society, to have more power
  than the society in which the laws it applies originate."--_M. de
  Tocqueville's "Democracy in America_," ii. 151.

Although M. de Tocqueville's view does not go to the full length of
the argument, still, regarded in this light, the voice of the majority
of mankind, or of any large masses of mankind, has a very different
significance from what it bears in the writings of Bentham.

Let us now consider the doctrines of Bentham in their more recent
exposition.

The _Pall Mall Gazette_, Oct. 6, 1870, says:--

  "Laws have been described as definitions of pre-existing rights,
  relations between man and man, reflections of divine ordinances,
  anything but what they really are,--forms of organised constraint.
  It says little for the assumed clear-headedness of Englishmen, that
  they have very generally preferred the ornate jargon of Hooker, to
  the accurate and intelligible account of law and government which
  forms the basis of Bentham's juridical system."

It says much, however, for their strong political sense and sagacity.
If this is the true and only description of law, it is tantamount to
saying that law is force and force is law; in other words, that the
commands of a legitimate government need not be regarded when it is
weak, but that the enactments of power must always be obeyed, however
it is acquired, and whether its decrees are in accordance with right
or contrary to justice. It is a ready justification for tyranny,
equally sanctioning the "lettres de cachet" of the ancient regime, and
the proscriptions of the Convention, equally at hand for the National
Assembly at Versailles, or for the Commune at Paris. But however much
it may be disguised, it is the only alternative definition of law, when
once you say that law is not of divine ordinance and tradition. If no
regard is to be had to the definition of right, but the term law is to
be applied to any adequate act of repression, there is in truth nothing
but force. Yet why should force adequate to its purpose seek to cloak
itself in the forms of law? I suppose the question must have been put
and answered before; but the answer can only be because law is felt to
import a totally different set of ideas from force.

It is necessary, more especially now that the utilitarian theory is
dominant, to enter a protest according to the turn the argument may
take, but in the end nothing more can be said than was said by Cicero
in the century before our Lord:--

  "Est enim unum jus, quo devincta est hominum societas, et quod lex
  constituit una; quæ lex est recta ratio imperandi atque prohibendi:
  quam qui ignorat is est injustus, sive est illa scripta uspiam,
  sive nusquam. Quod si justitia est obtemperatio scriptis legibus
  institutisque populorum, et si, ut iidem dicunt utilitate omnia
  metienda sunt, negliget leges, easque perrumpit, si poterit, is,
  qui sibi eam rem fructuosam putabit fore. Ita fit, ut nulla sit
  omnino justitia; si neque naturâ est, eaque propter utilitatem
  constituitur, utilitate alia convellitur."--_De Legibus_, i. 15.

It is only upon this construction that the Law of Nations can be said
to exist, as "there is no superordinate authority to enforce it." It
is accordingly asserted that the law of nations is not really law.
But is not this only when it is regarded from the point of view of
"organised constraint?"[13] If it is regarded as a divine ordinance,
or even as under the divine sanction, then it is law in a much higher
degree than simple internal or municipal law, for it more immediately
and directly depends upon this sanction; and hence nations may more
confidently appeal to heaven for the redress of wrong _here below_
than individuals--seeing that, as Bossuet somewhere says, God rewards
and chastises nations in this world, since it is not according to His
divine dispensation to reward them corporately in the next.

  [13] "Utiles esse autem opiniones has quis neget, quum intelligat
       quam multa firmentur jure jurando, quantæ salutis sint
       f[oe]derum religiones? quam multos divini supplicii metus
       a scelere revocaverit? quamque sancta sit societas civium
       inter ipsos diis immortalibus interpositis tum judicibus tum
       testibus?"--Cicero, _De Legibus_, ii. 7.

More recently, however, the extraordinary successes and subversions
which we have witnessed during this last year, have brought the _Pall
Mall Gazette_ face to face with problems pressing for immediate and
anxious settlement; and in a series of articles it has discussed the
question of the law of nations with much depth and earnestness.

I there observe phrases which I can hardly distinguish from those I
have just employed. Combating Mr Mill's view, the writer says:--

  "Nobody knows better than he that International Law is not really
  law, and why it is not law; but he seems to have jumped to the
  conclusion that it is therefore the same thing as morality....
  There cannot, in truth, be any closer analogy than that which
  we drew the other day between the law of nations and the law of
  honour, and between public war and private duelling." [This is
  upon an assumption that there is nothing "essentially immoral
  in the code of honour," as "to a great extent it coincided with
  morality."] "But it differed from simple morality in that its
  precepts were enforced, not by general disapprobation, but by
  a challenge to the offender by anybody who supposed himself to
  be aggrieved by the offence. The possible result always was,
  that the champion of the law might himself be shot, and this was
  the weakness of the system. But this is exactly the weakness of
  international law, and the _original idea_ at the _basis_ both of
  _public war_ and of private duelling was precisely the same,--_that
  God Almighty somehow interposed_ in favour of the combatant _who
  had the juster cause_. There is clear historical evidence that
  the feuds which became duels were supposed to be fought out under
  divine supervision, _just as battles_ were believed to be decided
  by the God of battles."

I believe that if history could be re-written from this point of view
that many startling revelations would be brought to light. It is
with reluctance that I turn from the points upon which I approach to
agreement with the writer, to those upon which we fundamentally differ.

And here I must remark, that "the accurate and intelligible account
of law and government which forms the basis of Bentham's juridical
system"[14] (_supra_, p. 9), is not distinguishable from, and in any
case ultimately depends upon, his theory of utility as a foundation,
or, as his later disciples say, a "standard" of morals. Such a standard
is the negation of all morality; and if it ever came to stand alone
every notion of morals would be obliterated, because, being open to
every interpretation, and incapable of supplying any definite rule
itself, it would abrogate every other, and under a plausible form
abandon mankind to its lusts and passions.

  [14] "From _utility_, then, we may denominate a principle that
       may serve to preside over and govern, as it were, such
       arrangements as shall be made of the several institutions, or
       combinations of institutions, that compose the matter of this
       science." Bentham's "Fragment on Government," xliii., and at
       p. 45, the principle of utility is declared "all-sufficient,"
       ... that "principle which furnishes us with that reason, which
       alone depends not upon any higher reason, but which is itself
       the _sole and all-sufficient reason_ for _every point_ of
       practice whatsoever."

In the _Pall Mall Gazette_, April 12, 1871, an article entitled
"Mr Darwin on Conscience," discusses Benthamism with reference to
Darwinism. There is a fitness in this which does not immediately appear.

The writer says:--

  "What is called the question of the moral sense is really two:
  how the moral faculty is acquired, and how it is regulated. Why
  do we obey conscience or feel pain in disobeying it? And why does
  conscience prescribe _one kind_ of actions and condemn another
  kind? To put it more technically, there is the question of the
  subjective existence of conscience, and there is the question of
  its objective prescriptions."

I will avail myself of this distinction, and, setting aside the
questions referring to the "subjective existence of conscience," I
will ask attention only to "its objective prescriptions." Assuming,
then, the operations of conscience in the individual man, there will
necessarily also have been in the course of history some outward
expression of this inward feeling in maxims, precepts, and laws, if not
also reminiscences of primeval revelations and divine commands.

It will be true, therefore, to say, without touching the deeper
question of the foundation of morals, that there has been a tradition
of morals which cannot but have had its influence in all ages upon
the "social feelings" in which, according to the _Pall Mall Gazette_,
"it will always be necessary to lay the basis of conscience." Now
is this tradition of morals identical with utilitarian precept? If
the tradition of morals is identical with "the greatest happiness
principle," then that principle was no discovery of Bentham's,[15]
neither can Benthamism be regarded as "the new application of an old
principle." Bentham in that case simply informed mankind that they had
been talking prose all their lives without knowing it! Benthamism,
however, in point of fact, is felt as a new principle precisely in so
far as it discards the old morality. The question which I ask is, how
does it account for these old notions of morality obtaining among
mankind? How is it that mankind has so long and so persistently,
both in their notion of what was good and their sense of what was
evil, departed from the line of their true interests, as disclosed
in the utilitarian philosophy? If the history of man is what the
Scriptures tell us it was, the manner in which this has come about is
sufficiently explained; and there is no mystery as to the notion of
sin, the necessity of expiation, the restraints and limitations of
natural desires, the excellence of contemplation, and the obligation
of sacrifices and prayers. Now, if the history of mankind is not to be
invoked in explanation, it is difficult to see how these notions should
not conflict with any theory and plan of life based on a principle of
utility.[16] It is not unnatural, therefore, that the utilitarians
should turn to Darwinism and other such kindred systems for the
solution of their difficulties.

  [15] Bentham speaks of his enunciation of "the greatest happiness
       principle" in the following terms:--"Throughout the whole
       horizon of morals and of politics, the consequences were
       glorious and vast. It might be said without danger of
       exaggeration, that they who sat in darkness had seen a great
       light." With reference to this Lord Macaulay says, "We blamed
       the utilitarians for claiming the credit of a discovery,
       when they had merely stolen that morality (the morality of
       the gospel) and spoiled it in the stealing. They have taken
       the precept of Christ _and left the motive_, and they demand
       the praise of a most wonderful and beneficial invention,
       when all they have done has been to make a most useful maxim
       useless _by separating it from its sanction. On religious
       principles_ it is true that every individual will best promote
       his own happiness by promoting the happiness of others. _But
       if religious considerations be left out of the question it
       is not true._ If we do not reason on the supposition of a
       future state, where is the motive? If we do reason on that
       supposition, where is the discovery?"--_Vide Lord Macaulay's
       Essays on "Westminster Reviewer's Defence of Mill," and
       "The Utilitarian Theory of Government" in Lord Macaulay's
       "Miscellaneous Writings._"

  [16] There was a way in which the argument was formerly stated
       by utilitarians which was much more plausible, but which
       I observe is now seldom if ever resorted to by the modern
       exponents of this theory. The _Pall Mall Gazette_, April 12,
       1871, says: "The now prevailing doctrine" that there is no
       absolute standard of right and wrong, but "that the right and
       wrong of an action or a motive depend upon the influence of
       the action, or the motive upon the general good." The argument
       to which I refer is thus stated by Mr W. O. Manning in his
       "Commentaries on the Law of Nations," 1839:--"Everything
       around us proves that God designed the happiness of His
       creatures. It is the will of God that man should be happy.
       To ascertain the will of God regarding any action, we have,
       therefore, to consider the tendency of that action to promote
       or diminish human happiness," p. 59. It is perfectly true
       that man was created by God for happiness, and that ultimate
       happiness, if he does not forfeit it, is the end to which
       he is still destined. It is moreover true that even in this
       world he may enjoy a conditional and comparative happiness.
       How it is that this happiness cannot be complete and perfect
       here below is precisely the secret which tradition reveals to
       him. It is important, from the point of view of happiness,
       both for individuals and nations, that the truth of this
       revelation should be ascertained, and that the conditions
       and limitations within which happiness is possible should
       be known, otherwise life will be consumed in chimerical
       pursuits of the unattainable, and in the case of nations will
       be certain to end, at some time or another, in catastrophes
       such as we have recently witnessed in Paris. In an enlarged
       sense it is therefore true to say that the divine will has
       regard to utility; but the view has this implied condition,
       that what we regard as utility should in the first place be
       conformable to what is directly or indirectly known to be the
       divine precept and command; and, on the other hand, if no
       advertence is made to revelation or the tradition of the human
       race, what is called utility, however large and disinterested
       the speculation may be, it can never be more than the view of
       an individual or of a section of mankind, which it is highly
       probable that other individuals and sections of mankind,
       looking at the same facts, from a different point of view,
       will see reason to contradict.

The _Pall Mall Gazette_, April 12, 1871, says:--

  "Between Mr Darwin and utilitarians, as utilitarians, there is
  no such quarrel as he would appear to suppose. The narrowest
  utilitarian could say little more than Mr Darwin says (ii.
  393):--'As all men desire their own happiness, praise or blame is
  bestowed on actions and motives according as they tend to this end;
  and as happiness is an essential part of the general good, the
  greatest happiness principle indirectly serves as a nearly safe
  standard of right and wrong.'"

Now, there is nothing in this reiteration of Benthamism which has not
been thrice refuted by Lord Macaulay in the Essays above referred to. I
append an extract more exactly to the point.[17]

  [17] If "the magnificent principle" is thus stated, "mankind ought
       to pursue their greatest happiness," it must be borne in
       mind that there are persons whose interests are opposed to
       the greatest happiness of mankind. Lord Macaulay's opponent
       replies, "ought is not predicable of such persons; for the
       word ought has no meaning unless it be used in reference to
       some interest." Lord Macaulay replied, "that interest was
       synonymous with greatest happiness; and that, therefore,
       IF the word _ought_ has no meaning unless used with
       reference to interest, then, to say that mankind ought to
       pursue their greatest happiness, is simply to say that the
       greatest happiness is the greatest happiness; that every
       individual pursues his own happiness; that either what he
       thinks his happiness must coincide with the greatest happiness
       of society or not; that if what he thinks his happiness
       coincides with the greatest happiness of society, he will
       attempt to promote the greatest happiness of society whether
       he ever heard of the "greatest happiness principle" or not;
       and that, by the admission of the Westminster Reviewer,
       IF _his_ happiness _is inconsistent with_ the
       greatest happiness of society, there is no reason why he
       should promote the greatest happiness of society. Now, that
       there are individuals who think _that_ for their happiness
       which is not for the greatest happiness of society, is
       evident.... The question is not whether men have _some_
       motives for promoting the greatest happiness, but whether
       the _stronger_ motives be those which impel them to promote
       the greatest happiness."--_Lord Macaulay's "Miscellaneous
       Writings," Utilitarian Theory of Government_, pp. 177-9.

I refer to it because it will be interesting to see how the argument
looks in its application to Darwinism.

It will be seen that if the conditions of unlimited enjoyment anywhere
existed, Lord Macaulay's strictures would lose something of their
force. If, indeed, there was superabundance and superfluity of
everything for all in this life, then anything which conduces to the
satisfaction of the individual would add to, or at least would not
detract from, the sum of happiness of all mankind. But unless you can
show this--if even the reverse of this is the truth--then "the greatest
happiness" will be in proportion to the self-abnegation of those who
possess more, or have the greatest faculties or facilities of producing
more.

Now, if there is one view more prominent than another in Mr Darwin's
work, it is embodied in the phrase to which he has given a new sense
and significance, "the struggle for existence." In the midst of this
struggle for existence, what is there in the greatest happiness
principle to bind the individual to abnegation? Why should he postpone
his certain and immediate gratification to the remote advantage of
others, or of distant and contingent advantage to himself? If, on
the other hand, he regards the transitoriness of the enjoyment, and
balances it against the fixity and eternity of the consequences, the
argument takes altogether different proportions, and the temptation to
enjoyment is inversely to the intensity of the struggle for existence.

I will take another test of Benthamism by Darwinism, which will
more exactly bring out the argument for which I contend. We have
a traditional horror of infanticide which revolts all our best
feelings and shocks our principles. But if Mr Darwin has demonstrated
this struggle for existence existing from all time; if also we are
disembarrassed from all advertence to another world; if, further,
Mr Malthus, before Mr Darwin, has shown reason to believe that
over-population is the cause of half the evils of this life, what is
there in Benthamite principles which should prevent our sacrificing
these unconscious innocents to the greatest happiness of the greatest
number? Nothing, except the horror we should excite among mankind still
imbued with the old superstitions! A person who did not hold to Mr
Malthus' views might demur; but a Malthusian, who was also a disciple
of Mr Bentham, could only hold back because his feelings were better
than his principles. A disciple of Mr Darwin's would probably stand
aloof, and would merely see in our notions an artificial interference
with the working of his theory, preventing the struggle for existence
going on according to natural laws. This seems to me to be almost said
in the same article from the _Pall Mall Gazette_, from which I have
quoted. Mr Darwin, in his "Origin of Species" (p. 249), has pointed out
that "we ought to admire the savage instinct which leads the queen-bee
to destroy her young daughters as soon as born, because this is for
the good of the community." And in his new book he says, firmly and
unmistakably (i. 73), that "if men were reared under precisely the
same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our
unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty
to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile
daughters, and no one would think of interfering." The _Pall Mall_
continues--

  "If, from one point of view, this is apt to shock a _timorous_
  and _unreflecting_ mind, by asserting that the most cherished of
  our affections might have been, under _certain_ circumstances, a
  vicious piece of self-indulgence, and its place in the scale of
  morality taken by what is _now_ the most atrocious kind of crime;
  nevertheless, from another point of view, such an assertion is
  as reassuring as the most absolute of moralists could desire,
  for it is tantamount to saying that the foundations of morality,
  the distinctions of right and wrong, are deeply laid in the very
  conditions of social existence; that there is, in the face of
  these conditions, a positive and definite difference between the
  moral and the immoral, the virtuous and the vicious, the right and
  the wrong, in the actions of individuals partaking of that social
  existence."

This is very well. It is so _now_, because of the traditional
sentiments and principles which still retain their force--but how long
will it continue?

I invite attention to the following passage from Mr Hepworth Dixon's
"New America" (vol. i. p. 312, 6th edition), which I must say struck me
very forcibly when I read it. He narrates a conversation which he had
with Brigham Young on the subject of incest:--"Speaking for himself,
not for the church, he (Brigham Young) said he saw _none at all_
(_i.e._ no objection at all). He added, however, that he would not do
it himself,--'my prejudices prevent me.'" Upon which Mr Hepworth Dixon
observes--

  "This _remnant_ of an old feeling brought from the Gentile world,
  _and this alone_, would seem to prevent the saints (Mormons) from
  rushing into the higher forms of incest. How long will these
  Gentile sentiments remain in force? 'You will find here,' said
  elder Stenhouse to me, talking on another subject, 'polygamists of
  the third generation. When these boys and girls grow up and marry,
  you will have in these valleys the _true feeling_ of patriarchal
  life. The _old world is about us yet_, and we are always thinking
  of what people may say in the Scottish hills and the Midland
  shires.'"

Here, and in the previous extract, we seem to catch glimpses of what
the morality of the future is likely to be, at any rate in such matters
as infanticide and incest, if old notions are to be discarded, and
men are left, in each generation, to no higher rule than their own
individual calculation as to pleasure and pain, or to the prevailing
sense or determination of the community as to what the conditions of
utility may permit.

The nineteenth century is now verging on its decline, and of it, too,
may we say that it has been better than its principles. Yet, in spite
of its philanthropy, and its aspirations for good, the destructive
principles which it has nursed are rapidly gaining on its instincts:
and if we may not truly at this moment paint its glories, as they have
been depicted, I think by Alexandre Dumas, as "the livery of heroism,
turned up with assassination and incest," is the time very remote when
the description will apply?




                              CHAPTER II.

                       _THE LAW OF NATURE._


But underlying the question of the law of nations, and determining it,
is the question whether or not there is a law of nature--a rule of
right and wrong, independent of, and anterior to, positive legislative
or international enactment. To prevent misconception, however, as
to the scope of the inquiry, it is as well that I should state that
I am only regarding the law of nature as the law of conscience (by
which the Gentiles "were a law unto themselves," Rom. ii. 14), in so
far as it has manifested itself in laws and maxims; and the question
I am here concerned with is, whether in any sense which history can
take cognizance of, there was a rule of right and wrong previous to
legislative enactment?

At the first glance, the question would seem sufficiently disposed
of by saying that men never were in a state of nature; which is true
in this sense, that mankind never formed a multitude of isolated
individuals, or a promiscuous herd of men and women. A totally
different solution supposes a state of nature; but which, whether it
depicts it as a golden age or an age of barbarism, still contemplates
mankind in this state as a mere congeries of individuals, without law,
or else without the necessity of law--in either case an aggregate of
isolated individuals, eventually to be brought into the state of civil
society by a social compact.

Now my intention is not to combat this view--which at the present
moment may be considered to be exploded--but to account for it.

I think that I shall do something towards clearing up this mystery by
pointing out that this latter solution, although in great vogue with
the publicists of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, is traced
beyond them to the classical times, and was derived by them through the
tradition of the Roman law from Paganism. A theory of the lawyers, and
a theory of the philosophers, concreted with a true but distorted fact
in tradition in order to produce this belief, viz., that society was
founded by a contract among men who were originally equal.[18]

  [18] It will be seen, later on, in what this view differs from Sir
       Henry Maine's.

I shall in a subsequent chapter state to what extent I believe it to
be true that society was founded upon a contract, and also the way in
which this impression was confirmed, from the actual circumstances
of the formation of the early communities of Greece and Italy; and I
shall then examine the true tradition, such as I believe it to be, of
a state of nature associated with the reminiscence of a golden age,
as contrasted with the distinct yet parallel tradition of a state of
nature identified with a state of barbarism (_vide_ ch. vii. and ch.
xiii.)

This latter tradition I believe to have been a recollection of that
period of temporary privation after the Flood, when mankind clung to
the caverns and the mountains (_vide_ p. 137), until, incited by
the example of Noah, they were brought into the plains, and instructed
in the arts of husbandry by the patriarch; and the notion of the
primitive equality[19] of condition I believe to have originated in
the Bacchanalian traditions of the same patriarch.[20]

  [19] In all the Diluvian commemorative festivals, to which I shall
       draw attention (ch. xi.), there is one day set apart for the
       commemoration of this primitive equality, accompanied with
       Bacchanalian festivities and ceremonials.

  [20] Sir H. Maine ("Ancient Law," p. 95) says, "Like all other
       deductions from the hypothesis of a law natural, and like the
       belief itself in a law of nature, it was languidly assented
       to, until it passed out of the possession of the lawyers into
       that of the literary men of the eighteenth century, and the
       public which sat at their feet. With them it became the most
       distinct tenet of their creed, and was even regarded as the
       summary of all the others."

If we start with a belief in the primitive equality of conditions, the
only way out of the mesh is apparently by a theory of a compact.

  "From the Roman law downwards," says Sir G. C. Lewis, "there has
  been a strong tendency among jurists to deduce recognised rights
  and obligations from a supposed, but non-existing contract. When
  an express contract exists, the legal rights and duties which it
  creates are in general distinct and well-defined. Hence, in cases
  where it is wished that similar legal consequences should be drawn,
  which come within the spirit of the rules applicable to a contract,
  though they do not themselves involve any contract, the lawyer cuts
  the knot by saying that a contract is presumed, that there is a
  contract by intendment of law, that there are certain rights and
  obligations "_quasi ex contractu_." Thus the Roman law held that a
  guardian was bound to his ward by a _quasi_ contract."--_Sir G. C.
  Lewis, "On the Methods of Observation, &c., in Politics_," i. 423;
  "_On the Social Compact_," pp. 424-431.

It is not difficult to see how such a fiction of the law would tend to
give shape and system to the vague tradition as to the fact among the
populace.

The way in which the philosopher came to his conclusion was somewhat
more complex. It will have been seen that the notion of the state of
nature and the social compact was, among the ancients, in the main, a
figment of the imagination, and not a tradition. But there was also
a tradition of a law of nature which did not at all correspond to a
state of license, of equality, and of barbarism, such as the state of
nature was conceived to be. It was, on the contrary, a law of decorum
and restraint. What, then, the Roman probably meant by the law of
nature was a reminiscence of a primitive revelation, or a tradition
of the maxims of right and wrong by which men were guided in their
relations to one another, when fresh from the hand of God--"_a diis
recentes_"--when family life still subsisted, and before men had
settled down into states and communities. It was not a law of nature
as nature then was, but an aspiration after a lost rule of life, as
after a higher standard, and an attempt to trace it back, through the
corruption of mankind. Dim and uncertain as these notions were, they
were not without their influence.

But their ideas as to the cosmogony were more shadowy still. When,
then, in reasoning from a law of nature to a state of nature, mankind
discovered that they knew or remembered nothing of their origin, or
of the history of the human race, except indirectly through legendary
lore, they then had recourse to the philosophers. These latter then
did what philosophers incline to do in such cases of difficulty. They
regarded the existing state of things, and finding it to be artificial,
they, by a process of abstraction, resolved it into its elements,
and, having thus reduced society into an assemblage of individuals,
substituted their last analysis for the commencement of all things. In
this analysis they found men, what historically and in fact they had
never been, alike free, equal, and independent.

The theory of the social compact among men individually free and
equal was in the main a fiction, started _à posteriori_ to account
for relations otherwise obscure, or, as Sir Henry Maine explains,
to facilitate modifications which were felt to be desirable; and we
cannot be astonished that Paganism should take this view, unless we are
prepared to believe that the traditions truly embodying the history
of the world were more direct, vivid, and potential than I suppose
them to have been. It is at least remarkable, that in proportion as
men lose their faith, they fall back, as if by some necessary law,
upon some theory which directly or indirectly contemplates mankind
as a collection of atoms; and if ever society should lose again the
history of its origin, as would happen if ever infidelity were to gain
complete ascendancy, it would return by the same processes to the
same conclusion. But however sceptical individual minds may become,
or however general may be the disposition to reject or ignore the
scriptural narrative, the general framework of its statements is now
too firmly embedded in the belief of mankind to be easily overthrown.

The notion of a social compact, in more recent times, obtained a
certain credence[21] so long as the discussion was confined to Hobbes,
Locke, and their disciples. And it must be borne in mind that this
is a very taking theory, a ready and convenient starting point, and
conformable to much that is true in history and politics. But it is
long since exploded; and even the fervid advocacy of Rousseau, in an
age peculiarly predisposed for its reception, could not secure for it
even temporary recognition among mankind; and why? Because, whenever
the discussion cools, men will inevitably ask each other the question,
If such a compact took place, where shall we locate it consistently
with the evidence recorded in Genesis? Remove the evidence in Genesis,
and such a theory becomes at once a tenable and plausible conjecture.

  [21] "The earlier advocates of the doctrine of the social compact
       maintained it on the ground of its _actual existence_.
       They asserted that this account of the origin of political
       societies was _historically true_. Thus Locke, &c."--_Sir G.
       C. Lewis, "Meth. of Reasoning in Pol._" i. p. 429.

As I shall have occasion, later on, to come into collision with Sir
Henry Maine upon some points, I have the greater satisfaction here in
invoking his testimony. This acute and learned writer ("Ancient Law,"
p. 90) regrets that the Voltairean prejudices of the last century
prevented reference "to the only primitive records worth studying--the
early history of the Jews[22].... One of the few characteristics which
the school of Rousseau had in common with the school of Voltaire was an
utter disdain of all religious antiquities, and more than all of those
of the Hebrew race. It is well known that it was a point of honour with
the reasoners of that day to assume, not merely that the institutions
called after Moses were not divinely dictated, ... but that they
and the entire Pentateuch were a gratuitous forgery executed after
the return from the Captivity. Debarred, therefore, from one chief
security against speculative delusion, the philosophers of France, in
their eagerness to escape from what they deemed a superstition of the
priests, flung themselves headlong into a superstition of the lawyers."

  [22] "The only reliable materials which we possess, besides the
       Pentateuch, for the history of the period which it embraces,
       consist of some fragments of Berosus and Manetho, an epitome
       of the early Egyptian history of the latter, a certain number
       of Egyptian and Babylonian inscriptions, and two or three
       valuable papyri."--_Rawlinson, Bampton Lectures._ Oxford,
       1859, ii. 55.




                              CHAPTER III.

                         _PRIMITIVE LIFE._


The scriptural narrative seems to establish:--(1.) That human society
did not commence with the fortuitous concurrence of individuals, but
that, though originating with a single pair, for the purposes of
practical inquiry it commences with a group of families--the family of
Noah and his sons, together with their families, and whose dispersion
in other families is subsequently recorded. (2.) That men were not
primitively in a state of savagery, barbarism, and ignorance of civil
life; but that, on the contrary, it is presumable that Noah and his
family brought with them out of the ark the traditions and experiences
of two thousand years, and, not to speak of special revelations, the
arts of civil life and acquaintance with cities. (3.) That, although
everything in the early state of mankind would have led to dispersion,
and although there is mention of one great and complete dispersion,
yet this dispersion of mankind was a dispersion of families and not of
individuals.

In all our speculations, therefore, as to society and government, it is
the family and not the individual whom we must regard as the elementary
constituent.

Moreover, so long as family government sufficed, there was nothing but
the family. The state would have existed only in germ (_vide infra_,
p. 341), and would have remained thus inchoate even during that
subsequent period when families were affiliated in tribal connection,
though not yet coalesced into tribal union. It is my impression, that
the period during which family government sufficed, continued much
longer than is generally supposed; for, until the world became peopled
and crowded, everything led to dispersion and the continuance of the
pastoral state of life. From the necessities of pastoral life, mankind
in early times could not have been gregarious--herds would have become
intermixed, keep would have become short, the broad plains were spread
out before them;[23] _e.g._ Gen. chap. xiii.--

  "But Lot also, who was with Abraham, had flocks of sheep, and herds
  and tents. 6. Neither was the land able to bear them, that they
  might dwell together. 7. Whereupon there arose a strife between the
  herdsmen of Abraham and Lot; and at that time the Canaanite and the
  Perizzite dwelt in that country. 8. Abraham therefore said, Let
  there be no quarrel. 9. Behold the whole land is before thee."[24]

  [23] I indicated this view in a pamphlet, "Inviolability of
       Property by the State, by an English Landlord." 1866.

  [24] Again Esau and Jacob separated, after the death of the
       patriarch Isaac, because their stock in herds and flocks had
       so increased that, according to the scriptural phrase, "it
       was more than they might dwell together," and further, "the
       land would not bear them because of their cattle."--Gen. chap,
       xxxvi.; _Vide_ "Pinkerton, Voy." i. 528.

       Writing with reference to the Hamitic dynasty, founded at
       Babylon by Nimrod (_vide_ Rawlinson, Anc. Mon.), and the
       conquests of Kudur-Lagamer, identified by Rawlinson as
       Chedor-Laomer, Mr Brace adds ("Ethnology," p. 28):--"This
       at a period, as Professor Rawlinson remarks, when the kings
       of Egypt had never ventured beyond their borders, and when
       no monarch in Asia held dominion over more than a few petty
       tribes and a few hundred miles of territory."--_Vide_ ch.
       xiii. "A Golden Age."

It is scarcely to be believed, that in such a state of society there
would have been feuds, in the sense of inherited or hereditary
quarrels, but at most contentions for particular localities; in which
case the weaker or the discomfited party would have pushed on to other
ground. There was no long contest, because there was nothing worth
contesting. It has been noticed that only the highly civilised man, and
the savage who has tasted blood, love fighting for the mere sake and
ardour of the conflict. The simple barbarian does not fight until he is
attacked, neither do the wild animals of the desert; their ferocity is
limited and regulated by the necessity and the provocation. It is the
exception, rather than the rule, for animals to fight among themselves.
It is not in the nature of man or beast to fight without a reason.
Accordingly, there is no such fomenter of war as war. Carver notices
that the wars carried on between the Indian nations are principally on
motives of revenge, and, when not on motives of revenge, their reasons
for going to war are "in general more rational and just than such as
are fought by Europeans, &c."--_Carver's "Travels in North America,"_
pp. 351, 297.[25]

  [25] Such seems, at a comparatively recent period (1762), to have
       been the state of things at a widely different point among
       the Samoides:--"The real spot where the habitations of the
       Samoides begin,--if any case be pointed out among a people
       which is continually changing residence,--is in the district
       of Mozine, beyond the river of that name, three or four
       hundred wersts from Archangel. The colony, which is actually
       met with there, and which _lives dispersed_ according to
       the usage of those people, _each family by itself_, without
       forming villages and communities, does not consist of more
       than three hundred families, or thereabouts, which are all
       descended _from two different tribes_, the one called Laghe
       and the other Wanonte--_distinctions carefully regarded by
       them_."--_Vide_ "Pinkerton, Voy." i. 524. It is also said
       (p. 582) of certain moral observances amongst them (_vide
       infra_, p. 155):--"All these customs, religiously observed
       among them, are no other than the fruits of tradition, handed
       down to them from their ancestors; and this tradition, with
       some reason, may be looked upon as law." It is a common idea
       amongst us that the word _home_ is a peculiarly English word,
       and, I confess, it was my own impression, but I am set musing
       by finding among these same Samoides the word "_chome_"
       as their word for their _tents_, to which they cling so
       closely.--_Vide_ Pinkerton, i. 63.

       "I visited four other villages or _goungs_, and there may be
       as many more in Assam, each containing about three or four
       hundred people. Every community is under the patriarchal
       government of a chief, from whom the village takes its
       name.... The chiefs of villages would combine against a
       common enemy, but are as independent of each other as the
       old Highland heads of clans.... I was curiously reminded
       of the clan distinctions, by observing that the home-grown
       cotton cloths differed in pattern in the different villages.
       In all cases chequered patterns were worn, presenting as
       various combinations of colours and stripes as our own
       tartans, and each village possessed a pattern peculiar to
       itself, generally, though not universally, affected by the
       inhabitants."--_Travels in Northern Assam_, Field, i., 1870;
       _vide also Hunter's "Rural Bengal,"_ 1868, p. 217.

The same tendencies, under similar circumstances, where the tribes
were not crowded or in fear of warlike neighbours, was noticed among
the Red Indians some forty years ago. Now, I suppose, instances would
be rare.

  "When a nation of Indians becomes too numerous conveniently to
  procure subsistence from its own hunting-grounds, it is no uncommon
  occurrence for it to send out a colony, or, in other words, to
  separate into tribes.... The tribe so separated maintains all
  its relations independent of the parent nation, though the most
  friendly intercourse is commonly maintained, and they are almost
  uniformly allies. Separations sometimes take place from party
  dissensions, growing generally out of the jealousies of the
  principal chiefs, and, not unfrequently, out of petty quarrels.
  In such instances, in order to prevent the unnecessary and wanton
  effusion of blood, and consequent enfeebling of the nation, the
  weaker party moves off usually without the observance of much
  ceremony."[26]

  [26] "Hunter's Memoir of his Captivity (from childhood to the age
       of nineteen) among the Indians," p. 180, 181. He also adds (p.
       307):--"The Indians do not pretend to any correct knowledge of
       the tumuli or mounds that are occasionally met with in their
       country.... One tradition of the Quapaws states that a nation
       differing very much from themselves inhabited the country many
       hundred snows ago, when game was so plenty that it required
       only slight efforts to procure subsistence, and when there
       _existed no hostile neighbours to render the pursuit of war
       necessary_." And Stephen's "Central America" (i. 142) notices
       the absence of all weapons of war from the representations in
       sculpture at Copan, and says:--"In other countries, battle
       scenes, warriors, and weapons of war, are among the most
       prominent subjects of sculpture; and from the entire absence
       of them here, there is reason to believe that the people were
       not warlike, but peaceable, and easily subdued."

Mr Grote in his "Plato"[27] says--

  "There existed," even "in his (Plato's) time, a great variety of
  distinct communities--some in the simplest, most patriarchal,
  cyclopian condition, _nothing more than families_; some highly
  advanced in civilisation, with its accompanying good and evil, some
  in each intermediate stage between these two extremes. Each little
  family or sept exists at first separately, with a patriarch whom
  all implicitly obey, and peculiar customs of its own. Several of
  these septs gradually coalesce together into a community, choosing
  one or a few lawgivers to adjust and modify their respective
  customs into harmonious order."[28]

  [27] III., ch. xxxvii. Leges, 337.

  [28] I find incidental corroboration of this view in "The
       Archæology of Prehistoric Annals" of Scotland, by Dr
       Wilson--"The infancy of all written history is necessarily
       involved in fable. Long ere _scattered families_ had
       _conjoined_ their _patriarchal unions into tribes_, and
       clans acknowledging some common chief, and submitting their
       differences to the rude legislation of the arch-priest or
       civil head of the commonwealth, treacherous tradition has
       converted the story of their birth into the wildest admixture
       of myth and legendary fable."--_Introd._, p. 12.

       Even in the plain of Sennaar (Shinar) we see something of this
       fusion of tribes--"Besides these two main constituents of the
       Chaldæan race there is reason to believe that both a Semitic
       and Aryan element existed.... The subjects of the early kings
       are continually designated in the inscriptions by the title
       of 'Kiprat-arbat,' which is interpreted to mean 'the four
       nations' or 'tongues'" (Rawlinson's "Ancient Monarchies," i.
       p. 69). Professor Rawlinson is also of opinion, that "the
       league of the four kings in Abraham's time seems correspondent
       to a four-fold ethnic division."

       Does not the above also correspond to the four-fold ethnic
       division of the Vedas?--_Vide infra_, p. 39. Compare also
       the four-fold division of the world or of Peru, according
       to various Indian traditions, between Manco Capac and his
       brothers.--_Vide_ Hakluyt Society's edition of Garcilasso de
       la Vega, i. 71-75. If these are not traditions of fusions
       of races, they can only be diluvian traditions of the four
       couples who came out of the ark, which was the conjecture of
       the Spaniards in the case of Manco Capac.

In the situations, however, where the more powerful families had
seized the vantage-ground, or established themselves in the richest
and most coveted valleys, the tendency to consolidation and permanent
settlement would have more rapidly manifested itself. As the tendency
to family dispersion became restrained, and its scope restricted,
disputes as to _meum_ and _tuum_ would have become more frequent
as between families, some more central authority than the family
headship would have been demanded for the protection, discrimination,
and regulation of property. _In these_ instances the state may be
said to have arisen out of the expansion of the family into the
tribes--the families, probably, never having ceased to dwell together
in semi-aggregation; and, when greater concentration was required, they
simply had to fall back upon the patriarchal chieftain. We seem to see
a tradition of this in the Anax Andron.

But equally as regards the rest there must inevitably have come a time
when, as the world became crowded, the same necessity of defending
their possessions, would have caused families, among whom there was no
affinity of race, to coalesce, intermix, succumb, and form communities
and states.

These two modes of settlement into communities and states were,
however, essentially dissimilar, and the basis thus laid would have
remained permanently different. The one was the basis of custom, the
other of contract; the one the settlement of the East, the other of
the West; and it will be seen, I think, that whilst the one was more
favourable to the conservation of traditions of religion and history,
the other would have better preserved the tradition of right. These are
points to which I shall return in a subsequent chapter, when I shall
avail myself of the investigations of Sir Henry Maine.

This simple outline, however, of human history, conformable, as I
believe it to be, with the scriptural narrative, conflicts with
at least three theories now much in vogue. The first, which is
substantially that of Sir John Lubbock, Mr Mill,[29] and Mr B. Gould,
is thus conveniently summarised by Mr Hepworth Dixon.[30]

  "Every one who has read the annals of our race--a page of nature
  with its counterfoil in the history of everything having life--is
  aware that, in our progress from the savage to the civilised state,
  man has had to pass through three grand stages, corresponding,
  as it were, to his childhood, to his youth, and to his manhood.
  In the first stage of his career he is a hunter, living mainly
  by the chase; in the second, he is a herdsman; ... in the third
  stage, he is a husbandman.... Then these conditions of human life
  may be considered as finding their purest types in such races as
  the Iroquois, the Arabian, the Gothic, in their present stage;
  but each condition is, in itself and for itself, _an affair of
  development and not of race_. The Arab, who is now a shepherd, was
  once a hunter. The Saxon, who is now a cultivator of the soil, was
  first a hunter, then a herdsman, before he became a husbandman.
  Man's progress from stage to stage is _continuous_ in its course,
  _obeying the laws of physical and moral change_. It is slow, it
  is _uniform_, it is silent, it is unseen. In one word, it is
  _growth_.... These three stages in our progress upward are strongly
  marked; the interval dividing an Iroquois from an Arab being as
  wide as that which separates an Arab from a Saxon."

  [29] This view will be found in the first chapter of Mr J. S.
       Mill's "Principles of Political Economy," ch. i. p. 6. "There
       is perhaps no people or community now existing which subsist
       entirely on the spontaneous produce of vegetation." [Whether
       mankind ever lived "entirely on," &c., may be questioned,
       but it is implied in Gen. ix. 3 that man did not subsist on
       animal food until after the Deluge, a fact which lies at
       the foundation of Porphyry's work, "De Abstinentia."] "But
       many tribes still live exclusively, or almost exclusively,
       on wild animals, the produce of hunting or fishing.... The
       first _great advance beyond this state_ consists in the
       domestication of the more useful animals: giving rise to the
       _the pastoral or nomad state.... From this state of society
       to the agricultural_, the transition is not indeed easy (for
       no great change in the habits of mankind is otherwise than
       difficult, and in general either painful or very slow), but it
       lies in what may be called the spontaneous course of events."

  [30] Mr Hepworth Dixon's "New America," vol. i. p. 113.

Now, in the first place, I must remark that the Iroquois and the Arab
have never progressed;[31] neither does the Arab at the present show
any signs of a transition to the third stage of necessary growth, nor
does Mr Hepworth Dixon, although he gives some sound practical advice
as to the best mode in which the red man is to be restrained, venture
to suggest any mode by which he is to be reclaimed from the first to
the third stage, either with or without a transition through the second
stage of development. The conclusion therefore, one would think, would
be inevitable that it is an affair _of race_ and _not_ of development.
The Arab and the Iroquois, after the lapse of so many centuries, are
still found with the evidences of primitive life strong upon them; and
so, I imagine, we shall find it wherever we come upon a pure race of
homogeneous origin. On the contrary, we shall find that mixed races,
by the very law and reason of their admixture, have shown the greatest
adaptibility, and, whenever circumstances were favourable, very rapid
growth. Again, I very much question whether the three stages, or rather
three phases of life were ever, as a rule, progressive; and whether,
in the cases in which they might chance to have been successive,
anything occurred in the transition at all resembling an uniform law
of growth. It is very much more probable that the three were from
the earliest period contemporaneous[32]--"and Abel was a shepherd,
and Cain an husbandman" (Gen. iv.)--the determination of the sons to
the avocations of shepherd, husbandman, and hunter respectively (the
latter most probably being the last selected), being influenced by
taste, character, and the division of the inheritance, the authority
of the father, the geographical conditions of the route, and chance
circumstances.

  [31] _Vide_ Sir S. Baker; _vide_ note, ch. xiii., _Noah_.

  [32] The following passage, _inter alia_, from Herodotus seems to
       sustain this--"To the eastward _of those Scythians_, who apply
       themselves to _the culture of the land_, and on the other side
       of the river Panticapes, the country is inhabited by Scythians
       who _neither plough nor sow_, but are employed in _keeping
       cattle_."--_Herod._, iv., Mel.

And this is the more confirmed when we consider that when once the
hunter started on his career, he would have determined their avocation
also for his posterity. At his death he would not have had herds of
cattle to apportion to any one of his sons, and thus the taste for
wild life, necessarily perpetuated, would be bred in the bone, as an
indomitable characteristic of race, and the first hunter by choice
would inevitably come to be the progenitor of generations of hunters by
instinct and necessity.

The second theory depicts the opening scene of human existence as a
state of conflict, which, it must be allowed, is perfectly consistent
with the theory that it was one of savagery. The theory I am now
combating was originally the theory of Hobbes; and I might have
regarded it as now obsolete, were it not that it has cropped up quite
recently in a most respectable quarter. Mr Hunter, in his charming
work, "The Annals of Rural Bengal," has a passage which, as I think,
has been taken for more than it intends, though not for more than it
expresses. Mr Hunter says, p. 89--

  "The inquiry leads us back to that far-off time which we love to
  associate with patriarchal stillness. Yet the echoes of ancient
  life in India little resemble a Sicilian idyl or the strains of
  Pan's pipe, but strike the ear rather as the cries of oppressed and
  wandering nations, of people in constant motion and pain. Early
  Indian researches, however, while they make havoc of the pastoral
  landscapes of Genesis and Job, have a consolation peculiarly suited
  to this age. They plainly tell us, that as in Europe so in Asia,
  the primitive state of mankind was a state of unrest; and that
  civilisation, despite its exactions and nervous city life, is a
  state of repose."

It is plain that there is here question of restlessness rather than
of violence; but grant that there was violence too, the account of
Mr. Hunter when examined, so far from conflicting with, appears to me
to fall exactly into, the lines I have indicated. Is not the scene,
from before which Mr. Hunter lifts the curtain, the scene of that age
following the dispersion (of which, p. 452, there is such distinct
tradition in his pages), which is traditionally known to us as the iron
age? The error, then, of Mr. Hunter is to confound the patriarchal with
the iron age. It need not therefore cause surprise that in early Indian
history we should hear of conflict, for it is just at the period and
under the circumstances when we should consider the collision probable.

Mr. Hunter, indeed, speaks of the aboriginal races as mysterious in
their origin. But from the point of view of Genesis, there seems to
be no greater mystery about them than about their conquerors the
Aryans. One representative, at least, of the aboriginal race, the
Santals, retain to this day the most vivid traditions of the Flood
and the Dispersion[33] (pp. 151, 452). Now, if there had existed any
race anterior to the Santals, I think we should have heard of them.
On this point we may consider Mr. Hunter's negative testimony as
conclusive, both on account of his extensive knowledge of the subject,
and his evident predisposition (p. 109) to have discovered a prior
race, if it had existed; and there is nothing to show that the same
line of argument would not have applied to it if its existence had
been demonstrated. It must be mentioned that besides their tradition
of the dispersion, the Santals retain dim recollections--borne out
by comparative evidence--of having travelled to their present homes
from the north-east, whereas the Aryans came unmistakeably from the
north-west.

  [33] These legends, shown to be aboriginal, are very curious. They
       are, however, too long to be extracted here. They would repay
       perusal.

Here, then, just as might have been predicted _à priori_, these rival
currents of the dispersion met from opposite points, and ran into a
_cul de sac_, from which, as there was no egress, there necessarily
ensued a struggle for mastery.

Let us now regard the two people more closely.

  "Our earliest glimpses of the human family in India, disclose two
  tribes of widely different origin, struggling for the mastery. In
  the primitive time, which lies on the horizon even of inductive
  history, a tall, fair-complexioned race passed the Himalaya. They
  came of a conquering stock. They had _known the safety_ and the
  _plenty_ which can only be enjoyed in regular communities.[34]
  _They brought with them a store of legends_ and devotional strains;
  and chief of all they were at the time of their migration southward
  through Bengal, if not at their first arrival in India, imbued
  with that high sense of nationality, which burns in the heart
  of a people who believe themselves the _depositary of a divine
  revelation_. There is no record of the newcomers' first struggle
  for life with the people of the land."--_Hunter's Annals_, p. 90.

Here we see the more intellectual, the more spiritual (p. 116),
monotheistic (p. 115) Aryan race overpowering the black race which had
earliest pre-occupied the ground, and which was already tainted with
demon worship. This contrast invites further inquiry; but first let me
clear up and direct the immediate drift of my argument.

  [34] Mr Max Müller also says ("Chips," ii. p. 41)--"It should be
       observed that most of the terms connected with the chase and
       warfare differ in each of the Aryan dialects, while words
       connected with more peaceful occupations belong, generally,
       to the common heirloom of the Aryan language," which proves
       "that all the Aryan nations had led _a long life of peace
       before they separated_, and that their language acquired
       individuality and nationality, as each colony started in
       search of new homes,--new generations forming new terms
       connected with the warlike and adventurous life of their
       onward migrations. Hence it is that _not only Greek and Latin,
       but all Aryan_ languages have their peaceful words in common."
       Also _vide_ p. 28, 29.

If we estimate--taking the minimum or the maximum either according to
the Hebrew or Septuagint version--the time it would have taken these
populations, according to the slow progress of the dispersion, to have
arrived at their destinations from the plain of Sennaar (Mesopotamia),
the period may be equally conjectured to correspond with that which
tradition marks as the commencement of the iron age, when the world
was becoming overcrowded, and the increasing populations came into
collision.

Neither is it a difficulty,[35] it rather appears to me in accordance
with tradition, that if this surmise be correct, the earliest arrival
in the Indian Peninsula should have been of those who took the longest
route. For it is natural to suppose that the proscribed and weakest
races, _e.g._ the Canaanitish, would have been the first to depart, and
to depart by the north-east and west, the more powerful families having
passed down and closed the south-east exit by way of the lower valleys
of the Euphrates. These latter would have spread themselves out in the
direction of India leisurely and at a subsequent period.

  [35] I find this conjecture confirmed in the pages of the most
       recent authority on the subject, Mr Brace, "Ethnology," p. 13,
       14--"On the continent of Asia the Turanians were probably the
       first who figured as nations in the ante-historical period.
       Their emigrations began long before the wanderings of the
       Aryans and Semites, who, wherever they went, always discovered
       a previous population, apparently of Turanian origin, which
       they either expelled or subdued." According to Max Müller's
       hypothesis there were two migrations, one northern and one
       southern [corresponding to the migration as above], "the
       _latter_ settling on the rivers Meikong, Meinam, _Irrawaddy_,
       and _Bramapootra_," ... "a third to the south [probably an
       advance of the previous one], is believed to tend toward
       Thibet and India, and in later times pours its hordes _through
       the Himalaya_, and forms the _original population of India_."
       Analogy may be discovered in "the two streams or lines of
       Celtic migration," which, says Bunsen ("Philosophy of Univ.
       Hist." i. 148) "we may distinguish by the names of the Western
       and Eastern stream, the _former_, although the _less direct_,
       seems to be historically the more ancient, and to have reached
       this country (Britain) _several centuries_ before _the other_."

Following these lines of migration, the Aryan at some period came upon
the black Turanian race (_vide infra_, Chap. v.); and Mr Hunter (p.
110) records the embittered feelings with which the recollection of
the strife remained in tradition. Why should this have been? It might
suffice to say, in consistency with what has already been advanced,
that this was their first encounter, the first check in their advance.

Another solution seems to me equally ready to hand, and to solve so
much more. But first, how does Mr Hunter account for this bitter
feeling? He suggests contempt for their "uncouth talk," "their gross
habits of eating," and, what comes near to the truth, as I apprehend
it, their blackness and their paganism. Suppose, then, we go a step
further, and say that the highly intellectual Japhetic race met thus
suddenly and unexpectedly the outcast Canaanitish race, with the curse
upon them, recognisable in their colour and deficiencies, and of whom
they would have remembered that it had been said, "that they should be
the servants of their brethren"--will not this explain something of
their animosity?

I must here remark that although scientific inquiry takes designations
of its own, in order the more conveniently to express its distinctions,
yet whether we accept the ethnological or philological demarcations of
mankind, it is curious how inevitably, as I think De Maistre remarked,
we are led back to Shem, Ham, and Japhet. And this is as true now after
a half century of scientific progress, as it was when De Maistre wrote.
Without asserting that the divisions may ever be distinctly traced with
the minuteness of Bochart in his "Geog. Sacra," I still say, that the
broad lines of the traditional apportionment of the world, and the
three-fold or four-fold division of the race indicated in Scripture,
is seen behind the ultimate divisions into which science is brought
to separate mankind, whether into Caucasian, Ethiopian, Mongol, with
two intermediate varieties, as by Blumenbach; or into Australioid,
Negroid, Mongoloid, and Xanthochroic, as by Huxley; or into Brace's
division into Aryan, Semitic, Turanian, and Hamitic. Behind these
various systems, as behind a grill, we seem to see the forms and faces
of the progenitors of the human race discernible, but their existence
not capable of contact and actual demonstration, because of the
intercepting bars and lattice work.[36]

  [36] I am throughout assuming acquaintance, on the part of my
       readers, with the third and fourth of Cardinal Wiseman's
       "Lectures on Science and Revealed Religion;" for although
       my argument is distinct from that of the Cardinal, yet I
       everywhere regard his argument as the background and support
       of my position; and it is, moreover, part of the aim and
       intention of this work to show that the general ground and
       framework (this is, in fact, understating the truth) of
       Cardinal Wiseman's argument remains intact. There is, I think,
       somewhere in the Cardinal's works, a passage to the above
       effect, but I have not been able to recover it.

I have spoken above of a three-fold and four-fold division as equally
indicated in Scripture, and I think, from non-observance of this, the
close approximation of these systems to Genesis is not sufficiently
recognised. I refer to the three progenital races, and the Canaanite
marked off and distinguished from the rest by a curse. I shall enlarge
upon this point in another chapter (Chap. v).

I will only observe now that I do not venture to say that the Canaanite
is co-extensive with the Turanian, which is more a philological than
an ethnological division of mankind, or that their characteristics in
all respects correspond.[37] I limit my argument now to indicating the
correspondence between the Canaanite and the aboriginal tribes in India.

  [37] If space allowed, I think the traditional lines might be
       indicated as plainly from the philological as from the
       ethnological point of view.

This correspondence I find not only in the features already
noted--their blackness and their intellectual inferiority--but in their
enslavement to the superior races of mankind whenever they came into
contact and collision with them. Is not this everywhere also the mark
of the Turanian race? are not these conflicts in primitive life always
with the Turanian race? and are they not in Asia, as in Africa, in a
state of subjugation or dependence?

At any rate, this is the condition in which we find the Turanian in
India, so fully expressed in their name of "Sudras."[38]

  [38] "According to the sacred law-book, entitled the Ordinances of
       Menu, the Creator, that the human race might be multiplied,
       caused the Brahmin, Cshatriya, the Vaisya, and the _Sudra_ (so
       named from Scripture, protection, wealth, and _labour_), to
       proceed from his mouth, arm, thigh, and foot."--_Brit. Ency._
       The "Fatimala," a Sanskrit work on Hindu castes, says, "the
       other, _i.e._, the Sudra, should voluntarily serve the three
       other tribes, and therefore he became a Sudra; he _should_
       humble himself at their feet."

Against this literal fulfilment of Gen. ix. 25--"Cursed be Canaan, a
servant of servants shall he be to his brethren"--as regards the Indian
Sudra, the text in Gen. x. 19--"And the limits of Chanaan were from
Sidon ... to Gaza ... even to Sesa"--may be objected. But I construe
this text only to refer to Chanaan proper, and to be spoken rather with
reference to the limits of the Promised Land and the Hebrews, than
to the allocation of the tribes of Chanaan; for the text immediately
preceding seems to me to have its significance--viz. Gen. x. 18,[39]
where it is said in a marked manner, and of the descendants of Chanaan
alone, "The families of the Canaanites were spread abroad." But if
we are to suppose the whole descent of Chanaan to have been confined
between the limits of Sidon and Sesa, it could hardly have been said to
have had the diffusion of the other Hamitic races, and the _families_
of the Chanaanites will not have been "spread abroad" in any noticeable
or striking manner. It appears to me, also, that it may be proved in
another way. St Paul, Acts xiii. 19, says that God destroyed _seven_
nations in the land of Chanaan, whereas Gen. x. enumerates eleven.

  [39] Homer's expression (Od. i. 23, 24), that the Ethiopians
       divided in twain, were the _most remote_ of men--

        [Greek: "Athiopas, toi dichtha dedaiatai eschatoi andrôn,
                 Hoi men dysomenoi Yperionos oi d' aniontos,"]

       approximates to the scriptural phrase, and seems to imply a wider
       dispersion than is suggested by Professor Rawlinson, i. 59.

Again, Kalisch ("Hist. and Crit. Com. on Old Testament," trans. 1858)
makes it a difficulty against Gen. ix. that "Canaan _should_ not only
fall into the hands of Shem, _i.e._ the people of Israel, but also of
_Japhet_" (i. 226).

A remote fulfilment of the prediction may be seen in the Median
conquest of Phoenicia, and the Roman destruction of Carthage; but if
I have truly indicated the order of events, it will be seen that it had
already come about in the earliest times.

The text, indeed, of Gen. ix. 27--"May God enlarge Japhet, and may he
dwell in the tents of Shem, and Canaan be his servant"--is so clear as
almost to require some such fulfilment.

But the fulfilment is seen, not only in the degradation of Chanaan, but
in the prosperity of Japhet;[40] and this is so correlative, that I
shall still be enforcing the argument whilst connecting a link which
may appear to be wanting, viz. the identity of Japhet with the more
favoured nations of the world. The identity of the Indo-Germanic races
with the descendants of Japhet may almost be said to be a truth "_qui
saute aux yeux_," but it may still be worth while to collect the links
of tradition which establish it.

  [40] Tylor ("Primitive Culture," i. p. 44) says, "The Semitic
       family, which represents one of the oldest known civilizations
       of the world, includes Arabs, Jews, Phoenicians (?),
       Syrians, &c., and may have an older as well as a newer
       connection in North Africa. This family takes in some rude
       tribes, but _none which would be classed as savages_. The
       Aryan family has existed in Asia and Europe certainly for
       several thousand years, and there are well known and marked
       traces of early barbaric condition, which has perhaps survived
       with least change among secluded tribes in the valleys of the
       Hindu Kush and Himalaya." [_Query_, What is the nature of the
       evidence that they have survived, and have not degenerated?]
       Mr Tylor continues, "There seems, again, _no known case of
       any full Aryan tribe having become savage_. The gipsies and
       other outcasts are, no doubt, partly Aryan in blood, but
       _their degraded condition_ is not _savagery_. In India there
       are tribes Aryan by language, but whose physique is rather of
       indigenous type, and whose ancestry is mainly from indigenous
       stocks, with more or less mixture of the dominant Hindu."
       Compare _infra_, ch. v., and De Maistre, p. 272.

In truth, it appears to us a self-evident proposition, simply because
tradition has familiarised us with the belief that Europe was peopled
by the descendants of Japhet, and because philology has recently
demonstrated the Indo-Germanic race to include this demarcation
(together with Central and Western Asia); but I think that if we
exclude the testimony of tradition, we should have difficulty in
establishing the point either upon the text of Gen. x. 5, or from the
evidence of philology.

That the race of Japhet spread themselves over the islands, and
colonised the coasts of the Mediterranean, is the traditional
interpretation of that text; and it receives confirmation, in the first
place, in the tradition that "Japetus being the father of Prometheus,
was regarded by the Greeks as the ancestor of the human race."--Smith's
"Myth. Dict." We have, I think, become familiar with such
transpositions as "Deucalion the son of Prometheus," and "Prometheus
the son of Deucalion," &c. Certainly Prometheus (_vide_ Appendix to
Chap. viii. p. 180, and Chap. x. p. 232), supposing Prometheus to be
Adam,[41] would naturally stand at the head of every genealogy; but
Japetus, supposing him to be identified with Japhet as the particular
founder of the race (after so distinct and definite a starting-point
as the Deluge), would also, in his way, have claims to be placed at
the head of their genealogy; and probably about the time that he began
to be called "old Japetus," and to be typical of antiquity, his claims
would have been regarded as paramount, and Prometheus would have been
accordingly displaced in his favour. This is conjectural, but must be
taken as one link.

  [41] Just as Hercules (_vide_ Hercules, p. 180), who embodied
       in another line the tradition of Adam, is said by Mr Grote,
       "Hist. of Greece," i. p. 128-9, "to have been the most
       renowned and most ubiquitous of all the semi-divine personages
       worshipped by the Hellenes," so that "distinguished families
       are _everywhere_ to be traced who have his patronymic, and
       glory in the belief that they are his descendants." To whom
       would they trace back more naturally than to Adam?

Well, the (Indian) Aryans also, according to Mr Hunter ("Rural Bengal,"
103), "held (Book of Manu and the Vishnu Purana) that the Greeks
and Persians were sprung from errant Kshatryas, who had lost their
caste"--_i.e._ from their own race. They are called in the same books
_Yavanas_ and Pahlavas. Now no one, I think, will call it a forced
analogy to see in Yavana the name of Javan, the son of Japhet.[42] This
I may call link the second.

  [42] This must be taken in connection with what I have said, ch. x.

But the Aryans, as we have seen, are one of the three or four primitive
races to which both philology and ethnology lead us back. They are
contrasted, on the one side, with the Semitic, and, on the other, with
the Hamitic or Turanian race. We will assume, then, on the strength of
the philological and scriptural lines being so nearly conterminous,
that at least, looking from the point of view of Scripture, the Aryan
may be identified with great probability as the Japhetic race. If,
then, the Aryan is the Japhetic race in its elder branch--to which its
later migration would seem to testify--we should exactly expect that it
would designate a kindred but collateral race, not by the name of their
common ancestor, but by the name of the progenitor from whom they were
more immediately descended--not as from Japhet, but from Javan. Thus
the links seem to join; and here I leave them, till there may chance
to come some one who will gather up all the links in the chain of
tradition, dislocated and dispersed by the catastrophes which have been
consequent upon the derelictions of mankind.

The third view to which I wish to advert, is that put forward by Mr
John F. M'Lennan in his "Primitive Marriage," 1865, which also revives
the theory of a savage state, and moreover professes to discover
primitive mankind living in a state of promiscuity, little, if at all,
elevated above the brute, and this during the long period which was
required to develop 1. the tribe; 2. the gens; 3. the family.

It will be difficult for any one, who comes fresh from the perusal of
Genesis, to realise the possibility of such a view being held; but, in
truth, there is no view too grotesque for men in whose survey mankind
appear originally on the scene as a mass of units coming into the
world, no one knows how, like locusts rising above the horizon, or
covering the earth perhaps like toads after a shower!

Yet Mr M'Lennan's theory is virtually endorsed (_vide infra_) by Sir J.
Lubbock, who refers to it (p. 60, note), as "Mr M'Lennan's masterly
work." If, then, we must discuss the theory upon its merits, the
objection which I should take, _in limine_, is that it is a partial
generalisation from facts, irrespective of the historical evidence as
a whole. There stands against it, of course, the direct evidence of
the Bible, also there stands against it the researches of oriental
archaeology, and, again, what Mr M'Lennan calls the "so-called
revelation of philology," which shows that mankind, in the period
previous to their dispersion, "had marriage laws regulating the rights
and obligations of husbands and wives, of parents and children." This
evidence he rejects because "the preface of general history _must
be_ compiled from the materials presented by barbarism" (p. 9), thus
_assuming_ barbarism to have been the primitive state.

Mr M'Lennan struggles vainly for universal facts on which to build,
and seems to find one in what he has termed exogamy (_i.e._ marriage
outside the tribe), combined with the capture of wives and the
infanticide of female children within the tribe. Impossible! If this
state of things had been _universal_, the human race would have
exterminated itself long before "the historic period!" The theory
necessarily supposes that some tribes were addicted to these practices,
whilst others were not. Exogamy, therefore, is not a universal fact;
but neither could endogamy have been, _for "the conversion of an
endogamous tribe into an exogamous tribe is inconceivable,"_ p. 146.
But as Mr M'Lennan is as much constrained to choose between exogamy and
endogamy as was Mons. Jourdain between poetry and prose, he apparently
elects in favour of the universal primitive prevalence of exogamy,
_i.e._ he supposes mankind to have commenced under conditions which
would have ensured its proximate extinction.

Mr M'Lennan (p. 144) says, "the two types of organisation (viz.
exogamy and endogamy) may be equally archaic;" but it is evident that
he inclines to the opinion that exogamy is the more archaic; and
his analysis at p. 142, commencing with "Exogamy Pure, No. 1, and
continuing on to ... Endogamy Pure, No. 6," is "the analysis of a
series of phenomena which appears to form a progression" (141).

Moreover, the difficulties which I have just urged will immediately
recur if we allow "the two types to have been equally archaic."

The supposed exogamous tribes, according to the theory, enforcing the
infanticide of female children, and not permitting marriage within
the tribe, must have been wholly dependent upon the endogamous groups
for their women. These latter groups must either have succumbed,
and so have become speedily extinguished through the loss of their
women (for they could not have acquired others who were not of their
stock, without ceasing to be endogamous); or they must have resisted
successfully, and even if the matter went no farther, the exogamous
tribes must have died out or abandoned exogamy; or the endogamous
tribes must have resisted and retaliated, in which case we should have
this further complication that they themselves would have ceased to be
endogamous, and without any reason or necessity for becoming exogamous;
for with the seizure of the females of the exogamous tribes, or even,
under the special circumstances, with the recovery of their own, the
element of "heterogeneity" would have been introduced, and the system
of endogamy would have been no longer true in theory, or possible in
fact. All these results must have been immediately consequent upon the
first collision, which from the very conditions of exogamy, must have
occurred at the outset! Postulating exogamy, it must therefore rapidly
have extirpated or absorbed every other system, and yet it could never
have stood alone.

Mr M'Lennan himself allows that wherever "kinship through females,
the most ancient system in which the idea of blood relationship was
embodied" (148) was known, there would have been a tendency among the
exogamous groups to become heterogeneous, and that thus "the system
of capturing wives would have been superseded."[43] In other words,
exogamy would have become extinct. But if "kinship through females" was
not discovered by the first children of the first mothers, how was it
subsequently discovered? We are given no clue except that "the order of
nature is progressive!"

  [43] At p. 88, Mr M'Lennan sees evidence of the "form of capture"
       and the fact of capture among the Jews; but he will at least
       allow the appeal to be made to the Scriptures, as their most
       authentic history. What do we find at the commencement? In
       the first marriage contract recorded, _i.e._ of Isaac and
       Rebecca? Why, the reverse of capture. Genesis xxvi. 8, "But if
       the woman will not follow thee thou shalt not be bound by the
       oath." Also v. 39, 40.

       Mr M'Lennan (p. 29), with reference to the hurling "stones and
       bamboos at the head of the devoted bridegroom in Khondistan,"
       says, "_the hurling of old shoes_ after the bridegroom among
       ourselves _may be_ a relic of a similar custom." But this
       custom would seem to be much more directly traced to the
       custom among the Jews of taking the shoes from the man who
       refused to marry his brother's widow (Deuteronomy), and which
       is more generally stated in Ruth iv. 7, as a token of _cession
       of right_--"the man _put off his shoe_, and gave it to his
       neighbour, _this was the testimony of a cession of right in
       Israel_" (Ruth iv. 7).

This compels the remark that if Mr M'Lennan fails to prove that exogamy
was universal, as a stage of human progress, or, to use a phrase of
his own, "on such a scale as to entitle it to rank among the normal
phenomena of human development," there is nothing to exclude the
likelihood of its being much more satisfactorily and directly traced
as the result of degeneracy. Mr M'Lennan should clear his ground by
demonstrating that the circumstances exclude the possibility of this
conjecture.

On the contrary, and on his own showing, they would appear much more
certainly to affirm it. Although exogamy is the earliest fact which
he believes to be demonstrable by evidence, he assumes an initial
promiscuity; and seems to see his way out of this initial promiscuity
through the system of "rude polyandry" (when one woman was common to a
determinate number of men unrelated) as distinguished from "regulated
polyandry" (where one woman was common to several brothers). It must
be noted that before these polyandrous families, if we may so call
them, at first necessarily limited, could theoretically or in fact have
become the tribal exogamous groups, many difficulties must be disposed
of, and many stages traced, of which we are told nothing more than that
we are "forced to regard all the exogamous races as having originally
been polyandrous" (p. 226). That these families, if it is not an abuse
of terms to call them so, could not have become tribal by grouping, Mr
M'Lennan himself maintains, p. 232.

The two systems which Mr M'Lennan distinguishes as "rude" and
"regulated polyandry," are so essentially different that I fail to
trace the possibility of progression from one to the other. "Rude
polyandry" is barely distinguishable from promiscuity, and not at
all if we regard it as only promiscuity, necessarily limited through
infanticide, or other causes destroying the balance of the sexes. The
latter has peculiar features--arising in some way out of, and fixed
in the idea of the relationship of brothers--an idea which it is just
conceivable might arise directly out of a state of promiscuity--where
theoretically the children might be supposed to be in contact with the
mother only, but which the system of "rude polyandry," by introducing
conflicting and complicated claims, would immediately tend to weaken
and obliterate.

Let us see, then, if we can trace the custom better on the lines of
degeneracy.

If we start with the belief in the existence of many primitive
ceremonies and regulations we may then suppose that in the downward
progression to promiscuity, the stages of the descent will be traceable
in the corruptions of these customs. Such surmises at least are as
good as the contrary surmises of Mr M'Lennan.

Now, we have already seen[44] that Mr M'Lennan alludes to the law
of Deuteronomy, which imposed the obligation of the younger brother
marrying the widow of the elder--and it will, moreover, be seen (Mr
M'Lennan, p. 219) that this was also prescribed in the law of Menu.

  [44] "Dr Latham would invert the order of development by producing
       the ruder fact--polyandry--from the less rude obligation. But
       clearly this is an inversion of the order of nature, _which is
       progressive_," &c.--_M'Lennan_, "_Prim. Marriage_," p. 206.

Whatever may be the true solution of this coincidence the least likely
account would seem to be that they had both, under different conditions
(different at any rate from the point of divergence, be it exogamy
or polyandry), advanced to it independently and by similar stages.
Such fortuitous coincidences would imply not merely a succession of
similar developments, but also a corresponding succession of accidental
circumstances.

If, however, the custom of the younger brother marrying the widow of
the elder was of primitive institution (compare Genesis xxxviii. and
the Code of Menu), the corruption of this custom into polyandry, in
circumstances which may at any time have disturbed the balance of the
sexes in the overcrowded East, though it revolts will not absolutely
astonish us; whereas the converse, _i.e._ restriction to successive
appropriation contingent upon widowhood, from a state of virtual
promiscuity, is so uphill a reform and so contrary to probability that
it requires some internal evidence of the stages, and some warrant in
modern observation to make it plausible. None are given. For the fact
that we find both the "rude" and the "regulated" form existing side by
side cuts both ways;[45] and the discovery of a form of capture--the
Rakshasa, among the eight forms sanctioned by the code of Menu,
enforces our argument--it would exactly correspond to the military
exemption among the Jews (Mr M'Lennan, p. 82), supposing we were able
to read Deuteronomy xx. 10-14 in the same sense as Mr M'Lennan. In that
case, therefore, it would be a departure from or relaxation of a rule
laid down--a view which is confirmed when we find that the authority
quoted (Dr Muir, "Sanscrit Texts," the Ramayana) tells that "Ravana,
the most terrible of all the Rakshasas, is stigmatised as a _destroyer
of religious duties_, and ravisher of the _wives_ of others" (Prim.
Mar. p. 309), which testifies to degeneracy at some period; whereas if
Mr M'Lennan's view is true, this hero must be relegated to a time when
the conception of "religious duties," and even of other men's "wives"
were unknown.

  [45] It seems to me that Turner's account of polyandry in Tibet,
       quoted by Mr M'Lennan, p. 193, gives plain evidence of
       the transition from the Jewish custom to the "regulated"
       polyandry. It is said "that _the choice_ of a _wife_ is the
       _privilege_ of the _elder brother_."

We have seen (_supra_, 46), that when mankind had got, we know not
how, into tribal exogamous groups, "kinship through females would
have a tendency," and a moment's consideration will show an immediate
tendency, "to render the exogamous groups heterogeneous, and thus to
supersede the system of capturing wives." We ask why did they capture
wives? Mr M'Lennan implies that their ideas of _incest_ forbade
marriage within the tribe.[46] Apparently, then, the groups must have
been exogamous[47] previously to the time when they had attained to
the knowledge of "kinship through females," else "kinship through
females" would from the first have operated to produce a state of
things which would have rendered exogamy unnecessary and inexplicable.
The corollary is curious; they must, therefore, have had the idea of
incest before they had the idea of kinship through females!

  [46] "Instead of endogamy we might, after some explanations, have
       used the word caste. But caste connotes several ideas besides
       that on which we desire to fix attention. On _the other hand,
       the rule which declares_ the union of persons of the same
       blood _to be incest_ has been _hitherto unnamed_" (p. 49),
       and he terms it _exogamy_; and (p. 130) he says, "in all the
       modern instances in which the symbol of capture is most marked
       we have found that _marriage within the tribe_ is prohibited
       as _incest_."

  [47] Mr M'Lennan (p. 148) says, "We shall endeavour to establish
       the following propositions:--1. That the _most ancient_ system
       in which the idea of blood relationship was embodied, was
       the system of _kinship through females only_. 2. That the
       primitive groups were, or were assumed to be homogeneous. 3.
       That the system of kinship _through females only, tended to
       render_ the _exogamous_ groups _heterogeneous_, and _thus to
       supersede_ the system of capturing wives."

That some tribes should have arrived at some such state through a
perverted traditional notion of incest, would, on the other hand,
perfectly fit into the theory of degeneracy.

I had intended to have pursued this subject, but the chapter has
already run to too great length. As allusion however, has been made to
Sir John Lubbock, I append an extract (see p. 47) from which it will
be seen that his view, although equally remote from historical truth,
has a greater _à priori_ probability. Indeed, if we could only consent
to start on the assumption of "an initial state of hetairism," nothing
would be more complete than the following theory:--

  "For reasons to be given shortly, I believe that communal marriage
  was gradually superseded by individual marriages founded on
  capture, and that this led firstly to exogamy, and then to female
  infanticide; thus reversing M'Lennan's order of sequence. Endogamy
  and regulated polyandry, though frequent, I regard as exceptional,
  and as not entering into the normal progress of development.
  Like M'Lennan and Bachojen, I believe that our present social
  relations have arisen from an initial stage of hetairism or
  communal marriage. It is obvious, however, that even under communal
  marriage, a warrior who had captured a beautiful girl in some
  marauding expedition, would claim a peculiar right to her, and,
  when possible, would set custom at defiance. We have already seen
  that there are other cases of the existence of marriage, under two
  forms, side by side in one country, and that there is, therefore,
  no real difficulty in assuming the co-existence of communal and
  individual marriage. It is true that, under a communal marriage
  system, no man could appropriate a girl entirely to himself,
  without infringing the rights of the whole tribe.... A war-captive,
  however, was in a peculiar position, the tribe had no right to her;
  her capturer might have killed her if he chose; ... he did as he
  liked, the tribe was no sufferer."--_Sir J. Lubbock's "Origin of
  Civilisation,"_ pp. 70, 71.

I will only ask one question. At what period does Sir J. Lubbock
suppose the custom of inheritance through females arose? This as
nearly approaches a universal fact as any which Sir J. Lubbock adduces
(_vide_ p. 105, _et seq._); and, on the point of its having been a
prevalent custom, I can have no difficulty. Whenever through degeneracy
man arrived at the state of promiscuity or communal marriages, such
inheritance as there might be, in such a community, would only be
claimed through females, as the paternity would always be uncertain
(_vide infra_, p. 129). If, however, mankind commenced
with communal marriages, inheritance and relationship through females
would also have been from the commencement.

Let us now turn to Sir J. Lubbock's theory, as expressed in the
extract above, in which he shows us how marriage by capture would
quite naturally have arisen out of the state of communal marriage. But
if natural, it would have been natural from the commencement, _quid
vetat_? There must then have been a system also in operation from the
commencement, the inevitable tendency of which, by making paternity
distinct and recognisable, would have been to substitute inheritance
through males; and this system, by introducing a more robust posterity,
would rapidly have gained upon the other system. Male inheritance, it
would then appear, commenced and established itself at the outset, and
to the displacement of inheritance through females. How, then, do we
find traces of the latter custom so prevalent? From this point of view
the more instances Sir J. Lubbock accumulates, the more he will excite
our incredulity and surprise.

This theory again, equally with Mr M'Lennan's, supposes mankind
originally in a state of hetairism, in which case it is futile to talk
of tribes and of marriage out of the tribe; for how did they emerge
into this tribal separation out of the state of promiscuity? The
difficulty gets more complicated since, _ex hypothesi_, after emerging
from, they still remain within the tribal limits, in the state of
hetairism. These preliminaries must be settled before the argument can
be carried further.

The usual philosophic formula is, of course, at hand--these changes
must have required an indefinite lapse of ages! Into this swamp we
shall see one philosopher after another disappear, leaving a delusive
light behind him! If we could only, Dante like, recall one of these
philosophers to life, after he has passed into his state of Nirvana,
we would ask, as in this instance, why, supposing the state of
promiscuity, it would require an indefinite lapse of ages to pass from
it, according to the conditions of Sir John Lubbock's argument (_i.e._
to the state of exogamy); considering that, _vide supra_, "it is
obvious that, even under communal marriage, a warrior who had captured,
&c., would claim a peculiar right to her, and, when possible, would set
custom at defiance." Clearly, then, it only required the man and the
opportunity.


                        APPENDIX TO CHAPTER III.

The view at p. 26 substantially coincides with the lines laid down
by Blackstone (compare Plato; Grote's Plato, iii. 337), which are the
subject of Bentham's attack, and to which the recent contributions of
Sir Henry Maine to our knowledge in these matters would seem to run
counter. Blackstone, "Comm." i. 47, said--

"This notion, of an actually existing unconnected state of nature,
is too wild to be seriously admitted: and, besides, it is plainly
contradictory to the revealed accounts of the primitive origin of
mankind and their preservation two thousand years afterwards, both
which were effected by the means of single families. These formed the
first society among themselves, which every day extended its limits;
and when it grew too large to subsist with convenience in that pastoral
state wherein the Patriarchs appear to have lived, it necessarily
subdivided itself by various migrations into more. Afterwards, as
agriculture increased, which employs and can maintain a much greater
number of hands, migrations became less frequent, and various tribes,
which had formerly separated, reunited again, sometimes by compulsion
and conquest, sometimes by accident, and sometimes, perhaps, by
compact.... And this is what we mean by the original contract of
society, which, though perhaps in no instance it has ever been formally
expressed at the first institution of a state, yet, in nature, reason
must always be understood and implied in the very act of associating
together.... When society is once formed, government results, of
course, as necessary to preserve and to keep that society in order ...
unless some superior were constituted ... they would still remain in a
state of nature."

Bentham says of this passage from Blackstone, that "'_society_,' in one
place, means the same thing as a '_state of nature_' does: in another
place, it means the same as '_government_.' Here we are required to
believe there _never was_ such a state as a state of nature: then we
are given to understand there _has been_. In like manner, with respect
to an original contract, we are given to understand that such a thing
never existed, that the notion of it is even ridiculous; at the same
time, that there is no speaking nor stirring without supposing that
there was one."--_Bentham's "Fragment on Government,"_ p. 9 (London,
1823).

The previous and subsequent chapters (ii., xiii.), will be found to
meet these strictures of Bentham, although not originally written with
reference to them.




                              CHAPTER IV.

         _CHRONOLOGY FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF TRADITION._


To many it may seem a fundamental objection that my theory supposes
a chronology altogether out of keeping with modern discovery; and I
fancy there is a somewhat general impression that modern science has an
historical basis, to which not even the Septuagint chronology can be
made to conform.

This really is not the case; but assuming it to be true, I must still
remark, that if facts of primeval tradition have been established, the
long lapse of ages will only enhance our notions of the persistency of
tradition; or if the lapse of ages is disproved, this conclusion will
be in recognition of a truth to which tradition testifies.

I shall now proceed to establish that the strictly historical
testimony, and the direct historical evidence, is strikingly concurrent
in favour of the scriptural chronology, allowing the margin of
difference between the Hebrew and LXX. versions.[48]

  [48] "Aucune des trois chronologies bibliques, là ou elles ne
       s'accordent pas entre elles, ne s'impose avec une autorite
       suffisante soit au fidele, soit au savant. L'Eglise catholique
       a laissé le choix libre entre ces chronologies et elles
       n'oblige pas même à en adopter une."--_"Le Monde et L'Homme
       Primitif selon la Bible," par Mgr. Meignan, Evêque de
       Chalons-sur-Marne_, 1869.

With this view I shall successively examine the chronology of the
principal nations whose annals profess to go back to the commencement
of things--the Aryan (including the Indian, the Persian, the Greek, and
the Roman), the Babylonian, the Chinese, Phoenician, and Egyptian.

_Indian Chronology._--There was a time when the Indian (Aryan)
chronology was believed to attain to the most remote antiquity of all,
and this belief was sustained by the apparently irrefragable testimony
of astronomical evidence. Who upholds this evidence now? On this head
I must refer to Cardinal Wiseman's seventh lecture ("On Science and
Revealed Religion"), where the reader will find a clear and careful
_precis_ of the discussion on the subject between Bailly and Delambre,
the _Edinburgh Review_ and Bentley, to which I am not aware that
anything of consequence has to be added.

If, on the other hand, we turn to what I am exclusively directing
my attention--the strict historical investigation--we find that the
cautious inquiries of such men as Sir W. Jones and Heeren concur in
placing the Aryan invasion at the antecedently very probable date, from
the point of view of Scripture, of some 2000 years B.C.

At the present moment the discussion takes the form of philological
inquiry, and into the antiquity (upon internal evidence) of the ancient
Sanscrit literature. In so far, therefore, as it is philological,
it belongs to the indirect argument, which I am now excluding. In
so far as the Sanscrit literature is historical, I have discussed
the testimony which it brings in the preceding chapter. Professor
Rawlinson, however, in his recent "Manual of Ancient History," refuses
to discuss the question, as he does not regard the Maha-Bharata and
Ramayana as "trustworthy sources of history," and commences his
Persian history with the accession of Cyrus, previously to which he
does not consider the Aryan migration and settlement to have been
completed. Apart, then, from the peculiar line of argument to which
I shall presently refer, it would appear that the Indian chronology,
as reconstructed from history and tradition, falls easily within the
lines, not only of the LXX., but of the Hebrew version.

The Indians, it is true ("Hales' Chron.," i. 196), themselves say that
their history goes back 432,000,000 years. Although Hales gives a
solution which may be deemed satisfactory, I think that, if considered
in connection with the Babylonian computation, it will be seen that,
though inexact in their figure, they are accurate in their tradition.

_The primary figure in their (Indian) calculation_--432,000--_is
arrived at through the extended multiplication_ of the Chaldean sossos,
neros, and saros, _or of their own traditional figures_ corresponding
to them (_vide infra_).

In the Chaldean system (_vide_ Rawlinson, "Anc. Mon.," i.), 6 and 10
were employed as alternate multipliers. Thus a "soss" = 60 years (10
× 6), a "ner" = 600 (60 × 10), a "sar" = 3600 (600 × 6); and if the
multiplication be continued, the next figure would be 36,000 (3600 ×
10), next 216,000 (36,000 × 6). _The Indian figure 432,000,[49] is made
up of twice 216,000._

  [49] 432,000 is also the figure to which Berosus extends the
       Assyrian chronology. Thus the Indian fabrication commences at
       the point where Berosus ends.

Professor Rawlinson ("Anc. Mon.," i. 192) gives in detail, and endorses
a remarkable _eclaircissement_ of M. Gutschmid on the mythical
traditions of Assyrian chronology.

_Babylonian Chronology._--Rawlinson says--

  "Assuming that the division between the earlier and later Assyrian
  dynasty synchronises with the celebrated era of Nabonassar (747
  B.C.), which is probable, but not certain, and taking the year B.C.
  538 as the admitted date of the conquest of the last Chaldæan king
  by Cyrus, he obtains for the seventh or second Assyrian dynasty 122
  years (747 to 625). Assuming, next, that B.C. 2234, from which the
  Babylonians counted their stellar observations, must be a year of
  note in Chaldæan history, and finding that it cannot well represent
  the first year of the second or Median dynasty, since in that case
  eleven kings of the third dynasty would have reigned no more than
  thirty-four years, he concludes it must mark the expulsion of the
  Medes and accession of the third dynasty (which he regards as a
  native dynasty). From his previous calculations, it follows that
  the fourth dynasty began B.C. 1976; between which and B.C. 2234
  are 258 years, a period which may be fairly assigned to eleven
  monarchs. This much is conjecture ... _the proof now suddenly
  flashes on us_. If the numbers are taken in the way assigned, and
  then added to the years of the first or purely mythical dynasty,
  we get 36,000, equal to the next term, to the sar (saros, _vide
  supra_), in the Babylonian system of cycles."

It will be more apparent in the following table from Rawlinson, _idem_--

     |----------------------------------------------
     |                            |  Years.  | B.C. |
     |----------------------------|-----------------|
     |Mythical      86 Chaldæans  |  34,800  |      |
     |            {  8 Medes      |     224  | 2458 |
     |            {11 [Chaldæans] |    (258) | 2234 |
     |            {49 Chaldæans   |     458  | 1976 |
     |Historical. { 9 Arab        |     245  | 1518 |
     |            {45 [Assyrian]  |     526  | 1273 |
     |            { 8 [Assyrian]  |     122  |  747 |
     |            { 6 Chaldæans   |      87  |  625 |
     |----------------------------|----------|------|
     |                            |   36,000 |      |
     |----------------------------|----------|------|

_Chinese Chronology._--The Chinese, also--though, be it observed,
the Chinese of modern date, according to Klaproth ("Mem. Relatifs. à
l'Asie," i. 405; Klaproth places the commencement of the uncertain
history of China 2637 B.C., the certain history 782 B.C.),[50] in
the first year of our era, but more systematically in the ninth
century--forged a mythological history, which carried the empire back
2,276,000 years (another calculation, 3,276,000). He adds, however,
that the Chinese themselves do not consider the Wai-ki, the authority
for these statements, to be historical.

  [50] Bunsen ("Egypt," iii. 405) says, "Systematic Chinese
       history and chronology hardly go back as far as the year
       2000 B.C., _i.e._ to the reign of Yü (1991)." Yet
       upon indirect philological conclusions, he would really
       take their history back _beyond the_ Egyptian--iii. p. 379.
       "An explanation must be given why it (the Chinese history)
       commences at a later period (as above) than Egyptian
       chronology; much _later_, indeed, than is generally supposed.
       Search must be made in _other quarters than_ the regular
       extant chronology for proofs of that _vast antiquity_, which
       the numerous _records_ of language _compel_ us to assign to
       the origines of the Chinese." This vast antiquity may be
       measured by the fact that, _ex hypothesi_, it transcends the
       Egyptian, and for the Egyptian in his theory of progress and
       development, he requires _at least 20,000 years_ before the
       Christian era.

Again, if we allow ourselves to be entangled in certain astronomical
disputations, the question may become complicated and confused; but the
astronomical discussion must depend, in the end, upon a point which
history must determine--_i.e._ whether the astronomical knowledge and
observations referred to had come down in primitive tradition, or had
been imported at a later date. Although it need not exclude a belief
in a tradition of primitive knowledge of astronomy, yet the doubt will
ever cause a fatal uncertainty in any calculations, since, if the
knowledge, or the knowledge of the particular observations and facts,
had at any time been imported, they might have calculated back their
eclipses, as has been proved to have been done in India.

Let us then, excluding the purely astronomical calculations, closely
scrutinise the evidence which tradition affords; for if we can discover
tradition of "appearances of rare occurrence, and which are difficult
to calculate, such as many of the planetary conjunctions," they "must,"
as Baron Bunsen observes ("Egypt," iii. p. 389), "either be pure
inventions, or contemporary notations of some extraordinary natural
phenomena." Baron Bunsen proceeds to say:--"One instance that may be
cited is the traditional observation of a conjunction of five planets
(among which the sun and moon are mentioned), on the first day of
Litshin, in the time of Tshuen-hiü, the _second successor of Hoang-ti_.
Suppose this should have been the great conjunction of the three upper
planets which recurs every 794 years and four months, and to which
Kepler first turned his attention in reference to the year of the
nativity of Christ. It took place in the following years.

The one which occurred in historical times was in November, seven years
B.C.; consequently the conjunctions prior to it occurred in--

                                  Yrs.    Mos.     Dys.

                                  794       4       12
                                    7      10       12
                                 ---------------------
                                  786       6        0
                                  794       4       12
                                 ---------------------
                                 1580      10       12
     And the conjunction in       794       4       12
                                 ---------------------
     The time of Tshuen-hiü in   2375       2       24

According to the official Chinese tables, as given by Ideler, he
reigned from 2513 B.C. to 2436 B.C.; but the dates vary to the extent
of more than 200 years, and the year 2375 comes within the limits of
these deviations."

Baron Bunsen, we may then assume, has very skilfully brought back
Chinese chronology to within _two generations of Hoang-ti (supra)_.
If we could further identify Hoang-ti with Noah, two patriarchal
generations would bring us close to the date of the Deluge as fixed
by the Septuagint, if we referred them, in the first instance, to the
death of Noah.

Before proceeding to this identification, I must point to another
chronological fact in Chinese tradition, which would give to this
identification an antecedent probability. It was stated (Bunsen,
"Egypt," iii. 383) that Hoang-ti established the _astronomical cycle of
60 years_ in the _sixty-first year_ of his _reign_.

At p. 387, Bunsen says: "The scientific problem thus offered for our
solution is the following--It is admitted that the Chinese, from the
_earliest times_, made use of a sexagesimal cycle for the division
of the year = 6 × 60 days (360 days), and they marked the years by a
cycle of 60 years, running concurrently with the cycle of days. This
cycle, therefore, must have been originally instituted at a time when
the first day of the daily cycle coincided with the first year of
the annual cycle, _i.e._ when they commenced on the same day. Ideler
thinks it impossible to ascertain this, owing to the irregularity of
the old calendar." We may ask, then, what year that could be named
would so exactly satisfy these conditions as the sixty-first year of
the reign of Noah after the Deluge?[51] Let us, moreover, consider how
traditional this cycle of sixty years has been (p. 386),--"Scaliger
made the remark that the twelve yearly zodiacal cycle, which is in
use among the Tartars (Mongols, Mandshus, Igurians), the inhabitants
of Thibet, the Japanese and Siamese dated from _the earliest times_.
Among the Tartaric populations, however, this is a cycle of sixty years
(12 × 5); of the Indians we have already spoken."

  [51] Martini ("Historia Sinica," p. 14, edit. Monac.) asserts that
       the Egyptians computed by the era of sixty years of _Hoangho_.
       See De Vignolle's "Miscellanea Berolinensia," I. iv. 37, on
       the cycle of months. Compare Ideler, App. ix., note from
       Bunsen, iii. 385. Humboldt ("Vues des Cordillères", p. 149;
       Prescott, Mex., i. 105) seems to say that, "among the Chinese,
       Japanese, Moghols, Mantchous, and other families of the Tartar
       race" (compare Mexican, do.), "their series was composed
       of symbols of their five elements, and the twelve zodiacal
       signs, making a cycle of sixty years duration." This is not
       incompatible with, the allegation that it is "the era of sixty
       years of Hoangho."

It will have already been seen that the cycle of sixty years entered
into the Chaldean system--viz. cycle of 60 years = a sossos, 600 years
= a saros, 3600 years = a neros.

  "Now when we find (Bunsen, p. 387) that six hundred years _gives
  an excess of exactly one lunar month, with far greater accuracy_
  than the Julian year, such a cycle must have been indispensable
  when that of sixty years was in use, and consequently must have
  been employed by the Chinese, or, at all events, have been known to
  those from whom they borrowed the latter. Josephus also calls six
  hundred years the great year, which may have been observed by the
  patriarch."

And at p. 407, in summing up the general chronological result, he
says:--

  "_a._ ... The earliest Chinese chronology rests upon a conventional
  basis peculiar to itself, that of limiting the lunar year by a
  cycle of six hundred years, which is common to the whole of North
  Asia and the Chaldeans; and probably (as it is also met with in
  India) to the Bactrians also: this basis is _historical_." "_b._
  The communication took place before the Chaldees invented the cycle
  of six hundred years."

From our point of view, believing that the Chaldees never invented
the cycle but held to it traditionally, the above conclusion must
be construed to mean that the "communication," or diffusion of the
knowledge, must have taken place before the lapse of the first six
hundred years after the Deluge, which will be further confirmed by
conclusion _c._

  "_c._ The Chinese observation is based upon the Babylonian gnomon,"

which appears to me tantamount to the admission that it took place, in
the plains of Mesopotamia, previous to the Dispersion.

In arriving, then, at the sixty-first year of the reign of Hoang-ti, we
are led up to such close proximity to the epoch of the Deluge, that
the presumption that Hoang-ti was Noah would be strong, even if no
other evidence was at hand to corroborate it.

It is with this supplementary evidence that I now propose to deal.

Although the tradition of the Chinese is remarkably accurate, up to a
certain point, yet in the period beyond that point, where the confusion
is manifest, there is no reason why we should not expect to find
the same reduplications and amalgamations of ante and post diluvian
traditions, which we have already found in the history of other nations.

Without attempting to unravel all complications, let us turn again to
Bunsen (iii. 382), and setting aside Pu-an-ku, the primeval man who
came out of the mundane egg and lived eighteen thousand years, and who
has resemblances with the Assyrian Ra and Ana, and the Egyptian Ra,
the son of Ptha (to whom thirty thousand are allotted, _vide infra_,
p. 97-100), and Sui-shin, "who discovered fire," and who is the
counterpart of Prometheus (_vide_ p. 180). Regarding
Pu-an-ku, the cosmical, and Sui-shin, as the mythical tradition of
Adam, we come to the historical tradition in the person of Fohi.

  "I. Fohi the great, the brilliant (Tai-hao) cultivator of astronomy
  and religion, as well as writing. He reigned one hundred and ten
  years. Then came fifteen reigns. II. Shin-nong (divine husbandman);
  institution of agriculture; the knowledge of simples applied as
  the art of medicine." [Compare pp. 210-214, Saturn, Bacchus,
  Æsculapius.] "III. Hoang-ti (great ruler) came to the throne in
  consequence of an armed insurrection (new dynasty), and was obliged
  to put down a revolt. _In his reign_ the magnetic needle was
  discovered; _the smelting of copper for making weapons_;[52] vases
  of high art, and money; improvement in the written character,
  said to be borrowed from the lines on the tortoise-shell. It
  consists of five hundred hieroglyphics, of which two hundred
  can still be pointed out. He established fixed habitations
  throughout his dominions, and the astronomical cycle of sixty
  years _in the sixty-first year of his reign_ (_vide supra_, 61);
  musical instruments. It was in his time also that the fabulous
  bird Sin appeared. The empire was considerably extended to the
  _southward_."--_Bunsen_, 382.

  [52] This tradition would seem to confirm Bryant's ("Mythology,"
       iii. 584) conjecture that Hoang-ti was Ham. But Hoang-ti as
       Ham, may absorb and incorporate, as we have seen in other
       instances, the history of his progenitors; and, moreover,
       whether he is Noah or Ham, would scarcely affect the
       chronological argument.

If we take Fohi as Adam, the fifteen reigns which follow will bear
analogy with "the fifteen generations of the Cynic cycle" (_vide_
Palmer i. p. 8, 23-37; also _vide infra_), and will correspond to
the thirteen generations, viz. the ten antediluvian, and the three
survivors (excluding Noah) of the Deluge in the Egyptian chronology
(_vide infra_). Shin-nong, "the divine husbandman,"
will be Noah, and Hoang-ti, Shem or Ham, or else the two will be
reduplicate traditions of Noah. Compare the attributions of Hoang-ti
with those of Hoa in the Assyrian tradition, p. 239. Certain statements
regarding him--_e.g._ that he suppressed an insurrection, accord
more nearly with epithets applied to Nin, the fish-god, whom I have
considered a duplicate of Hoa (p. 201), _e.g._ "the destroyer of
enemies,"--"the reducer of the disobedient,"--"the exterminator of
rebels." Compare with the Phoenician tradition, p. 211, of Saturn
causing the destruction of his son Sadid by the Deluge. The appearance
of the fabulous bird Sin, seems a reminiscence of the birds sent out of
the ark, which is so frequent in tradition. Compare the mystery bird
(the dove) in the Mandan ceremonies,--the worship of the pigeon in
Cashmere,[53] &c. Other coincidences might be pointed if space allowed.

  [53] On the worship of the pigeon in Cashmere, _vide_ "Travels in
       Kashmir," by G. G. Vigne, Esq., F.G.S., ii. p. 11, 13. 1844.

But analogous to the double tradition of the Deluge in Assyria in the
persons of Hoa and Nin; and, again, by a distinct channel of tradition
in Xisuthrus (_vide_ pp. 208, 209), as in China, there seems to have
been a similar reduplication in China in their kings Hoang-ti and Yao
or Yu.[54]

  [54] The reduplication may have occurred in this way. Hoang-ti
       being Noah, Yao or Yu may have been his descendant under whom
       they settled in China at the termination of their migration.
       This is confirmed by Bunsen's view, iii. 405 (iv. and v.)
       In which case it would not be at all unnatural to suppose
       that the traditions appertaining to the remote progenitor,
       would in time settle down upon the head of the actual
       founder. Chevalier de Paravey (_vide_ Gainet, i. 93), "a
       trouvé un hieroglyphe chinois qui nomme la femme de Hoang-ti
       'Adamon' terre jaune, et si non signifie celle qui entraîne
       les autres dans son propre mal." This would merely be the
       confusion between Noah and Adam which we have seen to occur
       in almost every instance. Is not the Japanese god Amida =
       Adima, or perhaps to Adamon--_i.e._, confused in relationship
       to Hoang-ti or Noah? what confirms the impression is, that
       Adima's son is Canon. Query, Chanaan.

Now under this Yao or Yu, according to Chinese tradition (preserved,
moreover, in the inscription of Yu), there happened the Deluge, or a
Deluge. But as there is a confusion between Hoang-ti and Yao, so there
is between Yao and Yu. Bunsen, however, admits these latter to be
identical.

But although Bunsen asserts the authenticity of the inscription (as
also does Klaproth), he utterly scouts the idea that it is a tradition
of the Deluge, and maintains that it is itself evidence of a local
inundation. Let us see.

"All the confusion or ignorance," says Bunsen (398), "of the
missionaries [in this matter], arises from their believing that this
event referred to the Flood of Noah, which never reached this country."
And (p. 406), he says the inundation in the reign of Yao had just as
much to do with Noah's flood as the dams he created, and the canals he
dug, had to do with the ark. This is said with reference to the "short
Chinese account of it published by Klaproth," viz.--

  "In the sixty-first year of the reign of the Emperor Yao, serious
  mischief was caused by inundations. The emperor took counsel
  with the great men of the empire, who advised him to employ Kuen
  to drain off the water. Kuen was engaged upon it for nine years
  without success, and was condemned to be imprisoned for life. His
  son Yu was appointed in his stead. At the end of nineteen years
  he succeeded in stopping the inundation, and made a report to the
  emperor upon the subject."

Let us turn, however, from this later gloss to the inscription itself,
translated by Bunsen, p. 399--

  "The Emperor said, 'Oh thou Governor of the four mountains of the
      Empire!
  The swelling flood is producing mischief;
  It spreads itself far and wide;
  It surrounds the hills, it overflows the dams;
  Rushing impetuously along it rises up to Heaven:
  The common people complain and sigh.'"
                     --_Vide supra_, p. 396.

  "The venerable Emperor exclaimed with a sigh, 'Ho assistant
  Counsellor! the islands great and small up to the _mountain's top_;
  The door of _the birds_ and of beasts, all is overflowed together--
  Is swamped: be it thy care to open the way, to let off the water.'"

He then says:--

  "My task is completed; my _sacrifice_ I have offered in the second
  month, trouble is at an end, the dark destiny is changed; the
  _streams_ of the south flow down to the sea; garments are prepared;
  food is provided; _all the nations_ have rest; the people enjoy
  themselves with gambols and dancing."--(Compare Commemorative
  Festivals, _infra_, p. 249).

I should have thought that all these phrases pointed much more to a
universal Deluge than to a local inundation. But Bunsen says (398)--

  "The fact is fully proved both by the inscription and the work
  of Yu itself. The inscription was on the _top_ of the mountain,
  Yu-lu-fun, in the district of Shen-shu-lu. Owing to its having
  become illegible in early times, it was removed to _the top_
  of an adjoining mountain." ... "The former _locality_ tallies
  exactly with the very interesting description of the empire in
  the time of Yu, which we find at the opening of the second book
  of the Shuking." And Bunsen concludes, "It may be presumed after
  this verification, that in future nobody will seriously doubt the
  strictly epic description of the Shuking in the Canon of Yu," as
  above.

So far from being impressed by the discovery of the monument on the
top of the local mountain, as evidence of the local deluge, I can
see in it only a memorial of the universal Deluge localised; and I
cannot help considering it in connection with the worship of the tops
of mountains, of which we shall find traces elsewhere (p. 244-46).
Surely Baron Bunsen proves too much, and describes to us a deluge which
must have been on the scale of the universal Deluge for all countries
below the level of the mountain Yu-lu-fun. But, let it be said, that
this description, so accordant with the description of the flood, was
merely Chinese exaggeration. I here wish to point out two curious
coincidences. What if we shall find works similar of those to Yao or
Yu, ascribed to the original founders in Egypt and Cashmere? As in the
first instance, I shall have to quote from Baron Bunsen himself, I am
surprised that the coincidence should have escaped his observation.

  "This is the account given of Menes [the first king of Egypt] by
  Herodotus--Menes, the first king of Egypt, as the priests informed
  me, protected Memphis by a dam against the river which ran towards
  the sandy chain of the Libyan Mountains. About 100 stadia above
  Memphis, he made an embankment against the bend of the river,
  which is on the south side. The effect of this was to dry up its
  ancient bed, as well as to force the stream between the two chains
  of mountains. This bend of the Nile, which is confined within the
  embankment walls, was very carefully attended to by the Persians,
  and repaired every year. For, if the river were to burst through
  its banks and overflow at this point, all Memphis would be in
  danger of being swamped. Menes, _the oldest of their kings_, having
  thus drained the tract of land by means of the dyke, built upon
  it the city now called Memphis, which lies in the mountain valley
  of Egypt. To the west and north he dug a lake round it, which
  communicates with the river--on the east it is bounded by the
  Nile--and afterwards erected in it a temple to Vulcan, a splendid
  edifice, deserving of especial notice" (ii. 48).

Bunsen fully endorses this account--"Herodotus, therefore, has
recorded the following fact, that before the time of Menes the Nile
overflowed the tract of country which he fixed upon as the site of his
new metropolis" (p. 49 and p. 51). "There is no foundation whatever
for Andriossy's hypothesis that the story originated in the fact of
the Nile having once run westward from the Pyramid mountains to Bahr
Bela Ma (stream without water) and the Natron and Mareotic Lakes.
Herodotus mentions an historical fact, and describes the work of an
historical king. Andriossy's hypothesis, if well founded, would belong
to geology." A sagacious and well-founded remark on the part of Baron
Bunsen, but, as I submit, equally applicable to the work of Yao or Yu.

Merely noting that, if the above work was really carried out by Menes,
and it would have been, from the point of view of Genesis, so carried
out at a period contemporary with that of Yao or Yu--and, moreover,
conceding to it in any case (I mean the work of Menes) a certain
historical basis--let us dispassionately compare both with the passage
from Klaproth, which I shall now extract. It is taken from the Sanscrit
History of Cashmere.[55]

  [55] Klaproth says:--"The only Sanscrit history deserving the name
       of the chronicle of the kings of Kashmir, Radja Paringin'i,
       translated by W. H. Wilson."--_Klaproth, Mem. Relatif à
       L'Asie_.

Klaproth says:--

  "The _Hindoo_ history of Kashmir assures us that the beautiful
  valley which forms this kingdom was originally a vast lake, called
  Satisaras. This account is also agreeable to the _local traditions_
  of this country. It was Kasy'apa, _a holy person_ who, according
  to the Hindoo historians, caused the waters which covered this
  valley to escape. He was the son of _Marichi_, the son of Brahma.
  The Mahometan writers call him Kachef or Kacheb, and many of them
  pretend that he was a god, or a genius, and servant of Soliman,
  _under whose orders he effected_ the drying up of Kashmir. To
  execute _this task_ he made, near Baramanleh, _a passage across
  the mountains_, through which the water passed.... The territory,
  recovered in this way by Kasy'apa, _was also peopled_ by this holy
  man, with the assistance of the superior gods, whom he brought for
  this purpose from heaven, _at the commencement_ of the seventh
  manwantara, or that in which we are now." Klaproth adds:--"We must
  therefore suppose that Kashmir has been subjected to the same
  periodical revolutions as the other parts of the world, if we would
  reconcile this date with the ordinary chronology."[56]

  [56] Compare the following account of existing customs in
       Cashmir with the above extract from Klaproth and ch. xi.,
       with commemorative festivals of the Deluge. Mr G. G. Vigne
       ("Travels in Kashmir," ii. 93) says:--"What has been
       poetically termed the feast of roses, has of late years been
       rather the feast of signaras or _water_-nuts. It is held, I
       believe, about the 1st May, when plum-trees and roses are in
       full bloom, and is called the Shakergal, from the Persian
       shakergan, to blow a blossom [the Mandan ceremony took place
       when the willow flowered.--Catlin, p. 6]. The richer classes
       come in _boats_ to the foot of the Tukt, ascend it, and
       have a feast upon _the summit_, eating more particularly of
       signaras (_water_-nuts). The feast of the No-warh (new place)
       takes place at the vernal equinox [compare Noah, Taurus], at
       _which period_ the _valley is said to have been drained_. It
       is held chiefly at the _But_ or idol stone on Hari par_but_."
       Query--Can this be "the ark or big canoe" in the Mandan
       celebration? Considering the prominence of boats in all these
       mysteries, and considering the resemblance of but to boat, and
       the like analogies in so many languages (Sanskrit, pota = boat)
       (_vide_ Vicomte d'Anselme, _infra_, p. 196), may we be
       permitted the conjecture until corrected. Compare also p. 268,
       Ogilby's "Japan," Cook. &c., p. 271.

It must, I think, be conceded that we have now before us three very
similar accounts of works undertaken with reference to the reclamation
of inundated land. All are undertaken by the first founders of their
respective kingdoms--kingdoms widely separated and inhabited by
people of diverse race--and all, more or less, contemporaneously.
The Egyptians and Kashmerian have points in common as to their mode
of reclamation, whilst the Chinese and Kashmerian have still more in
common with the narrative in Genesis.[57]

  [57] I have since found this identical tradition (_vide_ p. 325)
       among the Mozca Indians. "Boshicha," it is said, "taught
       them _to build and to sow_, formed them _into communities_,
       GAVE AN OUTLET TO THE WATERS OF THE GREAT LAKE, &c." This
       seems demonstratively to prove, either that the Mozca Indians
       (South America) came from China, India, or Egypt--which I have
       contended for at p. 266--or else, which makes the argument
       I have in hand stronger, they have transmitted an identical
       tradition by a different channel.

Four solutions occur to me as possible. Either they were obscure or
perverted traditions of the Deluge, or their works were traditions of
similar works effected by Noah after the Deluge; or these works were
actually carried out upon the precedent and model of similar works
effected by Noah; or they were fortuitous coincidences.

Upon either of the three former conclusions, it will be shown that
traditions of the Deluge, direct or indirect, exist both in Egypt and
China, where it has been so confidently asserted that no tradition
is to be found; and in the latter case, what is more especially to
my purpose, a tradition which brings Yao into relation with Noah and
Hoang-ti.

In conclusion, I must remark that when it is urged that there is no
tradition, or but slight tradition, of the flood in Egypt, we have a
right to reply that there is no country where we should have so little
reason to expect it. If there is any country where we should think
it likely that the reminiscences of the Deluge would be effaced, it
would be in a country periodically subject to inundations, where the
people are annually made familiar with its incidents, and where its
recurrence is not to them a cause of alarm, but a matter of expectation
and joy.[58]

  [58] "The Chinese _who migrated before the Deluge (sic)_ have no
       reminiscences, any more than the Egyptians, of the great
       catastrophe which we know by the name of the Flood of Noah"
       (Bunsen's "Egypt," iii. 397). Palmer ("Egypt. Chron.," i. p.
       38) says, with reference to a certain date--"This is only for
       such as know the true date of the flood, the end of the old
       world--an epoch by no means to be named, nor even directly
       alluded to, by any Egyptian."



                               CHAPTER V.

          _CHRONOLOGY FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF SCIENCE._


Although the testimony of history is definite and decisive as to the
chronology of the world, within the limits of a few hundred years,
there is a general assumption, in all branches of scientific inquiry,
that man must have existed many thousand years beyond the period thus
assigned to him. Lyell speaks of "the vastness of time"[59] required
for his development, and Bunsen, as we have seen, requires twenty
thousand years, at least, between the Deluge and the nativity of
our Lord: and wherefore this discrepancy? Because of a fundamental
assumption--not merely hypothetical for the convenience of inquiry--but
confident and absolute; an assumption which, so far as the argument is
concerned, is the very matter in dispute--that man must have progressed
and developed to the point at which we see him.

[59] "Principles of Geology," tenth edition, 1868, ii. p. 471.

At the same time, the actual chronology cannot be altogether ignored,
and some cognisance must be taken of the facts which history presents
to us; and it is this unfortunate exigency, interrupting the placid
course of development, which not unfrequently lands scientific
inquirers of the first eminence in difficulties from which it will take
an indefinite lapse of time to extricate them; _ex. gra._, Bunsen, in
his "Egypt," iii. 379, says--

  "It has been more than once remarked, in the course of this work,
  that the _connection between the Chinese and the Egyptians_
  belongs, in several of its phases, to the _general history_ of
  the world. The Chinese language is the furthest point beyond that
  of the formation of the Egyptian language, which represents, as
  compared with it, the middle ages of mankind,--viz., the Turanian
  and Chamitic stages of development."

The conclusion of philology (_vide_ also Brace's "Ethnology," p. 114)
is, therefore, that the Turanian or Chamitic grew out of the more
inorganic and elementary Chinese.

Now, let us compare Lyell's conclusions with Bunsen's. Lyell equally
believes ("Principles of Geology," ii. 471) "that three or four
thousand years is but a _minute fraction_ of the time required to bring
about such wide divergence from a common parent stock, 'as between' the
Negroes and Greeks and Jews, Mongols and Hindoos, represented on the
Egyptian monuments."

At the same time, he endorses Sir John Lubbock's view, and pronounces,
upon what appears to me very light and insufficient grounds (ii. 479),
that "the theory, therefore, that the savage races have been degraded
from a previous state of civilisation _may be rejected_:" and by
implication that the civilised races have progressed from the savage
state may be affirmed.[60]

  [60] The ground upon which Lyell pronounces this judgment is
       (ii. 479) "that no fragment of pottery has been found among
       the nations of Australia, New Zealand, and the Polynesian
       islands any more than ancient architectural remains, in all
       which respects, these rude men now living, resemble the men
       of the Palæolithic age; when pottery is known to all, it is
       always abundant, and, though easy to break, is difficult to
       destroy. It is improbable that so useful an art should ever
       have been lost by any race of man." The argument is strongly
       put, but many things are left out of consideration. Supposing
       the primitive knowledge, is not pottery one of the arts
       which would be most likely to be lost in a migration across
       the seas? Again, that they had no pottery, and that the
       Palæolithic age had no pottery, shows that in the interval
       there had been no progress. When will there be? As to the
       circumstance that it is the same among the Australians and
       Polynesians, the fact cuts both ways. You assume that there
       is a uniformity in progress, but may not there be the same
       uniformity in the processes of degradation? and, assuming the
       fact, may it not simply prove that these savages have reached
       the same depth as the other savages?--_Vide_ appendix to ch.
       xii.

I have, then, only to assume one point that Sir C. Lyell will concede,
the order of progress or development to have been from black to white,
and that he will pay us the compliment of being the more favoured race.

But of all the races that are akin to the Mongol or Turanian, the
Chinese are the whitest, and most nearly approach the European in
colour.

How many years, then, may we suppose that it took the Chinese to
progress from the black state of the Egyptian? as many, let us
conjecture, as it took the Egyptian to progress linguistically from the
state of the Chinese or Mongol!

This is one instance of the entanglement in which the theory of
progress, pure and simple, from a parent stock will involve us. The
obvious mode of escape would be to deny the unity of the human race,
a conclusion which would at once land us in the darkness of a still
lower abyss, and convert our processes from being scientific in form
and hopeful of result, into empirical and aimless conjectures. For
either the theory is started that the various races of mankind were
created separately, in which case we fly into the face of the only
account we have of creation, and also of the multiform testimonies
which history and science bring to attest this truth, and we, moreover,
debar ourselves from falling back upon any uniform theory applicable to
the whole human race; or if, without advertence to creation, we suppose
mankind to have been variously developed, here again we shall equally
find ourselves cut off from the application of any uniform historical
theory, equally unable to account for or to exclude the testimony of
history, and in the end reduced to the evidences, whatever they may be
worth, of certain real or fancied analogies.[61] At this point, the
historical inquiry will be virtually abandoned, and the records of the
past merged in the phenomena of life, will be considered only in the
light of some pantheistic or materialistic theory, or, so far as it is
distinguishable, of some theory of evolution.

  [61] The following passage from M. A. Bastian's article in _The
       Academy_, June 15, 1871, "On the People of India," seems
       to me to afford an illustration in point--"The natural
       system becomes an indispensable necessity in every science,
       so soon as it is clearly seen that the question is not of
       classification, but of observation of, and insight into,
       law. Classification was long held to be the sole end,
       instead of being merely or mainly the means of study. As,
       in this respect, systematic botany gave place to vegetable
       physiology, so, in like manner, ethnology will have to look
       upon its classification of race--with which the school books
       hitherto have been almost exclusively occupied--as merely a
       preliminary step towards a physiology of mankind, and to _a
       science of the laws_ which _govern its spiritual growth_."
       Now, if no physiology of mankind, in the sense here intended,
       can be traced, and if "the science of the laws which govern
       its spiritual growth" (_vide infra_, an exposition of Mr
       Baring Gould's theory) has come to no definite conclusion,
       then the only result, as far as science is concerned, will
       have been the revolutionising of its classifications, and the
       classifications of the different races of men (and, in so far
       as they have been accurately ascertained, their confusion will
       be matter of regret) is the legitimate and ultimate end of
       ethnology under normal conditions.

I am no longer concerned with any of these theories the moment they
discard the historical element; and I shall, accordingly, return to the
theory of Sir John Lubbock, which is honestly based upon it.

When all is said, I cannot make out that Sir John adduces any argument
in favour of the antiquity of the human race which does not resolve
itself into the contrast between our civilisation and the degradation
of savages; and that the time which must have elapsed to bring about
this transformation is measured by the fact that the negro, of the
"true Nigritian stamp," appears upon the Egyptian monuments, at
least as far back as B.C. 2400. "Historians, philologists,
and physiologists have alike admitted that the short period allowed
in Archbishop Usher's chronology could hardly be reconciled with
the history of some Eastern nations, and that it did not leave room
_for the development either of_ the different languages or of the
numerous physical peculiarities by which various races of men are
distinguished."[62] As no facts in the history of Eastern nations are
adduced, I shall consider that this part of the argument has been
sufficiently disposed of in the preceding chapters, and if they had
been adduced, I venture to think that they would have been interpreted
by the latter part of the sentence, and would have been incompatible
with the chronology, only because they did not allow sufficient time
"for the development," &c. Of this sort of fact, I admit, nothing
stronger can be adduced than the case of the negro on the Egyptian
monuments, only I wish to direct attention to the different aspect
these facts will bear when the theory of progress is not assumed as
an infallible proposition. Moreover, as Mr Poole, whom Sir J. Lubbock
very candidly quotes, points out, in the interval between this and
2400 B.C. we do not find "the least change in the negro or
the Arab; and even the type which seems to be intermediate between
them, is virtually as unaltered. Those who consider that length of
time can change a type of man, will do well to consider the fact
that three thousand years give no ratio on which a calculation could
be founded." So that if Arch. Usher had expanded his chronology so
as to take in the twenty thousand years Bunsen requires, it really
would not appreciably have affected the argument. Sir J. Lubbock,
indeed, says (p. 477)--"I am, however, not aware that it is supposed
by any school of ethnologists that 'time' alone, without a change of
external conditions, will produce an alteration of type." "Let us,"
he continues, "turn now to the instances relied on by Mr Crawford.
The millions, he says, of African negroes that have, during three
centuries, been transported to the New World and its islands, are the
same in colour as the present inhabitants of the parent country of
their forefathers. The Creole Spaniards ... are as fair as the people
of Arragon and Andalusia. The pure Dutch Creole colonists of the Cape
of Good Hope, after dwelling two centuries among black Caffres and
yellow Hottentots, do not differ in colour from the people of Holland."
[The strongest case is, perhaps, that of the American Indians, who do
not vary from a uniform copper colour in north or south--in Canada
or on the line.][63] In these instances, Sir J. Lubbock says:--"We
have great change of circumstances, but a very insufficient lapse of
time, and, in fact, there is no well authenticated case [he does not,
however, advert to the case of the Indians, which seems to satisfy both
conditions] in which these two requisites are united," ... and adds,
"there is already a marked difference between the English of Europe and
the English of America;" but is full allowance made here for admixture
of race? and, also, is his instance to the point? Is not the difficulty
rather that, whereas climate, food, change of circumstances have (for,
I think, the balance of the argument is on that side), in many ways,
modified other races (though whether to the extent of destroying the
characteristic type, may be open to question), the negro has resisted
these influences, and has remained the same negro that we find him 2400
B.C.? Consider that it is only a question of degree, and that
it is merely true that the negro has resisted these influences more
persistently than other races.[64] Still the contrast is not the less
startling when we find the negro in the same relative position, and
with the same stamp of inferiority, that we find indelibly impressed
upon him four thousand years ago? It is a case which neither the theory
of progress, nor the theory of degeneracy, seems to touch.

  [62] Sir J. Lubbock's "Prehistoric Times," p. 313.

  [63] It has almost passed into a proverb, says Morton--who is among
       those who know the Americans best--that he who has seen one
       Indian tribe has seen them all, so closely do the individuals
       of this race resemble each other, whatever may be the variety
       or the extent of the countries they inhabit." Reusch's "La
       Bible et la Nature," _vide_ also Card. Wiseman's "Lect. on
       Science and Rev. Rel." lect. iv., _vide_, however, Reusch,
       p. 498, where "a remarkable difference in the cranium" is
       noticed, "sometimes approaching the Malay, sometimes the
       Mongol shape."

  [64] That the negro has undergone modifications, seems established
       by the fact that we nowhere find all the characteristics of
       the negro united in any one case--unless, perhaps, in the case
       of the negroes of Guinea, to which I have alluded. Yet, in
       the people who border them, there has been noticed "un retour
       vers des formes superieures." The Yoloss, "out le front élevé,
       des machoires peu saillantes, leurs dents sont droites, et
       ils sont en général bein constitués, _mais ils sont tout à
       fait noirs_. Leurs voisins, les Mandingues, tiennent beaucoup
       plus du type négre ... mais leur teint est beaucoup moins
       noir."--De Bur. ap. Reusch, p. 505. But under no influences
       of climate has the negro ever become white like the European,
       or the European black like the inhabitant of Guinea; if they
       become darker, "c'est simplement la teint particulier à leur
       race qui gagne en intensité."--Burminster, ap. Reusch, p. 509.

But it is a case which De Maistre's view exactly solves. Now, however
much we may rebel against De Maistre's theory, that the early races of
mankind were endowed with higher and more intuitive moral faculties
than ours, and, whether or not, we accept his _dictum_ that great
punishments pre-suppose great knowledge, and reversely, that higher
knowledge implies the liability to great punishments, I do not see
how we can refuse to consider the matter, so far as to see whether
the view solves all the difficulties of the question. It is not the
first time that the blackness of the African race has been connected in
theory with a curse; but De Maistre's theory throws a new light on the
malediction--whether it be the curse of Cham or of Chanaan, or whether
both were smitten, according to different degrees of culpability:
and I maintain, further, that it is adequate to the explanation of
the phenomena, that it does not clash with history, and that it is
sustained by tradition.

Nevertheless, I apprehend that this view will be as much combated from
the point of view of scriptural exegesis, as of scientific speculation.

Yet the curse of Cham, or of Chanaan, affecting all their posterity,
ought not in reason to be more revolting even to those who have never
realised what sin is, than the narrative of the fall of Adam and Eve
with its direful consequences. The theory seems perfectly conformable
to Scripture, and to what we know of the secrets of the Divine
judgments. The picture of Cham, or Chanaan, stricken with blackness,
does not present a more sudden or more terrible retribution to the
mind than the Fall of the Angels. How many thousand years did it take
to transform Lucifer into Satan? or the primitive Adam into the Adam
feeling shame, and conscious of decay, want, and the doom of death?

On the other hand, blackness, from the commencement, has been
associated with evil. To this it may be replied that this is the
sentiment merely of the white races--a natural prejudice of colour, an
_ex parte_ deduction; and to this argument, if such is the view really
taken by the black races, and if no consciousness can be detected of
their degradation amongst themselves, I see no other reply than this,
That since, _ex hypothesi_, they are black because they are cursed,
the tradition of this curse would be more naturally preserved by the
white races than by the black. But is there no consciousness of this
inferiority in the true negro? Without looking at the matter from
the same point of view, I may appeal to Captain Burton's statements
on this point as to a fully competent, if not the highest, authority
that can be quoted on points of African travel. In the first place,
he notices "the confusion of the mixed and the mulatto with the
full-blooded negro. By the latter word I understand the various tribes
of intertropical Africa, unmixed with European or Asiatic blood"
("Dahome," ii. 187); and p. 193, "I have elsewhere given reasons for
suspecting, in the great Kafir family, a considerable mixture of
Arab, Persian, and other Asiatic blood:" and as to the particular
point in question, he says (p. 200), "The negro will obey a white man
more readily than a mulatto, and a mulatto rather than one of his own
colour. He never thinks of claiming equality with the Aryan race except
when taught. At Whydat, the French missionaries remark that their
scholars always translate 'white and black by master and slave.'" P.
189, "One of Mr Prichard's few good generalisations is, that as a rule
the darker and dingier the African tribe, the more degraded is its
organisation."[65] I find a very similar testimony in Crawford's "Hist.
of the Indian Archipelago," i. 18. He says, "The brown and negro races
of the Archipelago may be considered to present, in their physical and
moral characters, a complete parallel with the white and negro races in
the western world. The first has always displayed as great a relative
superiority over the second, as the race of white men have done over
the negroes of the west." Yet at p. 20 he says, "The Javanese, who live
most comfortably, are among the darkest people in the Archipelago, the
wretched Dyaks, or cannibals of Borneo, among the fairest." It must
be noted, however, that the Javanese have also preserved something of
primitive tradition--_e.g._ their marriage ceremony. And, moreover,
it is not at all essential to the argument to prove that the negroes
are the _most degraded_ race. Let it be said that they have had their
curse, and that the sign of the curse is in their blackness--this is
merely equivalent to saying that they are cursed _pro tanto_; but it by
no means follows that other races have not fallen to lower depths, and
incurred a deeper reprobation.[66]

  [65] Captain Burton (ii. 165) also quotes a Catholic and a
       Protestant missionary as to this point. M. Wallon says, "Avec
       leur tendance à nous considérer comme réellement supérieurs à
       eux, et leur croyance que cette supériorité nous est acquise
       par celle de notre Dieu, ils renonceraient bientôt aux leurs
       idoles pour adorer celui qui nous leur prions de connaître."
       Mr Dawson says, "Fetish has been strengthened by the white
       man, whom the ignorant blacks would not scruple to call a god
       if he could avoid death."

       Assuming the identity of Bacchus and Noah, it is a striking
       circumstance, from this point of view, that the name of
       _Bacchus_, among the Phoenicians, was a synonymous term for
       mourning.--_Vide Hesychius in Bryant's "Mythology,"_ ii. 335;
       _vide also the verses of Theocritus_. Comp. p. 247, _note_
       (Boulanger).

  [66] Perhaps Captain Burton's phrase (ii. 178), "the _arrested_
       physical development of the negro," may, if extended to his
       mental development, exactly hit the truth, the standard being
       fixed by the age at which we conceive the boy Chanaan's
       development to have been _arrested_.--Comp. _Wallace, infra_,
       p. 91; comp. 217.

Among the Sioux Indians, and in the isle of Tonga (Oceanica), I find
trace of the tradition of blackness as a curse, and I should think
it likely that other instances might be discovered. The former (the
Sioux), in their reminiscences of the Deluge, relate, "The water
remained on the earth only two days (for the two months during which
the Scripture says it was at its height), at the expiration of which
the Master of Life, seeing that they had need of fire, sent it them by
a white crow, which, stopping to devour carrion, allowed the fire to be
extinguished. He returned to heaven to seek it. The Great Spirit drove
it away, and punished it by _striking it black_."--"_Annales de la
Prop. de la Foi_," l. iv. 537; Gainet, i. 211.

In Tonga, the tradition is connected with this history of Cain:--

  "The god Tangaloa,[67] who first inhabited this earth, is this
  Adam. He had two sons, who went to live at Boloton.... The younger
  was very clever. Tonbo (the eldest) was very different; he did
  nothing but walk about, sleep, and covet the works of his brother.
  One day he met his brother out walking, and knocked him down. Then
  their father arrived at Boloton, and in great anger said, 'Why
  has thou killed thy brother. Fly, wretched man; fly. _Your race
  shall be black_, and your soul depraved; you shall labour without
  success. Begone; you shall not go to the land of your brother, but
  your brother shall come sometimes to trade with you.' And he said
  to the family of the victim, 'Go towards the great land; your skin
  shall be white; you shall excel in all good things.'"--_Gainet_, i.
  93.[68]

  [67] "Annales de Philos. Chret.," t. xiii. p. 235.

  [68] The expressions in the latter part of this narration recall
       the blessing of Jacob, and suggests the possibility of the
       tradition having come through descendants of Esau.

Cardinal Wiseman (in his "Science and Revealed Religion," lect. iii.),
says, with reference to Aristotle's distribution of mankind into races
by colour:--

  "There is a passage in Julius Firmicus, overlooked by the
  commentators of Aristotle, which gives us the same ternary
  division, with the colours of each race. 'In the first place,' he
  writes, 'speaking of the characters and colours of men, they agree
  in saying,--if by the mixed influence of the stars, the characters
  and complexions of men are distributed; and if the course of the
  heavenly bodies, by a certain kind of artful painting, form the
  lineaments of mortal bodies; that is, if the moon makes men white,
  Mars red, _and Saturn black_, how comes it that in Ethiopia all are
  born black, in Germany white, and in Thrace red?'"--_Astronomicon_,
  lib. i., c. i., ed. Basil. 1551, p. 3.

Now this passage seems to me to have a still further significance in
the words I have italicised, with reference to the argument I have in
hand. It transpires, therefore, that the ancients had the notion that
Saturn made men black, which provoked the natural query, why then are
only the Ethiopians black? That it should ever have been supposed that
the distant Saturn, astronomically regarded, should have had such an
influence is preposterous, but if the mythological personage, Saturn,
ch. x., has been sufficiently identified with Noah, and the deification
of the hero in the planet (comp. pp. 159, 161) probable, the notion
that _he made men black_, must be the tradition of the event we are
considering.

I have elsewhere traced the fulfilment of the text which says that
Canaan shall be the "servant of servants to his brethren;" but as the
following extract from Klaproth, in evidence of the same, has also its
significance with reference to the point I am now considering--viz.
the curse of blackness--I prefer to give it a place here:--"Sakhalian
oudehounga est expliqué en Chinois par 'Khian chéon,' et par 'li chu,'
ce qui signifie les '_têtes noires_' et le '_peuple noir_,' expression
par laquelle on designe la 'bas peuple' ou les 'paysans.' Cette
une expression _usitée dans plusieures pays Asiatiques ainsi qu'en
Russie."--Klaproth, "Mem. Relatif a l'Asie;" vide strictures on Pere
Amyot's "Mandchou Dict_."

In the oldest books of the Zendavasta, virtue and vice are personified
as white and black. "The contrast between good and evil is strongly and
sharply marked in the Gâthâs.... They go a step further and personify
the two parties to the struggle. One is a 'white,' or holy spirit
(_spentô mainyus_), and the other, a 'dark' spirit (_angrô mainyus_).
But this personification is merely poetical or metaphysical, not
real."--_Rawlinson's "Ancient Monarchies_," iii. p. 106. The contrast,
however, between good and evil, as white and black was the genuine
expression of their idea or tradition. (Hung. ap. Bunsen, iii. p. 476,
admits, at least in one instance in the Gâthâs, "an angra ('black') is
put in opposition to the white, or more holy spirit.")

Mr Hunter ("Rural Bengal," p. 114) says of the primitive Aryans in
India--"The ancient singer praises the _god_ who 'destroyed the Dasyans
and protected the _Aryan colour_" (Rig. Veda., iii. pp. 34-39), and
"the thunderer, who bestowed on his white friends the fields," &c.
Whatever obscurity may attach to the latter passage, there can be no
doubt of the abhorrence with which the singers speak, _again_ and
_again_, of "_the black skin_," ... _e.g._ "the sacrificer poured
out thanks to his god for 'scattering the _slave_ bands of _black
descent_.'"

Although I believe the idea was traditional and had reference to the
curse, I will concede that it might have arisen primarily in the
contrast of night and day, light and darkness. But does this settle the
question? On the contrary, fortified with this explanation, I return to
my argument with those, who say that blackness is a mere prejudice of
race, and that it is not demonstrable that it is the sign of a curse,
or the mark of inferiority. Does not Nature herself proclaim it, in
her contrast of light and darkness? Day and night, I imagine, would be
recognised as apt symbols of error and evil as opposed to truth and
goodness, even among the black races, irrespective of any consciousness
or reminiscence of their degradation. Accordingly, the deeds of evil
in Scripture are spoken of as the "works of darkness." It may be,
therefore, that the idea of blackness as a curse is derived primitively
from its association with the darkness of night; but the fact remains
that blackness is connected in our minds with a curse,[69] and there
is the further fact that a black race exists, and has existed during
four thousand years, with this mark of inferiority upon it (compare
_sup._ ch. iii. ix.)

  [69] This is so much in tradition as to be a matter of common
       parlance--for instance, when the late Emperor of the French
       is depicted, this is the language which, upon a certain
       construction, appears most natural--"On the other side stands
       a phalanx of satirists, represented by Victor Hugo. The only
       colour on the palette of those artists is _lamp black_.
       Morally they paint the ex-Emperor as _dark as a negro_, array
       him _in the livery of the devil_, and _then_ invoke the
       _execration_ of history."--_Spectator_, Sept. 17th, 1870.

But a point of some difficulty remains to be determined--viz. what
precisely was the race which came under this ban. Was it the whole
descent of Ham, or only the posterity of Chanaan ?

Hales, in his learned work on chronology (i. p. 344), discusses this
question. He says that, whereas--

  "Even the most learned expositors (Bochart and Mede) have
  implicitly adopted the appropriation of the curse of servitude to
  Ham and his posterity." Yet "the integrity of the received text of
  prophecy, limiting the curse to 'Canaan' singly, is fully supported
  by the concurrence of the Massorite and Samaritan Hebrew texts,
  with _all the other_ ancient versions except the Arabian; and is
  acknowledged, we see, by Josephus and Abulfaragi (_sup._), who
  evidently confine the curse to Canaan--though they inconsistently
  consider Ham as the offender, and are not a little embarrassed to
  exempt him and _the rest of his children_[70] from the operation
  of the curse--an exemption, indeed, attested by sacred and profane
  history; for Ham himself had his full share of earthly blessings,
  his son Misr colonised Egypt, thence styled the land of Ham (Ps.
  cv. 23), which soon became one of the earliest, most civilised,
  and flourishing kingdoms of antiquity, and was established before
  Abraham's days (Gen. xii. 14-20), and in the glorious reign of
  Sesostris ... while Ham's posterity, in the line of Cush, not only
  founded the first Assyrian empire, under Nimrod, but also the
  Persian (?), the Grecian (?), and the Roman (?) empires, in direct
  contradiction to the unguarded assertion of Mede [that 'there
  hath never yet been a son of Ham that hath shaken a sceptre over
  the head of Japheth.'] How, then, is the propriety of the curse
  exclusively to Canaan to be vindicated?--evidently by considering
  him as the only guilty person ... upon the very ingenious
  conjecture of Faber, that the 'youngest son' who offended was not
  Ham, but Canaan--not the son, but the grandson of Noah. For the
  original, 'his little son,' according to the latitude of the Hebrew
  idiom, may denote a grandson, by the same analogy that Nimrod....
  this (the former) interpretation is supported by ancient Jewish
  tradition, 'Boresith Rabba,' sec. 37, recorded also by Theodoret
  ... the tradition, indeed, also adds that Ham joined in the
  mockery, but for this addition there seems no sufficient grounds."

  [70] The italics are mine.

There is, however, the tradition, and, moreover, a distinct tradition
that Ham was black. Sir J. Gardner Wilkinson, in his "Manners and
Customs of the Ancient Egyptians," i., says--

  "The Hebrew word Ham is identical with the Egyptian Khem, being
  properly written Khm, Kham, or Khem, and is the same which the
  Egyptians themselves gave to their country in the sculptures of
  the earliest and latest periods" (261). Egypt was denominated
  Chemi (Khemi), or the land of Ham, "as we find in the hieroglyphic
  legends; and the city of Khem, or Panopolis, was called in
  Egyptian Chemmo, of which evident traces are preserved in that of
  the modern town E'Khmim" (260). "Besides the hieroglyphic group,
  composed of the two above alluded to (260), indicating Egypt, was
  one consisting of _an eye_, and the sign land, _which bore the
  same_ signification; and since _the pupil_, or _black_ of the eye,
  was called _Chemi_, we may conclude this to be a phonetic mode
  of writing the name of Egypt, which Plutarch pretends was called
  Chemmia, from the _blackness_ of its soil" (263). "_Chame_ is
  _black_ in _Coptic_, Egypt is _Chemi_, and it is remarkable that
  _khom_ or _chom_ is used in Hebrew for black or brown, as in Gen.
  xxx. 32-40."--_Id._

Here then, at any rate, the name of Ham or Cham is curiously associated
with blackness, and must have been so associated from the commencement
of Egyptian history. I leave it to the Egyptologist to decide whether
the presumption is stronger that the name of Egypt, identical with
that of Ham, was originally derived from the blackness of its soil,
or from the blackness of him whose name was identical with it ("the
land of Ham" being both the scriptural and Egyptian appellation),
more especially when "the eye" (apparently a personal or historical,
not certainly a geographical allusion) was used as an equivalent
hieroglyphic symbol for land.[71]

  [71] The eye would be the very most apposite symbol for blackness,
       if we consider that blackness lingers there after the skin has
       become white, and, in the case of half-breeds, is the test of
       descent in gradations even beyond, I believe, the octoroon.

       Captain King ("Narrative of a Survey of the Intertropical
       and Western Coasts of Australia," ii. Append.) says, "That
       although there is the greatest diversity of words among the
       Australian tribes, the equivalent for 'eye' is common to them
       all."

Here, as in other instances, if we follow the strict lines of
tradition, it seems to me that we shall escape all the difficulties
which are usually alleged against it. It will result then that,
although according to the text of Scripture, the curse of servitude was
limited to the posterity of Chanaan; yet, seeing that the criminality
was common to Ham and Chanaan, according to the tradition referred to,
and as is, moreover, implied in the marked manner in which Scripture
(Gen. xviii. 22) indicates Cham as "the father of Chanaan," it is
presumable that, if blackness was the concomitant of the curse, it
extended to both Ham and Chanaan, and, by implication, to their
posterity, but then _after the curse_. As Chanaan, according to the
tradition, was then a boy, all his children would have been affected
by the curse; but does it follow that all Ham's descent was involved
in the malediction? This would be to suppose a retrospective curse,
for which the only analogy would be the hypothesis that if Adam had
sinned after the birth of Cain and Abel, they and their posterity would
also have incurred the guilt of original sin. Now the sons of Ham were
(Gen. x. 6) "Chus and Mesram and Phuth and Chanaan," _i.e._, Chus and
Mesram and Phuth were the elder brothers of Chanaan, and therefore not
the children of Ham after the pronouncement of the curse. If, then, we
find the children of Mesram dark, but without the negro features or
the blackness of Canaan; if "Sesostris, his descendant, was a great
conqueror;" if Nimrod, the son of Chus, was a powerful chieftain,
and the founder of the Assyrian empire; if nothing is known of the
posterity of Phuth beyond the conjecture that they were the Lybians--in
a word, if the descent from these three sons does not bear out the
evidence of the curse, can it be said to militate at all against the
hypothesis of the curse of Ham as well as of Canaan?

Moreover, if there are differences among the black races which may
present difficulties, would not the knowledge that there may have been
a posterity of Ham, born after the curse,[72] go far to remove them?
Hales, indeed, assumes that "Ham himself had his full share of earthly
blessings; his son Misr colonised Egypt," &c. (as _sup._); but this
prosperity, as he indicates it, is only seen in the prosperity of his
three sons, whom I assume to have been exempt from the curse. It must
be remembered, however, that the occult science of the Cainites was
said to have been preserved by the family of Ham, and, as we have seen,
the taint was in the race.[73]

  [72] Lenormant, "Manuel d'Histoire Ancienne," i. 23, makes a
       similar suggestion as to this point--"La texte de la Bible
       n'a rien qui s'oppose formellement à l'hypothèse que Noè
       aurait eu, postérieurement au deluge, d'autres enfants que
       Sem, Cham, et Japhet, d'où seraient sorties les races qui ne
       figurent pas dans la généalogie de ces trois personnages." But
       two objections seem to me to be fatal to this view. The races
       about whom this difficulty would be raised would be the red
       and black races: why should it be surmised that the supposed
       posterity of Noah, after the Deluge, _should_ have this mark
       of inferiority? In the second place, it does seem to be
       formally opposed to Gen. x. 32--"These are the _families_ of
       _Noe_, according to their peoples and nations. _By these_ were
       the nations divided on the earth after the flood."

       The red races might perhaps be accounted for by Gen. xxv.
       23-25.

  [73] There appears to me, however, a text to which attention
       might be directed. We know that the Ethiopians were black,
       but in Amos ix. 7, where God is expressing His anger against
       His people, He says, "Are you not as the children of the
       Ethiopians unto me, O children of Israel, saith the Lord."

I am very far from claiming for these theories any special
ecclesiastical countenance and authority. I have already intimated my
opinion that, on the whole, they would be as much opposed from the
point of view of scriptural exegesis as from that of unbelief. It will
be said, for instance, that there is evidence in Scripture of the curse
of Canaan, but no proof that blackness was the concomitant effect of
the curse; and certainly it is not Scripture which affirms this, but
only tradition.

To those who admit the curse, but deny the consequences which tradition
attributes to it, I would oppose an almost identical argument with that
which accounts for all differences in the human race by geographical
location. I do not know where this argument is more forcibly put than
in Latham's "Ethnology." There it is seemingly demonstrated that
certain conditions, not merely of colour, but moral and intellectual,
are the inseparable accompaniments of geographical location. Grant it,
_pro argumento_, but I am arguing now upon the scriptural evidence, and
with one with whom I assume I have a common belief in its inspiration.

It is true, then, that the curse of blackness is not recorded, but
the distribution of the races is at least implied: Deut. xxxii. 8,
"_When the Most High divided the nations, when He separated the sons
of Adam_, he appointed the bounds of people according to the number
of the children of Israel;" and Acts xvii. 26, "And hath made of one
all mankind, to dwell upon the _whole face_ of the earth, _determining
appointed times_, and _the limits_ of _their habitation_." (The Prot.
version translates, "Having appointed the _predetermined seasons_ and
_boundaries of_ their dwellings." _Vide_ Hales's Chron., i. 351, who
adds that this was conformable to their own allegory "that Chronos, the
god of time, or Saturn, divided the universe among his three sons.")[74]

  [74] _Vide_ also ch. x., p. 239. The tradition that Phoroneus,
       "the father of mankind," distributed the nations over the
       earth, _idem nationes distribuit_.

If, then, the different races of mankind, according to their merits or
demerits, were apportioned to, or miraculously directed or impelled
to, respective portions of the earth, which necessarily superinduced
certain effects, is not the curse as apparent in its indirect operation
as it would have been in its suddenness and directness?

This consideration must, I think, bring those who raise scriptural
difficulties against the theory to the admission that blackness was a
sign of inferiority, and that certain races were either smitten with,
or were predestined to, in consequence of culpability, this degradation.

This, I admit, is no reply to those who argue from the evidence of the
Egyptian monuments. But the evidence from the monuments, so far from
embarrassing my conclusion, seems absolutely to enforce it. If, indeed,
the evidence from the monuments did not stare one in the face, we might
fall back upon the line of argument which I have just indicated, and
whilst recognising in their blackness the operation of a curse, trace
it in the lapse of centuries and the influences of the torrid zone. But
they are recorded as being black on the earliest monuments known to us,
and within a few centuries of the Deluge. The conclusion, therefore,
seems inevitable, that they were so from the commencement, which
exactly hits in with the tradition of the curse of Canaan.

Such, from his own point of view, is the conclusion of Sir J. Lubbock
("Prehistoric Times," p. 478)--

  "If there is any truth in this view of the subject (p. 478), it
  will necessarily follow that the principal varieties of man are of
  great antiquity, and, in fact, go back almost to the very origin
  of the human race. We may then cease to wonder that the earliest
  paintings on Egyptian tombs represent so accurately several various
  varieties still existing in those regions, and that the Engis
  skull, probably the most ancient yet found in Europe, so closely
  resembles many that may be seen even at the present day."

The following conclusion of Mr Wallace also exactly coincides with De
Maistre's view.

Lyell, in his "Principles of Geology" (ii. 471) says--

  "Wallace suggests that at some former period man's corporeal frame
  must have been _more pliant and variable_ than _it is now_; for,
  according to the observed rate of fluctuation in modern times,
  scarcely any conceivable lapse of ages would suffice to give rise
  to such an amount of differentiation. He therefore concludes, that
  when first the _mental_ and _moral_ qualities of man acquired
  predominance, his bodily frame _ceased to vary_."

But, although science in its own way may arrive at approximations to
the truth, yet, if the traditional solution be true, assuredly it is
not a solution which will be reached by any merely scientific process;
and therefore, if it should be the truth, the ethnological difficulty
will remain an enigma and embarrassment to the learned in all time to
come.




                              CHAPTER VI.

                 _PALMER ON EGYPTIAN CHRONOLOGY._


Having probed the chronologies of India, Babylonia, Phoenicia,[75]
China, &c., and having found that one and all, when touched with the
talisman of history, shrink within the limits of the Septuagint, and
even of the Hebrew text, we come, perforce, to the conclusion, that
there is one nation, and one only, which presents a _primâ facie_
antiquity irreconcileable with Holy Writ--viz. Egypt.

  [75] _Vide ante_ ch. iv.; and also _vide_ Palmer, i. 49.

This impression is sustained by the knowledge, somewhat indefinite
and in something disturbed, that the Egyptian tradition had always
attributed a fabulous antiquity to the dynasties of its kings, and
that these dynasties have been marvellously resuscitated through the
discovery which has enabled us to decipher the inscriptions on their
tombs and monuments.

My reader need not fear, however, lest I should plunge him into the
chaos of hieroglyphics; not, indeed, that much has not been rescued
from the abyss, and that there is not good expectation of more to come,
but when once it is established, as we may now consider to be the case,
that many of these dynasties were cotemporaneous, and not successive,
an uncertainty is introduced which again reduces the chronology to
primitive chaos, although floating objects in it, the _débris_ of
tombs and dynasties, remain clearly distinguishable, and, in point of
fact, have been perfectly identified. If we had no other evidence,
I should feel irresistibly drawn to the dictum of M. Mariette (ap.
Mgr. Meignan, "L'Homme Primitif," p. 391), "Le plus grand de tous les
obstacles à l'établissement d'une chronologie égyptienne regulière,
c'est que les Egyptiens eux-mêmes n'ont jamais eu de chronologie."

I shall, on the contrary, from another point of view, attempt to show,
not only that they had a chronology, but that this chronology has
actually been re-discovered and re-constituted.

In the conviction that this is the case, and that it is not
sufficiently known that it is so, I shall devote some space to an
abstract of Mr William Palmer's "Egyptian Chronicles" (1861), in which
it appears to me that this exposition and solution is to be found.

Mr Palmer at least has brought the Egyptian chronology (upon the system
of the Old Chronicle) to so close a reconciliation with Scripture (upon
the basis of a collation of the Septuagint and Josephus), that we have
a right to compare any Egyptologist making an attempt to advance into
the interior to the monuments, whilst disregarding it, to a commander
leaving an important fortress in his rear.[76] As Mr Palmer takes his
stand upon the Old Chronicle, and as the Old Chronicle has been in
considerable disrepute with Egyptologists (Bunsen, i. 216), I do not
see that I can adopt a better plan of bringing the whole subject before
the reader, than by confronting Mr W. Palmer's discovery and exposition
with Baron Bunsen's strictures on the Old Chronicle.

  [76] And yet, with the exception of Professor Rawlinson's "Manual
       of Ancient History," where mention is made of Mr Palmer's
       work as among eight principal works to be referred to on the
       subject of Egyptian chronology, and of a series of articles in
       the _Month_ on the same subject, I do not recollect to have
       seen allusion made to it. A previous perusal of the articles
       in the _Month_ above referred to will greatly facilitate the
       study of this question.

Bunsen (i. 214-217) says (the italics are mine)--

  "'The Egyptians,' says Syncellus, 'boast of a certain Old
  Chronicle, by which also, in my opinion, Manetho (the impostor) was
  led astray.' ... The origin of this fiction is obvious. Its object,
  as well as that of the pseudo-Manetho, is to represent the great
  year of the world of 36,525 years, or twenty-five Sothic cycles.
  The _timeless_ space of the book of Sothis becomes the rule of
  Vulcan.... _The number fixed for the other gods, 3984, is quite
  original_; perhaps it may not be mere accident that it agrees with
  the computation of some chronographers for the period from the
  Creation to B.C. The dynasty of the demigods reflects the
  same judicious moderation as in the scheme of the pseudo-Manetho
  (214-1/2). Then comes a series of corruptions of the genuine
  Manetho, _i.e._, of the Manetho of the thirty historical Egyptian
  dynasties. He is, however, confounded with the Manetho of the
  Dog-star, and hence it is that the fifteen dynasties of Manetho are
  called the fifteen dynasties of the Sothiac cycle. _But how is the
  number 443 to be explained?_ Is this entry to be understood in the
  same sense as the similar one in Clemens, namely, that the first
  fifteen dynasties comprehended the 443 years prior to the beginning
  of the last cycle, consequently prior to 1322? or is it simply
  taken, with a slight alteration by Eusebius, to the fourteenth
  and fifteenth dynasties (435)? The following dates for the length
  of reigns are in the gross _evidently_ borrowed from Eusebius....
  In the sequel, there is no more reckoning by dynasties, but
  seventy-five generations are numbered, in order to make up the 113
  of Manetho. So palpable is that,.... Lastly, the dates and numbers
  ... are brought into shape by various arbitrary expedients; but
  Eusebius on all occasions appears as the authority.... As the
  dates of the individual dynasties now run, 184 years are wanting
  to make up the promised 36,525 years. _It is scarcely worth while
  to inquire where the mistake lies._" He finally pronounces the Old
  Chronicle to be the compilation of a Jewish or Christian impostor
  of the third century, or later.

As Mr Palmer has not directly adverted to this passage from Bunsen in
his "Egyptian Chronicles," I will give an extract from a letter which I
have received from Mr Palmer on the subject, which will clear off some
of the tissues of confusion into which the strictures of Baron Bunsen
have got entangled.

  "I assert, in the first instance (there being nothing whatever
  to the contrary), that we have the Old Chronicle in a _perfectly
  genuine form, i.e._ in the text of Syncellus and Africanus, but
  by no means in Bunsen; and further, that it really is, and they
  from whom we have it _tell us it was_, the oldest Greco-Egyptian
  writing of the kind current in the time of Africanus.... Bunsen
  pronounces the Old Chronicle to be the compilation of a Jewish or
  Christian impostor of the third century ('Eusebius appearing on all
  occasions as the authority,' &c.) In the _Old Chronicle_, as given
  by Syncellus and Africanus, there is _nothing whatever_ borrowed
  from Eusebius; but Eusebius has borrowed from and altered the Old
  Chronicle, so as to suit his own sacred chronology. The 'Book of
  Sothis,' too, has worked up and altered the Old Chronicle, with
  which it is by no means to be identified.... But I deal with three
  so-called Manethos--viz. (1.) the original Manetho of Josephus and
  Eratosthenes, who had only twenty-three historical dynasties of
  his total of thirty dynasties (the Old Chronicle, from which he
  took the number of thirty, having twenty-nine historical and one
  [that of the sun god] unhistorical); (2.) the Manetho of Ptolemy
  of Mendes, which is the Manetho of Africanus, who has thirty-one
  dynasties, all pretending to be historical; and, lastly, the
  Manetho of the 'Book of Sothis,' used by Anianus and Panadorus
  (to which last alone Bunsen's ... mention of 'fifteen dynasties
  of the Dog-star' refers).... If any figures in the Manetho of the
  'Book of Sothis' of the fifth century A.D., are borrowed
  from Eusebius, there is nothing in this, Eusebius himself having
  used and altered the Old Chronicle before, just as the author of
  the Book of Sothis or Anianus may have used Eusebius and the old
  chronicle. But I am not now dealing with the question of fact,
  whether Eusebius' figures were so followed or not.... When Bunsen
  says, 'Perhaps it may not be mere accident that the figures 3984
  agrees,' &c.; he should have said rather that some 'chronographers'
  'agree' 'with it,' and perhaps so agree not by accident. I do
  not remember whether any one, or who in particular, of modern
  chronographers agree with it; but certainly if any do, it is _quite
  by accident_. The number 3984, as given by the Old Chronicle to
  Chronos and the other twelve gods, has no relation whatever to any
  reckoning of the year of the world to Christ; and a chronologer
  might as well adapt his sum of years from the Creation to Christ,
  or to any other fanciful number, as to this. The truth is, that
  with the shorter numbers of the Vulgate, many chronologers have
  made out sums of about four thousand years, some rather more, some
  less."

In the somewhat lengthened extract which I have made (_sup._ p. 94)
from Bunsen, _four_ figures (3984, 217, 443, and 184) will have struck
the eye, which baffle even Bunsen's penetration, and only make twice
confounded what was confused before. But what if these four figures
should all be accounted for? and, when accounted for, fitted into the
chronology so as to be in keeping, not only with the other figures of
the Chronicle, but also with the systems of Manetho and Eratosthenes,
as exactly as "the key fits the wards of the lock?" (_vide infra_, p.
332), will not the matter begin to wear a different aspect? When the
figures are shown to be imbedded in all the different systems which
have been transmitted to us, will it then be said that the figures
"are evidently borrowed from Eusebius?" But, in fact, it is also
demonstrated by internal evidence that the Chronicle, as we have it,
must be referred to the date 305 B.C.

This, then, is how the argument stands; but it is a matter of some
difficulty to compass Mr Palmer's elaborate argument, and I cannot
attempt to do more than to indicate its most salient points.

Premising that the Sothic cycle (a period of 1461 vague, or 1460 fixed
sidereal years) was connected by the Egyptians with their recurring
periods of transformation and renovation ("common to the mythologies
of Egypt and India"), and also that two such periods (1461 × 2) = 2922
corresponded with the antediluvian period, or rather with the sum
of the lives or reigns of the antediluvian patriarchs, inclusive of
survivors of the Deluge, with something added in order to throw the
whole into cyclical form, all which is shown in detail in "Egyptian
Chronicles," i. 23-37, I may now proceed to Mr Palmer's analysis of
the scheme of the Old Chronicle, which is thus given by Syncellus,
"probably from the Manetho of Africanus" (Palmer's "Egypt. Chron.," i.
7):--

  "There is extant among the Egyptians a certain Old Chronicle,
  the source, I suppose, which led Manetho astray, exhibiting xxx
  dynasties and again cxiii generations, with an infinite space of
  time (not the same either as that of Manetho), viz. three myriads,
  six thousand five hundred and twenty-five years--1st, Of the
  Aeritæ; 2dly, Of the Mestræans; and, 3dly, Of the Egyptians,--being
  word for word as follows:--

  [Dynasty I. to XV. inclusive of the chronicle of the gods]:--

    Time of Phtha there is _none_, as he shines equally by
       night and by day [but all generations being from him]

    [First dynasty] [Greek: Hêlios] [_i.e._ Ra, the sun-god],
       son of Phtha, reigned three myriads of years,             30,000

    Then [Dynasty II. to XIV. inclusive, and generations
       II. to XIV. inclusive] [Greek: Kronos] [or [Greek:
       Chronos], _i.e._ Seb], and all the other xii
       gods [who are the Aeritæ perhaps of Eusebius and
       Africanus], reigned years                                   3984

    Then [Dynasty XV.] viii demigod kings [the Mestræans of
       Eusebius and Africanus] reigned [as viii generations
       but one dynasty], years                                      217

    And after them xv generations _of the Cynic cycle_ were
       registered in years                                          443

    Then Dynasty XVI. of Tanites, generations viii, years           190

    Then Dynasty XVII. of Memphites, generations iv, years of
       the same generations                                         103

  After whom there followed--

    Dynasty XVIII. of Memphites, generations xiv, years of
       the same generations                                         348

    Then Dynasty XIX. of Diospolites, generations v, years          194

    Then Dynasty XX. of Diospolites, generations viii, years
       of the same generations                                      228

    Then Dynasty XXI. of Tanites, generations vi, years             121

    Then Dynasty XXII. of Tanites, generations iii, years            48

    Then Dynasty XXIII. of Diospolites, generations ii, years
       of the same generations                                       19

    Then Dynasty XXIV. of Saites, generations iii, years             44

  Besides whom is to be reckoned--

    Dynasty XXV. of Ethiopians, generations iii, years of the
       same generations                                              44

  After whom again there followed--

    Dynasty XXVI. of Memphites, generations vii, years of the
       same generations                                             177

  And then after--

    Dynasty XXVII.

      [Here the designation, generations, and years are
        purposely omitted; but the years are implied by the
        sum total, which follows below, to be certainly             184]

    Dynasty XXVIII. of Persians, generations v, years of the same
         generations                                                124

    Then Dynasty XXIX. of Tanites, generations , years               39

  And, lastly, after all the above--

    Dynasty XXX. of one Tanite king, years
                                                                 ------
                                   Generations cxiii, years      36,525

  Sum of all the years of the XXX. Dynasties, three myriads, six
  thousand five hundred and twenty-five (Kings 1881 years)."

These 36,525 years, when divided by 1461, the Sothic cycle (as noted
by Syncellus), give the quotient xxv. We need not digress into the
conjectural reasons why twenty-five such periods were taken, rather
than any other number. We will be content at starting to see in its
relation to the cycle evidence of the purely fictitious character of
its myriads of years, and a clue to the significance of the indication,
"after them xv generations of the Cynic cycle," &c.

Mr Palmer (i. xxiii.) says, that the question which first suggested
itself to him was--

  "To what Sothic cycle are these 443 years or xv generations said
  to belong?" [for there was the doubt whether there was any _real_
  Sothic cycle at all.] "For a Sothic cycle is not merely a space
  of 1461 Egyptian years, but it is that particular space of 1461
  such years, and that only, which begins from the conjunction
  of the movable new year or Thoth, with the heliacal rising of
  Sirius, fixed to 20th July of our Gregorian calendar for that part
  of Egypt which is just above Memphis.... For the author of a
  chronicle ending with Nectanebo, or at any date between the Sothic
  epochs, 20th July B.C. 1322 (the known commencement of a cycle),
  and 20th July A.D. 139, 'the Sothic cycle,' could only mean the
  cycle _actually_ current" [_i.e._ B.C. 1322 to A.D. 139 = 1461]....
  "After this discovery, if the perception of a truism can be called
  a discovery, it followed naturally to observe further that in
  constructing a fanciful scheme ... ending at any other date than a
  true cyclical epoch, the first operation ... must be to _cut off
  all those years of the true current cycle_ which were yet to run
  out, below the date fixed upon, and to throw them back so that
  they might be reckoned _as past_ instead of being looked forward
  to as future. This, then, was what the author of the Old Chronicle
  had done; and, with an ironical humour common among the Egyptians,
  he had told his readers to their faces the nature of his trick,
  ticketing and labelling the key to it (the 443 years) and tying it
  in the lock, or rather leaving it in the lock itself." Counting,
  then, back 139 years of the 443 "from the 20th July A.D. 139 to
  20th July B.C. 1, and 304 more from 20th July B.C. 1, we come to
  20th July in 305 B.C. (if the years be fixed, sidereal, or solar
  years), or to 8th November 305, if they be (as they really are)
  vague Egyptian years" (305 B.C. being the year in which Ptolemy
  Lagi assumed the crown).

[For the discrepancy between this date and the conquest of Ochus, "at
which the series of the Chronicle ostensibly ends," _vide_ "Egypt.
Chron.," p. xxiv.]

Let the reader now return to the scheme of the chronicle (_sup._ p.
97). The analysis of the whole sum, 36,525 years, gives 30,000 years
(to the sun), + 3984 (to xiii gods), + 217 (to viii demigods), + 443
(to the Sothic cycle), + 1881 to kings from Menes to Nectanebo (the
last native sovereign).

So far we have only 1881 years, corresponding to an historical period,
+ 443 of the cycle thrown up. It has been previously noted, however,
that 2922 (two Sothic cycles) correspond to the antediluvian and
patriarchal period (i. 37). The intricate part of the scrutiny will
be found in the discrimination of the 2922 years (which, with 217 +
1881, make up the sequence of human time, A.M., to Nectanebo) from the
figures 3984 years in the analysis above.

For the full and scientific discrimination, I must refer the reader to
"Egyptian Chronicles," i. 17; but for a simple demonstration, we may
take the historical figures as above--viz. 2922 + 217 + 1881, added to
the figures thrown in to complete the cycle (_vide infra_), viz. 341 +
483, all which figures = 5844, and deduct them from the whole cyclical
number thus--

                    36,525
                     5,844
                    ------
                    30,681

Now, reverting to the scheme of the Chronicle, we shall see the round
number 30,000 years (being as it were an Egyptian month, in thousands
of years instead of days) apportioned off to the sun-god. To obtain
this round number, the fractional number 681 would have to be detached,
and there being at hand the cyclical number 2922 years (two perfect
Sothic cycles), any number in reason of fractional remainders might
be added to it, since with the symmetrical nucleus, the agglomeration
would always be recognisable by the initiated, _i.e._ by the priests.
The 681 years were therefore added to 2922, and also the 341 fictitious
years ("to make time from the beginning to run in the form of Sothic
cycles") were added, because _there_ they would cause no confusion;
"whereas if they had been added to the 217 years of the demigods, no
one could any longer have distinguished the original fraction."

We thus collect, therefore, those various figures into the sum which
was the figure of difficulty--viz. 3984 (681 + 2922 + 341 + 40), the
_forty_ years included having merely reference to the point at which
the current Sothic cycle was thrown up--being the years intervening
between the flight of Nectanebo in B.C. 345, and the coronation of
Ptolemy Lagi in B.C. 305.

Upon his own method, based upon Josephus, who follows in the main
the Septuagint ("on a principle of compromise such as all readers,
_whatever_ may be their system, may agree in accepting provisionally,
and as an approximation"), Mr Palmer (i. 22-29) brings the Scripture
A.M. to B.C. 1, to a synchronism of "five years four months" and some
days, with the Egyptian computation.

But the same key is made to unlock all the systems of Egyptian
chronology, and in the course of his two volumes of close and learned
investigation, Mr Palmer demonstrates that "Manetho, Eratosthenes,
Ptolemy of Mendes, Diodorus, Josephus, Africanus, Eusebius, Anianus,
Panodorus, and Syncellus, have, either of themselves or by following
others, transferred dynasties, generations, and years of the gods and
demigods of the Chronicle, and even fifteen generations of Ptolemies
and Cæsars, as yet unborn at the date of the Chronicle, to kings after
Menes."

Let the above scheme of the Chronicle be compared, for instance, with
the scheme of Diogenes Laertius (which Mr Palmer conjectures, upon
intrinsic evidence, to have been transmitted through Aristotle).

Diogenes Laertius' whole figure is 48,863 years, which contains for its
fictitious part _thirty_ times 1461 = 43,830, which, being deducted
from 48,863,
     43,830
     ------
      5,033

leaves 5033 for "true human time." Now 5033 years are equal to those
2922 years + 217 years + 1881 years, which alone in the Chronicle
belong properly and originally to the xiii gods and viii demigods and
the last xv dynasties of the kings from Menes to Nectanebo, with only
thirteen surplus years, _i.e._ from the conquest of Darius Ochus to
Alexander; "seemingly to the autumn of B.C. 332, when he first entered
Egypt."

Here I might conclude my outline of Mr Palmer's scheme, so far as is
necessary to the vindication of the Chronicle as against Bunsen, were
it not for the remaining figure (all the others, if the reader will
refer back, have been accounted for)--viz. 184, to which Bunsen refers.

This figure is shown to correspond with the 184 years of the Hyksos or
Shepherds (i. 134, 135, _et seq._, 155, 285, 299). Dynasty XXVII., to
which the 184 years in the Chronicle are attributed, has been displaced
from between Dynasties XVII. and XVIII. of the Chronicle, and its
184 years are "restored to their true place and to the Shepherds by
Manetho," and are given "by the Theban priests, _i.e._ by Eratosthenes,
suppressing the Shepherds, to the kings of Upper Egypt."

As regards Manetho (i. 284) "having, besides the 1881 years of the
Chronicle, 1674 additional years of kings, of which (22 + 217 =
) 239 only are in themselves, though not in their attributions,
chronological, and having given of these 1491 (which are thrice 477
and 60 over) to his six early dynasties of _Lower_ Egypt (and sixteen
inconvenient years he isolated between his Dynasties XIV. and XV.,
so as to include them in his Book i.), he gave to the three early
dynasties of _Upper_ Egypt _no other unchronological years_ than two
complementary sums, the one of 43 (to the first), and the other, of 124
years, to the second of the three dynasties, that these same sums might
both coalesce with the remainder of sixty years belonging to the sum of
the six dynasties of Lower Egypt, so as to make with it, or rather to
indicate, the one of them the sum of 103, the other the sum of 184."

_Vide_ table, p. 285.... Sum of six dynasties of Lower Egypt, 1491.
But this sum 1491 is equivalent to

  190 + 103 + 184 = 477
  190 + 103 + 184 = 477
  190 + 103 + 184 = 477
                   ----              But 60
                  (1431 + 60) = 1491     43
                                       ----
                  (1431 + 60) +   43 =  103
                    (43 of Dyn. XIV. of Upper Egypt.)
                  (1431 + 60)
                         124
                        ----
                         184 (124 of Dyn. XV. of Upper
                                Egypt in Book ii.)

The place of the 184 years of the Shepherd Dynasty will be seen as
clearly in the analysis of Eratosthenes' scheme F. in "Egyptian
Chronicles" (i. 299), and if I had space I should like to give it _in
extenso_, because it is upon his 1076 from Menes to XVIII. Dynasty,
that Bunsen mainly relies for his fundamental theory (Bunsen's "Egypt,"
ii. xvi.) As the confutation of Bunsen does not enter into Mr Palmer's
plan, I think it worth while to add, that these 1076 years are thus
made up 477, the true historical length of the epoch (from Menes
to XVIII. Dynasty), as we know from the chronicle (_vide_ Palmer's
_supra_), hence the significance of this figure in table above, + 443
of the cycle added, + 156 of Dyn. XVIII. encroached upon[77] for the
symmetrical purpose displayed in scheme F, in which scheme it will be
seen that the 184 years of the Shepherds again enter as a constituent
part.

  [77] It will be understood that, in the above scheme and
       throughout, Mr Palmer assumes the existence of cotemporaneous
       dynasties elsewhere demonstrated. It is admitted, on all
       hands, that cotemporary dynasties ceased with the XVIII.
       Dynasty; and, in the other direction, all schemes commence
       with Menes. If, then, this interval of time is known or
       determined by one part of a scheme (as it is known from
       the chronicle to be 477 years), and at the same time, the
       exigences of the case (owing to fictitious additions) require
       the location of other figures within the interval, then the
       super-additions must overlap (apparently to those who know
       477 years to be the true historical figure) at one end or
       the other. One hundred and fifty-six years (as above) is the
       extent of the overlapping (the 443 years of the cycle standing
       apart) in the scheme of Eratosthenes.

But as I am merely indicating the scheme, and not elaborating the
argument, I must here part company with Mr Palmer. If, however, any
one wishes to examine the question more in detail, and seeks to know
in what manner the years in the above scheme are apportioned among the
different generations and dynasties, he must take up with Mr Palmer at
i. p. 300. My purpose is sufficiently answered by establishing that
a scheme exists, if not irrefutable, at least up to this unconfuted,
which perfectly harmonises the scriptural with the Egyptian chronology.




                              CHAPTER VII.

                _THE TRADITION OF THE HUMAN RACE._


  "Tradition reveals the past to us, and consequently it reveals
  to us also the future. It is the tie which binds the past, the
  present, and the future together, and is the science of them
  all. If we possessed the memory of mankind, as we do that of our
  personal existence, we should know all. But if we have not the
  memory of mankind, does not mankind possess it? Is mankind without
  memory, without tradition?... There is no nation which does not
  exist through tradition, not only historical traditions relative to
  its earthly existence, but through religious traditions relative to
  its eternal destiny. To despise this treasure, what is it but to
  despise life, and that which constitutes its connection, its unity,
  its light, as we have just seen?... When God spoke to men His Word
  passed into time ... Happily tradition seized upon it as soon as it
  left the threshold of eternity; and tradition is neither an ear,
  nor a mouth, nor an isolated memory, but the ear, the mouth, and
  the memory of generations united together by tradition itself, and
  imparting to it an existence superior to the caprices and weakness
  of individuals. Nevertheless, God would not trust to oral tradition
  alone ... Symbolical tradition was to add itself to oral tradition
  by sustaining and confirming it ... The five terms constituting
  the mystery of good and evil: the existence of God, the creation
  of the world and of man by God, the fall of man, his restoration
  by a great act of divine mercy, and, lastly, the final judgment
  of mankind ... and that which oral tradition declared, symbolical
  tradition should repeat at all times and in all places, in order
  that the obscured or deceived memory of man might be brought back
  again to truth by an external, a public, an universal, all-powerful
  spectacle. [Lacordaire is speaking principally with reference to
  sacrifice and the sacrifice of Mount Calvary.] ... Each time that
  oral tradition underwent a movement of renovation by the breath of
  God, symbolical tradition felt the effects of it. The sacrifice
  of Abel marks the era of patriarchal tradition; the sacrifice of
  Abraham marks the era of Hebrew tradition; the sacrifice of Jesus
  Christ, the final and consummating sacrifice, marks the era of
  Christian tradition.... Such is the nature of tradition, and such
  its history. Tradition is the connection of the present with the
  past, of the past with the future; it is the principle of identity
  and continuity which forms persons, families, nations, and mankind.
  It flows in the human race by three great streams which are clearly
  perceptible--the Christian, the Hebrew, and the patriarchal or
  primitive; in all these three it is oral and symbolical, and
  whether as oral or symbolical it speaks of God, the creation, the
  fall, reparation and judgment.... Without occupying ourselves with
  the question as to whether Scripture was a gift from above or an
  invention of men, we see that there exists two kinds of it--human
  and sacred scripture. I understand by human scripture, that which
  is considered by men as the expression of the ideas of a man; I
  understand by sacred scripture that which is venerated by nations
  as containing something more than the ideas of a man.... There are
  in the world an innumerable quantity of books, nevertheless there
  are but six of them which have been venerated by nations as sacred.
  These are the 'Kings' of China, the Vedas of India, the Zend-Avesta
  of the Persians, the Koran of the Arabs, the Law of the Jews, and
  the Gospel. And at first sight I am struck with this rarity of
  sacred writings. So many legislators have founded cities, so many
  men of genius have governed the human understanding, and yet all
  these legislators, all these men of genius, have not been able to
  cause the existence of more than six sacred books upon earth!...
  Every sacred book is a traditional book, it was venerated before
  it existed, it existed before it appeared. The Koran, which is
  the last of the sacred writings in the order of time, offers to
  us a proof of this worthy of our thoughtful attention. Without
  doubt, Mahommed relied upon pretended revelations; however, it
  is clear to all those who read the Koran, that the Abrahamic
  tradition was the true source of its power.... The same traditional
  character shines upon each page of the Christian and Hebrew books;
  we find it also in the Zend-Avesta, the Vedas, and the Kings of
  the Chinese. Tradition is everywhere the mother of religion; it
  precedes and engenders sacred books, as language precedes and
  engenders scripture; its existence is rendered immovable in the
  sacred books ... a sacred book is a religious tradition which has
  had strength enough to sign its name.... The sacred writings are,
  then, traditional; it is their first character. I add that they are
  constituent, that is to say, they possess a marvellous power for
  giving vitality and duration to empires. Strange to say, the most
  magnificent books of philosophers have not been able to found, I do
  not say a people, but a small philosophical society; and the sacred
  writings, without exception, have founded very great and lasting
  nations. Thus the Kings founded China, the Vedas India, &c.... Look
  at Plato ... how is it that Plato has not been able to constitute,
  I do not say a nation, but simply a permanent school? How is it
  that communities totter when thinkers meddle with them, and that
  the _precise moment of their fall_ is that when men announce to
  them that mind is emancipated, that the old forms which bound
  together human activity are broken, that the altar is undermined
  and reason is all-powerful? Philosophers! if you speak the truth,
  how is it that the moment when all the elements of society become
  more refined and develop themselves, _is the moment of its
  dissolution_?"--_From Père Lacordaire's "Conferences." Conf. 9 and
  10._ (Tran. H. Langdon; Richardson, 1852.)

  I should also wish M. Auguste Nicolas' "Etudes Philosophiques
  sur le Christianisme"--particularly lib. I. chap. v., "Necessite
  d'une revelation Primitive;" and lib. II. chap. iv., "Traditions
  universelles"--to be read in connection with the following chapter.
  I did not become acquainted with M. Nicolas until after the chapter
  was concluded. I have, however, fulfilled my obligations in the
  above extract from L'Abbe Lacordaire, which lies more _au fond_ of
  my view than the chapters referred to in M. Nicolas. I also wish to
  direct attention to a remarkable article in the _Home and Foreign
  Review_, Jan. 1864, entitled "Classical Myths in relation to the
  Antiquity of Man," signed F. A. P.

Tradition, in the sense in which we have just seen it used by
Lacordaire, in what we may call its widest signification, is not
limited to oral tradition, but may be termed the connection of
evidence which establishes the unity of the human race; and, with this
evidence, establishes the identity and continuity of its belief, laws,
institutions, customs, and manners (Manners, _vide_ Goguet's "Origin
of Laws," i. 327-329). The more closely the tradition is investigated,
the more thoroughly will it be found to attest a common origin, and the
more fully will its conformity with the scriptural narrative be made
apparent.

Now, although in all ages there have been men of great intellect who
have held to tradition, it may be stated as one of those truths,
_qui saute aux yeux_, and which will not be gainsaid, that the human
intellect has been throughout opposed to tradition, has been its most
constant adversary, equally when it was the tradition of a corrupt
polytheism, as when it was the tradition of uncontested truth; and so
active has been this antagonism, that the marvel is that anything of
primitive tradition should have remained.

Hence arose the divergence between religion and philosophy--a
divergence which, as it seems to me, is inexplicable from the point of
view of those who believe that, in the centuries which preceded the
coming of our Lord,[78] religion simply was not, had ceased to be;
unless we suppose that a tradition of the antagonism had survived,
which would still partially disclose how it came about that when
religion had ceased to be (_pro argumento_), or had become corrupt,
philosophy, which then (_ex hypothesi_) alone soared above the
intellect of the crowd, did not, and could not become a religion to
them, _infra_, pp. 142, 145, 146.

  [78] Such appears to me to be the conclusion of Mr Allies in his
       learned work ("The Formation of Christendom," ii. chap. viii.
       57), "Universality of false worship in the most diverse
       nations the summing up of man's whole history." I request
       attention, however, to the following passage, at page 382,
       which has an especial bearing upon my argument:--"No doubt the
       Greek mind had lived and brooded for ages upon the remains
       of original revelation, nor can any learning now completely
       unravel the interwoven threads of tradition and reason so as
       to distinguish their separate work. However, it is certain
       that in the sixth century B.C., the Greeks were
       without a hierarchy, and without a definite theology: not
       indeed without individual priesthoods, traditionary rites,
       and an existing worship, as well as certain mysteries which
       professed to communicate a higher and more recondite doctrine
       than that exposed to the public gaze. But in the absence of
       any hierarchy ... a very large range indeed was given to the
       mind, acting upon this shadowy religious belief, and re-acted
       upon by it, to form their philosophy. The Greeks did not, any
       more than antiquity in general, use the acts of religious
       service for instruction by religious discourse. In other
       words, there was no such thing as preaching among them. A
       domain, therefore, was open to the philosopher, on which he
       might stand without directly impeaching the ancestral worship,
       while he examined its grounds, and perhaps _sapped its
       foundations_. He was therein taking up a position which these
       priests, the civil functionaries of religious rites, _scarcely
       any longer_ retaining a spiritual meaning or a moral cogency,
       had not occupied."

And the history of this antagonism seems to be, that the human
intellect has ever had, and now more confidently than ever, the aim
and ambition to substitute something better than the revelation of
primitive tradition, and the experiences of the human race.

It is quite conceivable that human life and human institutions might
have been arranged upon some scheme different from that of the divine
appointment; and although we may believe that any such scheme would
result in ultimate confusion and the final extinction of the human
race, it is still theoretically possible that the experiment might have
been made.[79]

  [79] Take for instance Mr J. S. Mill's peculiar views as to the
       status of women, "The law of servitude in marriage" ["Wives
       be obedient to your husbands," St Paul], he says, "is in
       monstrous contradiction to all the principles of the modern
       world" (p. 147). "Marriage is the only actual bondage known
       to our law," _id._ But at p. 49, Mr Mill says, "The general
       opinion of men is supposed to be, that the natural vocation
       of a woman is that of a wife and mother." But he then adds
       (p. 37), "It will not do to assert in general terms that the
       experience of mankind has pronounced in favour of the existing
       system. Experience cannot possibly have decided between two
       courses, so long as there has only been _experience of one_.
       If it be said that the doctrine of the equality of the sexes
       rests only on theory, it must be remembered that the contrary
       doctrine also has only theory to rest upon. All that is
       proved in its favour by direct experience, is that mankind
       have been able to exist under it, and to attain the degree of
       improvement and prosperity which we now see; but whether that
       prosperity has been attained sooner, or is now greater than it
       would have been under the other system, experience does not
       say."

       Take in illustration, again, the communistic schemes
       as against the institution of property. Now, although
       Christianity has realised all that will ever be possible in
       the way of communism in its religious orders, the communistic
       sects have always instinctively directed their first efforts
       against religion as against the basis of the social order of
       things which they attacked. This was forcibly brought out in
       certain letters on "European Radicalism," in the _Pall Mall
       Gazette_, October and November 1869, _e.g._ "all the contests
       on the three capital questions ('government, property,
       religion') which we are now engaged in, are but continuations
       of the _original divergence_ of opinion (before settled
       government), considerably modified, of course, under the
       influence of time, the various _traditional notions_ mankind
       preserves under the _name of beliefs_, and the whole stock of
       experience it has accumulated under the name of knowledge. So
       like, indeed, are the ancient and modern contests on these
       matters," &c.... (Letter I.) Again (Letter V.), speaking of
       our English socialist discussing "the necessity of building
       social edifices upon material, not religious grounds," the
       writer adds, that among continental socialists "no one thinks
       there of the possibility of matters standing otherwise;" and
       that in the socialist workshops of France and Germany it is
       well known "that the very basis of social radicalism requires
       the abandonment of all kinds of religious discussion, as
       matter of purely personal inclination, and the abolition of
       all kinds of privileges as incompatible with equality." [All
       this has been put out of date by the deeds of the Commune
       and the programme of the "International Society"--viz. "_The
       burning of Paris_ we _accept the responsibility of_. _The old
       society must_ and will perish."] The _Spectator_, December
       1869, speaks still more explicitly:--"Infirm and crippled
       though she be, the Roman Church is still the only one who
       has the courage to be cosmopolitan, and claim the right to
       link nation with nation, and literature with literature. Such
       an assembly as the Council is, at least, an extraordinary
       testimony to the cosmopolitanism of the great Church
       which seems trembling to its fall; and who can doubt that
       that fall, whenever it comes, will be followed by a great
       temporary loosening of the faith in human unity--in spite of
       the electric telegraph--by a deepening of the chasm between
       nation and nation, by the loss of at least a most potent
       spell over the imagination of the world, by a contraction
       of the spiritual ideal of every church? This ideal, even
       Protestants, even Sceptics, even Positivists have owed, and
       have owned that they owed, to the Roman Church, the only
       Church which has really succeeded in uniting the bond between
       any one ecclesiastical centre and the distant circumference
       of human intelligence and energy. But if the consequence of
       the collapse of Romanism would be in this way a loss of power
       to the human race, think only of the gain of power which
       would result from the final death of sacerdotal ideas, from
       the final blow to the system of arbitrary authority exercised
       over the intellect and the conscience, from the new life which
       would flow into a faith and science resting on the steady
       accumulation of moral and intellectual facts and the personal
       life of the conscience in Christ--from the final triumph of
       moral and intellectual order and freedom. It would doubtless
       be a new life, subject to great anarchy at first; but the old
       authoritative systems have themselves been of late little more
       than anarchy just kept under by the authority of prescription
       and tradition; and one can only hope for the new order from
       the complete recognition that it is to have no arbitrary or
       capricious foundation."

Here comes in, with its full significance, the great saying of
Lacordaire's--"Order I compare to a pyramid reaching from heaven to
earth. Men cannot overthrow its base, because the finger of God rests
upon its apex."

If the finger of God did not so rest, there is no assignable reason
why this pyramid--this incubus, as some would call it--which goes
back, stone upon stone, to the primitive ages, should not have been
overturned, and some system purely atheistical, purely material, purely
communistic, substituted for it. But I believe that no democratic
organisation, however extended among the masses, will overthrow the
established order of things, so long as the possessors of property,
the upper classes, are true to the objects for which property was
instituted.

Considering how much man has effected in the material order, and
considering also the varied intellectual faculties with which he is
endowed, it strikes one as strange, as something which has to be
accounted for, that he has been able to effect so little in the moral
order. It is the same whether we regard the action of the intellect
upon the individual man, or upon society. And from this latter point
of view it is so true, that it is more than doubtful whether those
epochs in which man has attained the highest point of intellectual and
material civilisation, are not those also in which he has reached the
lowest depths of immorality;[80] and in which--having touched the
lowest point of corruption--the human intellect is unable to devise
any better plan for the government of mankind, than the repression of
despotism.[81]

  [80] "It is, upon the whole, extremely doubtful whether those
       periods which are the richest in literature, possess the
       greatest shares, either of moral excellence or of political
       happiness. We are well aware that the true and happy ages of
       Roman greatness long preceded that of Roman refinement and
       Roman authors; and, I fear, there is but too much reason to
       suppose that in the history of the modern nations we may find
       many examples of the same kind" (F. Schlegel's "History of
       Literature," i. 373). See also the account of the corruption
       of morals in Rome in the Augustan period (Allies' "Form. of
       Christendom," I. Lect. I.) "It is curious to observe that the
       more eloquent, polite, and learned the Greeks became, in the
       same proportion they became the more degraded and corrupt in
       their national religion" (Godfrey Higgins' "Celtic Druids,"
       1829, p. 207).

  [81] "Il n'y a, Messieurs, que deux sortes de repression
       possibles: l'une intérieure, l'autre extérieure.... Elles
       sont de telle nature que quand le thermomètre politique est
       élevé, le thermomètre de la religion est bas, et quand le
       thermomètre religieux est bas, le thermomètre politique, la
       repression politique, la tyrannie s'élève. Ceci est une loi
       de l'humanité, une loi de l'histoire." _Vide_ Disc. de Donoso
       Cortes (Marq. de Valdegamas), 4th January 1849; in which he
       pursues this remarkable parallelism throughout history.

But if the human intellect cannot prevent or control corruption, cannot
it disenchant vice of its evil, and so counteract its effects? Is there
no new conception of virtue with which to allure mankind? No second
decalogue which will attract by its novelty, or convince by logical
cogency and force? The Comtists, I believe, have a scheme for setting
all these things right. But what portion of mankind do they influence?
They are at present formidable only as may be the cloud on the horizon,
nor have they found sympathy even where they might have had some
expectation of finding it. If there was any separate section of mankind
which might have given them countenance, it would, one would think,
be the rationalist section, whose principles would disincline them to
regard old modes of thought with undue partiality. It is from this
quarter, if I mistake not, that the unkindest cut has come, and that
it has been said that "the latter half of Comte's career and writings
is the despair and bewilderment of those who admire the preceding
half;" yet in this latter half he only aimed at converting rationalism
from a negative to a positive system. But, allowing that a system of
some sort might thus be constructed, can positivism be defined as
more than the system of those who are positive by mutual consent and
agreement without faith or certainty, and who are the more positive
in proportion as they recede from Catholic truth and tradition. We,
however, who believe in the identity of Catholicism and Christianity,
may still appreciate Professor Huxley's definition of positivism,
viz.--"Catholicism _minus_ Christianity."[82]

  [82] Montalembert ("Disc. de Reception," 1852, Discours iii.
       pp. 614, 615, 621, 622) says of the Constituent Assembly
       of 1789--"It was the Assembly of 1789 which made the word
       revolution the synonyme of methodical destruction, of
       permanent war against all order and all authority.... It had
       that mania for uniformity which is the parody of unity, and
       which Montesquieu called the passion of mediocre minds....
       In a word, the Constituent Assembly was wanting not only in
       justice, courage, and humanity, but it was also deficient in
       good sense. The evil which it created has survived it. It has
       made us believe that it is possible to destroy everything
       and to reconstruct everything in a day.... God has chastised
       it, above all, by the sterility of its work. It had had the
       pretence of laying the foundations of liberty for ever, and
       it had for its successors the most sanguinary tyrants who
       ever dishonoured any nation. Its mission was to re-establish
       the finances, the empire of the law, and it has bequeathed
       to France bankruptcy, anarchy, and despotism--despotism
       without even the repose which they have wrongly taken as the
       compensation of servitude. It has done more: it has left
       pretexts for every abuse of force, and precedents for any
       excess of future anarchy. [Montalembert could hardly have
       foreseen the last application of its principles which we
       have recently witnessed in Paris by the Commune, which, too,
       forsooth, was to have inaugurated a new era for humanity.] But
       it (this Constituent Assembly) founded nothing--Nothing! The
       ancient society which it reversed had lasted, in spite of its
       abuses, a thousand years."

Can any one adduce a more typical representative of the clear,
powerful, penetrating intellect of man than Voltaire! Voltaire,
moreover, had the aim and ambition ("ecraser l'infame") to obliterate
the tradition of the past; yet can there be a better example of
the impotence of the intellect in the moral order? Does it not seem
startling that, when the human intellect, as in the case of Voltaire,
should be able to detect with so much acumen, so much wit, what is
wrong, that it should be wholly struck with sterility when it attempts
to tell us what is right, to reveal to man any truth in the moral order
not traditionally known to them. And if the disciples of Voltaire have
occasionally, in spasmodic efforts, attempted this, it has not been in
the manner of Voltaire; it has been in the spirit of eclecticism, of
reconstruction out of the elements of the past--that is to say (with
pardon, if the phrase has been used before), an attempt to create, out
of the elements he would have spurned, edifices which he would have
derided.

Now, the pretension of the human intellect is quite contrary to this
experience. It claims to have progressively elevated mankind out of
a state of primitive barbarism, to have indoctrinated them with the
ideas of morality which they possess, to have humanised them, and thus
affirms the converse of the theory of tradition which it pursues with
much unreasoning and implacable animosity.

The _Saturday Review_ (July 24, 1869), in reviewing Mr Gladstone's
"Juventus Mundi," says--"Mr Gladstone is doubtless well aware that
there was no portion of his Homeric studies which was received with
more surprise, or with more unfavourable comment, than his speculations
on what he described as the traditive and the inventive elements in
the Homeric mythology."[83] In consequence, Mr Gladstone says he has
endeavoured to avoid in his more recent work "a certain crudity of
expression." The _Saturday Review_, however, says--"That 'the crudity
of expression' here referred to seems to have been corrected and
modified to some extent by disguising the process of argument by which
it was sustained, and by the adoption of a lighter touch and slighter
treatment of the subject than in the former book. But the theory
itself, we believe, remains the same."

  [83] From a purely philosophical point of view, why should these
       speculations of Mr Gladstone have been received "with more
       surprise and unfavourable comment" than any other "portions of
       his Homeric studies?"

I may assume, then, that the passage which I have elsewhere quoted
from Mr Gladstone, and laid as the basis of my argument, still has
his countenance and support, in spite of the manifest antagonism it
has provoked. And this passage, I venture to think, acquires fresh
light and an accession of force when placed in juxtaposition with the
parallel passages from De Maistre and Dr Newman. These passages will
present no difficulties to the believer in the Bible. How far the
view is sustainable, with reference to the more recent conclusions in
chronology, I shall consider in another chapter; but, assuming that it
is not chronologically disproved, there is no intrinsic impossibility
which will debar belief.

The general probability of tradition being thus avouched,[84] I proceed
to examine certain statements that have been made as to its necessary
variability, and as to the uncertainty and indefiniteness of its
utterances.

  [84] In one way, nothing is so uncertain as tradition, and,
       moreover, tradition is rarely positive and direct, but, on the
       contrary, prone to concrete into strange, fragmentary, and
       distorted shapes. As an instance, we may take the tradition
       which Genesis attests,--When Abraham's hand had been stayed by
       the angel from the sacrifice of Isaac, ... "He called the name
       of that place 'The Lord seeth.' Whereupon, even to this day it
       is said, '_In the mountain the Lord will see_.'"--_Gen._ xxii.
       14.

       In illustration of the mode and manner of tradition, is the
       anecdote of Mr Hookham Frere, who states, that when the
       Maltese talk without reserve upon religious subjects, they
       say, "Everybody knows that Adam was the first man, but we
       alone know that he possessed fishing-boats;" which Bunsen says
       "Can be nothing but a Phoenician reminiscence."--"Egypt,"
       iv. 215, the reminiscence of the legend of the Fisherman.
       Compare the Fisherman and his wife in Grimm's "Popular Stories
       from Oral Tradition."

In the first place, as to its variability, it is true that tested by
the experience which we possess of the persistency and exactness of
family and local traditions, tradition in the broader sense which I
have indicated may appear to be of little value. I have elsewhere
attended a closer argument on this point in reply to Sir John Lubbock
(ch. xii.), but I may also make what appears to me, as regards this
matter, a sufficiently important distinction.

Family tradition is so confused, because at each remove in each
generation, it is necessarily crossed through marriage with
the traditions of another family. These may be either rival or
irreconcileable. But this remark will apply with much less force,
it will only secondarily and accidentally apply at all to the
common traditions, the inheritance of all families starting from a
common origin. If these traditions acquired some dross through the
intermarriage of families, they will, on the other hand, through the
very action of intermarriages, have been more frequently compared,
more vividly, therefore, kept in remembrance, and more recognisable
in their distortion, because the distortion is more likely to have
been in the way of super-addition of what was thought congruous and
supplemental. And this seems to me to meet Mr Max Müller's objection in
the _Contemporary Review_ for April 1870. "Comparative philology," he
says, "has taught again and again, that when we find _exactly_ the same
name in Greek and Sanscrit, we may be certain that it cannot be the
same word;" for we here see reason why and how these traditions have
been specially protected against the natural action and law which it is
the peculiar province of philology to trace.

I say this more especially with reference to the etymology in Bryant's
and other kindred works, which it is now the fashion to set aside
with much _hauteur_; and I assert it without impugning in any way the
results of modern philological inquiry, extending, of course, over a
much wider field than the writers of the last century could embrace.
But I do contend, that when the discussion has reference to the common
progenitors of the human race, or the incidents of primitive life--for
instance, the names of the ark, and what I may call its accessories,
the dove and the rainbow[85]--a certain probability of identity may
be presumed in such sort that it may chance that the probabilities of
tradition must be held to override the conjectures, and in some cases
even the conclusions of philology.[86]

  [85] _Vide_ "Bryant's Mythology," ii.

  [86] After the exposition of his own theory, Mr Grote says--"It
       is in this point of view that the myths are important for
       any one who would correctly appreciate the general tone of
       Grecian thought and feeling, for they were the _universal
       mental stock_ of the Hellenic world, _common to men and
       women, rich and poor_, ignorant and instructed, they _were in
       every one's memory and in every one's mouth_, while science
       and history were confined to comparatively few. We know from
       Thucydides how erroneously and carelessly the Athenian public
       of his day retained the history of Pisistratus, only one
       century past; but the adventures of the gods and heroes, the
       numberless explanatory legends attached to visible objects
       and _periodical ceremonies_, were the theme of _general
       talk_, and every man unacquainted with them would have
       found himself partially excluded from the sympathies of his
       neighbours."--_Hist. Greece_, i. p. 608; comp. _infra_, ch.
       xi.

I incline, moreover, to the belief that the fidelity and persistency of
local tradition is greater than is generally supposed. Sir H. Maine[87]
says--"The truth is, that the stable part of our mental, moral, and
physical constitution is the largest part of it, and the resistance it
opposes to change is such that, though the variations of human society
in a portion of the world are plain enough, they are neither so rapid
nor so extensive that their amount of character and general direction
cannot be ascertained." This establishes a presumption, at any rate,
in favour of tradition, although I admit that the quotation from Sir
H. Maine does not go further than point to a tradition of usages; but
I contend that a tradition of usage would enable us, after the manner
of Boulanger,[88] to disclose "L'antiquite devoilée par ses usages,"
and to establish the main points and basis of the history of the human
race, _e.g._ the Fall, the Deluge, the Dispersion, the early knowledge
and civilisation of mankind, the primitive monotheism, the confusion of
tongues, the family system, marriages, the institution of property, the
tradition of a common morality,[89] and of the law of nations.

  [87] "Ancient Law," p. 117.

  [88] "Pour trouver le veritable objet de ces dernières solemnités,
       dont les motifs sont compliqués, nous nous attachons à
       analyser leur cérémoniel et à chercher l'esprit de leurs
       usages; et cet esprit achève de nous faire reconnaître
       l'objet que nous n'avions d'abord qu'entrevu ou soupçonné,
       quelquefois même il nous développe encore la nature des
       motifs étrangers et mythologiques, et ces motifs se trouvent
       pour la plûpart n'être que des traditions du _même fait_
       qui ont été ou corrompués par le temps, ou travesties par
       des allégories."--Boulanger, _"L'Antiquite devoilée par ses
       Usages"_, i. 31.

  [89] _Vide_ other lines of tradition indicated in B. iii., C. iii.,
       of De Maistre, "Du Pape."

This inquiry might no doubt form a department either of scriptural
exegesis, universal history, or of ethnological research; but, in
point of fact, its scope is too large practically to fall within such
limits; whereas, if it were recognised as a separate branch of study,
it would, I venture to think, in the progress of its investigation,
bring all these different branches of inquiry into harmony and
completeness. And I further contend, that the conclusions thus attained
are as well-deserving of consideration as the conclusions of science
from the implements of the drift, or as the evidence of "some bones,
from the pliocene beds of St Prest, which appear to show the marks of
knives;"[90] which are adduced in evidence of a Palæolithic age. So
that, when on one side it is said that science (meaning the science
of geology or philology, &c.) has proved this or that fact apparently
contrary to the scriptural narrative, it can, on the other hand, be
asserted that the facts, or the inferences from them, are incompatible
with the testimony of the science of tradition. The defenders of
Scripture will thus secure foothold on the ground of science, which,
when properly entrenched, will stand good against the most formidable
recognizances or assaults of the enemy.

  [90] Sir J. Lubbock, Intro. to Nillson's "Stone Age," xii.

I cannot help thinking that some such thought lurks in the following
passage of Cardinal Wiseman's Second Lecture on "Science and Revealed
Religion" (5th Edition, p. 73)--

  "Here again I cannot but regret our inability to comprehend in
  one glance the bearings and connections of different sciences;
  for, _if_ it appears that ages must have been required to bring
  languages to the state wherein we first find them, other researches
  would show us that these ages never existed; and we should thus be
  driven to discover some shaping power, some ever-ruling influence,
  which could do at once what nature would take centuries to effect;
  and the Book of Genesis hath alone solved this problem."

No doubt a greater general acquaintance and power to grasp--or better
still, an intuitive glance--with which to comprehend "the bearings and
connections of different sciences," would tend to circumscribe the
aberrations of any particular science; but the special intervention
which appears to me destined to bring the various sciences into
harmony, will be the elevation of the particular department of history
or archæology which has to do with the traditions of the human race
as to its origin into a separate and recognised branch of inquiry;
and I am satisfied that if any portion of that intellect, which is
cunning in the reconstruction of the mastodon from its vertebral bone,
had been directed to the great lines of human tradition, that enough
of the "reliquiæ" and vestiges of the past remain to establish their
conformity with that "which alone has solved this problem--the Book of
Genesis;" and which, apart from the consideration of its inspiration,
will ever remain the most venerable and best attested of human
records.[91]

  [91] _E.g._, Mr Grote says, in his Introduction, that through the
       combination and illustration of scanty facts, "the general
       picture of the Grecian world may now be conceived with a
       degree of fidelity which, considering our imperfect materials,
       it is curious to contemplate."

       The Duke of Argyll ("Primeval Man," p. 24) says--"Within
       certain limits it is not open to dispute that the early
       condition of mankind is accessible to research. Contemporary
       history reaches back a certain way. Existing monuments afford
       their evidence for a considerable distance farther. _Tradition
       has its own province still more remote_; and latterly geology
       and archæology have met upon common ground--ground in which
       man and the mammoth have been found together."

It is much too readily assumed that traditions must be worthless where
no records are kept. Gibbon,[92] I think, was the first who took
this position. To this I reply, that although records are valuable
for the attestation, they are not guarantees for the fidelity of
tradition.[93] I do not assert that the tradition is more trustworthy
than the record; but that, when mankind trust mainly to tradition, the
faculties by which it is sustained will be more strongly developed, and
the adaptation of society for its transmission more exactly conformed.
In other words, tradition in ancient times seemed to flow as from a
fountain-head, and the world was everywhere grooved for its reception.
We may take in evidence the strange resemblances in mythological
tradition in various parts of the world on the one hand, and on the
other the oral tradition of the Homeric verses; the frequent concourse
of citizens, and at recurring festivals of the surrounding populations,
to listen to their recital. And not only was there oral tradition in
verse, but all public events were recorded in the attestations of the
market-place. When a treaty was ratified it was commonly before some
temple, or in some place of public resort, and its terms were committed
to memory by some hundred witnesses; and in like manner was the
recollection of other public events and memorable facts preserved.[94]
(_Vide_ Pastoret's "Hist. de la Législation," i. 71; also, account of
"Annales Maximi" in Dyer's "Rome," xvii.)

  [92] Gibbon ("Decline and Fall," i. 353) says, "But all this
       well-laboured system of German antiquities is annihilated
       by a single fact, too well attested to admit of any doubt,
       and of too decisive a nature to leave room for any reply.
       The Germans, in the days of Tacitus, were unacquainted with
       the use of letters, and the use of letters is the principal
       circumstance which distinguishes a civilised people from a
       herd of savages, incapable of knowledge or reflection. Without
       that artificial help, the human memory ever dissipates or
       corrupts the ideas intrusted to her charge." Compare with
       Coleridge, _infra_, p. 122; Ozanam, _infra_, ch. xiii.

  [93] Eusebius ("Ecclesiastical Hist.," ch. xxxvi.) says, speaking
       of St Ignatius--"He exhorted them to adhere firmly to the
       tradition of the apostles; which, for the sake of greater
       security, he deemed it necessary to attest by committing it
       to writing." I do not remember to have seen this quoted in
       testimony and proof of ecclesiastical tradition.

  [94] Goguet ("Origin of Laws," i. 29) says--"The _first laws_
       of all nations were composed in verse, and sung. Apollo,
       according to a very ancient tradition, was one of the first
       legislators. The same tradition says that he published his
       laws to the sound of his lyre; that is to say, that he had
       set them to music. We have certain proof that the first
       laws of Greece were a kind of song. The laws of the ancient
       inhabitants of Spain were verses, which they sung. Tuiston was
       regarded by the Germans as their first lawgiver. They said he
       put his laws into verses and songs. This ancient custom was
       long kept up by several nations."

       E. Warburton ("Conquest of Canada," i. 214) says--"The want
       of any written or hieroglyphic records of the past among the
       Northern Indians was to some extent supplied by the accurate
       memories of their old men; they were able to repeat speeches
       of four or five hours' duration, and delivered many years
       before, without error, or even hesitation; and to hand them
       down from generation to generation with equal accuracy.... On
       great and solemn occasions belts of wampum were used as aids
       to recollection ... when a treaty or compact was negotiated."

Yet, although during long periods oral transmission was for mankind
the main channel of tradition, it must not necessarily be concluded
that writing was unknown, and was not employed for monumental and
other purposes. What strikes one most forcibly in contemplating these
ages, is the contrast between their intellectual knowledge and their
mechanical and material contrivances for its application. During these
centuries in which the 30,000 hexameters of the "Iliad" and "Odyssey"
were transmitted in memory, by repetition, at public festivals, oral
tradition was doubtless employed, because during this period "paper,
parchment, or even the smoothed hides, as adapted for the purposes of
writing, were unknown."[95] This, whilst it certainly is in evidence of
the paucity of their available resources, at the same time establishes
the retentive strength of their memory,[96] and their intellectual
familiarity with great truths.

  [95] _Vide_ H. N. Coleridge ("Greek Classic Poets," p. 38-42), in
       speaking of the "Dionysiacs, the Thebaids, the Epigoniads,
       Naupactica, genealogies, and the other works of that sort,"
       p. 44, he adds--"Just as in the Indian and Persian epics, in
       the Northern Eddas, in the poem of the 'Cid,' in the early
       chronicles of every nation with which we are acquainted, one
       story follows another story in the order of mere history; and
       the skill and fire of the poet are shown, not in the artifice
       of grouping a hundred figures into one picture, but in raising
       admiration by the separate beauty of each successive picture.
       _They tell the tale as the tale had been told to them, and
       leave out nothing._"

  [96] According to the account which the Chinese themselves give of
       their annals, the works of Confucius were proscribed, after
       his death, by the Emperor Chi-Hoangti, and all the copies,
       including the Chu-King, were recovered from the dictation of
       an old man who had retained them in memory.

       "The great moralist of the East" himself, Confucius,
       asserted--"that he only wrought on materials already
       existing." _Vide_ Klaproth ap., Cardinal Wiseman, "Science and
       Rev. Religion," ii. p. 49.

       In the article in the _Cornhill Magazine_, Nov. 1871,
       containing the valuable collection of Dravidian (South Indian)
       folk-songs, it is said, p. 577, that "they are handed down
       from generation to generation, entirely vivâ voce, and from
       the minstrels have passed into public use."

And this seems to me the sufficient reply to Sir Charles Lyell's
somewhat captious objection, that if the intellectual knowledge of the
primitive age was so great, we ought now to be digging up steam engines
instead of flint implements.

Every age has its own peculiar superiority, as hath each individual
mind--_non omnia possumus omnes_--and it is as reasonable to object
to an age of philosophic thought, or of intuitive perception, that it
was not rich in the wealth of material civilisation, as it would be
to object to Plato or Shakspeare, that they did not acquire dominion
over mankind; or to Alexander, that he did not excel Aristotle; or
to Sir C. Lyell, supposing geology to be certain, that he did not
anticipate Darwin, supposing Darwinism to be true. And if it should
be more precisely objected that, if in those ages there was the
knowledge of writing for monumental purposes, we ought at least to find
monuments,[97] I say that the _onus probandi_ lies with the objector to
prove the invention or introduction of writing in the interval between
the age of Homer and the age of Pericles, as against us who believe in
its primeval transmission; or to show that its introduction was more
probable at this latter period than at the former.[98]

  [97] The Duke of Argyll ("Primeval Man," p. 30) says--"Knowledge,
       for example, or ignorance of the use of metals are, as we
       shall see, characteristics on which great stress is laid"
       (by the advocates of the "savage theory"). "Now, as regards
       this point, as Whately truly says, the narrative of Genesis
       distinctly states that this kind of knowledge did not belong
       to mankind at first.... It is assumed in the savage theory
       that the presence or absence of this knowledge stands in close
       and natural connection with the presence or absence of other
       and higher kinds of knowledge, of which an acquaintance with
       metals is but a symbol and a type. Within certain limits this
       is true."

  [98] Presuming total ignorance of writing--its invention at _any_
       period seems to me much more marvellous than the discovery
       of printing after the invention of writing. For the rest we
       have seen that writing was known at an early period to the
       Chaldæans and Egyptians, and probably to the Chinese and
       Japanese, and to the Medians (ch. xii.) Plutarch tells us
       that a law of Theseus, written on a column of stone, remained
       even to the time of Demosthenes.

Schlegel says[99]--

  "I have laid it down as an invariable maxim to follow historical
  tradition, and to hold fast by that clue, even when many things
  in the testimony and declarations of tradition appear strange and
  almost inexplicable; or, at least, enigmatical; for so soon as,
  in the investigations of ancient history, we let slip that thread
  of Ariadne, we can find no outlet from the labyrinth of fanciful
  theories and the chaos of clashing opinion."

  [99] Phil. Hist.

I propose to give a few instances of tradition, casually selected,
which appear to me to be in illustration of this dictum of Schlegel's.

Take, in illustration, the question whether mankind commenced with the
state of monogamy. Not that there is any obscurity on this point in
the Book of Genesis. It is indeed sometimes loosely said that we find
instances of polygamy in patriarchal times; but, as our Lord said, it
was not so in the beginning; and the Book of Genesis exhibits mankind
as commencing with a single pair, and subsequently as re-propagated
through a group of families, all represented to us at their
commencement as monogamous. But if this highest testimony is discarded,
and men gravely discuss whether or not they commenced with a state of
promiscuity, the argument from tradition will go for as much as the
argument from the analogy of circumstances and conditions as inferred
from the existing state of savages, since this state, from our point of
view, must have been the result of degeneracy.[100]

 [100] Burke ("Regicide Peace,") says--"The practice of divorce,
       though in some countries permitted, has been discouraged in
       all. In the East polygamy and divorce are in discredit, and
       the manners correct the laws."

I must, moreover, contend that the practice of monogamy, in any one
case, must weigh for very much more than the practice of polygamy in
ten parallel instances; because the natural degeneracy and proclivity
of man in his fallen state is in this direction.

And also, polygamy is much more naturally regarded as the departure
from monogamy, than the latter as the restraint of, or advance out of,
a state of promiscuity.

It may further, I think, be maintained that monogamy--in the way
of separation with a single woman by reason of strong love or
preference--would be the more probable escape from the state of
promiscuity than through the intermediary and progressive stage of
polygamy.[101]

 [101] This was written before the appearance of Sir J. Lubbock's
       chapter on "Marriage," in his "Origin of Civilization," to
       which reference is made at pp. 51, 52.

Now, I need scarcely say, that the opponents of monogamy can show
no instance of an advance out of the state of promiscuity either to
monogamy or polygamy. But they can point to certain communities in
ancient and modern times in a state of polygamy.

Either, then, they must have degenerated into this state from the
primitive monogamous family system, or they must have arrived at the
stage in growth and progress out of a state of promiscuity.

Does tradition give any clue out of this labyrinth? To simplify the
question, I will consent to appeal to the identical tradition to which
the advocates of an original promiscuity direct our attention.

Mr J. F. M'Lennan, who, in his "Primitive Marriage," 1865 (_vide
supra_), apparently describes mankind as originally in a state of
promiscuity, subsequently limited by customs of tribal exogamy and
endogamy, in a recent article in the _Fortnightly Review_ (Oct. 1869),
"Totems and Totemism," sees further evidence of his theory in the
following traditions from Sanchoniathon:--

  "Few traditions respecting the primitive condition of mankind are
  more remarkable, and perhaps none are more ancient, than those that
  have been preserved by Sanchoniatho; or rather, we should say,
  that are to be found in the fragments ascribed to that writer by
  Eusebius. They present us with an outline of the earlier stages
  of human progress in religious speculation, which is shown _by
  the results of modern inquiry to be wonderfully correct_. They
  tell us for instance that '_the first men consecrated the plants
  shooting out of the earth, and judged them gods_, and worshipped
  them upon whom they themselves lived, and all their posterity,
  and all before them, and to these they made their meat and drink
  offerings.'[102] They further tell us that the first men believed
  the heavenly bodies to be animals, only differently shaped and
  circumstanced from any on the earth. 'There were certain animals
  which had no sense, out of which were begotten intelligent animals
  ... and they were formed alike in the shape of an egg. Thus shone
  out Môt [the luminous vault of heaven?], the sun and the moon,
  and the less and the greater stars.' _Next they relate, in an
  account of the successive generations of men_, that _in the first
  generation the way was found out of taking food from trees_;
  that, in the second, men, having suffered from droughts, began to
  worship the sun--the Lord of heaven; that in the third, Light,
  Fire, and Flame [conceived as persons], were begotten; that in the
  fourth giants appeared; while in the fifth, 'men were named from
  their mothers' because of the uncertainty of male parentage, this
  generation being distinguished also by the introduction of 'pillar'
  worship. It was not till the twelfth generation that the gods
  appeared that figure most in the old mythologies, such as Kronos,
  Dagon, Zeus, Belus, Apollo, and Typhon; and then the queen of
  them all was the _Bull_-headed Astarte. The sum of the statements
  is, that men first worshipped plants; next the heavenly bodies,
  supposed to be animals; then 'pillars;' ... and, last of all, the
  anthropomorphic gods. Not the least remarkable statement is, that
  in primitive times there was kinship through mothers only, owing to
  the uncertainty of fatherhood."[103]

 [102] A tradition of the constellations, a proof from tradition that
       they were so named in the ante-diluvian period.

 [103] Sanchoniatho's "Phoenician History," by the Right Rev. R.
       Cumberland. London, 1720, pp. 2, 3, 23, _et seq._ Eusebius,
       Præpar. Evangel. lib. i. cap. 10.

The fragments of Sanchoniathon here referred to are found at earlier
date than Eusebius, having been copiously extracted by Philo (_vide_
Bunsen's "Egypt").

Sanchoniathon was to Phoenicia what Berosus was to Assyria; that is
to say, the earliest post-diluvian compilers of history when tradition
was becoming obscure. Let us scrutinise his testimony. We are here
told "that the first men _consecrated the plants_ shooting out of the
earth, and _judged them gods_."... "Next they relate, in an account of
the successive generations of men, that in the first generation _the
way was found out of taking food from trees_." Here, I submit, that we
have plainly and unmistakably a tradition of that first commencement
of evil, the first man and woman plucking the apple from the tree,
thinking they would become as gods (Gen. iii. 4, 5), ... "and the
serpent said ... for God doth know that in what day soever you shall
eat thereof ... and you shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

Then follows the succession of ages (_vide infra_, ch. xiii.), of
which there is a curious parallel tradition in Hesiod and Apollodorus,
and partial correspondences in the traditions of India, China, and
Mexico (_infra_, ch. xiii.).[104]

 [104] _Vide_ Grote, i.

It will be noted, however, that whilst running into the tradition of
Hesiod on the one side (in Hesiod and in the Chinese tradition there
is trace of a double tradition, ante and post-diluvian), Sanchoniathon
still more closely runs in with the narrative of Genesis on the other,
thus connecting the links of the chain of tradition.[105]

 [105] This chapter was written before I became acquainted with Mr
       Palmer's "Chronicles of Egypt" (_vide_ ch. vi.) If the
       reader will refer to chap. i., he will there find a learned
       and exhaustive exposition of the ages of Sanchoniathon,
       identifying them with Scripture on the one side, and Egyptian
       tradition on the other.

In the succession of ages we have in outline the history of mankind in
the ante-diluvian period--the Fall, _supra_--followed in the succeeding
age by a great _drought_--[compare this tradition with the following
passage in Fran. Lenormant's "Histoire Ancienne," i. p. 5, 2d ed.,
Paris 1868--"and when geology shows us the first ante-diluvian men who
came into our part of the world, living in the midst of ice, under
conditions of climate analogous to those under which the Esquimaux live
at the present day ... one is naturally brought to the recollection
of _that ancient tradition of the Persians_, fully conformable to the
information which the Bible supplies on the subject of the fall of man,
... which ranks among the first of the chastisements which followed
the fall, along with death and other calamities, the advent of an
_intense and permanent cold_ which man could scarcely endure, and which
rendered the earth almost uninhabitable."[106]] It is to this period,
and the short period immediately following the Deluge (_vide_ ch. ii.
p. 21, and _infra_, pp. 136, 137), that I am inclined to trace
the notions of a primitive barbarism--compare, for instance, the facts
which Goguet, in his "Origin of Laws," i. p. 72, adduces in proof of
his progress from barbarism, with the above tradition of the Persians
recorded by Lenormant.

 [106] Is not this the meaning of the cxlvii. psalm, in the
       expression, "ante faciem frigoris ejus quis sustinebit"?
       Does not the psalm recount to the Jewish people, in rapid
       allusions, all that God had done for them, in contrast to the
       chastisements that had befallen other nations; and if it is
       objected that there is no allusion to the Deluge, unless in
       its indirect and beneficial influences, in the words, "flavit
       spiritus ejus et fluent aquæ," I reply that to the survivors,
       the Deluge, regarded largely, and in its permanent effects,
       was no calamity, but the commencement of a new and more
       favoured era.

Goguet says--"The Egyptians, Persians, Phoenicians, Greeks, and
several other nations (_vide_ his references, p. 72), acknowledged that
their ancestors were once without the use of fire. The Chinese confess
the same of their progenitors.... Pomponius, Mela, Pliny, Plutarch, and
other ancient authors speak of nations, who, at the time they wrote,
knew not the use of fire, or had only just learned it. Facts of the
same kind are attested by several modern relations." Let this latter
statement be compared with _infra_, pp. 136, 137 .

In the third age we are told--"Light, Fire, and Flame (conceived as
persons) were begotten," which looks like a tradition of Vulcan,
Tubalcain, &c. (_vide_ ch. xii. _infra_); and "in the fourth, giants
appeared;" while in the fifth, the corruption of mankind is indicated,
as is declared in Genesis vi. 4: "Now giants were upon the earth in
those days. For after the sons of God went in to the daughters of men
and brought forth children," &c., ver. 12, "and when God had seen
that the earth was corrupted (for all flesh had corrupted its way
upon the earth), ver. 13, He said to Noe," &c. "It was not till the
twelfth generation that the gods appeared that figured most in the
old mythologies," says Mr M'Lennan, quoting Sanchoniathon, or what is
believed to be his testimony. I trust that this fragment of tradition
may be remembered in connection with what I have written in chapters
viii., ix., x. [107]

 [107] Compare ch. xiii.  The successive ages of Hesiod, more
       especially the lines describing the iron age, parallel to the
       tradition, _supra_, "that in the fifth age _men were named
       from their mothers_."

          "No fathers in their sons their features trace,
            The sons reflect _no more_ their father's face;
          The host with kindness greets his guest no more,
            And friends and brethren love not as of yore."
                                                 --HESIOD.

       President Goguet ("Origin of Laws," i. 21,) had noticed
       the ancient allusions to "kinship through mothers," and
       his statement that "women belonged to the man who seized
       them first.... The children who sprang from this irregular
       intercourse scarce ever knew who were their fathers. They knew
       only their mothers, for which reason they always bore their
       name." For this statement he also quotes Sanchoniathon, ap.
       Eus. p. 34, as his principal authority. But Sanchoniathon's
       statement, as we have seen, refers to the ante-diluvian
       period, in which it is borne out by Genesis vi. 4.

       There is one fact adduced by Goguet (i. 43), viz. that the
       _Assyrians_ had an analogous ceremony which must be decisive
       for us, though not, perhaps, for Mr M'Lennan, that the custom
       of seizure was ante-diluvian, since the commencement of the
       Assyrian monarchy in the times immediately following the
       flood, is one of the best established foundations of history.
       _Vide_ Genesis and Rawlinson.

       "This race of _many languaged_ man." To any one who rightly
       grasps the bearing of the argument, the appositeness of
       this quotation will, I think, be rather strengthened than
       diminished by the evidence that the lines of Hesiod plainly
       refer to post-diluvian times (_vide_ ch. xiii.)

"The sum of the statements" then, so regarded, is to confirm the
tradition of the human race as recorded in Genesis, that they sprang
from three brothers and their three wives, forming three monogamous
pairs who accompanied their father Noah into the ark, with his wife;
and who again were more remotely descended from a single pair.

If, then, in the two most ancient traditions of which we have any
record, we find concordance on some points and divergence on others,
the circumstance of identity at all is so much more startling than the
occurrence of discrepancy, that it will fairly be taken to warrant
the presumption of a common origin; and this conformity will also be
naturally claimed in support of our narrative as against the other
on the points of disagreement, which will then be set down to the
corruption of that which is deemed the most ancient and authentic.
For those, therefore, who believe the Bible to be the revealed Word
of God, and even for those who regard it as the most ancient record,
the coincidences with Sanchoniathon will afford a striking testimony;
whereas the coincidence of the fifth age of Sanchoniathon with
Genesis (chap. vi. 1, 2, 4) and the tradition of Hesiod, must be an
embarrassment to those who seek in this tradition evidence that what
was characteristic of the fifth age, was true of the preceding and
pristine ages.

To take a second instance, more exactly in illustration of the
quotation from F. Schlegel, _supra_, p. 124, there is no such barrier
to tradition (regarded retrospectively) as the notion, if we accept
it, which crept over many nations, that they were "autochthones."
Like the sand-drifts known to geologists as dunes, such notions, if
they had been received absolutely, would have involved all tradition
in a general extinction. But as the dunes, when minutely measured and
submitted to calculation, have afforded the best evidence in favour
of what may be called the diluvian chronology, so will this notion
that men sprang out of the soil in which they dwelt, when analysed,
contribute fresh evidence to the truth and persistence of tradition.
But first of all, will any one start with the theory--that any nation
that had this notion about itself--the Greeks, for instance, were
really autochthones? There is, then, simply a confusion of ideas, a
difficulty which has to be unravelled; but seeing that the Greeks
notoriously believed themselves to be autochthones, it becomes an
obstruction in the main channel of tradition, and it is especially
incumbent upon us to consider the facts.

In the "Supplicants" of Æschylus--and I am not aware that the notion
crops up at earlier date--Pelasgus is introduced as saying--

        "Pelasgus bids you, sovereign of the land,
        My sire, Palæcthon, of _high ancestry,
        Original_ with this _earth_; from me, their king,
        The people take their name, and boast themselves
        Pelasgians."
                                                       --v. 275.

Here the high descent, and the origin from the soil, the ancestry
referred to in the same breath with the allusion to his sire, "original
with this earth," strikes one as incongruous. And the incongruity
appears still greater when we recollect that Pelasgus is the person
whom all historical evidence proves to have been the first settler in
the country; it being also borne in mind that the term "autochthones,"
whether in a primary or a secondary sense, is always applied to the
supposed aboriginals of the country, and therefore excludes the
hypothesis of any more primitive colonisation.[108]

 [108] The Phoenician cosmogony seems to me to clinch the argument.
       There (_vide_ Bunsen, Egypt, iv. 234), "_The son of Eliun_ is
       called by Philo, Epigeios or _autokhthon_, 'the earth-born,'
       primeval inhabitant. By the latter of these expressions we
       have no doubt that Adam-Tadmon ('the Kadmos of the Greeks,'
       p. 195), the first man, the man of God, is implied" ("Eliun,
       _i.e._ Helyun, God the Most High," p. 232).

       There is an analogy in their confused tradition of the
       creation. "Eudemus says, according to the Phoenician
       mythology, which _was invented by Môkhos_, the first principle
       was æther and air; from these two beginnings sprang Ulômos
       (the eternal), the rational (conscious) God" (Bunsen, iv.
       179). Bunsen, (178) adds, "as regards Môkhos the thing is
       clear enough; the old materialistic philosopher is matter,
       and that in the sense of primeval slime." [Whence it has been
       suggested that we derive our word Muck, Môkh, or Môkhos.]
       This beginning Bunsen considers (p. 179) "a philosophising
       amplification of the simply sublime words of Genesis: 'The
       earth was without form, and void, and darkness was over the
       face of the waters.'" Here we see the human reason hampered
       by the tradition that confused matter or chaos was somehow
       at the commencement, and with the conflicting tradition and
       conclusion of the intellect that it was, and must have been,
       created by a power superior to matter ("In the beginning God
       created heaven and earth"), emancipating itself, so far as to
       identify the Creator with the æther and air, as nearer the
       conception of a pure Spirit, and personifying matter, and so
       shunting it aside as the "inventor of the mythology."

But if we regard it as a corruption of the tradition that man was
created out of the earth ("for dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt
return," Genesis iii. 19), does not this solve all difficulties? The
extension of the knowledge that they were created out of the earth, to
the notion that they were created out of this or that particular clay,
is not violent. Is it not this same Æschylus[109] who has the allusion
"to the earth drinking the blood of the two rival brothers, the one
slain by the other." It will be seen at p. 175, that the Mexicans
believed that the first race of men were created "out of the earth,"
and "the third out of a tree," a reminiscence of the creation, and of
the fall, the intermediate event being probably the creation of Eve. In
like manner, the Red Indians have a tradition that they were created
out of the _red clay_ by the Great Spirit; and to go to another part of
the world, the supposed aboriginal tribes of China were called Miautze,
or "soil children."[110]

 [109] _Vide_ De Maistre (ch. xii.)

 [110] Max Müller, "Chips," &c., ii. 274. The Titans were also said
       to be "earth-born." Bryant (iii. 445) says Berosus gives the
       following tradition of the Creation. Belus after deification
       being confounded with the Creator, as we have seen Prometheus,
       id. 104--"Belus, the deity above mentioned, cut off his own
       head, upon which the other gods mixed the blood as it gushed
       out _with the earth_, and _from thence_ men _were formed. On
       this_ account it is that they are rational and partake of
       divine knowledge. _This_ Belus, whom men called _Dis, divided
       the darkness_ and separated the heavens from the earth," &c.

This testimony must be connected with the phrase so startling in the
seventh ode of the fourth book of Horace, "_pulvis_ et umbra sumus,"
and with the text in Genesis iii. 19, "for dust thou art."[111] It may
possibly be said that this is merely matter of every day's experience.
But it is precisely at this point that we must ask those who dispute
tradition to discard tradition. Do bodies--so far as the exterior
senses tell us--return to dust, or to other forms of life? If it is
true that we return to dust--Scripture apart--it is tradition and not
experience which attests it, and yet so common is the belief, that it
might readily pass as the result of common observation.

 [111] Compare Cicero, De Legibus, i. 8: "Est igitur homini _cum deo
       similitudo_;" and with Gen. ii. 26, 27: "and God created man
       in his own likeness."

So general a tradition that man was created, and created out of
the ground,[112] is so completely in accordance with the text of
Genesis, that one can hardly see what more can be demanded; yet
Catlin says[113]--"Though there is not a tribe in America but what
has _some_ theory of man's _creation_, there is not one amongst them
all that bears the _slightest resemblance_ to the Mosaic account."
Catlin instances the traditions of the Mandans, Choctaws, and the
Sioux--_1st_, The Mandans (who have the ceremony commemorative of
_the Deluge_ referred to, ch. xi.), believe that they were created
"under the ground." _2d_, The Choctaws assert that they "were created
crawfish, living alternately under the ground and above it as they
chose; and, creeping out at their little holes in the earth to get the
warmth of the sun one sunny day, a portion of the tribe was driven
away and could not return; they built the Choctaw village, and the
remainder of the tribe are still living under the ground." The Iroquois,
however, believe that they "came out of the ground," which is identical
with the Greek notion of their being "autochthones" (_vide_ Colden,
ii. 103), where one of their chiefs speaks thus--"For we must tell you
that long before one hundred years our ancestors _came out of this very
ground_.... You _came out of the ground_ in a country that lies beyond
the seas." Now, even if we consent to detach the Iroquois tradition,
there is still in both the Mandan and Choctaw tradition, a common idea
of their having come from "under the ground," which seems to me the
tradition that they were created out of the ground at one remove. To
this it would seem the Choctaws have super-added their recollection
of some incident of their tribe, possibly that they were an offshoot
of the Esquimaux, or were at one period in their latitude and lived
their life, which would be in accordance with the theory of their
migrations from Asia by Behring's Straits. 3_d_, About the Sioux, the
third instance of contrariety adduced by Catlin, it seems to me that
there is no room for argument, the Sioux having the tradition referred
to above, that the Great Spirit _told_ them that "The red stone was
their flesh." To these three instances Mr Catlin adds--"Other tribes
were created under the water, and at least _one half of the_ tribes in
America represent that man was created _under the ground_ or in the
rocky caverns of the mountains. Why this diversity of theories of the
Creation if these people brought their traditions of the Deluge from
the land of inspiration?"[114]

 [112] "The Chinese cosmogony speaks as follows of the creation of
       man--'God took some yellow earth, and He made man _en deux
       sexes_.'" This is the true origin of the human race. A Hebrew
       tradition says that it was of the red earth, which is the
       same idea. The Hebrew word "Adam" expresses this idea. This
       correspondence as to the manner in which the body of the
       first man was formed, between two people who have never had
       relations, is very remarkable. Indian and African cosmogonies
       relate that the name of the first man was 'Adimo,' that of
       his wife 'Hava,' and that they were the last work of the
       Creator."--Gainet, _La Bible sans la Bible_, i. p. 74. I must
       note, too, the identity of the American Indian (_supra_) and
       the Hebrew tradition, which is curious, as it might naturally
       be supposed that the tradition of the Red Indian took its
       _colour_ from his own complexion.

       Max Müller ("Lect. on the Science of Language," 1st series,
       p. 367) says of "man"--"The Latin word _homo_, the French
       _l'homme_, ... is _derived from the same root_, which we
       have in _humus_, soil, _humilis_, humble. _Homo_, therefore,
       would express the idea _of being made out of the dust
       of the earth_." Bunsen also ("Phil. Univ. Hist." i. 78)
       says--"The common word for man in all German dialects is
       'manna,' containing the same root as Sanscrit 'manusha' and
       'manueshya.' The Latin 'homo' is intimately connected with
       'humus' and [Greek: chamai] and means _earth-born_; [Greek:
       anthrôpôn chamaigeneôn], says Pindar. But what is [Greek:
       anthrôpos]?"

 [113] "Last Rambles," p. 324.

 [114] The following tradition of the Tartar tribes seems to supply a
       link. In their tradition of the Deluge (_vide_ Gainet, i. 209)
       it is said, "that those who saved themselves from the Deluge
       shut themselves up with their provisions in the crevices of
       mountains, and that after the scourge had passed they came out
       of their caverns."

       And compare, again, with the tradition of Kronos (Noah, _vide_
       Bryant's "Mythology," iii. 503)--"He is said to have had
       _three_ sons (Sanch. ap. Euseb. P. E., lib. i. c. 10, 37), and
       in a _time of danger_ he formed a _large cavern in the ocean_,
       and in this he shut himself up, together _with these sons_,
       and thus escaped the danger."--_Porph. de Nymphar. Antro._, p.
       109.

       Bryant ("Mythology," iii. 405) says--"I have shown that Gaia,
       in its original sense, signified a sacred cavern, a hollow in
       the earth, which, from its gloom, was looked upon as an emblem
       of the ark. Hence Gaia, like Hasta Rhoia Cybele, is often
       represented as the mother of mankind." The following is very
       important with reference to my argument above:--The Scholiast
       upon Euripides says--"[Greek: Meta ton kataklysmon en oresin
       oikountôn tôn Argeiôn prôtos autous synôkisen Inachos]. When
       the Argivi or Arkites, _after the Deluge_, lived _dispersed on
       the mountains_, Inachus first brought them together and formed
       them into communities."--Comp. _infra_, p. 157, 158, 193,
       332.

       The instances adduced of myths connecting man with the monkey
       are, as a rule, traditions of degeneracy, _i.e._ of men turned
       into monkeys (_vide_ Tylor's "Primitive Culture," i. 340),
       and to which I would add the rabbinical tradition of men
       turned into monkeys at the Tower of Babel (De Quincey, Works,
       xiii. 235), and the classical epic of the Ceropes, "founded
       on the transformation of a set of jugglers into monkeys."
       But if compared with the above tradition, I think that the
       only two instances (Tylor, i. 341) which seem to bear out the
       opposite theory will wear a different aspect. I quote from
       Tylor as above--"Wild tribes of the Malay peninsula, looked
       down upon as lower animals by the more warlike and civilised
       Malays, have among them traditions of their own descent from
       _a pair_ of the "unka-putch" or _white_ monkeys, who reared
       their young ones _and sent them into the plains_, and there
       they perfected so well that they and their descendants became
       men, but those _who returned to the mountains_ still remained
       apes. The Buddhist legend relates the origin of the flat-nosed
       uncouth tribes of Tibet, offspring of _two miraculous apes_,
       transformed to _people_ the snow-kingdom. Taught to till the
       ground, when they had grown corn and eaten it, their tails
       and hair gradually disappeared, they began to speak, became
       men, and clothed themselves with leaves. The population grew
       closer, the land was more and more cultivated, and at last a
       prince of the race of Sakya, driven from his home in India,
       _united their isolated tribes_ into a single kingdom."--Comp.
       Cecrops, &c., p. 332, _infra_.

Now, just as the tribes who said they were created "under the ground"
implied the same tradition as those who said they were created _out
of_ the ground, so, too, the tribes who said they were created "under
the water" probably held the tradition that the creation of the race
preceded the Deluge.

The tradition which connects the creation with "the rocky caverns of
the mountains" is more recondite--may it possibly be a recollection of
the commencement of civil life after the Deluge, when Noah led them,
according to tradition, from the mountains to the plains?

M. L'Abbé Gainet says (i. 176)--"The Lord repeated four times the
promise that He would not send another deluge.... The children of Noah
were long scared by the recollection of the dreadful calamity.... It is
probable that they did not decide upon leaving the 'plateaux' of the
mountains till quite late. Moreover, caverns have been found in the
mountains of the Himalaya, and in many other elevated regions of Asia,
which they suppose to have been formed by the first generations of man
after the Deluge. The works of the learned M. de Paravey make frequent
mention of them." This tradition is supported by the lines of Virgil
referring to Saturn (_vide infra_, p. 210).

      "Is genus indocile, ac dispersum _montibus altis_
      Composuit; legesque dedit."--_Æn._ viii. 315.

I give these suggestions for what they may be worth.[115] Truly,
where some see nothing but harmony, others see nothing but diversity.
Only to put it to a fair test, I should like to see Mr Catlin or
some one else group these various traditions round any one tradition
which they believe to be at variance with the revelation of Genesis,
and which, at the same time, they happen to consider to be the true
one. It must be conceded that in one way the facts accord with Mr
Catlin's theory--contradicted, however, by other evidence (_infra_, ch.
xi.)--that the Indians were created on the American continent. But
upon any theory that they were not created at all, but existed always
in pantheistic transformation, or had progressed from the monkey,
or had been developed in evolution from some protoplasm, is not the
tradition incongruous and inexplicable?

 [115] It occurs to me as possible that these various traditions may
       have had their foundation in the recollection of hardship, at
       some early period of their subsequent migration, which were
       transferred back and connected with their tradition of the
       altered state of things after the Deluge, arising out of the
       substitution of animal for vegetable food--of which the notion
       that man once lived on acorns may have been only an extreme
       form of expression. The following tradition of Saturn (_vide
       infra_, Saturn, p. 210), seems to tend in this direction:
       "Diodorus Siculus gives the same history of Saturn as is by
       Plutarch above given of Janus--[Greek: ex agriou diaitês eis
       êmeron Bion metarêsa anthrôpous].--Diodorus, 1. 5, p. 334. He
       brought mankind from their foul and savage way of _feeding_ to
       a more mild and rational _diet_."--Bryant, ii. 261.

To take another instance. The Hindoos had a fanciful notion that the
world was supported by an elephant, and the elephant by a tortoise.
Nothing can be imagined more incongruous and grotesque. Yet Dr Falconer
has recently discovered, in his explorations in India, a fossil
tortoise adequate to the support of an elephant. The incongruity then
of the tradition disappears; its grotesqueness remains. I cannot help
thinking, however, that it may have been the embodiment in symbol, or
else the systematisation of the confused medley of their tradition
of the order, _i.e. of the sequence of days of the creation_ (_vide_
Appendix to this chapter).[116]

 [116] This fable of the tortoise is also among the Mandans, whom,
       Catlin (_supra_, 135) says, had no other tradition of the
       Creation than that they were created under the ground. Their
       tradition is confused with the Deluge, which dominates in
       their tradition.

       "The Mandans believed that the earth rests on four tortoises.
       They say that "each tortoise rained ten days, making forty
       days in all, and the waters covered the earth" (_vide_
       "O-kea-pa," p. 39, _infra_, ch. xi.) Does not this
       tradition of the tortoise decide the _Oriental_ origin of the
       North American Mandans?

       Falconer's "Palæontological Mem.," 1868, i. 297, ii. 377-573,
       &c., "As the pterodactyle more than realised the most
       extravagant idea of the winged dragon, so does this huge
       tortoise come up to the lofty conceptions of Hindoo mythology;
       and could we but recall the monsters to life, it were not
       difficult to imagine an elephant supported on its back"(i. 27).

       The New Zealanders have a curious tradition of their ancestors
       having encountered a gigantic saurian species of reptile,
       which must have been before they arrived in New Zealand.
       _Vide_ Shortland's "Traditions of the New Zealanders," p. 73.

I have alluded, p. 199, to the tradition preserved by Berosus, that
Oannes, whom I identify with Noah, left writings upon the origin of the
world, in which he says, "that there was a time when all was darkness
and water, and that this darkness and water contained _monstrous
animals_." Here, perhaps, two distinct traditions are confused; but
is not the tradition of animals so much out of the ordinary nature of
things as to be called monstrous sufficiently marked to make us ask
if the discovery of the skeleton of the "megatherium" ought to have
come upon the scientific world as a surprise? Might they not have
anticipated the discovery if they had duly trusted tradition?

Other instances might doubtless be adduced. My present object is merely
to suggest that there may be truths in tradition not dreamt of by
modern philosophy. If the human intellect were as capacious as it is
acute, we might then listen with greater submission to its strictures
upon tradition; because then we might at least believe that its
vision extended to all the facts. But in truth, no intellect, however
encyclopædic, can grasp them all. Indeed, knowledge in many departments
is becoming more and more the tradition of experts, and must be
taken by the outside world on faith. How many facts, again, once in
tradition, but at some period put on record, lie as deeply shrouded
in the dust of libraries as they had previously lain hidden in the
depths of ages? Who will say what facts are traditional in different
localities? Barely do we move from place to place without eliciting
some information strange and new. Who again will say what ideas are
traditional in different minds? Barely is there a discussion which
provokes traditional lore or traditional sentiment which does not bring
to light some such thought or experience, re-appearing, like the lines
in family feature, after the lapse of several generations.

Whenever, then, mankind is called upon to discard its traditions at the
voice of any intellect, however powerful, is it unreasonable to demand
that some cognizance should be taken of these facts.[117]

 [117] I have elsewhere (_vide_ ch. iv., _et seq._, x., xi.) traced
       the tradition of the Deluge, of the chronology of the world,
       &c., &c.

Let us now, returning to the tradition we have more especially in view,
ask this further question,--What could the human intellect have done
towards the regeneration of the race if there had been no revelation
and no tradition?

It is not often that unbelief is constructive and supplies us with the
necessary data with which to furnish the answer. But recently a work
which is said to embody considerable learning has appeared, entitled,
"The Origin and Development of Religious Belief," which is written
"from a philosophic and not from a religious point of view;" in which
"the existence of a God is not assumed, the truth of revelation is not
assumed," and "the Bible is quoted not as an authoritative, but as an
historical record open to criticism."--Mr Baring Gould, "Origin and
Development of Religious Belief," preface, 1869.

Here then, if anywhere, we are likely to get the solution from the
point of view of unbelief.

At p. 119, Mr B. Gould thus summarises his views:--

  "Religion, as has been already shown, is the synthesis of thought
  and sentiment. It is the representation of a philosophic idea. It
  always reposes on some hypothesis. At first it is full of vigour,
  constantly on the alert to win converts. Then the hypothesis
  is acquiesced in, it is received as final, its significance
  evaporates. The priests of ancient times were also philosophers,
  but not being able always to preserve their intellectual
  superiority, their doctrines became void of meaning, hieroglyphs
  of which they had lost the key; and then speculation ate its way
  out of religion, and left it an empty shell of ritual observance,
  void of vital principle. Philosophy alone is not religion, nor is
  sentiment alone religion; but religion is that which, based on an
  intelligent principle, teaches that principle as dogma, exhibits
  it in worship, and applies it in discipline. Dogma worship and
  discipline are the constituents, so to speak, the mind spirit, and
  body of religion."--"_Origin and Development of Religious Belief._"
  By S. Baring Gould, M.A. Rivingtons, 1869. Part i., p. 119.

Here it is said that "religion is the representative of a philosophic
idea. It always reposes on some hypothesis." This philosophic idea
may be that there must necessarily be a Creator. But also it may not
be, for "the existence of God is not assumed" (_vide_ preface).
If it is not, then, according to this definition, religion may be
the representative of any philosophic idea (_i.e._ any idea of any
philosopher), even that which may be diametrically opposed to the
existence and goodness of God.[118] But if, on the other hand, the
existence of God is this primary philosophic idea, then all other
philosophic ideas must succumb to it. It is a point which you must
settle at starting in your definition of religion.

 [118] Devil-worship is based upon the hypothesis that the evil
       spirit exists, and is the influence from which man has most
       to dread. Prudence suggests that it is wise to propitiate
       evil when it is powerful; and if "the existence of God is not
       assumed," or the conception of God not yet developed, it is
       hard to see how the conclusion can be impugned; and (_vide_
       next page) Mr Baring Gould endorses Grimm's opinion that man's
       first "idea of God is the idea of a _devil_."

What follows seems to assume that some individual, or some set of
individuals, at a period more or less remote, evolved the idea of
God and religion out of their own consciousness; but that, as the
descendants of these individuals had not the same intellectual vigour,
the conception lapsed,--"their doctrines became hieroglyphs of which
they had lost the key." Nothing can be more conformable to the theory
of tradition;[119] but from the point of view of Mr Baring Gould,
what was to forbid other individuals broaching fresh conceptions? Is
there, however, any instance known to us? Is there any instance of a
religion not eclectic or pantheistic (the one being the mere revivalism
or reconstruction of the elements of former beliefs, and the other
their absorption), any religion "based on an intelligible principle,"
heretofore unknown to mankind, rising up and obtaining even a temporary
ascendancy among mankind? No; mankind, even in the darkness of
Paganism, persistently distinguished between religion and philosophy,
priests and sophists--though intellectually so much alike--and this
I consider to be a master-key to the history of the past (_ante_, p.
109).

 [119] The most favourable review of Mr B. Gould's work which I
       have seen says:--"In tracing the origin and development
       of religious belief, the object of Mr Baring Gould is to
       establish the foundation of _Christian_ doctrine on the
       nature, the intuitions, and the reason of man, _rather than
       upon traditionary dogmas_, historical documents, or written
       inspirations. He is of opinion that the elements of true
       religion are to be found in a revelation naturally impressed
       upon the soul of man, and that the investigation of man's
       moral nature will be found to disclose the surest proofs of
       his religious wants and destination. The author holds that
       if theological doctrines can be inculcated by demonstrative
       evidence of their harmony with man's intellectual and moral
       constitution, they will be received with more perfect
       acquiescence and conviction than when appeals are made simply
       to man's veneration for antiquity and authority." I think I
       am, at any rate, right in taking Mr B. G.'s as the view most
       directly opposed to tradition, and it is from this point of
       view that I am brought into collision with him.

There is a further point which Mr Baring Gould must settle. Religion
may be theoretically regarded as an affair of growth, progressive,
or as an affair of revelation, or something so nearly counterfeiting
revelation as to arise spontaneously; but it cannot well be both. Now,
in the pages of Mr Baring Gould it appears at one time "springing
into life" (p. 109), and, as in the passage above, analogously to a
conception in the mind:--"_At first_ it is full of vigour, constantly
on the alert to win converts;" at another, "as a conception slowly
evolved;" then all at once "a living belief, vividly luminous"
(p. 109). Again (p. 110), "Religion does not reach perfection of
development at a bound; generations pass away, before," &c.; and (p.
329) we find that in all _primitive_ religions the idea of God is the
idea of a _devil_, or (_id._) "that the first stage in the conception
of a devil is the attribution of evil to God," which is different,
inasmuch as it supposes man to start with the knowledge of God, and is,
moreover, inconsistent with what is said at page 113:--"The shapeless
religion of a primitive people gradually assumes a definite form. It
is that of _nature_ worship. It progresses through polytheism and
idolatry, and emerges into monotheism or pantheism." Of course this
is said upon _the assumption_ that the primitive man was barbarous.
But however remote from the fact, it is theoretically as conceivable
that man should worship nature as an ideal of beauty and power, as
that he should regard it from the first as an apparition of terror;
or, in other words, that taking nature-worship for granted, Mr Max
Müller's view of it, viz.:--"He begins to lift up his eyes, he stares
at the tent of heaven, and asks who supports it? He opens his eyes
to the winds, and asks them whence and whither? He is awakened from
darkness and slumber by the light of the sun, and Him whom his eyes
cannot behold, and who seems to grant him the daily pittance of his
existence, he calls 'his life, his breath, his brilliant Lord and
Protector'" (Chips, i. 69, _apud_ B. G., 139),--is as likely to be
the true one as Mr Baring Gould's,[120] viz.:--"At first man is ...
antitheist; but presently he feels resistances.... The convulsions
of nature, the storm, the thunder, the exploding volcano, the raging
seas, fill him with a sense of there being a power superior to his
own, before which he must bow. His religious thought, vague and
undetermined, is roused by the opposition of nature to his will" (p.
137).

 [120] _Vide_, however, Dr Newman's "Grammar of Assent," p. 386, _et
       seq._

Mr Baring Gould postulates, I am aware, the lapse of several
generations for the evolution of these ideas. But there is nothing in
Mr Baring Gould's statement of the progression or development of the
conception of the Deity among mankind which might not pass in rapid
sequence through the mind of the primitive man,--call him "Areios,"
if you shrink from close contact with history, and refuse to call
him Adam. Why then the indefinite lapse of time? why the progressive
advance of the idea through successive generations of mankind? Why,
except that the primitive barbarism _must_ be assumed; and because (p.
239), "in the examination of the springs of religious thought, we have
to return again and again to the wild bog of savageism in which they
bubble up." But if the savagery was so great, the perplexity how man
ever came to make the first step in the induction is much greater than
that, having made it, he should proceed on to make the last.

It is certain that reason can prove the existence of God and His
goodness, and this knowledge evokes the instincts of love and worship.
It is true also that man has a conscience of right and wrong, and that
among its dictates is a sense of the obligation of love and worship.
Still this will not account for the existence of religion in the world.
Much less will Mr Baring Gould's theory of an induction by mankind
collectively, spread over several centuries, account either for the
notion or for the institution.

Neither, apart from direct or indirect revelation, would it prove
more than that man was religious, though without religion; capable of
arriving at the knowledge of God's existence, but without any knowledge
how to propitiate him; seeking God, but not able to find Him.

Therefore, Mr Baring Gould truly says--"Philosophy alone is not
religion." Philosophy, as we have seen, may prove the existence of God.
But religion, from the commencement of the world, has conveyed the idea
that there is a particular mode in which God must be worshipped. Here
philosophy is entirely at fault. Mr Baring Gould again truly says that
"dogma, worship, and discipline are the constituents, so to speak, the
mind, spirit, and body of religion" (p. 119). But he goes no further,
and does not explain how it came about that mankind in all ages have
adhered with singular pertinacity to the notion that religion could
teach that on which philosophy must perforce be silent. Has not the
greater intellect ever been on the side of philosophy? Nay,[121] in the
epochs in which intellectual superiority was undeniably on the side of
philosophy, did the populace go to the academy or to the oracles? If
the human intellect had originally framed the ritualistic observances,
which bore so strange a resemblance in different parts of the world;
if human sagacity had originated the idea of sacrifice (and wherefore
sacrifice from the point of view of human sagacity?); if philosophy had
revealed to them the religious conceptions which they retained, and
had been able to define the relation of man to the Divinity--would not
mankind, in all ages, have had recourse to its greatest intellects for
the solution of its doubts, rather than to the guardians of an obscure
and corrupt tradition? The question no doubt is complicated with the
evidence as to demonolatry; but the extent to which this prevailed only
enforces the argument against Mr Baring Gould, to whom, apparently, the
demon (p. 135) is not a real existence, but only the embodiment of a
phase of thought, and must seriously embarrass those who attribute the
regeneration of man from savagery to intellectual growth and natural
progress.

 [121]

      "The lively Grecian, in a land of hills,
      Rivers, and fertile plains, and sounding shores,
      . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . In despite
      Of the gross fictions chanted in the streets
      By wandering rhapsodists, and in contempt
      Of doubt and bold denial hourly urged
      Amid the wrangling schools, a Spirit hung,
      Beautiful region! o'er thy towns and farms,
      Statues and temples, and memorial tombs;
      And emanations were perceived, and acts
      Of immortality, in nature's course,
      Exemplified by mysteries that were felt
      As bonds, _on grave philosopher imposed_,
      And armed warrior; and in every grove
      A gay or pensive tenderness prevailed,
      When piety more awful had relaxed."
              --WORDSWORTH, _Excursion_, B. iv.

But demonology apart, what would have countervailed against the
superiority of reason and the intellectual prestige of the world except
a belief in a tradition of primitive revelation? What else will account
for the different recognitions of philosophy and religion--priests and
sophists? What else would have prevented mankind from resorting in
their difficulties to where the greatest intellect was found?

At page 134, this truth seems to gain partial recognition in the pages
of Mr Baring Gould:--

  "In conclusion, it seems certain that for man's spiritual
  well-being, these forces ('the tendency to crystallise, and the
  tendency to dissolve') need co-ordination. Under an infallible
  guide, regulating every moral and theological item of his spiritual
  being, his mental faculties are given him that they may be
  atrophied, like the eyes of the oyster, which, being useless in the
  sludge of its bed, are re-absorbed. Under a perpetual modification
  of religious belief, his convictions become weak and watery,
  without force, and destitute of purpose. In the barren wilderness
  of Sinai there are here and there green and pleasant oases. How
  come they there? By basaltic dykes arresting the rapid drainage
  which leaves the major part of that land bald and waste. So in the
  region of religion, _revelations and theocratic systems have been
  the dykes saving it_ from barrenness, and encouraging mental and
  sentimental fertility" (p. 134).

It is impossible that we should quarrel with this illustration, it
is so exactly to our point. Is it not another way of affirming the
position which I maintain against Sir John Lubbock? (ch. xii.) May
not we, too, take our stand upon these "oases" of tradition, which
"revelations" and "theocratic systems" have formed, and ask what the
human intellect has been able to achieve for the spiritual cravings of
man in the waste around?

Mr Baring Gould, indeed, says (p. 61):--

  "A power of free volition within or outside all matter in motion
  was a rational solution to the problems of effects of which man
  could not account himself the cause. Such is the origin of the
  idea of God--of God _whether many_, inhabiting each brook and
  plant, and breeze and planet, _or as_ being a world-soul, _or
  as_ a supreme cause, the Creator and sustainer of the universe.
  The common consent of mankind has been adduced as a proof of a
  tradition of a revelation in past times; but the fact that most
  races of men believe in one or more deities proves nothing more
  than that all men have drawn the same inference from the same
  premises. It is idle to speak of a 'Sensus Numinis' as existing as
  a primary conviction in man, when the conception may be reduced to
  more rudimentary ideas. The revelation is in man's being, in his
  conviction of the truth of the principle of causation, and thus it
  is a revelation made to every rational being."

Grant that it is so, there is nothing here which militates against our
position, which is this,--not certainly that there is not a revelation
of God in man's being, made to every rational creature, but that
there has been an express revelation superadded to it; and that it is
not true that "the common consent of mankind to the existence of God
has been adduced as a proof of a tradition of a revelation in past
times," but that the mode and manner of the consent attests the fact of
tradition and the fact of revelation. But what have we just heard? That
there is a revelation of God's existence in man's nature, _i.e._ in
_each_ man's nature--"it is a revelation made to every man's nature."
Then the indefinite lapse of time demanded for the evolution of the
ideas, which we have just been combating, is not after all necessary.
"_Habemus reum confitentum._"

But inasmuch as the consent of mankind is only "to one or more
deities," it is only so far a testimony to the existence of God as
it is shown that polytheism arose out of the corruption of this
belief; and, moreover, by no means proves "that all men have drawn the
same inference from the same premises," even if it were possible to
reconcile this statement with what is said at page 113--"The shapeless
religion of a primitive people gradually assumes a definite form. It
is that of nature-worship. _It progresses through_ polytheism and
idolatry, _and emerges into_ monotheism or pantheism" (_vide infra_).

At this point I should wish to put in the accumulation of evidence
which L'Abbe Gainet has collected to prove that monotheism was the
primitive belief.[122] When this evidence is dispersed, it will be
time enough to return to the subject.

 [122] "Monotheisme des Peuples Primitifs," in vol. iii. of "La
       Bible sans la Bible."

In any case, we may fall back upon the following testimony in Mr Baring
Gould:--

  "It is the glory of the Semitic race to have given to the world, in
  a compact and luminous form, that monotheism which the philosophers
  of Greece and Rome only vaguely apprehended, and which has become
  the heritage of the Christian and Mohammedan alike. Of the Semitic
  race, however, one small branch, Jewdom, preserved and communicated
  the idea. Every other branch of that race _sank into_ polytheism
  (_vide supra_).... It is at first sight inexplicable that Jewish
  monotheism, which was in time to exercise such a prodigious
  influence over men's minds, should have so long remained the
  peculiar property of an insignificant people. But every religious
  idea has its season, and the thoughts of men have their avatars....
  It was apparently necessary that mankind should be given full
  scope for unfettered development, that they should feel in all
  directions after God, if haply they might find Him, in _order that_
  the foundations of _inductive philosophy might be laid_, that the
  religious idea might run itself out through polytheistic channels
  _for the development of art_. Certainly Jewish monotheism remained
  in a state of congelation till the religious thought of antiquity
  _had exhausted its own vitality_, and _had worked out every other
  problem of theodicy_; then suddenly thawing, it poured over the
  world its fertilising streams" (p. 259).[123]

 [123] Mr B. Gould also says, p. 104--"The Semitic divine names
       bear _indelibly on their front the stamp of their origin_,
       and the language itself testifies against the insulation and
       abstraction of these names from polytheism. The Aryan's tongue
       bore no such testimony to him. The spirit of his language
       _led him away from monotheism_, whilst that of the Shemite
       was an ever-present monitor, directing him to a God, sole and
       undivided. 'The glory of the Semitic race is this,' says M.
       Renan, 'that from _its earliest days_ it grasped that notion
       of the Deity which all other people have had to adopt from its
       example, and on the faith of its declaration.'"

From all this it results that, so far as the testimony of the Semitic
race is concerned (which, by the by, a concurrence of tradition points
to as the oldest), the human race did not "emerge into monotheism," but
"sank into polytheism;" that monotheism was their belief from "their
earliest days," and their language bearing testimony to the same, shows
also that it was primitively so. It moreover results, that although
mankind may have been allowed to sink into polytheism, as a warning or
a chastisement, it certainly could not have been "in order that the
foundations of inductive philosophy might be laid;" for it is quite
apparent from this extract that the induction was _never made_ that man
did _not_ "emerge into monotheism;" but that having "_exhausted its
vitality_," and "worked out every problem of theodicy" in the way of
corruption, it _received_ monotheism back again from the only people
who had preserved it intact.

At any rate, monotheism came to it _ab extra_, and before polytheism
had attained the "full scope of that development" which was necessary
for the perfection of art!

But Mr Baring Gould having a perception that this admission (although
he has not apparently seen its full significance) is fatal to his
theory, hastens to unsay it at page 261, "Whence did the Jews derive
their monotheism? Monotheism is _not_ a feature of any primitive
religion; but that which is a feature of secondary religions is the
appropriation to a tribe of a particular god, which that tribe exalts
above all other gods." In support of this view, Mr Baring Gould quotes
certain texts of Scripture--Isa. xxxvi. 19, 20 (_i.e._ words spoken by
Rabsaces the Assyrian), and Jos. xxiv. 15, "But if it seem evil to you
to serve _the Lord_, you have your choice: choose this day that which
pleaseth you, whom you would rather serve, whether the gods which your
fathers served in Mesopotamia [query, an allusion to the idolatry in
the patriarchal households? Gen. xxxv. 2, "the gods" being of the same
kind with "the gods of the Amorites"], or the gods of the Amorites,
in whose land you dwell; but as for me and my house, we will serve
_the Lord_." One would have thought this text too plain to be cavilled
at. Is not _the Lord_ whom Josue invokes _the same Lord_ who (Gen. i.
1) "in the beginning created heaven and earth," and who said to Noah
(Gen. vi. 7), "I will destroy _man whom I have created_, from the face
of the earth;" and who (Exod. iii. 2) appeared to Moses in a flame of
fire in the bush which was not consumed; and to whom Moses said, "Lo, I
shall go to the children of Israel, and say to them, _The God of your
fathers_ hath sent me to you; if they should say to me, What is His
name? what shall I say to them? (ver. 14), God said to Moses, _I am who
am_: He said thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel, _He who is_
hath sent me to you." When or where has monotheism been more explicitly
declared? Is there any phrase which the human mind could invent in
which it could be more adequately defined? And when God speaks as "the
God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob," is it not as if He would
say, I am not only the God who speaks to the individual heart, but
who is _also traditionally_ known to you all collectively through my
manifestations and revelations to your forefathers? Compare Matt. xxii.
32.

_Inter alia_, Mr B. Gould also instances such unmistakable orientalisms
as "'Among the gods there is none like unto Thee, O Lord,' says David,
and he exalts Jehovah above the others as a 'King above all gods.'"
Where, then, may we ask, is the monotheism, "the glory of the Semitic
race," to be found, if not in the time of David?

The proof which follows is more clinching still--

  "Jacob seems to have made a sort of bargain with Jehovah that he
  would serve Him instead of other gods, on condition that He took
  care of him during his exile from home. The _next_ stage in popular
  Jewish theology was a denial of the power of the Gentile gods,
  and the treatment of them as idols. Tradition and history point
  to Abraham as the first on whom the idea of the impotence of the
  deities of his father's house first broke. He is said to have
  smashed the images in Nahor's oratory, and to have put a hammer
  into the hands of one idol which he left standing, as a sign to
  Nahor that that one had destroyed all the rest."

Unfortunately for this view--according to the only authentic narrative
we have of the facts, Gen. xii.--Abraham must have preceded Jacob by at
least two generations!

I think that, after this, we may fairly ask Mr Baring Gould, who is
learned in medieval myths, to trace for us more distinctly the notion
of the chronicler who had a theory that Henry II. lived before Henry I.

With this passage I shall conclude this chapter, merely observing, that
if any department of study existed which had for its special object the
investigation of tradition,[124] it is simply impossible that a work
(clever in many respects) such as that of Mr Baring Gould should ever
have been written.

 [124] I append, however, the following passage from Mr Baring
       Gould, as it may be serviceable in tracing tradition, and
       to which I may have occasion to recur (p. 161):--"Among the
       American Indians an object of worship, and the centre of a
       cycle of legend, is Michabo, the great hare or rabbit. From
       the remotest wilds of the north-west to the coast of the
       Atlantic, from the southern boundaries of Carolina to the
       cheerless swamps of Hudson's Bay, the Algonquins are never
       tired of gathering round the winter fire, and repeating the
       story of Manibozho or Michabo, the Great Hare. With entire
       unanimity, their various branches, the Powhatans, &c., ... and
       the western tribes, perhaps without exception, spoke of this
       'chimerical beast,' as one of the old missionaries called it,
       as their common ancestor (Brinton's "Myths of the New World,"
       p. 162). Michabo is described as having been four-legged,
       monstrous, crouching on the face of the primeval waste of
       waters, with all his court, composed of four-footed creatures,
       around him. He formed the earth out of a grain of sand taken
       from the bottom of the ocean. It is strange that such an
       insignificant creature as a hare should have received this
       apotheosis, and it has been generally regarded as an instance
       of the senseless brute-worship of savages. But its prevalence
       leads the mythologist to suspect that some confusion of words
       has led to a confusion of ideas, a suspicion which becomes a
       certainty when the name is analysed, for it is then found to
       be The Great White One, or Great Light, and to be in reality
       the sun, a fact of which the modern Indians are utterly
       unaware."

       If Mr Baring Gould finds that the word Michabo also signifies
       "The Great Light," or "The Great White One," it goes far to
       identify the worship of the hare with the worship of the
       sun, more especially when it is noted (_vide_ Prescott's
       "Conquest of Mexico," i. 103) that the hare was one of the
       four hieroglyphics of the year among the ancient Mexicans.[A]
       Animal worship seems here plainly connected with sun-worship.
       But above and beyond it, do we not here also get a glimpse of
       more celestial light? "The Great Light" is also "The Great
       White One." He is described as "crouching on the face of the
       primeval waste of waters." In these phrases we seem almost to
       read the text of Gen. i. 3, "And God said, Be light, and light
       was made;" ver. 2, "Darkness was on the face of the deep, and
       the Spirit of God moved over the waters."

       The Indians also say that he "formed the earth out of a grain
       of sand taken from the bottom of the ocean." Does not this not
       only embody the tradition that God created the world out of
       nothing, but also the mode of the creation by the separation
       of the water from the land: ver. 9, "God also said, Let the
       waters that are under the heavens be gathered together in one
       place; and let the dry land appear.... And God called the dry
       land earth, and the gathering together of the waters He called
       seas."

   [A] These hieroglyphics were symbolical of the four elements.
       Prescott adds--"It is not easy to see the connection between
       the terms 'rabbit' and 'air,' which lead the respective
       series." Possibly he may not have been aware of the tradition
       of the Algonquins as above.


                        APPENDIX TO CHAPTER VII.

CARDINAL WISEMAN ("Lectures on Science and Religion," ii.
228-232), in speaking of what was characteristic of most Oriental
religions--a belief "in the existence of emanated influences
intermediate between the divine and earthly natures," is led on to give
an account of the curious Gnostic sect, the Nazarians--"The first of
these errors was common, perhaps, to other Gnostic sects; but in the
Codex Nasaræus we have the two especially distinguished as different
beings--light and life. In it the first emanation from God is the king
of light; the second, fire; the third, water; the fourth, life." I wish
to note that, whether or not their notions as to emanations originally
meant more than the act of creation, a tradition as to the successive
order of the creation seems clearly embodied in the text. God created
first of all light; _then_ the sun (the firmament) is fire (the
distinct creation of the light and the sun in Genesis is so marked as
to create a special difficulty in the cosmogony); _then_ water; _then_
life, in beasts, birds, reptiles, &c.; lastly, man. Comp. with _supra_,
p. 138, and with the above legend of Michabo.

"A SLAVONIAN ACCOUNT OF CREATION.--The current issue of the
Literary Society of Prague includes a volume of popular tales collected
in all the Slavonian countries, and translated by M. Erben into Czech.
We extract the shortest--'_In the beginning there was only God, and He
lay asleep and dreamed._ At last it was time for Him to wake and look
at the world. Wherever He looked through the sky, a star came out. He
wondered what it was, and got up and began to walk. At last He came to
our earth; He was very tired; the sweat ran down His forehead, and a
drop fell on the ground. We are all made of this drop, and that is why
we are the sons of God. Man was not made for pleasure; he was born of
the sweat of God's face, and now he must live by the sweat of his own:
that is why men have no rest.'"--_The Academy_, Feb. 12, 1870.

I wish also to examine, in greater detail than I should have had space
for in a note, how far the case of the Samoyeds bears out Mr Baring
Gould's theory of the development of idolatry from its grosser to its
more refined manifestations, or of the progress of the human race from
barbarism to the light of religion and of civilisation.

Mr Baring Gould says, p. 136--

"'When a Schaman is aware that I have no household god,' said a
Samoyed to M. Castren, the linguist, 'he comes to me, and I give him a
squirrel, or an ermine skin.' This skin he brings back moulded 'into
a human shape.' ... 'This Los is a fetish; it is not altogether an
idol; it is a spirit entangled in a material object. What that object
is matters little; a stump of a tree, a stone, a rag, or an animal,
serves the purpose of condensing the impalpable deity into a tangible
reality.' Through this coarse superstition glimmers an intelligent
conception. It is that of an all-pervading Deity, who is focussed, so
to speak, in the fetish. This deity is called Num. 'I have heard some
Samoyeds declare that the earth, the sea--all nature, in short--are
Num.' 'Where is Num? asked Castren of a Samoyed, and the man pointed
to the blue sea: but an old woman told him that the sun was Num. The
Siethas, worshipped by the Lapps, had no certain figure or shape formed
by nature or art; they were either trees or rough stones, much _worn
by water_. Tomæus says they were often mere tree stumps with the roots
upwards."[125]

 [125] Is not "Num" cognate to "Numen?" and their worship of trees
       and worn stones worship of memorials of the Deluge? Compare
       Boulanger, _infra_, ch. xi., and on the regard for boulders
       in India (_vide_ Gainet, vol. i.) Bryant ("Mythology," iii.
       532) says, speaking of the Egyptians--"I have mentioned that
       they showed a reverential regard to fragments of rock which
       were particularly uncouth and horrid; and this practice seems
       to have prevailed in _many other countries_." Probably for the
       same reason the Lapps worshipped their lakes and rivers, as is
       known from the names annexed to them--"Ailekes Jauvre," that
       is, sacred lake, &c. _Vide_ Pinkerton, i. 468. (Leems.)

It is curious to contrast this recent account of the Samoides with
an account, apparently well informed and discriminating, in 1762.
Pinkerton, i. 522--"The religion of the Samoides is very simple....
They _admit the existence of a Supreme Being_, Creator of all things,
eminently good and beneficent; a quality which, according to their mode
of thinking, dispenses them from any adoration of Him, or addressing
their prayers to Him, because they suppose this Being takes no interest
in mundane affairs; and consequently, does not exact nor need the
worship of man. They join to this idea that of a being eternal and
invisible, very powerful, though subordinate to the first, and disposed
to evil. It is to this being that they ascribe all the misfortunes
which befall them in this life. Nevertheless, they do not worship,
although much in fear of him. If they place any reliance in the
counsels of Koedesnicks or Tadebes (the 'Schamans' referred to above),
it is only on account of the connection which they esteem these people
to have with this evil being; otherwise they submit themselves with
perfect apathy to all the misfortunes which can befall them." "The
sun and moon, as well, hold the place of subaltern deities. It is by
their intervention, they imagine, that the Supreme Being dispenses
His favours; but they worship them as little as the idols or fitches
(fetishes) which they carry about them according to the recommendation
of their Koedesnicks." Without pursuing the investigation further, it
seems plain that the Samoides, from being (at least) Deists in the last
century (Dr Hooker, "Himalayan Journal," gives a similar account of the
Lepchas), have lapsed, apparently through sun-worship, to a state of
Pantheism, if not Fetishism.

Of the Tongusy, a people who, if not kin to the Samoides, have an
analogous worship--("They are altogether unacquainted with any kind
of literature, and worship the sun and moon. They have many Shamans
among them, who differ little from those I formerly described."--Bell's
"Travels in Asia, Siberia")--Bell, travelling in Siberia, 1720,
says--"Although I have observed that the Tongusy in general worship
the sun and moon, there _are many exceptions_ to this observation.
I have found intelligent people among them who believed there was a
Being superior to both sun and moon, and who _created them and all
the world_." If, then, we may connect the Tongusy with the Samoides,
it would appear that whereas Mr Baring Gould (_i.e._, Castren) finds
the latter sunk in Fetishism, they were, the one in 1762, the other in
1720, the worshippers of the sun and moon, joined with the knowledge
and tradition of the true God still subsisting amongst them.

F. Schlegel ("Phil. of History," p. 138) says--"The Greeks, who
described India in the time of Alexander the Great, divided the Indian
religious sects into Brachmans and _Samaneans_.... But by the Greek
denomination of _Samaneans_ we must certainly understand the Buddhists,
as among the _rude nations of Central Asia_, as in other countries,
the priests of the religion of Fo bear _at this day_ the name of
_Schamans_." Compare Professor Rawlinson, "Ancient Monarchies," i. 139,
172. (_Vide infra_, p. 163, 164, 205.)




                             CHAPTER VIII.

                           _MYTHOLOGY._


Since all antediluvian traditions meet in Noah, and are transmitted
through him, there is an _à priori_ probability that we shall find all
the antediluvian traditions confused in Noah. I shall discuss this
further when I come to regard him under the aspect of Saturn.

As a consequence, we must not expect to find (the process of corruption
having commenced in the race of Ham, almost contemporaneously with
Noah) a pure and unadulterated tradition anywhere; and I allege more
specifically, that whenever we find a tradition of Noah and the Deluge,
we shall find it complicated and confused with previous communications
with the Almighty, and also with traditions of Adam and Paradise.

But inasmuch as the tradition is necessarily through Noah, and in
any case applies to him at one remove, it does not greatly affect
the argument I have in hand. There is a further probability which
confronts us on the outset, that in every tradition, with the lapse
of time, though the events themselves are likely to be substantially
transmitted, they may become transposed in their order of succession.
We shall see this in the case of Noah and his posterity. The principal
cause being, that the immediate founder of the race is, as a rule,
among all the nations of antiquity, deified and placed at the head of
every genealogy and history. "Joves omnes reges vocârunt antiqui."
Thus Belus, whom modern discovery seems certainly to have identified
with Nimrod, in the Chaldean mythology appears as Jupiter, and even
as the creator separating light from darkness (Rawlinson, "Ancient
Monarchies," i. 181; Gainet, "Hist. de l'Anc. et Nouv. Test.," i. 120).
But Nimrod is also mixed up with Jupiter in the god Bel-Merodach. In
more natural connection Nimrod--("who may have been worshipped in
different parts of Chaldea under different titles," Rawlinson, i.
172)--_Nimrod_ appears as the _father_ of _Hurki_ the moon-god, whose
worship he probably introduced; and, what is much more to the point,
he appears as the father of Nin (whom I shall presently identify with
Noah); whilst in one instance, at least, the genealogy is inverted,
and he appears as the _son of Nin_. Thus, too, Hercules and Saturn are
confounded, just as we find Adam and Noah confounded ("many classical
traditions, we must remember, identified Hercules with Saturn," _vide_
Rawlinson, i. 166). Also in Grecian mythology Prometheus (Adam) figures
as the son of Deucalion (Noah), and also of Japetus (Japhet); and so,
too, Adam and Noah, in the Mahabharata, are equally in tradition in the
person of Manou (_vide_ Gainet, i. 199), and in Mexico in the person of
the god Quetzalcoatl (_vide infra_, p. 326).

Before, however, pursuing the special subject of this inquiry further,
it appears to me impossible to avoid an argument on a subject
long debated, temporarily abandoned through the exhaustion of the
combatants, and now again recently brought into prominence through the
writings of Mr Gladstone, Dr Dollinger, Mr Max Müller, and others--the
source and origin of mythology.[126]

 [126] This chapter was written before the publication of Mr Cox's
       "Mythology of the Aryan Nations." It will be seen, however,
       that I indulge the hope that much that is seductive, and much
       even that is systematic, in Mr Cox's view, will be found to be
       compatible with the line I have indicated.

Now, here, I am quite ready to adopt, in the first place, the opinion
of L'Abbé Gainet, that every exclusive system must come to naught, "que
toutes les tentatives qu'on ai faites pour expliquer le polythéisme par
un système exclusif tombent à faux et n'expliquent rien."

Yet, whilst fully admitting an early and perhaps concurrent admixture
of Sabaism,[127] I consider that the facts and evidence contained in
the pages of Rawlinson will enable us to arrive at the history of
idolatry by a mode much more direct than conjecture. The pages of
Rawlinson prove the identity of Nimrod and Belus, and his worship
in the earliest times. On the other hand, there has been a pretty
constant tradition[128] that Nimrod first raised the standard of
revolt against the Lord; and the erection of the tower of Babel seems
to show a state of things ripe for idolatry. Here recent discovery and
ancient tradition concur in establishing hero-worship as among the
earliest forms of idolatry. But further, the Arab tradition of Nimrod's
apotheosis, analogous to the mysterious and miraculous disappearance
of Enoch (_vide infra_, p. 192), suggests how hero-worship might
become almost identical with the worship of spirits, which L'Abbé
Gainet inclines to think the first and most natural mode. If there was
a tradition among them that one of their ancestors was raised up to
heaven,[129] why may they not have argued, when their minds had become
thoroughly corrupted, that their immediate ancestor, the mighty Nimrod,
had been so raised? and when one ancestor was deified the rest would
have been deified in sequence, or according to their relationship to
him. What, again, more likely than that, when through the corruptions
of mankind the communications of the Most High ceased, they should
turn to those to whom the communications had been made, at first
perhaps innocently in intercession, and, as corruption deepened, in
worship?[130]

 [127] Philo. _apud_ Eusebius, who has transmitted the Phoenician
       tradition (_vide_ Bunsen's "Egypt," iv. 281), seems to me to
       indicate the mode in which it came about in the following
       words--"Now Chronos, whose Phoenician epithet was El,
       _a ruler of the land_, and subsequently after his death,
       _deified_ in the constellation of Kronos (Saturn)," &c. As to
       Saturn, _vide_ ch. x.

       In the cosmical theory there is analogy as to the process of
       deification--"In the Phoenician cosmogonies, the connection
       between the highest God and a subordinate male and female
       demiurgic principle is of frequent occurrence" (Bunsen, iv.
       447). It would seemingly be more in fitness with a cosmical
       theory to find direct adoration of the principle, without
       evidence of any previous or concurrent process of deification.

       Mr W. Palmer ("Egyptian Chronicles," i. 37) says--"But when we
       find the rulers of the first two periods in the Chronicle, its
       xiii. gods and viii. demigods, answering closely to the two
       generations of the antediluvian and post-diluvian patriarchs
       in number, and therefore also in the average length of the
       reigns and generations; and when we know, besides, as we do,
       that the Pantheon of the Egyptians and other nations, which
       they said had all borrowed from them, was peopled, in part
       at least, _with deified ancestors_--for even the heavenly
       luminaries, and the _elements_, and _powers of nature_, and
       _notions of the true God still remaining_, or of angels and
       demons, so far as they were invested with humanity and sex,
       _were identified with human ancestors_; we cannot doubt that
       Kronos," &c.

 [128] "Venator contra Dominum," St Augustine; "Cité de Dieu," xvi.
       ch. iv.; Pastoret, "Hist. de la Legislation."

 [129] Gen. v. 24, says only--"And he walked with God, and was
       seen no more: because God took him." (_Vide_ also John iii.
       13.) There might still have been the belief and tradition
       (according to appearances) that he was so raised. (Compare 4
       Kings ii. 11, and Ecclesiasticus, xliv. 16.)

 [130] I believe, however, that the apostasy in the Hamitic race
       generally was much more direct; and I entirely agree with
       Bryant that it must have resulted at an early period in a
       systematic scheme of mixed solar and ancestral worship.
       Therefore, in any Hamitic tradition, we shall not be startled
       at finding (even in the commemorative ceremonies of the
       Deluge) evidence of solar mythology inextricably blended with
       ancestral traditions. We, however, are only concerned with the
       ancestral traditions, and in so far as we can discriminate
       them, Mr Cox's evidence of solar mythology will form no
       barrier to our inquiry.

       In the preceding page I have quoted a passage from
       Sanchoniathon, which seems to indicate the mode in which the
       mixed system arose; but there "Cronos" (Noah) is deified in
       the planet Saturn. As a rule, however, we find him deified in
       the sun (Bryant, ii. 60, 200, 220). Ham, however, is sometimes
       also deified in the sun; and in cases where Ham is so deified,
       it is not unlikely that we shall find the patriarch relegated
       to Saturn.

L'Abbé Gainet, in another part of his work, draws attention to the
worship of ancestors in China, and asks whether the idols of Laban had
reference to more than some such secondary objects?

It will be recollected that it was precisely the extent to which this
veneration was to be considered culpable which was the subject-matter
of the unfortunate disputes between certain religious orders in the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (_vide_ Huc's "Chinese Empire,"
and Cretineau Joly's "Hist. de la Com. de Jesus," vol. iii. chap. iii.,
and vol. v. chap. i.) Indeed, among the Semitic races it may never have
degenerated into idolatry. Still it appears to me that weight should
be attached to this tendency, more especially in primitive times, when
the recollection of ancestors who had been driven out of Paradise, to
whom direct revelations had been made, and who were naturally reputed
to have been "nearer to the gods" (Plato, Cicero[131]), would have been
all in all to their descendants. Then, again, as we have just seen,
there was the tradition among them of one man who had been carried
up into heaven, and accordingly, when hero-worship culminated in the
deification of man, we are not surprised to find it taking the form of
this apotheosis as in the identification of Nimrod and Enoch.

 [131] "Quoniam antiquitas proxime accedit ad deos."--_De Legibus_,
       ii. 11.

This tendency to idolatry through hero-worship seems to me so natural
and direct, that I think, apart from the facts _à priori_, I should
have been led to the conclusion that it was the actual manner in which
it was brought about.[132] It is not denied, on the other hand,
that there always has been a tendency to nature-worship also; and,
indeed, there is probably a stage during which every mythology will
be found to have come under its influence. But the inclination at the
present moment is unmistakably to an exclusive astral or solar system.
The point of interest which excites me to this inquiry is simply to
determine the value of the historical traditions which may lie embedded
in these systems; and I shall be content to find them, whether or not
they form the primary nucleus, or whether only subsequently imported
into, and blended with, solar mythology. It is easy to conceive how a
mythology embodying historical traditions could pass into an astral
system. In this case incongruity would not startle; but it is difficult
to imagine a pure astral system which would not be too harmonious and
symmetrical to admit of the grossness, inconsistency, and incongruity
to which the process of adaptation would inevitably give rise, and to
which hero-worship is inherently prone. As Mr Gladstone says (Homer,
ii. 12):--

  "There is much in the theo-mythology of Homer which, if it had
  been a system founded on fable, could not have appeared there. It
  stands before us like one of our old churches, having different
  parts of its fabric in the different styles of architecture, each
  of which speaks for itself, and which we know to belong to the
  several epochs in the history of the art when their characteristic
  combinations were respectively in vogue."

 [132] The adverse decision, in the matter of the ceremonies, did
       not, I apprehend, touch the question we are now considering,
       albeit the ceremonies had reference to deceased ancestors.
       This will be apparent, I think, from consideration of the
       grounds upon which the question was debated. The Jesuits
       relied upon the sense in which the ceremonies were regarded
       by the Mandarins and literary men whom they consulted, whilst
       their opponents supported their arguments by reference to the
       popular notions and the superstitious practices _introduced_
       by the Bonzes. (_Vide_ Cretineau Joly's "Hist. de la Com. de
       Jesus," vol. v. chap. i.)

Mr Gladstone (_passim_) victoriously combats the theory of
nature-worship as applied to Grecian mythology; but it appears to me
that his argument and mode of reasoning would apply with tenfold effect
to the Chaldean mythology, where there is a likelihood at least that we
shall view idolatry in its early commencements. I consider that this
view is borne out by the following passage from Professor Rawlinson's
"Ancient Monarchies," i. 139:--

  "In the first place, it must be noticed that the religion was
  to a certain extent _astral_. The heaven itself, the sun, the
  moon, and the five planets, have each their representative in
  the Chaldean Pantheon among the chief objects of worship. At the
  same time it is to be observed, that the astral element is not
  universal, but partial; and that even where it has place, it is
  but one aspect of the mythology, not by any means its full and
  complete exposition. The Chaldean religion even here is far from
  being mere Sabeanism--the simple worship of the 'host of heaven.'
  The ether, the sun, the moon, and still more the five planetary
  gods, are something above and beyond those parts of nature. Like
  the classical Apollo and Diana, Mars and Venus, they are real
  persons, with a life and a history, a power and an influence, which
  no ingenuity can translate into a metaphorical representation
  of phenomena attaching to the air and to the heavenly bodies.
  It is doubtful, indeed, whether this class of gods are really
  of astronomical origin, and not rather primitive deities, whose
  characters and attributes were, to a great extent, fixed and
  settled before the notion arose of connecting them with certain
  parts of nature. Occasionally they seem to represent heroes rather
  than celestial bodies; and they have all attributes quite distinct
  from their physical and astronomical character.

  "Secondly, the striking resemblance of the Chaldean system to that
  of the classical mythology, seems worthy of particular attention.
  This resemblance is too general and too close in some respects
  to allow of the supposition that mere accident has produced the
  coincidence."

The evidence in the "Ancient Monarchies" seems to me to decide the
point, not only for perhaps the earliest mythology with which we are
acquainted, but also for the Grecian mythology, which has generally
been the ground of dispute. It is curiously in illustration, however,
of the common origin of mythology, that the mythology of Greece should
be equally well traced to Assyria and Egypt. As evidence of the theory
according to the Assyrian origin, let us turn, for instance, to
Professor Rawlinson's identification of Nergal with Mars. It is true
he appears as the planet Mars under the form of "Nerig," and he also
figures as the storm-ruler; but can anything well be more human than
the rest of his titles?

  "His name is evidently compounded of the two Hamitic roots 'nir' =
  a man, and 'gula' = great; so that he is 'the great man' or 'the
  great hero.' His titles are 'the king of battle,' 'the champion of
  the gods,' 'the strong begetter,' 'the tutelar god of Babylonia,'
  and 'the god of the _chase_.'... We have no evidence that Nergal
  was worshipped in the primitive times. He is just mentioned by some
  of the early Assyrian kings, who regard him as _their ancestor_....
  It is conjectured that, like Bil-Nipru, he represents the _deified
  hero Nimrod_, who may have been worshipped in different parts of
  Chaldea under different titles.... It is probable that Nergal's
  symbol was the man-lion. Nir is sometimes used in the inscriptions
  in the meaning of lion, and the Semitic name for _the god himself_
  is 'aria,' the ordinary term for the king of beasts both in Hebrew
  and Syriac. Perhaps we have here the true derivation of the Greek
  name for the god of war 'Ares' ([Greek: Arês]), which has _long
  puzzled classical scholars_. The lion would symbolise both the
  hunting and the fighting propensities of the god, for he not only
  engages in combats, but often chases his prey and runs it down like
  a hunter. Again, if Nergal is the man-lion, his association in the
  buildings with the _man-bull_ would be exactly parallel with the
  conjunction which _we so constantly find between him and Nin in the
  inscriptions_."[133]--_Rawlinson_, i. 172-174.

 [133] "Notwithstanding his stature, beauty, hand, and voice, which
       constitute, taken together, a proud appearance, it seems
       as if Mars had stood lower in the mind of Homer than any
       Olympian deity who takes part in the Trojan war, except Venus
       only."--_Gladstone's "Homer,"_ ii. 225.

I must draw attention also to the remarkable absence here of all the
monotheistic epithets we shall find attached to Ana, Enu, and Hoa.[134]

 [134] _Vide infra_, next chap. ix.

Let us now turn to the theory which is most in the ascendant, and which
professes to see in the old mythological legends only the thoughts and
metaphors of a mythic period.

This theory, which was Mr Max Müller's in the first instance, being
not only exclusively drawn from the conclusions of philology, but also
exclusive in itself, cannot be anywhere stronger than its weakest point.

If it is shown in the instance of one primary myth, that it was the
embodiment of an historical legend, or theological belief, the whole
ideal structure of a mythic period must collapse; for the rejection of
eclecticism in any form, which would embrace a Biblical or euhemeristic
interpretation of the myths, is at the foundation of Mr Max Müller's
idea, and, indeed, would be incompatible with the theory of a mythic
period such as he conceives it.

The connection of Nimrod with Nergal in the Assyrian mythology, of
Nergal with their planet Nerig, and of the Semitic name of the god
"Aria" with the Greek [Greek: Arês] and the Latin Mars, must, I think,
form a chain of evidence destined to embarass Mr Max Müller and Mr Cox:
for, apart from the numerous points of contact of the Assyrian and
Egyptian with the Greek mythologies, it can hardly be contended that
there was a mythic period for the Aryan which was not common to the
whole human race.

It would be natural to suppose, that a mythology which was generated
in a mythic period--which was the invention of mankind in a peculiar
state of the imagination--would have been developed in its fulness
and completeness, like Minerva starting from the brain of Jupiter,
and would have borne the evidence of its origin in the symmetry of
its form. Mr Max Müller, on the contrary, seems to yield the whole
position, in what, from his point of view, looks like an inadvertent
phrase, that "there were myths before there was a mythology." It is
not that the view is not true, or that it is inconsistent with his
analysis of the myths, but that it is so perfectly consistent with
ours! Incongruity, such as would come from the confusion of separate
myths, would be no difficulty for us; but it is hard to understand how
mere fragmentary legends--sometimes attractive, but more frequently
repulsive and revolting, having no hold on what is nearest the heart of
a people, the traditions of its past--should have been so tenaciously
preserved for so long a time under such different conditions in various
countries.

Solar legends, spun out of confused metaphors, seem an inadequate
explanation, unless we also suppose idolatry of the sun. In that case,
the mythology, in so far as it was solar, would precede the myths; in
other words, the myths would be radiations from a central idea. That
in the day when mankind prevaricated after this fashion, and committed
the act of idolatry in their hearts, everything, from the phenomena
of nature to the remote events of their history, would come under the
influence of a new set of ideas may be easily conceived.

At such a period--and the commencement of these things at least was not
impossible in the days when, in the spirit of mistrust or defiance,
men drew together to build the city and tower in the plain of Sennaar
(Shinar)--much of what Mr Cox supposes to have been the common
parlance of mankind becomes natural, and a mythic period within these
limits conceivable.

But such a theory would not necessarily be exclusive of other forms of
idolatry--as, for instance, the worship of ancestors--whilst it might
clear up obscure points in the evidence which tends to establish the
latter.

The theory, however, must embrace many shades and gradations--from
the Hamitic extreme to the protomyths, which in time obscured the
monotheism of the Aryan of ancient Greece, and of the Peruvian Incas.
(p. 304.)

This would seem, unless they ignore all difficulties, a better
standpoint for those who think, through the application of the solar
legends, "to unlock almost all the secrets of mythologies;" and any
theory connected with the sun and sun-worship has this advantage, that
it can be extended to everything under the sun!

It is sufficiently obvious that no system can be held to have settled
these questions, which, if there were myths before there was a
mythology, does not appropriate these antecedent myths, or exclude
counter explanations; and it is equally clear that there can have
been no mythology of which the solar legends were the offspring, if
the legends embody thoughts which transcend the mythology; and no
mythic period if they testify to facts and ideas incompatible with its
existence.

Allowing for a certain confusion arising out of "polyonomy," this sort
of confusion, if there were nothing else, ought not to baffle the
ingenuity of experts like Mr Max Müller and Mr Cox. Such complications
should be as easily disentangled as the superadded figures in Egyptian
chronology (_vide_ chapter vi.) when the key has been found.

But does Mr Max Müller profess to have brought the various legends into
harmony? On the contrary (ii. 142), he frankly admits--"Much, no doubt,
remains to be done, and _even_ with the assistance of the Veda, the
whole of Greek mythology will never be deciphered and translated."

I have no wish to push an admission unfairly, but this appears to me
fatal as regards the argument with which I am dealing.[135] If there
are myths which never will be deciphered, this must be because they
have had some non-astral or non-solar origin, which I consider to be
almost equivalent to saying that they must have had some pre-astral
origin. What that precise origin was I think I have been able
sufficiently to indicate in italicising the subjoined sentences from
Mr Max Müller. If these enigmas can be shown to be strictly local and
Grecian, _cadit quæstio;_ but if they are common to other mythologies,
and these the oldest, I must say they have the look of antecedent
existence. At any rate, like those inconvenient boulders in the sand
and gravel strata, they require the intervention of some glacial period
to account for them.[136]

 [135] Mr Cox ("Mythology," p. xiv.) says--"Mythology, as we call
       it now, is simply a collection of the sayings by which men,
       once upon a time, described whatever they saw or heard in
       the countries where they lived. This key, which has unlocked
       almost all the secrets of mythology, was placed in our hands
       by Professor Max Müller, who has done more than all other
       writers to bring out the exquisite and touching poetry which
       underlies those ancient legends. He has shown us that in this,
       their first shape, these sayings were all perfectly natural,
       and marvellously beautiful and true. We see the lovely
       evening twilight die out, &c.... They said that the beautiful
       Eurydice," &c. (_vide infra_, p. 173). It would appear,
       however, from Mr Cox's more extended work, "The Mythology of
       the Aryan Nations," that the sayings of mankind in the mythic
       period did not extend to speculations as to their origin and
       destiny, or embrace the facts of their history, or the deeds
       of their ancestors, but that their whole converse was upon the
       sun and moon, and the phenomena of the outward world.

 [136] Mr Max Müller makes the distinction between "primitive or
       organic legends" (and it is to these I wish to limit the
       discussion) "and the second, those which were imported in
       later times from one literature to another.... The former
       _represents one common ancient stratum of language and
       thought_ reaching from India to Europe; the latter consist
       of boulders of various strata carried along by natural and
       artificial means from one country to another" (ii. 245).

       It is clear that Mr Max Müller looks for _harmony_ in his
       system--"We naturally look back to the scenes on which the
       curtain of the past has fallen, _for we believe that there
       ought to be one thought pervading the whole drama of mankind_.
       And here history steps in, and gives us the thread which
       connects the present with the past" (p. 7). Why it was that
       harmony was not attained seems to be disclosed, if we read
       the passage in our sense and with a certain transposition of
       parts, at p. 3--"There were at Athens then, as there have been
       at all times and in all countries, men who had no sense for
       the miraculous and supernatural, and who, without having the
       moral courage to deny altogether what they could not bring
       themselves to believe, endeavoured to find some plausible
       explanation _by which the sacred legends_ which _tradition_
       had _handed down to them_, and which had been _hallowed_ by
       _religious observances_, and sanctioned by the authority of
       the law, might be brought _into harmony with_ the dictates of
       reason and the _laws_ of _nature_." (Compare with _infra_, p.
       351, Maine.)

I have already hinted that a further consideration appears to me to
incapacitate the theory of nature-worship, in any of its disguises,
from being taken as the exclusive, or even the primitive form of
idolatry, or of perverted tradition; and it is this,--that all the
explanations, even the most ingenious, even those which would be
accounted "primitive and organic," have their counter explanations,
traceable in the corruptions of truth and the perversions of
hero-worship. Take, for instance, the name Zeus, which is in evidence
of the primitive monotheism, and which stood in Greece, as Il or Ra in
Assyria, for the true Lord and God, and which has its equivalents in
Dyaus ("from the Sanscrit word which means 'to shine'"); Dyaus-pater
(Zeus-pater), Jupiter; Tiu (Anglo-Saxon, whence Tuesday); and Zia (High
German)--_vide_ Cox's "Mythology."

What more natural than to associate the Almighty with the heaven
where He dwelt? Mr Max Müller ("Comparative Myth.," "Chips," ii. 72)
says--"Thus [Greek: Zeus], being originally a name of the sky, like
the Sanscrit Dyaus, became gradually a proper name, which betrayed
its appellative meaning only in a few proverbial expressions, such as
[Greek: Zeus hyei], or _sub Jove frigido_." Taking this passage in
connection with what is said (p. 148, of Welcker)--"When we ascend
with him to the most distant heights of Greek history, the idea of God
as the Supreme Being stands before us as a simple fact. Next to the
adoration of one God, the Father of heaven, the Father of men, we find
in Greece a worship of nature." I conclude that Mr Max Müller means,
as Mr Cox means, that the names, Zeus or Dyaus, was applied to the
one true God, whose existence was otherwise and previously known to
them.[137] At starting, therefore, we find that the language borrowed
from nature was only called in to give a colouring and expression to
a previously known and familiar truth; and here, too, we also see the
commencement of incongruity. The simple idea of the heavens might have
been harmoniously extended by the imagination; but, complicated with
the idea of personality, it gave birth to the awkward and incongruous
expression, "[Greek: Zeús huei], or _sub Jove frigido_," a phrase
which never could have been originated by the Grecian mind, unless
the personality of Jove had been the idea most prominently before
the mind. But if the knowledge of the Deity, or even the conception
of the personality of Zeus was operative in the mythic period, it
must have been operative to the extent of embodying what was known or
recollected of his dealings in love and anger with mankind, in the
legends which they wove, and also of blending them with the confusions
which "polyonomy" occasioned. The introduction of this element would
seriously embarass Mr Cox, and would give to Mr Gladstone's explanation
an "_à priori_" probability.

 [137] Mr Max Müller, in his essay on "Semitic Monotheism,"
       when opposing M. Renan's view that the monotheism of the
       Semitic race was instinctive, seems to say this still more
       explicitly--"He thunders and Dyaus thunders became synonymous
       expressions; and by the mere habit of speech He became Dyaus
       and Dyaus became He" ("Chips," i. 358). "At first the names of
       God, &c., were honest attempts at expressing or representing
       an idea which could never find adequate expression or
       representation.... If the Greeks had remembered that Zeus
       was but a name or symbol of the Deity, there would have been
       no more harm in calling God by that name than by any other"
       (359). It must be remembered that after the name of "Zeus,"
       or "Dyaus," = sky, had been adopted, they still retained
       the conception of the Divine nature and personality, as is
       evidenced in the words of the oracle of Dodona--"[Greek: Zeùs
       ên, Zeus éstín, Zeus essetai ô megale Zeu],--He was, He is, He
       will be, O great Zeus!"

       Also (ii. 15) in the Orphic lines--

              "Zeus is the beginning, Zeus the middle;
              Out of Zeus all things have been made."

       If we are agreed upon this, then I have no contention with
       Mr Max Müller; but with Max Müller as an auxiliary, I direct
       my argument to the attack of Dr Dollinger's position ("The
       Gentile and the Jew," I. B. ii. p. 64)--"The beginnings of
       Greek polytheism," viz., "the deification of Nature and her
       powers, or of particular sensible objects, _lay at the root of
       all the heathen religions_, as they _existed from old time_,
       amongst the nations now united under the Roman empire."

       According to Mr Lewes ("Hist. of Phil.," i. 44), it
       was Xenophanes who first confused the sky with the
       Deity--"Overarching him was the deep blue infinite
       vault, immovable and unchangeable, embracing him and all
       things--_that he proclaimed_ to be God." (Contrast the
       Peruvian tradition, _infra_, p. 304.) St Clement of
       Alexandria (Strom. v. p. 601, Max Müller, chapter i. p. 366.)
       says, on the contrary, that Xenophanes maintained that there
       was but "one God, and that he was not like unto men, either in
       body or mind."

Take, again, the following passage from Mr Max Müller (p. 107)--"The
idea of a young hero, whether he is called _Baldr_, or Sigurd, or
Sigrit, or Achilles, or Meleager, or Kephalos, dying in the fulness of
youth--a story so frequently told, localised, and individualised--was
first suggested by the sun dying in all his youthful vigour, either at
the end of a day, conquered by the powers of darkness, or at the end
of the sunny season, stung by the thorn of winter."

Here is a myth evidently very widely diffused. Let it be interpreted by
what is told us at p. 108--

  "_Baldr_, in the Scandinavian Edda, the divine prototype of Sigurd
  and Sigrit, is beloved by the whole world. Gods and men, the whole
  of nature, all that grows and lives, had sworn to his mother not to
  hurt the bright hero. The mistletoe alone, that does not grow on
  the earth, but on trees, had been forgotten, and with it Baldr was
  killed at the winter solstice....

      Baldr, whom no weapon pierced or clove,
      But in his breast stood fix'd the fatal bough
      Of mistletoe, which Lok, _the accuser, gave
      To Hoder_, and the unwitting Hoder threw;
      'Gainst that alone had Baldr's life no charm."

"Thus Infendiyar, in the Persian epic, cannot be wounded by any
weapon.... _All these are fragments of solar myths_." One hardly likes
to disturb such illusions. Solar myths! well, allow me at least to
repeat the history which seems to me so very like this myth. Many
centuries ago, in a beautiful garden which a concurrence of tradition
places somewhere in Central Asia, a man, the first man of our race,
framed according to the "divine prototype," dwelt beloved by the whole
world. God and the angels, and the whole of nature--all that grows and
lives, were agreed that nothing should do him harm. One fruit or growth
alone--the mistletoe it may have been--something that does not grow on
the earth, but on trees, was excepted; and it was told to this man,
whose name was--but we will not anticipate--that on the day on which
he touched this fruit he should die the death. It so came about that
the accuser, whom some call the serpent, had previously handed it to
his companion, and his unwitting companion gave it to him. He took it,
and he died. Against that fatal bough his life had no charm. No weapon
pierced or clove him; for Baldr--I should say Adam--was invulnerable,
as was Achilles and Meleager, except in one single respect.

I believe that instances might be indefinitely multiplied. I shall
content myself, however, with the following, which I think will be
generally considered among the happiest illustrations of nature
worship.[138]

 [138] Granting the tendency to nature-worship, I conclude that the
       conspicuous luminaries of the heavens would become primary
       objects of such worship. In amusing illustration of this I
       remember a friend of mine telling me that he happened to ask
       a young lad, the son of one of his tenants, who had just
       returned from a voyage to the Northern seas, how he liked his
       captain? He said, "Oh, he was an _awful_ man--he swore by the
       _sun, moon_, and _stars_." Still less do I deny the tendency
       to sun-worship. It was, as Gibbon tells us (ii. 438, iii.
       150), the last superstition Constantine abandoned before his
       conversion, and the first to which Julian betook himself after
       his apostacy.

       It may, moreover, be urged, that the sun figures in all these
       legends. I say, on the other hand, so also does the _serpent_.
       This serpent may be the serpent "of _darkness_," and still
       be the serpent of _tradition_, but how darkness or night is
       aptly personified by a serpent I am at a loss to perceive.
       Then again the sun _may_ always be only the symbol of what
       is bright and heavenly. But when (Max Müller, ii. 171) we
       see this serpent Zohak, called by the Persians "by the name
       of Dehak, _i.e., ten evils_, because he introduced "_ten
       evils into the world_," we cannot help recalling the profane
       expressions attributed to the devil when he saw the ten
       commandments--proscribing the _ten_ evils in question.

"And as it is with this sad and beautiful tale of Orpheus and Euridike
(Euridice). [The story of Euridice was this--'Euridice was bitten by
_a serpent_, she dies, and descends into the lower regions. Orpheus
follows her, and obtains from the gods that his wife should follow
him if he promised not to look back, &c.' It reads to me like a sad
reminiscence of Adam and Eve.] Mr Max Müller proceeds--'so it is with
all those which may seem to you coarse, or dull, or ugly. They are so
only because the real meaning of the names has been half-forgotten or
wholly lost. OEdipus and Perseus (_vide_ Appendix), we are told,
killed their parents, but it was only because the sun was said to kill
the darkness from which it seemed to spring.'"[139]

 [139] Mr Max Müller may perhaps lay stress upon the circumstance
       that Baldr dies at the winter solstice. But this equally bears
       out the tradition noticed by Lenormant, that immediately after
       the Fall, there came upon the world a great cold. (_Vide
       supra_, ch. vii.)

But why is darkness called the parent of the sun, and not rather light
the parent of darkness? and why not a contrary legend founded on this
surmise? Is it merely accidental that the metaphor is not reversed?

Compare the above speculation of Mr Max Müller's with the following
passage from Gainet, "Hist. de l'Ancien. Nouv. Test.," i.; "Les
Souvenirs du genre Humain," p. 79:--

  "Chaos was placed at the commencement of all things in the
  Phoenician cosmogony (Euseb. Præp. Evan. l. i.), as in that of
  Hesiod (Theog., p. 5). The latter calls upon the Muses to tell
  him what were the beings that appeared first in existence, and he
  replies--'At the commencement of all things was Chaos, and from
  Chaos was born Erebus and dark night.'

  "Thus, in the order of existence, as in the order of time, there is
  a concurrence of profane tradition to place night before day. This
  is the reason why the Scandinavians, the Gauls, the Germans, the
  Kalmucks, the Numidians, the Egyptians, and Athenians, according to
  Varro and Macrobius, count their days, commencing with sunset and
  not with sunrise."

Curiously enough, in another chapter on a different subject, Mr
Max Müller enables me to clinch this argument against himself. In
an article on the "Norsemen in Iceland," he says--in proof of the
genuineness of the Edda--"There are passages in the Edda which sound
like verses from the Veda." But what are these verses from the ends of
the earth which are identical? Let us listen--

          "'Twas the _morning_ of _time_
          When yet _naught was_,
          Nor sand nor sea were there,
          Nor cooling streams;
          Earth was not formed,
          Nor _Heaven_ above;
          A yawning gap there was,
          And grass nowhere."[140]

 [140] From the "Elder Edda." (Quoted from Dr Dasent's "Norsemen in
       Iceland." Oxford Essays, 1858.)

Under these conditions, I think it will be conceded that there was also
darkness--and therefore, that the tradition of the precedence of chaos
and darkness is confirmed.

"A hymn," continues Mr Max Müller, "of the Veda begins in a very
similar way--

  "Nor aught, nor naught existed; yon _bright sky
  Was not_, nor Heaven's broad roof outstretch'd above,
  What cover'd all? what shelter'd? what conceal'd?
  Was it the waters' fathomless abyss?" &c.

Mr Max Müller adds, "There are several mythological expressions common
to _the Edda_ and _Homer_. In the Edda, man is said to have been
created out of an _ash tree_. In Hesiod, Zeus created the third race
of men out of _ash_ trees, and that this tradition was not unknown to
Homer we learn from Penelope's address to Ulysses--"Tell me thy family
from whence thou art: for thou art not sprung from the olden trees, or
from the rocks" (Max Müller, ii. 195).

The tradition about the ash tree in Hesiod, Homer, and the Edda,[141]
is curious but inexplicable: the general drift of the tradition may be
determined by the recollection of two facts--that man was created,
and that a tree was inseparably connected with his history from its
earliest commencement. But I have quoted the passage more especially
with reference to its confirmation of the extract from Gainet, which
attests the wide-spread tradition--so exactly in accordance with the
cosmogony of Scripture--that Chaos was at the commencement of all
things, and that darkness existed before light.[142] I conclude by
asking why this should be? When we are in the midst of solar and
astral systems and legends, it seems natural that a theory of cosmogony
should commence with light rather than darkness--at least, as well
that it should commence with light as with darkness. But no, the
universal tradition seems against it. Much more strange is this if we
connect the solar and astral legends with any system of Sabaism. These
considerations make it plain to me that the solar and astral legends
embodied anterior traditions.

 [141] What is still more remarkable, the same tradition is found
       in the "Popol Vul" (Mexican traditions), and as it is there
       given, fits in still more exactly with the solution I have
       suggested. It is there said that the _first race_ of men
       were created "_out the earth_," the third out "_of a tree_
       called Tzité."[B] _If_ the "Popol Vul" came under Christian
       or European influences in the 17th century, it would have
       been more likely to have been brought into harmony with the
       Bible, rather than with either Homer, Hesiod, or the Edda.
       Let us pursue the myth a little further. Mr W. K. Kelly,
       "Indo-Europ. Tradition and Folklore" (_vide_ Max Müller, ii.
       197) says, "This healing virtue, which the mistletoe shares
       with the _ash_, is a long descended tradition, for the Kushtha
       ... a healing plant, was one that grew beneath the _heavenly
       Asvattha_," which is elsewhere called "the imperishable
       Asvattha or Peepul (_Ficus religiosus_), out of which the
       immortals shaped the heaven and the earth," which legend Mr
       Kelly further traces in the German Yggdrasil (although Mr Max
       Müller from his own point of view dissents); at the foot of
       which tree (p. 207) "lies the serpent Nidhöggr, and gnaws its
       roots." Neither Mr Max Müller nor Mr Kelly discuss the point
       with reference to the view suggested above.

   [B] _Tiki_ was the great progenitor among New
       Zealanders.--_Shortland_, p. 56.

 [142] Gen. i. 1, "In the beginning God created heaven and earth.
       2. And the earth was void and empty, and _darkness was_ upon
       the face _of the deep_; and the spirit of God moved over the
       waters. 5. And He called the light day and the darkness night;
       and there was _evening_ and morning one day."

       In addition to the instances adduced by Gainet, it will
       be remembered that the Jewish sabbath was from evening to
       evening, and with us the astronomical day commences at noon,
       and the commencement and termination of the civil day at mean
       midnight.

       In the _second_ [Chinese] dynasty the day commenced at
       mid-day. Wei-Wang, the founder of the _third_ dynasty, fixed
       it at midnight." (Bunsen's "Egypt," vol. iii. p. 390.)

       In the Phoenician cosmogony "the beginning of all was a dark
       and stormy atmosphere," "thick, unfathomable black chaos."
       (_Vide_ Bunsen's "Egypt," iv. 176.)

       The New Zealanders have preserved the tradition with still
       greater distinctness. "In the _beginning of time_ was Te Po
       (the night or darkness). In the generations that followed
       Te Po came Te Ao (the light)" &c., &c. (_Vide_ Shortland's
       "Traditions of the New Zealanders," p. 55.)

       _Vide_ Gladstone, "Homer," ii. 155; Cox, "Mythology of Aryan
       Nations," i. 15, on the relation of Phoibos to Leto. "This is
       precisely the relation in which the _mythical night_ stood to
       the day which was to be born of _her_."

       _Vide_ on this point Wilkinson's "Ancient Egyptians" (I.
       chap. xiii.) "The Mygale," says Champollion, "received
       divine honours by the Egyptians, because it is blind, and
       _darkness is more ancient than light_." The Arabs have the
       expression "_night and day_" (_vide_ Wilkinson). Aristotle
       says "The theologians consider all things to have been born of
       night." The Orphean fragments call "night the Genesis of all
       things.... The Anglo-Saxons also, like the Eastern nations,
       began their computations of time from night, and the years
       from that day corresponding with our Christmas, which they
       called "Mother Night," and the Otaheitans refer the existence
       of their principal deities to a state of darkness, which they
       consider the origin of all things." (_Vide_ Gen. i. 2, 3;
       _id._ p. 273-4.)

I think Mr Max Müller will at least recognise them as spots on the disk
of his solar theory, and which must ever remain obscure to those who
refuse the light of Scripture and tradition.


                       APPENDIX TO CHAPTER VIII.

                          "OEDIPUS, PERSEUS."

Here again, the explanation of Mr Max Müller, "si non vrai est
vraisemblable," and yet I cannot help seeing that the legends of
Perseus and [OE]dipus may just as well be supposed to embody primitive
tradition. Let us read the histories of OEdipus and Perseus in the
light of the tradition concerning Lamech (Gen. iv. 23, 24). "And
Lamech said to his wives, Adah and Zillah ... I have slain a man to
the wounding of myself, and a stripling to my own bruising. Sevenfold
vengeance shall be taken for Cain, but for Lamech seventy times
sevenfold." The note to the Douay edition says--"It is the tradition
of the Hebrews that Lamech, in hunting, slew Cain, mistaking him for
a wild beast, and that having discovered what he had done, he beat so
unmercifully the youth by whom he was led into that mistake that he
died of the blows." OEdipus was the son of Laius, who had supplanted
his brother. OEdipus was exposed to destruction as soon as born,
because his father had been warned that he must perish by the hand of
his son,--but was rescued and brought up by shepherds. Hearing from
the oracle of Delphi (the tradition is of course localised), that if
he returned home he must necessarily be the murderer of his father, he
avoided the house of Polybus, the only home he knew of, and travelled
towards Phocis (from west to east by the by). (Comp. with _infra_, p.
194.) He met Laius, his father, in a narrow road. Laius haughtily
ordered OEdipus to make way for him, which provoked an encounter,
in which Laius and his armour-bearer were slain. Other circumstances,
either separate traditions of the same event, or distinct legends, are
no doubt mixed up in the narration, but still four facts remain as a
residuum available for the comparison.

OEdipus was the son, as Lamech was the grandson, of one who
supplanted his brother, both kill their respective progenitors, and
in the _casual_ encounter in which in both instances the tragedy
occurred, _two_ persons were slain. In this there is a fair outline of
resemblance.

In the legend of Perseus, certainly the legend is more indistinct,
et, in one point, that he inadvertently killed his _grandfather_, the
coincidence is perfect. And it must be borne in mind that it is not
a question of absolute but of comparative resemblance--in fact, a
choice between a mythical or an historical, an astral or a scriptural
solution, and when you come to degrees of relationship, the astral or
solar explanation becomes more attenuated at each remove,--"the father
of the sun" may be metaphorically intelligible, but the grandfather of
the sun!

I see further trace of the tradition of Lamech in the Phrygian legend
of Adrastus, somewhat confused in the tradition of Cain, and in
some points reversed. Adrastus, the son of the Phrygian king, had
_inadvertently killed_ his brother, and was in consequence expelled by
his father and deprived of everything. Whilst an exile at the court
of Croesus, he was sent out with Prince Atys as guardian to deliver
the country from a wild boar. Adrastus had the misfortune to kill
Prince Atys while aiming at the wild beast. Croesus pardoned the
unfortunate man, as he saw in this accident the will of the gods, and
_the fulfilment of a prophecy_, but Adrastus killed himself on the tomb
of Atys (Herod. i. 35; Smith, "Myth. Dict.")

Now let us take up the proof at another point. Will any one refuse
to see in the following tale from the "Gesta Romanorum,"[143] at
least a mediæval corruption of the legend of OEdipus:--"A certain
soldier, called Julian, unwittingly killed his parents. For being
of noble blood, and addicted as a youth frequently is to the sports
of the field, a stag which he hotly pursued suddenly turned round
and addressed him--'Thou who pursuest me thus fiercely shall be the
destruction of thy parents.' These words greatly alarmed Julian....
Leaving, therefore, his amusement, he went privately into a distant
country ... where he marries. It chances that his parents come into
that country, and in his absence were received kindly by his wife, who,
'in consideration of the love she bore her husband, put them into her
own bed, and commanded another to be prepared elsewhere for herself.'
In the meantime, Julian returning abruptly home and discovering
strangers in his bed, in a fit of passion slays them. When he discovers
the parricidal crime he exclaims--'This accursed hand has murdered my
parents and fulfilled the horrible prediction which I have struggled to
avoid.'"

 [143] "Gesta Romanorum," tale xviii. Swan. Rivingtons 1824.

Now, I submit that this is not a greater distortion of the classical
stories of OEdipus, Adrastus, &c., than are the classical legends of
the biblical traditions of Cain and Lamech.

For further trace read Bunsen, iv. 235, also, 253, 254. Mr Cox
("Mythology of Aryan Nations") says:--"_The names Theseus_, _Perseus_,
_Oidipous, had all been mere epithets_ of one and the same being; but
when they ceased to be mere appellatives, these creations of mythical
speech were regarded not only as different persons, but as beings in
no way connected with each other.... Nay, the legends inter-change
the method by which the parents seek the death of their children; for
there were tales which narrated that Oidipous was shut up in an ark
which was washed ashore at Sikyon," p. 80. Sicyon was the oldest Greek
city. Compare p. 157 of this ch., and ch. on Deluge. This was merely
the traditional record that the tradition was preserved in the Ark, and
subsequently emanated from Sicyon.


                II. PROMETHEUS AND HERCULES OR HERAKLES.

I have elsewhere (p. 202) alluded to the confusion of Prometheus, as
the creator of man, with Prometheus, the first man created. But the
most curious instance of reduplication is the further confusion of what
I may call the human Prometheus, with his deliverer Hercules,--Hercules
and Prometheus both in different ways embodying traditions of Adam!
Prometheus is the Adam[144] of Paradise and the Fall, Hercules is Adam
the outcast from Paradise, with his skin and club sent forth on his
long labours and marches through the world. But how can Hercules, who
frees Prometheus from the rock, be the same as Prometheus who is bound
to the rock? If, however, we are entitled to hope that Adam in the
labour of his long exile worked off the sentence and expiated the guilt
on account of which Adam, the culprit, was sentenced, may we not accept
this as an adequate explanation? Is it a forced figure that he should
be said to unbind him from the rock, to drive off the vulture which
preys upon him, and thus finally liberate him?

 [144] On this point, that Prometheus is Adam, _vide_ M. Nicolas'
       "Etudes Philos. sur le Christ.," 1. ii. ch. v. 30 (19th edit.)

This disjunction of Adam and separate personification in the two
periods of his life, _before_ and _after_ the Fall, will accord well
enough with the addition in some legends of a brother Epimetheus, and
I submit that this explanation is as good as that (_vide_ Smith's
"Myth. Dict.") which regards the legend as purely allegorical,
and _Pro_metheus and _Epi_metheus as signifying "forethought" and
"afterthought."

The travels of Hercules, it must be confessed, as traditionally
recorded, are somewhat eccentric. But are they explicable on any solar
theory? He begins by travelling from _west_ to east; he then proceeds
_south_, and although he traverses Africa westward, he diverges
abruptly to the _north_, from which he proceeds south, and ends as
he began by travelling from _west_ to east. All this, however, is
perfectly explicable if we are prepared to admit Bryant's ("Mythology,"
ii. 70) historical surmises, and to go along with him so far as to
believe that the tradition was mainly preserved through Cuthite or
_Chus_ite channels. We can, then, see a probability in the conjecture
that the descendants of Chus, in preserving the tradition of the
travels of Hercules (Herakles), superadded or substituted the scenes
and incidents of their own wanderings, after they had settled down in
the place of their final location.




                              CHAPTER IX.

                       _ASSYRIAN MYTHOLOGY._

  "But surely there is nothing improbable in the supposition, that
  in the poems of Homer such vestiges may be found. Every recorded
  form of society bears some traces of those by which it has been
  preceded, and in that highly primitive form, which Homer has
  been the instrument of embalming for all posterity, the law of
  general reason obliges us to search for elements and vestiges more
  primitive still.... The general proposition that we may expect
  to find the relics of scriptural traditions in the heroic age of
  Greece, though it leads, if proved, to important practical results,
  is independent even of a belief in those traditions, as they stand
  in the scheme of revealed truth. They must be admitted to have
  been facts on earth, even by those who would deny them to have
  been facts of heavenly origin, in the shape in which Christendom
  receives them; and the question immediately before us is one of
  pure historical probability. The descent of mankind from a single
  pair, the lapse of that pair from original righteousness, are apart
  from and ulterior to it. We have traced the Greek nation to a
  source, and along a path of migration which must in all likelihood
  have placed its ancestry, at some point or points, in close local
  relations with the scenes of the earliest Mosaic records: the
  retentiveness of that people equalled its receptiveness, and its
  close and fond association with the past, made it prone indeed to
  incorporate novel matter into its religion, but prone also to keep
  it there after its incorporation.

  "If such traditions existed, and if the laws which guide historical
  inquiry require or lead us to suppose that the forefathers of
  the Greeks must have lived within their circle, then the burden
  of proof must lie not so properly with those who assert that
  the traces of them are to be found in the earliest, that is,
  the Homeric form of the Greek mythology, as with those who deny
  it. What became of those old traditions? They must have decayed
  and disappeared, not by a sudden process, but by a gradual
  accumulation of the corrupt accretions, in which at length they
  were so completely interred as to be invisible and inaccessible.
  Some period, therefore, there must have been at which they would
  remain clearly perceptible, though in conjunction with much corrupt
  matter. Such a period might be made the subject of record, and if
  such there were, we might naturally expect to find it in the oldest
  known work of the ancient literature.

  "If the poems of Homer do, however, contain a picture, even though
  a defaced picture, of the primeval religious traditions, it is
  obvious that they afford a most valuable collateral support to the
  credit of the Holy Scripture, considered as a document of history.
  Still we must not allow the desire of gaining this advantage
  to bias the mind in an inquiry, which can only be of value if
  it is conducted according to the strictest rules of rational
  criticism."--_Gladstone on Tradition in "Homer and the Homeric
  Age_," vol. ii. sect. i.


Having laid, as I think, in what has been premised in the last chapter,
grounds for a presumption that primitive traditions may be shrouded in
the ancient mythology, I proceed to seek traditions of the patriarch
Noah among the inscriptions and monuments of the Chaldæans; for
then we shall find ourselves in a period when the results of modern
archæological science are in contact with the events and incidents of
primitive patriarchal life recorded in Scripture; and, in seeking them
where we shall best find them, in the able and discriminating pages
of Rawlinson, we shall at least feel that we are treading on safe and
solid ground.

The deities in the Chaldæan Pantheon are thus enumerated by Professor
Rawlinson--

  "The grouping of the principal Chaldæan deities is as follows:--At
  the head of the Pantheon stands a god Il or Ra, of whom little
  is known. Next to him is a triad, Ana, Bil or Belus, and Hea or
  Hoa, who correspond closely to the classical Pluto, Jupiter, and
  Neptune. Each of these is accompanied by a female principle or
  wife.... Then follows a further triad, consisting of Sin or Hurki
  the moon-god, San or Sanci the sun, and Vul (or Yem, or Ao, or
  In, or Ina, according to various readings of the hieroglyphics)
  the god of the atmosphere (again accompanied by female powers or
  wives).... Next in order to them we find a group of five minor
  deities, the representatives of the five planets, Nin or Ninip
  (Saturn), Merodach (Jupiter), Nergal (Mars), Ishtar (Venus), and
  Nebo (Mercury). [The bracket indications are Rawlinson's.]...
  These principal deities do not appear to have been connected like
  the Egyptian and classical divinities into a single genealogical
  scheme" (i. 141).

In a note at p. 142 it is said, "These schemes themselves were probably
not genealogical at first ... but after a while given to separate
and independent deities, recognised in different places by distinct
communities, or even by distinct races" (_vide_ Bunsen's "Egypt," iv.
66; English Tran.)

Now to this opinion I venture unreservedly to adhere, and I connect it
with the statement (_id._ i. 72), that "Chaldæa in the earliest times
to which we can go back, seems to have been inhabited by four principal
tribes. The early kings are continually represented in the monuments
as sovereigns over the Kiprat-arbat, or 'Four Races' (_vide supra_, p.
30). These 'Four Races' are sometimes called the Arba Lisun or 'Four
Tongues,' whence we may conclude that they were distinguished from one
another, among other differences, by a variety in their forms of speech
... an examination of the written remains has furnished reasons for
believing that the differences were great and marked; the languages,
in fact, belonging to the four great varieties of human speech, the
Hamitic, Semitic, Aryan, and Turanian." Compare pp. 39, 40.

If it is allowed that there may have been mythological systems
corresponding to these divers nationalities, we may fairly conclude
that the deities above enumerated may not necessarily have been
different deities, but the same deities viewed in different lights, or
included in duplicate in the way of incorporation, or in recognition
of subordinate nationalities. If, therefore, I find the representation
of Noah in any one of these deities, is there not a _prima facie_
probability that I shall find the reduplication of him in others? I
consider, at least, that I shall have warrant for thus collecting the
scattered traditions concerning the patriarch who stands at the head of
the second propagation of our race.

But first as to the god Il or Ra--

                               IL OR RA.

  The form _Ra_ represents, probably, the native Chaldæan name of
  this deity, while _Il_ is the Semitic equivalent. _Il_, of course,
  is but a variant of _El_, the root of the well-known biblical
  _Elohim_, as well as of the Arabic Allah. It is this name which
  Diodorus represents under the form of _Elus_, and Sanchoniathon, or
  rather Philo Biblius, under that of Elus, or _Ilus_. The meaning of
  the word is simply "God," or perhaps "The God" emphatically. _Ra_,
  the Cushite equivalent, must be considered to have had the same
  force originally, though in Egypt it received a special application
  to the sun, and became the proper name of that particular deity.
  The word is lost in the modern Ethiopic. It formed an element
  in the native name of Babylon, which was _Ka-ra_, the Cushite
  equivalent of the Semitic _Bab-il_, an expression signifying "the
  gate of God."

  Ra is a god with few peculiar attributes. He is a sort of fount
  and origin of deity, too remote from man to be much worshipped, or
  to excite any warm interest. There is no evidence of his having
  had any temple in Chaldæa during the early times. A belief in his
  existence is implied rather than expressed in inscriptions of the
  primitive kings, where the Moon-god is said to be "brother's son
  of Ana, and eldest son of Bil or Belus." We gather from this, that
  Bel and Ana were considered to have a common father, and later
  documents sufficiently indicate that that common father was Il or
  Ra."--_Rawlinson_, i. p. 143.

If in the Il or Ra of the Chaldæans the primitive monotheism is not
revealed, I do not see how it can be discerned in the Zeus of the
Greeks. We have the same god in the same relation in the Scandinavian,
or at any rate in the Lapland mythology. Leems ("Account of Danish
Lapland," Pinkerton, i. 458) says--"Of the Gods inhabiting the starry
mansions the _greatest is Radien_, yet it is uncertain whether he is
over every part of the sidereal sky, or whether he governs only some
part of it. Be this as it may, I shall be bold to affirm that the
Laplanders never comprehended, under the name of this false god, the
true God; _which is obvious from this_, that some have not scrupled to
put the image or likeness of the true God by the side of their Radien,
on Runic boxes."[145] If, however, of their gods "the greatest was
Radien," they would not have placed the true God by his side until
they had become acquainted with the true God, or until they had come
to commingle Christianity and Paganism; but then would they not have
placed "Ra" by the side of the true God as His counterpart? I am
assuming that "Radien" means simply the god Ra, as I suppose Mr Max
Müller would recognise "dien" as cognate to "Dyaus" ... "Dieu."

 [145] In like manner, the Peruvians recognised "Pachacamac" (_vide
       infra_, p. 304), in the description which the Spaniards
       gave of the true God; and in so far as they had retained the
       monotheistic belief, this was true. Garcilasso de la Vega, a
       most competent witness who testifies to this, adds--"If any
       one shall now ask me, who am a Catholic Christian Indian, by
       the infinite mercy, what name was given to God in my language,
       I should say Pachacamac."--Hakluyt Society, ed. of Garcil. de
       la Vega, i. 107.

Yet it has been opposed, _in limine_, to M. L'Abbe Gainet's valuable
chapter on the "Monotheisme des Peuples primitifs," "that he does not
meet the specific assertions of historians such as Rawlinson, who finds
idolatry prevalent among the Chaldæans on their first appearance on the
stage of history."

I must submit, however, that although the discovery of idolatry at this
early period may appear to disturb the particular theory, yet on closer
examination it will be found to sustain L'Abbe Gainet's argument, on
the whole, by sustaining the truth of tradition upon which his main
argument reposes; for the idolatry which we find is intimately bound
up with the worship of Belus, identified with Nimrod, whose rebellion
against the Lord has always been in tradition, and is according to
the more accepted interpretation of the sacred text. The discovery of
idolatry, therefore, under the particular circumstances, is exactly
what we should expect, and affords a remarkable confirmation of the
fidelity of tradition.

Moreover, there are Chaldæans and Chaldæans, as we have just seen in
Rawlinson (_sup._ p. 184), and as will be made more evident in the
following passage from Gainet's "Monotheisme," &c.

  "It is sufficiently agreed, says Lebatteux (Mem. Acad. t. xxvii. p.
  172), that the Babylonians recognised a supreme being, the Father
  and Lord of all (Diod. Sic. l. ii.) St Justin Cohortat. ad gent.
  Eusebi. Prep. Evan., l. iii. Porphyry (Life of Pythagoras) cites an
  oracle of Zoroaster, in which the Chaldæans are coupled in encomium
  with the Hebrews for the sanctity of the worship which they paid to
  the Eternal King. These are the words of the oracles--The Chaldeans
  alone with the Hebrews have wisdom for their share, rendering a
  pure worship to God, who is the Eternal King."--_Gainet_, iii. 408.

The pure monotheism here alluded to may have been preserved in Chaldæan
families of Semitic origin, but the extract I have just given from
Rawlinson seems to prove that the knowledge was preserved also, dimly
and obscurely, among the predominant Chaldæans of Hamitic descent. This
will be more apparent from the monotheistic epithets attached to the
three next deities.


                                  ANA.

"Ana is the head of the first triad which follows immediately after
the obscure god Ra." "Ana, like Il and Ra, is thought to have been a
word originally signifying God in the highest sense." "He corresponds
in many respects to the classical Hades, who, like him, heads[146] the
triad to which he belongs." In so far he is undistinguishable from
Il or Ra, and may only transmit the monotheistic tradition through
a different channel. But Ana has human epithets applied to him very
suggestive of hero-worship. "His epithets are chiefly such as mark
priority and antiquity." "He is the Old Ana," "the original chief,"
"the father of the gods" [_inter alia_, of Bil Nipru, _i.e._ Nimrod].
He is also called--which imports another association of ideas--"the
lord of spirits and demons," "the king of the lower world,"[147] "the
lord of darkness or death," "the ruler of the far-off city."

 [146] "This is not a mere arbitrary supposition, for it is expressly
       said in Holy Writ, that the first man, ordained to be 'the
       father of the whole earth' (as he is then called), became,
       on his reconciliation with his Maker, the wisest of all men,
       and, according to tradition, the greatest of prophets, who in
       his far-reaching ken, _foresaw the destinies of all mankind_
       in all successive ages down to the end of the world. All this
       must be taken in a strict historical sense, for the moral
       interpretation we abandon to others. The pre-eminence of the
       Sethites chosen by God, and entirely devoted to His service,
       must be received as an undoubted historical fact, to which
       we find many pointed allusions even in the traditions of the
       other Asiatic nations. Nay, the hostility between the Sethites
       and Cainites, and the mutual relations of these two races,
       form the chief clue to the history of the primitive world, and
       even of many particular nations of antiquity."--_Fred. Von
       Schlegel's "Philosophy of Hist.," Robertson's trans._, p. 152.

 [147] Compare these epithets, and what was said above, of
       resemblance "to classical Hades," with the following verses
       from the "Oracula Sybillina," lib. i. 80--

            "Orcus eos cepit græco qui nomine dictus
            Est _Ades_, quod primus eo descenderit _Adam_,
            Expertus mortis legem," &c.

Setting aside such titles as belong exclusively to the Deity, but
assuming hero-worship--supposing man deified--who more appropriately
placed in these primitive times at the head of the list, than their
original progenitor Adam.[148] To whom would these titles, "the old
Ana,"[149] "the original chief," "the lord of darkness and death," he
who introduced death into the world, more exactly apply? Rawlinson
also says--"His position is well marked by Damascius, who gives the
three gods Anus, Illinus, and Aüs, as _next in succession to the
primeval pair_, Assorus and Missara," i. 145. Now, it will not be
contested, I think, that Assorus is the same as Alorus, the first of
the ten antediluvian (deluge of Xisuthrus) Assyrian kings enumerated
by Berosus, and which correspond to the ten antediluvian patriarchs.
Consequently Assorus = Alorus = Adam.[150]

 [148] Osiris also is "the judge of the soul, or the god of the world
       of spirits." "Osiris is never represented in an animal form,
       but is called the Bull" (_infra_ pp. 203, 204), _vide_
       Bunsen's "Egypt," iv. 332. Bunsen's own view is, that "the
       history of Osiris is the history of the cycle of the year,
       of the sun dying away and resuscitating himself again." Mr
       Palmer ("Egyptian Chronicles," i. p. 3) says--(and I think
       it as well that I should state that I had come to an almost
       identical conclusion, and had written this and the following
       chapter before I became acquainted with Mr Palmer's profound
       and yet still neglected work, _vide_ ch. vi.)--"The first
       human ('Osiris = Adam and Isis = Eve') having been thrown back
       into pairs of anthropomorphous deities (p. 2), the original
       Osiris and Isis, formed by the divine potter as parents of
       all, disappear in name, and are represented by Seb and Nutpe,
       while Osiris, Typhon, and Horus, the progeny of Seb and Nutpe,
       answers rather to Cain, Abel, and Seth, in the old world,
       and to the three sons of Noah in the new.... From Osiris-Seb
       (whether he be viewed as Adam or Noah) are derived downwards
       all the successive generations of Egyptian, gods and demigods,
       patriarchs, kings, and other men" [and for a parallel
       exposition of the Phoenician myth, _vide_ Palmer, p. 53 and
       seq., "each dynast in turn, in the early generations, being
       identifiable at once with Seb and Osiris, as father of those
       following, with Osiris again by sharing the same mortality,
       and with Horus as renewing his father's life and being the
       hope of the coming world. _So each ancestor in turn went_, it
       was said, _to the original Osiris as patriarch of the dead_,
       and to his intermediate Osirified fathers, and was himself
       Osirified like them, all making one collective Osiris." [I
       have not space to discuss the question at what stage the
       mythology became pantheistic.] "Waiting for that reunion and
       restoration which was to come through successive generations
       by the great expected Horus, who was to take up into himself
       the old, and to be himself the new Osiris."

 [149] In a note to Cardinal Wiseman's "Science and Revealed
       Religion" on Conformity between Semitic and Indo-Europ.
       grammatical forms, it will be seen that _Ana_ in Chaldaic is
       the pronoun of the first person singular, and corresponds with
       the revealed appellation of the Deity, "I Am who Am" (Exod.
       iii. 14) = the [Greek: tò Egô].

 [150] Max Müller, Chips i. 153, refers to Dr Windischmann's
       ("Zoroastrian Studies") discovery that there are ten
       generations between Adam and Noah, as there are ten
       generations in the Zendavesta between Yima (Adam) and
       Thrâstouna (Noah), and without controverting the point. Mr
       Palmer ("Egypt. Chron.," i. 45) says--"And though the fancy
       of making the ten kings to begin only after 1058 years, and
       to be not all named from the same city, seems to distinguish
       them from Adam and the nine patriarchs his descendants, still
       Xisuthrus, the tenth, being clearly identified with Noah, by
       the flood and the ark, the very number ten, and the relation
       of the succession in which they stand one to the other, show
       that Alorus, the first of them, is no other than Adam."

Here, then, we have a reduplication, or else what I have above
referred to, the tendency to place the head of the dynasty at the
top of the list superior to gods and men. In any case, granting
this juxtaposition, would there not have been the proximate risk
and probability of the two running into one another and becoming
confounded, on the supposition that Ana and Alorus were not originally
identical?

This will become more evident when we have considered the next in the
triad--


                              BIL OR ENU.

But the evidence, though it will more clearly establish the fact of
hero-worship, will perhaps raise a doubt whether we have rightly
regarded Adam as the object of hero-worship in Ana, a point which we
will then consider.

Rawlinson says of this god--"He is the Illinus (Il-Enu) of Damascius."
"His name, which seems to mean merely lord" (again the primitive
monotheistic appellation) "is usually followed by a qualificative
adjunct possessing great interest. It is proposed to read this term as
Nipru, or in the feminine Niprut, a word which cannot fail to recall
the scriptural Nimrod, who is in the Septuagint Nebroth. The term
_nipru_ seems to be formed from the root _napar_, which is the Syriac
"to pursue," to "make to flee," and which has in Assyrian nearly the
same meaning. Thus Bil Nipru would be aptly translated as "the hunter
lord" or the "god presiding over the chase," while at the same time
it might combine the meaning of the "conquering lord" or "the great
conqueror."

Here, at any rate, it must be admitted that "we have, in this instance,
an admixture of hero-worship in the Chaldæan religion" (Rawlinson, i.
148). But if in one instance what _à priori_ reason is there that it
should not be so in others? Let us, then, examine further. The name of
this deity, as Bel Nipru or Nimrod, has, I consider, been completely
traced in the pages of Rawlinson (to which I must refer my readers).
But what are we to say about the alternative name of Enu? And why,
although no great stress can be laid upon the location of a deity in
a genealogy or a system, yet why is Nimrod thus placed intermediate
between Adam and the third of the triad Hoa, whom, on grounds quite
irrespective of the similarity of name, I identify with Noah?[151]

 [151] Gainet (i. 211) quotes as follows from "Ceremonies Relig." i.
       vii.: "The Mandans pretend that the Deluge was caused by the
       white men to destroy their ancestors. The whites caused the
       waters to rise to such a height that the world was submerged.
       Then _the first man, whom they regard as one of their
       divinities, inspired mankind with the idea of constructing,
       upon an eminence, a tower and fortress of wood_, and _promised
       them that the water should not rise beyond this point_." Here
       seems a very analogous confused tradition of Adam and Nimrod,
       the Deluge and the Tower of Babel. Comp. with the distinct
       testimony to the Mandan tradition, _infra_, ch. xi.

If Ana is Adam, and Hoa Noah, why should not Enu, in another point
of view, be Enoch? There is, I admit, an absence of direct evidence,
but I think I discover a link of connection in a note in Rawlinson
(i. p. 196). "Arab writers record a number of remarkable traditions,
in which he (Nimrod) plays a conspicuous part." "Yacut declares that
Nimrod attempted to mount to heaven on the wings of an eagle, and makes
Niffers (Calneh) the scene of this occurrence (Lex. Geograph. in voc.
Niffer). It is supposed that we have here an allusion to the building
of the Tower of Babel." But I cannot help regarding it as much more
certainly like an allusion to Enoch's disappearance from the earth. At
p. 187, Prof. Rawlinson notices the confusion of Xisuthrus with Enoch,
which proves that the tradition of Enoch was amongst them, and would
have been common also to the Hamitic Arabs.[152]

 [152] I find that the Egyptians had the same confused tradition
       respecting Menes, who stood to them in the same relation as
       Nimrod to the Assyrians (_vide_ Bunsen's Egypt, ii. p. 65).
       "The statement in Manetho's lists that Menes was torn to
       pieces by a hippopotamus, is probably an exaggeration of an
       early legend, that he was carried away by a hippopotamus, one
       of the symbols of the god of the lower world. The great ruler
       was snatched away from the earth, to distinguish him from
       other mortals, just as Romulus was."

I will now return to my doubt as to Ana. For although I feel tolerably
certain that Ana in his human attributes represents one or other of the
antediluvian patriarchs, it may well be that he is only a reduplication
of Enu = Enoch. If we are to seek in the translation of Enoch the clue
to the origin of the deification of man, and its commencement in the
person of Nimrod (_vide supra_, p. 160), it is likely, in the legend
of the apotheosis of Nimrod, that all the analogies should have been
sought for in the striking historical event which was in tradition.
There is, moreover, the analogy of name with Annacus, Hannachus =
Enoch.[153] If he is Enoch, he naturally also falls into his place as
second to Assorus.

 [153] "Etienne de Byzance dit qu'à 'Icone' ('de urbibus' voce
       'Iconium') ville de Lycaonie près du Mont Taurus dans les
       régions occupées par les habitants antediluviens regnait
       Annacus dont la vie alla au-déla de trois cents ans. Tous
       les habitants d'alentour demandèrent à un oracle jusqu'à
       quelle époque se prolongerait sa vie. L'oracle répondit que
       ce patriarche étant mort, tout le monde devait s'attendre à
       périr. Les Phrygiens à cette ménace jetèrent les hauts cris,
       d'où est venu le proverbe: 'Pleurer sous Annacus, ce que l'on
       dit de ceux qui se livrent à des grands gémissements. Or le
       Déluge étant survénu tous périrent.... Dans ces récits tout
       est conformé à la Bible. Annacus a vécu trois cents ans avant
       le Déluge. Il a averti ses concitoyens: il est entouré du même
       respect que le patriarche Noë lui-même. Annacus parait venir
       d'Enoch; tout announce une identité de personnages." (Gainet,
       Hist. de L'Anc. et Nouv. Test. i. 94, 95.) The connection
       between the death of Enoch and the destruction of mankind may
       accord as well with the traditional belief in his reappearance
       at the end of the world.

       Compare the Grecian tradition of Inachus, son of Oceanus
       (_vide_ Bryant, ii. 268), and with it, Hor., Od. 3, lib. ii.:

            "Divesne, prisco et natus ab Inacho,
            Nil interest, an pauper, et infimâ
            De gente," &c.

I retain, however, my original opinion, that Ana is Adam (though
possibly with some confusion with Enoch), in addition to the arguments
already urged, upon the following grounds:--

Rawlinson mentions (i. 147) "Telane," or the "_Mound_ of Ana," distinct
from Kalneh or "Kalana." We know that there has been a constant
tradition that the bones of Adam were preserved in the ark, and this
name of the "Mound of Ana" may be connected with it. If so, it will
also account for Ana (Dis = Orcus) being the patron deity of Erech,
"the great city of the dead, the necropolis of Lower Babylonia"
(Rawlinson i. 146).

The son of Ana is Vul. If Vul could be identified with Vulcan, and
Vulcan with Tubalcain, it would go far to decide the point that Ana was
Adam.

But in the matter of etymology, I do not know that we can advance
beyond the quaint phrase of old Sir Walter Raleigh in his "History
of the World," that "there is a certain likelihood of name between
Tubalcain and Vulcan." I rely more upon the wide-spread tradition of
Tubalcain in the legends of Dædalus, Vulcan, Weland, Galant, Wielant,
Wayland Smith, which approaches very nearly an identification. _Vide_
Wilson's "Archæologia of Scotland," p. 210. Compare the Phoenician
tradition, Bunsen's "Egypt," iv. 217, 219.

It is to be noted, however, that although Ana (_vide_ Rawlinson)
"like Adam had several sons, he had only two of any celebrity" (we
can suppose that Abel had died out of the Cainite tradition), "Vul
and another whose name represents 'darkness' or '_the west_,'" which
might well be the view of Seth from a Cainite point of view (and it is
traditional that the Cainite lore was preserved by Cham in the ark).
Now it is remarkable that the Scripture (Gen. iv.) expressly says that
Cain dwelt on the _east_ side of Eden.

I now come to


                              HEA OR HOA.

  "The third god of the first triad was Hea or Hoa, the Ana of
  Damascius. This appellation is perhaps best rendered into Greek
  by the [Greek: Ôê] of Helladius, the name given to the mystic
  animal, half man half fish, which came up from the Persian Gulf to
  teach astronomy and letters to the first settlers on the Euphrates
  and Tigris. It is perhaps contained in the word by which Berosus
  designates this same creature--Oannes ([Greek: Ôánnês]), which
  may be explained as Hoa-ana, or the god Hoa. There are no means of
  strictly determining the precise meaning of the word in Babylonian,
  but it is perhaps allowable to connect it provisionally with
  the Arabic Hiya, which is at once life and 'a serpent,' since,
  according to the best authority, 'there are very strong grounds
  for connecting Hea or Hoa with the serpent of Scripture, and the
  paradisaical traditions of the tree of knowledge and the tree of
  life.'

  "Hoa occupies in the first triad the position which in the
  classical mythology is filled by Poseidon or Neptune, and in some
  respects he corresponds to him. He is 'the lord of the earth,' just
  as Neptune is [Greek: gaiêochos]; he is the 'king of rivers,' and
  he comes from the sea to teach the Babylonians, but he is never
  called the 'lord of the sea.' That title belongs to Nin or Ninip.
  Hoa is the lord of the abyss or of 'the great deep,' which does
  not seem to be the sea, but something distinct from it. His most
  important titles are those which invest him with the character so
  prominently brought out in Oë and Oannes, of the god of science and
  knowledge. He is 'the intelligent guide,' or, according to another
  interpretation, 'the intelligent fish,' 'the teacher of mankind,'
  'the lord of understanding.' One of his emblems is the 'wedge' or
  'arrow-head,' the essential element of cuneiform writing, which
  seems to be assigned to him as the inventor, or at least the
  patron, of the Chaldæan alphabet. Another is the serpent, which
  occupies so conspicuous a place among the symbols of the gods
  on the black stones recording benefactions, and which sometimes
  appears upon the cylinders. This symbol here, as elsewhere, is
  emblematic of superhuman knowledge--a record of the primeval
  belief that 'the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the
  field.' The stellar name of Hoa was Kimmut.... The monuments do
  not contain much evidence of the early worship of Hoa. His name
  appears on a very ancient stone tablet brought from Mugheir (Ur),
  but otherwise his claim to be accounted one of the primeval gods
  must rest on the testimony of Berosus and Helladius, who represent
  him as known to the first settlers.... As Kimmut, Hoa was also the
  father of Nebo, whose functions bear a general resemblance to his
  own."--_Rawlinson's Ancient Monarchies_, i. 152.[154]

 [154] _Vide_ his other epithets, _infra_, p. 239; also Rawlinson
       (Herod. i. p. 600), says that "upon one of the tablets in
       the British Museum there is a list of thirty-six synonyms
       indicating this god (Hoa). The greater part of them relate
       either to "the abyss" or to "knowledge."

       Compare this with the following verses from the "Oracula
       Sybillina," i. ver. 145--

              "Collige, Noë, tuas vires ...
              ... Si scieris me
              Divinæ te nulla rei secreta latebunt."

       Now, without entering into the question of the authenticity of
       the Sybilline verses, I may at least quote them in evidence of
       the current tradition concerning Noah in the second century of
       the Christian era, supposing them to have been forged at that
       period.

I have said that I shall not rely too much on the resemblance of name,
Hoa; but I must draw attention to the curious resemblance which lurks
in the name "Aüs" to the words upon which the Vicomte D'Anselme has
founded an argument in the appended note.[155]

 [155] "Comment le nom du premier navigateur connu, tel qu'il se
       prononça en Hébreu et qu'il nous est transmis par la Génese,
       'Noh, Naus, Noach,' serait-il devenu le nom d'une arche
       flottante, d'un navire, en Sanscrit et en vingt autres
       langues? _Nau_, sanscrit; _Naw_, armenien; _Naus_, grec;
       (_Navis_, latin); _Noi_, hibernien; _Neau_, bas breton; _Nef_,
       nav. franc; _Noobh_, irlandais; _Naone_, vanikoro; _Nacho_,
       allemand vieux; _Naw_, timor; _Nachen_, allemand; _S'nechia_,
       islandais; _S'naeca_ ou _Naca_, anglo-sax.; _S'nace_, ancien
       anglais; _Sin-nau_, cambodge, &c.

       "Enfin nous demandons comment le nom Hébreu de l'arche de Noë.
       Tobe, prononcé comme on écrivait généralement en Orient, en
       sens inverse, donne le nom d'un vaisseau dans vingt langues
       qui sont des dialectes du Sanscrit? L'écriture boustrophedone,
       qui fait les lignes alternativement à droite et gauche
       sans interruption a pu donner naissance à cette manière de
       lire:--_Boat_, anglais; _boite_, français; _bat_, anglo-saxon;
       _boot_, hollandais; _bat_, suedois, _baat_, danois; _batr_,
       islandais; _bad_, breton; _bote_, espagnol; _boar_, persan;
       _batillo_, italien; _pota_, sanscrit." _Vide_ other similar
       proofs from Vicomte d'Anselme's "Monde Païen," &c. In Gainet,
       i. 223, a curious additional instance of the same word having
       connections with "boat" and arc (_tobe_) might be discovered
       in Kibotos, the name of a mountain in Phrygia, where the ark
       is said to have rested (Gainet, i. 220). Also we have almost
       the same words--ark and arc--to express (though according to a
       different etymology) these dissimilar objects.

       "The words oar and rudder can be traced back to Sanskrit,
       and the name of the ship is identically the same in Sanscrit
       (naus, nâvas), in Latin (navis), in Greek (naus), and in
       Teutonic, Old High Germ. (nachs), Anglo-Saxon (naca)."--Max
       Müller, "Comp. Mythol.," p. 49.

       I may draw attention, as having reference to other branches
       of this inquiry, to a possible affinity with the name of the
       patriarch, in the term _Noaaids_, applied by the Laplanders
       to their magicians (Pinkerton, i. 459, &c.); and to the term
       Koader_nicks_, applied by the Samoids to the same (_id._ 532).
       I own there might be danger in pushing the inquiry further,
       as I might even bring the patriarch Noah into contact and
       connection with Old Nick!

       I may also refer to the term "Janna" (Janus), as applied to
       the officer "who had the office of entertaining ambassadors"
       at the court of Kenghis Khan (_id._ v. 7, p. 40; Rubruquis's
       Embassy, A.D. 1253, also 56).

In the above extract from Rawlinson, although Hoa is said not to be
"the true fish-god," yet he is called "the intelligent fish," and is
associated with that mystic animal, half man half fish, which came
up from the Persian Gulf to teach astronomy and letters to the first
settlers on Euphrates and Tigris.

Let us compare this information with the following "History of
the Fish," which the Abbé Gainet, i. 199, has translated from the
Mahâbhârata. The same history has been translated from the Bhagavad
Pourana by Sir W. Jones ("Asiatic Researches"). Indeed, as the Abbé
Gainet argues, as this same history is found in all the religious poems
of India, there is a certain security that it would not have been taken
from the Hebrews.

I shall merely attempt to give the drift of the legend from the Abbé
Gainet's original translation of that portion of the Matysia Pourana
which has reference to Noah:--

  "The son of Vaivaswata (the sun) was a king, and a great sage,
  a prince of men, resembling Pradjapati in _eclat_. In his
  strength, splendour, prosperity, and above all, his penitence,
  Manou surpassed his father and his grandfather.[156]... One day a
  small fish approached him, and begged him to remove him from the
  water where he was, 'because the great fish always eat the little
  fish--it is our eternal condition.' Manou complies, and the fish
  promises eternal gratitude. After several such migrations, through
  the intervention of Manou, the fish at each removal increasing in
  bulk, he is at length launched in the ocean. The fish then holds
  this discourse with Manou:--'Soon, oh blessed Manou, everything
  that is by nature fixed and stationary in the terrestrial world,
  will undergo a general immersion and a complete dissolution. This
  temporary immersion of the world is near at hand, and therefore
  it is that I announce to you to-day what you ought to do for your
  safety.' He instructs him to build a strong and solid ship, and
  to enter it with the _seven_ richis or sages.[157] He instructs
  him also to take with him all sorts of seeds, according to
  certain Brahminical indications. 'And when you are in the vessel
  you will perceive me coming towards you, oh well-beloved of the
  saints, I will approach you with a _horn_ on my head, by which
  you will recognise me.' Manou did all that was prescribed to him
  by the fish, and the earth was submerged accordingly, as he had
  predicted. 'Neither the earth, nor the sky, nor the intermediate
  space, was visible; all was water.' 'In the middle of the world
  thus submerged, O Prince of Bharatidians, were seen the seven
  richis or sages, Manou, and the fish. Thus, O King, did this fish
  cause the vessel to sail' (with a rope tied to its horn), 'for many
  years, without wearying, in this immensity of water.' At length
  the ship was dragged by the fish on to the highest point of the
  Himalaya. 'That is why the highest summit of the Himaran (Himalaya)
  was called _Nan_bundhanam, or the place to which the ship was
  attached, a name which it bears to this day--_Sache cela, O Prince
  des Bharatidians._' Then _le gracieux_, with placid gaze, thus
  addressed the richis--'I am Brahma, the ancestor (_l'ancestre_) of
  all creatures. No one is greater than I. Under the form of a fish
  I came to save you from the terrors of death. From Manou, now,
  shall all creatures, with the gods, the demons (_au souras_), and
  mankind, be born.... This is the ancient and celebrated history
  which bears the name of the 'History of the _Fish_.'"[158]

 [156] Comp. "Traditions of the New Zealanders."

 [157] Do not the seven richis or sages correspond to the seven (or
       eight) (Phoenician) Kabiri. (There were seven or eight
       persons in the ark, accordingly as we take separate account
       or not of Noah.) As regards the Kabiri, their number (seven
       or eight, accordingly as we include "Æsculapius") must be
       the clue to the solution of "the most obscure and mysterious
       question in mythology." Bunsen ("Egypt," iv. 229) says of an
       astral explanation:--"It does not enable us to explain the
       details of those representations which do not contain the
       number seven (or eight), and, in fact, seven brothers." It
       will suffice, from our point of view, if there are numerically
       seven persons. Bunsen (iv. p. 291) says--"It is quite clear
       that the fundamental number of the gods in the oldest
       mythologies of Phoenicia, and all Asia, as well as Egypt,
       was seven. There were seven Kabiri, with the seven Titans.
       There are also seven Titans mentioned in other genealogies
       of the race of Kronos. Of the latter, one dies a virgin and
       disappears." But as with the Kabiri we have seen the number
       seven, or eight, accordingly as Æsculapius is included or
       not, so (vide p. 314) we see the primitive gods of Egypt
       either seven or eight, accordingly as Thoth, "the eighth,"
       or Horus, figure as the "last divine king" (p. 319). When
       Horus so figures, "_he_ is frequently represented as _the
       eighth, conducting the bark of the gods_, with _the seven
       great gods_," &c. Moreover, it is elsewhere (p. 347) said
       that "the Phoenicians, in their sacred books, stated that
       the Kabiri _embarked in ships_, and landed near Mount Kaison.
       This legend was corroborated by the existence of a shrine
       on that coast in historic times." [_Query_, The tradition
       of the Deluge localised, and the shrine commemorative of
       that catastrophe (_vide_ Boulanger, &c., _infra_, p. 244);
       and supposing that the tradition of the number saved in the
       Flood had been preserved down to a certain date, we should
       then expect that the number would become rigid and fixed.
       But that if the tradition of the actual survivors had become
       indistinct, what more natural than that the eight principal
       characters of ante-diluvian, or even post-diluvian, history
       should be substituted for them, and that the same confusion
       and agglomeration of legend should take place as we shall see
       occurring in the tradition of Noah?]

       In the Persian or Iranian legend of Shâh-nâmeh, "the three
       sons of Ferêdûn--Ireg, Tur, and Selm--are mentioned as
       their patriarchs, and among them the _whole earth was
       divided_." But in the more ancient Gâthâs there is mention
       of "the _seven_-surfaced or _seven_-portioned earth."
       [_Query_--apportioned by _the eighth_?] _Vide_ Bunsen's
       "Egypt," iii. 478.

       For the Indian tradition compare the following from Hunter's
       "Bengal" (i. p. 151)--"Another coincidence--I do not
       venture to call it an analogy--is to be found in the number
       of children born to the first pair. As the Santal legend
       immediately divides the human species into _seven_ families,
       so the Sanscrit tradition assigns the propagation of _our
       race after the flood_ to _seven rishis_." I also find in
       F. Schlegel's "Philosophy of History" (p. 150, Robertson's
       trans.)--"The Indian traditions acknowledge and revere the
       succession of the first ancestors of mankind, or the holy
       patriarchs of the primitive world, under the name of the
       _seven great rishis_, or sages of hoary antiquity, though they
       invest their history with a cloud of fictions."

 [158] Syncellus, quoting Berosus (_vide_ Abbé de Tressan,
       "Mythology," p. 10), says that _Oannes_ (the mysterious fish,
       _vide ante_) left some _writings_ upon the origin of the
       world. These, no doubt, correspond to the "Liber Noachi." I do
       not disguise that this statement is probably derived from what
       is called the false Berosus. The reference, however, which
       I have made to these writings at p. 139 may raise doubt
       whether they did not embody true traditions.

Here we seem to see what looks like the commencement of the legendary
origin of the fish symbol; and here also we see it unmistakeably in
connection with Noah. We have, moreover, seen the connection of Hoa
with the fish.[159]

 [159] I fancy it might be traced also in the Phoenician fish-god,
       Dagon. The _Saturday Review_ (June 4, 1870) in its review of
       Cox's "Mythology," says--"Dagon cannot be divided Dag-on,
       the fish 'On,' for a Semitic syllable cannot begin with a
       vowel; and if the necessary breathing 'aleph' were inserted
       (which it is very unsafe to do), it would then mean 'the fish
       of On,' which is not the signification required." But it is
       the signification which would fit in here; moreover, might
       not the terminal "aon," or "_haon_," suggested, have been
       originally, _i.e._ before displacement by "boustrophedon"--Noa
       or Noa_h_? I give this suggestion with all proper diffidence,
       and with some genuine misgiving as to the "breathing aleph."
       I find that Bryant ("Mythology," iii. p. 116) makes a similar
       suggestion.

       Bunsen ("Egypt," iv. 243) says--"Dagon is Dagan, _i.e._
       corn. This is also implied by the Greek form of it--Sitôn,
       wheat-field (comp. p. 219). We have in the Bible, Dagon, a
       god of the Philistines, a name usually supposed to be derived
       from 'dag,' fish; the god has a human form ending in a fish,
       like the fish-shaped goddess, Derketo-Atergatis. It is clear,
       from Philo's own account, that the Phoenician Poseidon was
       a god of this kind, and it is difficult to find any other
       name for him. Yet we cannot say that Dagon is very clearly
       explained. Here is a god of agriculture, well authenticated,
       both linguistically and documentally, Dagan, _i.e._ wheat,
       and he is the _Zeus of agriculture_." _Vide_ p. 219. P. 261
       says Dagon must not be confounded with "Dagan," but without
       reconciling it with the above at p. 243, on the contrary,
       we find "Dagon, Dagan = corn (the fish-man)." At p. 241,
       quoting from the _text_ of Philo, it is said still more
       pointedly--"Dagon, after he _had discovered corn and the
       plough_, was called Zeus Arotnios." Comp. p. 204.

       Believing (_vide_ ch. xii.) in the tradition of mythology,
       even among savages, I could not but be much struck on coming
       upon the following passage in Roggeveen's voyage, to find--in
       his account of the Eastern Islanders--the same conjunction of
       the bull and fish implied in the traditional names of their
       idols:--"The name of the largest idol was called _Taurico_,
       and the other _Dago_; at least, these were the words they
       called to them by, and wherewith they worshipped them. These
       savages had great respect for the two idols, _Taurico_ and
       _Dago_, and approached them with great reverence ... and
       to supplicate for help against us, and to call upon with a
       frightful shout and howling of _Dago! Dago!_" ("Historical
       Account of Voyages Round the World," 1774, i. 469, 470.)

       After showing the resemblance of a feast at Argos to other
       commemorative feasts of the Deluge, Boulanger (_vide infra_,
       i. 83) says--"Les Argiens avoient encore une autre fête
       pendant laquelle ils précipitoent dans un abîme un agneau....
       ils étoient armés de javelines, ils appelloient _Bacchus_
       au son des trompettes et l'invitoient _à semontrer hors de
       l'eau_; cette apparition n'arrivoit pas fréquemment sans
       doute" (comp. _supra_, 197, and 237). "Plutarque remarque
       que lors qu'ils précipitoient l'agneau, ils avoient soin de
       cacher leurs trompettes et leurs javelines. Nous ne prétendons
       point expliquer tous ces mystères." Is it that they feared,
       with armed weapons in their hands, to evoke the apparition of
       the old man "whose conquests were all peaceful" (p. 216), and
       who, as Manco Capac (p. 326), "shut his ears when they spoke
       to him of war."

Let us now turn to his reduplication, as I conceive, in Nin, or Ninip,
who is said to be "the true fish god."

"His names, Bar and Nin, are respectively a Semitic and a Hamitic
term, signifying 'Lord,' or 'Master,'" (p. 166). Astronomically Nin
"should be Saturn." However, a set of epithets which _seem to point_ to
his stellar character are very difficult to reconcile with the notion
that, as a celestial luminary, he was (the dark and distant) Saturn.
We find him called, "the light of heaven and earth," "he who, _like_
the sun, the _light_ of the _gods_, irradiates the _nations_." All this
is very difficult to reconcile with legends arising out of the simple
worship of a celestial luminary, but perfectly consistent with the
supposition of the patriarch Noah, after deification, being located
in the planetary system. The phrase, "he who, like the sun, the light
of the gods, irradiates the nations," is perfectly applicable to him
who, as Oannes, we have ever regarded as "the god of science and of
knowledge;" and who "taught astronomy and letters to the first settlers
on the Euphrates and Tigris." Let us glance at the other epithets
applied to Nin in the inscriptions. He is the "lord of the brave,"
"the champion," "the warrior who subdues foes," "_he who strengthens
the hearts of his followers_." [The Scripture mentions the repeated
assurances of the Almighty to Noah, that there should not be another
Deluge; and the above is in keeping with the tradition that the early
inhabitants long hesitated to quit the mountains for the plains, and
only did so incited by the example of the patriarch.] "The destroyer
of enemies," "_the reducer of the disobedient_," "the exterminator
of rebels," "he whose sword is good." Like Nergal, or Mars, he is a
god of battle and the chase. (I shall refer later on to these warlike
epithets as applied to Noah.) At the same time he has qualities which
seem wholly unconnected with any that have been hitherto mentioned.
He is the true "fish-god" of Berosus, and is figured as such in the
Scriptures. (I hope I may persuade some reader, who may be interested
in this inquiry, to compare the figure of Nin, in Rawlinson, i.
167, with figure 23, Dupaix's "New Spain" in Lord Kingsborough's
"Mexico," representing an emblematic figure with fish[160] (as in the
representation of Nin) over a human head, which also has inverted
tusks. Compare also with representations of Neph, associated with
snake and ram's head, and also with "History of the Fish," _supra_,
p. 197.) To continue--in this point of view he (Nin) is called the
"god of the sea," "he who dwells in the deep;" and again, somewhat
curiously, "the opener of the aqueducts." Now, as applied to Noah,
this is not at all strange, and corresponds to the Scriptural phrase,
"He opened the fountains of the deeps." Subsequently to deification
we cannot be surprised to find all that was done by the Almighty
attributed to the individual to whom it was done; as in Prometheus we
have a double legend of the Creator, who created man with the vital
spark, and of Prometheus, the man who was so created. "Besides these
epithets he has many of a more general character, as 'the _powerful
chief_,' 'the supreme,' 'the _favourite_ of the _gods_,' 'the chief of
the spirits,' and the like."

 [160] This closely corresponds to the description of Oannes given by
       Sanchoniathon, "Ap. Euseb." (Bryant, ii. 301), _i.e._ with two
       heads (comp. _infra_, p. 220), the human head being placed
       below the head of a fish:--"[Greek: allên kephalên hypokatô
       tês tou ichthyos kephalês]."

I must, moreover, request attention to the following from Rawlinson, i.
168,--"Nin's _emblem_ in _Assyria_ is the _man-bull_, the impersonation
of strength and power. He guards the palaces of the Assyrian kings,
who reckon him their tutelary god, and gives his name to their
capital city. We may conjecture that _in Babylonia_ his _emblem_ was
the _sacred fish_, which is often seen in different forms upon the
cylinders."[161]

 [161] _Vide_ similar traditions of the man-bull in India and Japan.
       Bryant, iii. 589, who adds, "We shall find hereafter that in
       this (Parsee) mythology there were two ancient personages
       represented under the same character, and named L'Homme
       Taureau; _each_ of whom was looked upon as the _father_ of
       mankind." Compare pp. 158, 189, the two Menus and the two
       Osiris.

I turn to Gainet, i. 198, and I find this legend concerning the
man-bull from Bertrand's "Dict. des Religions," 38, i. ii.[162]

 [162] The prayer used in the worship of Dionysos at Elis, preserved
       by Plutarch, ended with "[Greek: Axie Taure--Axie Taure],"
       worthy bull! (_vide_ Bunsen's "Egypt," iv. 446.) Compare p.
       215 with Dionysius = Bacchus = Noah; also of the three
       Samothracian names of the Kabiri--viz., Axieros, Axiokerse,
       Axiokersos. Bunsen says, "the syllable Axi or Axie which is
       found in all three, cannot be anything but the Greek word
       'Axios,' which was used in the worship of Dionysos at Elis"
       (_id., vide infra_).

       On this symbol of the bull in connection with Noah and the
       Ark _vide_ Bryant (ii. 416, _et seq._ 439). He says, "Every
       personage that had any connection with the history of the Ark
       was described with some reference to this hieroglyphic ...
       that the Apis and Mnenis (Menes) were both representations
       of an _ancient personage_ is certain; and who that personage
       was may be known from the account given of him by Diodorus.
       He speaks of him by the name of Mnenes, but confines his
       history to Egypt, as the history of Saturn was limited to
       Italy; Inachus and Phoroneus to Argos; Deucalion to Thessaly
       ... the same person who in Crete was styled Minos, Min-nous,
       and whose city was Min-Noa; the same who was represented under
       the emblem of Men-taur, or Mino-taurus (_Minotaur_). Diodorus
       speaks of Mnenes as the _first lawgiver_," &c., &c....
       [Mnenes or Menes may embody traditions of Noah and Misraim,
       as Osiris does of Adam and Noah.] At p. 422-435 [plate], we
       find Menes represented as a bull _with the sacred dove_....
       Plutarch (Isis and Osiris) says the bulls, Apis and Mnenes,
       were sacred to Osiris ... and Eustath. (in Dion. v. 308) says
       of the Tauric Chersonese, "that the _Tauric_ nation was so
       named from the animal Taurus or bull, which was looked upon
       as a memorial of _the great husbandman_ Osiris, who first
       _taught agriculture_, and to whom was ascribed _the invention_
       of the _plough_." ... Lycophron (v. 209 and scholia) says,
       [Greek: Tauros], [Greek: Dionysos]. Plutarch says Dionusus
       (_vide supra_, p. 203) was styled [Greek: Bougenês], or
       the offspring of a bull, by the people of Argos, who used to
       invoke him as a _resident of the sea_, and entreat him _to
       come out of the waters_. The author of the Orphic hymns calls
       him "Taurogenes." [Greek: Taurogenês Dionysos euphrosunên
       pore Thnêtois]. [Greek: Taurogenês], is precisely of the
       same purport as [Greek: Thêbaigenês] [ark-born], and the
       words of this passage certainly mean "that the ark-born deity
       Dionusus restored peace and happiness to mortals." [Noah's
       name in Scripture signifies "peace and consolation"--[Greek:
       Nôe hebraïsianapaysis] (rest), Hesychius.]... The title given
       to Diana--viz. _Taurione_, is remarkable, for "Taurus was
       an emblem of the Ark, and by Taurione was signified the
       arkite _dove_." _Taurus_, and _ione_ from [Greek: Oinas]
       of the Greeks, and Ionas of the eastern nations = _dove_,
       and curiously in an inscription in Gruter, Diana is at _the
       same time_ called "Regina _undarum_," and "decus _nemorum_"
       (Bryant, ii. 434). The connection of Diana, Juno, and Venus
       with _the dove_ and _rainbow_ is very striking, but would
       lead to too long a digression. So, too, would a discussion as
       to how Noah or the Ark (secondarily) came to be associated
       with the bull, as a hieroglyphic. Compare the above with the
       ox-heads and bull dance in the Mandan commemoration of the
       Deluge, _infra_, ch. xi.

"D'après les livres Parsis, le souverain Créateur sut que le mauvais
génie se disposait à tenter l'homme. Il ne jugea pas à propos de
l'empêcher par lui-même; il se contenta d'envoyer des anges pour
veiller sur l'homme. Cependant le mal augmenta; l'homme se perdit;
Dieu envoya un Deluge, qui dura dix jours et dix nuits et détruisit le
genre humain. L'apparition de Kaioumons (_l'homme-taureau_), le premier
homme, y est aussi précédée de la creation d'une grande eau." Here, in
a confused tradition, with Adam--just as Nin is confused with Hercules
and Saturn--the man-bull is apparently associated with a great flood.

In the curious Etruscan monument commemorative of the
Deluge--discovered in 1696--and to which Cardinal Wiseman draws
attention in his "Conferences" (_vide_ Gainet, i. 190), being a vase
supposed to represent the ark, and containing figures of twenty couples
of (12) animals, (6) birds, (2) serpents, &c., and several human
figures represented in the act of escaping from an inundation, there
were also discovered certain signets and amulets. These consisted
of hands joined, _heads_ of _oxen_, and olives. Now the olive in
connection with the Deluge will speak for itself,--the hands joined are
the symbol of Janus (_vide_ next chapter), and heads of oxen--here
unmistakably connected with the Deluge--may also be conjectured to have
allusion to the man-bull above referred to.

Thus Nin, through both his emblems (bull and fish), is brought into
contact with the Noachic tradition.[163] It is also said (Rawlinson,
i. 174) of Nergal, _vide supra_, who is clearly identified with
Nimrod,--"Again, if Nergal is the man-lion, his association in the
buildings with the man-bull would be exactly parallel with the
conjunction which we so constantly find between him and _Nin_ in the
inscriptions."

 [163] Since writing the above I have found the following note
       in Rawlinson's "Herodotus," i. 623, on Ninip:--"There is,
       however, another explanation of the name Bar-sam or Bur-shem,
       of which some notice must be taken. It has been already stated
       that if the _Noachid_ triad be compared with the Assyrian, Ana
       will correspond with Ham, Bel-Nimrod with Shem, and Hoa with
       Japhet."

       The following passage, also from Rawlinson's "Herodotus,"
       i. 609, appears to me valuable in proof of the transition
       from ancestral to solar worship, or at least of their
       interfusion:--"The sun was probably named in Babylonia both
       San and Sanei, before his title took the definite _Semitic_
       form of _Shamas_, by which he is known in Assyrian and _in
       all_ the languages of _that family_." Now, standing by itself,
       this might not appear very significant; but compare it with
       the following passages connecting _Ham_ with the sun:--"By
       the Syrians the sun and heat were called ... Chamba; by the
       Persians, Hama; and the temple of the sun, the temple of
       _Am_mon or _Ham_mon." Mr Bryant shows that Ham was esteemed
       the Zeus of Greece and the Jupiter of Latium. Mr G. Higgins'
       "Anacalypsis," p. 45. Bryant says, "the worship of Ham, _or
       the sun_, as it was the most ancient, so it was the most
       universal of any in the world." These passages may possibly be
       so interpreted as to support a solar theory, but is it not at
       least suspicious to see the name of the central luminary so
       apparently identified with historical characters whose memory
       is distinctly preserved _aliunde_ in the traditions of their
       descendants? Compare Nimrod, ch. viii. 164, _et seq._

It is true that the majority of the inscriptions, p. 169, assert that
Nin was the son of Bel-Nimrod. This may be referred to that tendency,
previously noted in ancient nations, to place the ancestor with whom
they were themselves identified at the head of every genealogy. One
inscription, however, "makes Bel-Nimrod the son of Nin instead of
his father." Nin, in any case, is unquestionably brought into close
historical relationship with Bel-Nimrod, an historical character, and
we must, in fine, choose whether we shall admit him to be Noah--to
whom all the epithets would apply--or whether, upon the more literal
construction of the inscriptions, we shall believe him to be some
nameless son or successor of Nimrod.

There is one god more in whom I fancy I see a counterpart of Noah, or
at least a counterpart of Hoa and Nin--viz.


                                 NEBO.

I base my conclusion upon the epithets applied to him in common with
Hoa and Nin, and inconsistently applied if, according to the evidence,
p. 177, "mythologically he was a deity of no very great eminence," but
in no way conflicting with the supposition that he represented the
tradition of Noah, the counterpart to the tradition of Hoa and Nin,
among some subordinate nationality, and such appears to be the fact.
"When Nebo first appears in Assyria, it is as a foreign god, whose
worship is brought thither from Babylonia," p. 178.

Of Nebo it is said, "his name is the same or nearly so, both in
Babylonian and Assyrian, and we may perhaps assign it a _Semitic_
derivation, from the root _'nibbah,' to prophesy_. It is his special
function to preside over _knowledge_ and _learning_. He is called 'the
god who possesses intelligence'--'he who hears from afar'--'he who
_teaches_,' or 'he who teaches and instructs.' In this point of view
he of course approximates to Hoa, _whose son_ he is called in some
inscriptions, and to whom he bears a general resemblance. Like Hoa,
he is symbolised by the simple wedge or arrow-head, the primary and
essential element of cuneiform writing, to mark his _joint_ presidency
with that god over writing and literature. At the same time Nebo has,
like so many of the Chaldæan gods, a number of general titles, implying
divine powers, which, if they had belonged to him only, would have
seemed to prove him the supreme deity. He is 'the lord of lords, who
has no equal in power,' _'the supreme chief_,' '_the sustainer_,' 'the
supporter,' the 'ever ready,' 'the guardian over the heavens and the
earth,' 'the lord of the constellations,' 'the holder of the sceptre
of power,' 'he who grants to kings the sceptre of royalty for the
_governance_ of their people'" (Rawlinson, i. 177).

There is just a possibility, however, that Nebo may be Sem or Shem. He
would be the son of Hoa as Nebo was stated to be.

I think, moreover, a striking resemblance will be seen between the
above epithets and the traditions concerning _Shem_, collected by
Calmet (Dict. "Sem.")

  "The Jews attribute to Sem the theological _tradition_ of the
  _things which Noah taught to the first men_.... They say that he is
  the same as Melchisedek.... In fine, the Hebrews believe that he
  taught _men the law of justice_, the manner of counting the months
  and years, and the intercalations of the months. They pretend that
  _God gave him the spirit of prophecy_ one hundred years after the
  Deluge, and that he continued _to prophesy_ during four hundred
  years, with little fruit among mankind, who had become very
  corrupt. Methodius says that he remained in the isle of the sun,
  that he invented astronomy, and that he was _the first king who
  ruled over the earth_."[164]

 [164] Rawlinson says that there is no doubt that Nebo represents
       the planet Mercury, and between the attributes of Mercury or
       Hermes, the epithets of Nebo, and the traditions concerning
       Shem, there is something in common. He is the god of
       eloquence and persuasion--the god of alliances and peace.
       "He contributed to civilise the manners and cultivate the
       minds of the people." "He united them by commerce and good
       laws." The Egyptian Mercury or Thaut first invented landmarks.
       Finally, "He was consulted by the Titans, his relations, _as
       an augur_, which gave occasion to the poets to describe him
       as interpreter of the will of the gods."--_L'Abbe de Tressan,
       "Mythology."_

The difficulty, however, is in understanding how the worship of Shem
came to Assyria _from_ Babylonia. I can only reconcile it upon a theory
that _all_ idolatry came from Babylonia, _i.e._ from the Hamitic race.

There remains a difficulty which will doubtless occur to every one who
has read the chapter in Rawlinson to which I must acknowledge myself
so much indebted, and it is a difficulty which I ought, perhaps, to
have dealt with before; and that is, that there is in the pages of
Rawlinson (I. vii. 184) the most distinct identification of Noah with
Xisuthrus. Of this there can be no doubt, from his direct connection
with the Deluge, the circumstances of which are perfectly recorded
in the Babylonian tradition.[165] This establishes the fact that the
tradition of Noah and the Deluge was still among them when Berosus
wrote. But if Xisuthrus is Noah, then it may be said Hoa, Oannes, and
Nin cannot be Noah. It is a _non sequitur_, but will still, I fear, be
very influential with many. It is difficult to understand the tendency
to reduplication, and still more difficult to realise how a tradition
so clear and decided could be contemporaneous with other identical
traditions so entangled and confused. I believe this explanation to
be that the account of Xisuthrus was part of the esoteric tradition
to which Rawlinson refers, and which was also the tradition of their
learned men--"Vixere fortes ante Agamemnon";--and we cannot suppose
that Berosus (of whom we should have known nothing if his works had not
been preserved to us at third or fourth hand) was the first chronicler
of his nation.[166]

 [165] "Notwithstanding the difficulty of ascending to so distant a
       period, there will always be found some traces by which truth
       may be discovered.... The historian Josephus relates that the
       Chaldæans from the _earliest_ times _carefully preserved_ the
       remembrance of past events by public inscriptions on their
       monuments. He says they caused these annals to be written by
       the wisest men of their nation."--_L'Abbe de Tressan, "Hist.
       of Heathen Mythology."_ London, 1806.

 [166] I had come to the above conclusion upon the perusal of
       Rawlinson, and before I had read Bryant, who, I find, had
       already come to this identical conclusion. ("Mythology," iii.
       109.) Speaking of Berosus' account of Oannes and Xisuthrus, he
       says, "The latter was undoubtedly taken from the archives of
       the Chaldæans. The former is allegorical and obscure, and was
       copied from _hieroglyphical representations_ which could not
       be precisely deciphered.... In consequence of his borrowing
       from records so very different, we find him, without his being
       apprized of it, giving _two histories of the same person_.
       Under the character of _the man of the sea_, whose _name was
       Oannes_, we have _an allegorical representation of the great
       patriarch_; whom _in his other history he calls Sisuthrus_."

I shall pursue this inquiry into the classical mythology in the next
chapter, and then recapitulate the results as regards this inquiry.




                               CHAPTER X.

              _THE TRADITION OF NOAH AND THE DELUGE._


I now come to a different set of illustrations still more germane to my
subject.

Calmet says:--"Plusieurs scavans out remarqué que les pagans ont
confondu Saturne, Deucalion, Ogyges, le Dieu Coelus ou Ouranus,
Janus, Prothée, Prométhée, Virtumnus, Bacchus, Osiris, Vadimon,
Nisuthrus avec Noë."

I must add that this enumeration by no means exhausts the list.
It is not my purpose, however, to pursue the subject in all its
ramifications. I shall limit myself to the examination of one or two of
these counterparts of Noah.

       *       *       *       *       *

I. And in the first place, "Him of mazy counsel, Saturn," the
expression of Hesiod ([Greek: t' Iapeton te ide Kronon agkylomêtên]),
Hesiod. Theog. v. 19, which so well befits the intermediary between God
and the survivors of the Deluge. "Under Saturn," as Plutarch tells us,
"was the golden age." Calmet says (Dict. "Saturne"), "Quant aux traits
de ressemblance qui se trouvent entre Noë et Saturne, ils ne peuvent
être plus sensibles.[167] Il (Saturne) est représenté avec une faulx
comme inventeur de l'agriculture[168]: Noë est nommé 'vir agricola'
(Gen. ix. 20) et il est dit qu'il commença à cultiver la terre. Les
_Saturnales_, qu'on célébrait dans le vin et dans la licence et _où
les serviteurs s'égaloient à leurs maitres_--marquent l'ivresse de
Noë et sa malédiction qui assujettit Chanaan à ses frères tout égal
qu'il leur étoit par sa naissance." [I have _little doubt that this
Bacchanalian recollection originated the tradition of the equality of
conditions_ in the _golden_ age, contrary to the facts of Scripture and
history.] "On disoit que Noë avait dévoré tous ses enfans à l'exception
de Jupiter, de Neptune, et de Pluton. Noë vit périr dans les eaux du
déluge tous les hommes de son temps dont plusieurs étoient ses parents
et plus jeunes que lui. Dans la stile de l'écriture on dit souvent que
l'on fait ce qu'on n'empêche pas, ou même ce que l'on prédit." Further
resemblances are traced in Calmet.

 [167] Bochart also says (Geog. Sacra, lib. i.) "Noam esse Saturnum
       tam multa docent, ut vix sit dubitandi locus."

 [168] "Cum falce, messis insigne."--_Macrobius, "Saturn."_

Now, I find in Sanchoniathon,[169] _i.e._ in the most ancient
Phoenician historian, a tradition running exactly parallel with this
Greek tradition as interpreted by Calmet:--"Ces genies, ces sages, ces
dieux, nous expliquent les autres dieux qui, d'après Berose, forment
l'homme du sang de Bélus, et tous les dieux que Sanchoniaton nous
représente saisis d'épouvante _à la vue de Saturne, faisant périr par
le déluge son fils Sadid_."--(Le Peuple Primitif; Rougemont, i. 303,
quoted by Gainet, iii. 561, with reference to the worship of spirits.)
I adduce it in evidence of the connection in tradition between Saturn
and the Deluge, and in corroboration of Calmet's interpretation, which
clears the Greek myth of what is grotesque and repulsive in it.

 [169] Sanchoniathon, _vide supra_ M'Lennan (ch. vii.)

If I have sufficiently identified Saturn with Noah and the period of
the Deluge, the lines of Virgil (Æneid, 8th Book, 315), besides bearing
testimony in the same direction, appear to me to acquire a new meaning
and significance:--

        "Primus ab ætherio venit _Saturnus_ Olympo,
        Arma Jovis fugiens, _et regnis exul ademptis_,
        Is genus indocile, ac dispersum montibus altis
        Composuit; _legesque dedit_; Latiumque vocari
        Maluit."...

        "_Aurea_, quæ perhibent, _illo sub rege_ fuerunt
        _Sæcula_; sed placidâ populos in pace regebat,
        Deterior donec paulatim ac discolor ætas
        Et belli rabies et amor successit habendi."[170]

 [170] Bryant (Mythology, ii. 261) says:--"He is by Lucian made to
       say of himself [Greek: oudeis hyp' emou doulos ên]. The Latins
       in great measure confine his history to their own country,
       where, like Janus, he is represented as refining and modelling
       mankind, and giving them laws. At other times he is introduced
       as prior to law; which are seeming contrarieties very easy to
       be reconciled." There were traditions also of Saturn in Crete
       and Sparta.--_Bryant_, iii. 414.

Allowing for the confusion incidental to the deification of Noah in the
person of Saturn, which necessitates his descent from heaven, the rest
of the verses seem merely to describe what is recorded in tradition,
if not implied in the scriptural narrative, that Noah, a voyager and
exile, his possessions having been lost in the Flood, flying the
wrath--not indeed as directed against himself, but the consequences of
the wrath of the Almighty[171]--persuaded the survivors of the Flood
to abandon the mountains, to which they clung in fear of a second
Deluge, and brought them into the plains, incited and encouraged by his
example,--he who, if he be the same (_vide supra_, 208, 209) with
Nin and Nebo, we have seen called "the sustainer," "the supporter,"
"he who strengthens the hearts of his followers," who taught them the
cultivation of the soil, and of whom it is now said more distinctly
than we have seen it heretofore stated, _legesque dedit_.[172]

 [171] _Vide supra_, p. 211.

 [172] An indirect argument in proof of the identity of Saturn
       and Noah might be adduced if I had space to incorporate
       Boulanger's evidence of the ceremonies among the ancients'
       commemoration of the Deluge, ("Vestiges d'usages
       hydrophoriques dans plusieurs fêtes anciennes et modernes").
       This being assumed, is it not of some significance that when
       the Roman pontiffs proceeded to the banks of the Tiber to
       perform their annual (commemorative) ceremonial, that they
       should make their expiatory sacrifices to Saturn? The points
       that Bryant takes (ii. 262) are very striking:--"He was looked
       upon as the _author_ of time, 'Ipse qui _auctor_ temporum'
       (Macrob. i. 214). [His medals had on the reverse the figure
       of _a ship_.] They represented him as of an uncommon age,
       with hair white as snow; they had a notion that he _would
       return to second childhood_. 'Ipsius autem canities primosis
       nivibus candicabat; _licet etiam ille puer posse fieri
       crederetur_.'--Martianus Capella. Martial's address to him,
       though short, has in it something remarkable, for he speaks of
       him as a native _of the former world_--

          'Antiqui rex magne poli, _mundique prioris_,
           Sub quo prima quies, nec labor ullus erat.'--l. 12, E. 63.

       I have mentioned that he was supposed, [Greek: katapinein],
       to have _swallowed up his children_; he was also said to have
       _ruined all things_; which, however, _were restored with a
       vast increase_."--Orphic Hymn, 12, v. 3. Compare Calmet,
       _supra_, pp. 211 and 212.

       Martianus Capella and Varro de Ling. Lat. lib. i. 18, call him
       _Sator_, a sower, "Saturnus Sator." Now it is curious that
       the ancient Germans had a god "of the name of _Sator_." He
       is described by Verstegan as "standing _upon a fish_, with a
       wheel in one hand, and in the other a _vessel of water_ filled
       with fruits and flowers."

       _N.B._--I was surprised to find in Carver's "Travels in
       North America" (p. 282) the phrase among the North American
       Indians, of things being done at the instigation "of the Grand
       _Sautor_."

There is no doubt much that is monstrous and grotesque in the classical
conception of Saturn, but I must again suggest that as all traditions
met in Noah, and were tradited through him, we must not be surprised
to find all antediluvian traditions confused in Noah. Thus even the
tradition of Lamech, which we have seen (_vide supra_, 178) variously
distorted in the legends of Perseus and OEdipus, are again repeated
in the legends of Saturn.

There are, no doubt, also divers astral complications arising out of
Saturn's place in the planetary system. When, however, we are told
that Saturn was son of Coelus and Tellus or Coelus and Vesta,[173]
the same as Terra (Montfauçon), it seems to occur to us, as a thing
"qui saute aux yeux," that this was only a mode of expressing a truth,
applicable to all men in general, and Saturn as a primal progenitor in
particular, and having reference to the composite nature of man; in
other words, that this was simply the tradition which Noah would have
handed down that he was created,[174] as were all other men, out of the
earth, yet with something ethereal in his composition which came direct
from the Deity. What the astral explanation may be I am at a loss to
imagine. It cannot by any possibility be supposed to have reference to
their relative positions in the heavens.

 [173] "Saturn is by Plato supposed to have been the son of
       _Oceanus_."--Bryant, ii. 261.

 [174] _Vide_ Autochthones, ch. vii.

I shall return to Saturn, under the representation of Oceanus, when I
come to speak of Janus.


II. _Bacchus._--The _Saturnalia_ may be taken as the connecting link
between _Saturn_ and _Bacchus_, and I think that it is sufficiently
remarkable that there should be this link of connection.

But as the legends of Saturn are not all derived from Noah, so neither
do all the traditions concerning Bacchus appertain to Saturn. I shall
simply separate and note such as appear to me to be in common, _e.g._
"that Bacchus found out the making of wine, the art of planting trees,
and many things else commodious for mankind." ["And Noah, a husbandman,
began to till the ground, and planted a vineyard, and drinking the
wine was made drunk," Gen. ix. 20.][175] It is said there were several
Bacchuses. This may be only a reduplication, such as we have seen in
the case of Oannes, Nin, and Nebo, or as in the multiplications of
Jupiter. "Joves omnes reges vocarunt antiqui."[176]

 [175] "The Scriptures tell us that Noah cultivated the vine; and
       all profane historians agree in placing Bacchus in the first
       ages of the world" (in proof of early cultivation of the
       vine).--Goguet, "Origin of Laws," i. 116. Compare _supra_,
       p. 213, "Saturnus _Sator_." Bryant says, "The history of
       Dionusus is closely connected with that of Bacchus, though
       they are two distinct persons." He supposes Dionusus to be
       Noah, and Bacchus Ham. But he may very well have embodied the
       traditions of both. Pausanius (lib. iii. 272) says Dionusus
       was exposed _in an ark_ and wonderfully _preserved_. He
       was also said to have been twice born, and to have had two
       fathers and two mothers, in allusion to the two periods of his
       existence separated by the Deluge.

       Dionusus (Orphic Hymn, 44, 1) is addressed as [Greek: elthe,
       makar Dionyse, pyrispore tauroumetôpe].

 [176] The phrase "Father Bacchus," current among the ancients
       (_vide_ Hor. Odes. i. xviii.) has always struck me as
       singular. It is perfectly congruous with the tradition of
       Noah; but who will tell us its appropriate solar or astral
       application?

On this subject Montfauçon says (i. 155)[177] apropos of a point to
which I shall again refer, viz. that Bacchus was _Tauri_cornis.

  "Diodorus Siculus says that the horns are only ascribed to the
  second Bacchus, the son of Jupiter and Proserpine; but these
  distinctions of various Bacchus were minded only in the more
  ancient times, hardly known in their worship.... This will also
  hold good of most of the other gods who were multiplied in the same
  manner."

 [177] Montfauçon, from whom I have quoted, was simply an
       antiquarian--a very erudite and laborious antiquarian, but one
       whose sole concern was to discriminate facts without reference
       to their bearings, and who would have had, I have little
       doubt, a supreme contempt for the speculations in which I have
       indulged. He says in his preface--"I have a due regard for
       those great men who have excelled in this sort of learning,
       but must own at the same time I have no taste for it.... _It
       signifies very little to us to know_ whether they who tell us
       Vulcan was the same with Tubalcain, or they who say he was the
       same with Moses, make the best guess in the matter." Though
       the general opinion may not incline any more now than then
       to the biblical interpretation, yet I think a great change
       has taken place in public opinion as to the importance of the
       inquiry.

       Triptolemus was also said to have been "the inventor of
       the plough and of agriculture, and of civilisation, which
       is the result of it," and to have instituted the Elusinian
       mysteries. Like Bacchus he is also said to have "ridden all
       over the earth, making men acquainted with the blessings of
       agriculture."--_Smith. Myth. Dict.; vide_ also _infra_, p.
       224: "Deucalion."

Vicomte d'Anselme (Gainet, i. 224), asks with reference to his Greek
name of Dionysius, "Pourquoi les Grecs donnaient-ils le nom de Dionysos
ou de divin Noush (dios nous ou Noë) à l'inventeur du vin?"--_Vide
supra_, ch. ix.; vide also Gainet, i. 225.

Bacchus is by some called "_Tauri_cornis" (compare _supra_, p. 203,
Nin) "or Bucornis, and moreover he is frequently so represented,"
(_i.e._ not only with the horn in hand, a "_bull's_ horn," as he is
sometimes, which might be a drinking horn or cornucopia, in its way
emblematical of the vir agricola"), "but also with horns on the head.
Horace calls him "Bicorniger," Orpheus, [Greek: Boukerôs]; Nicander,
[Greek: Taurokerôs]."--_Montfauçon_, i. 147, 155; comp. p. 204, note to
"Nin."

One Bacchus, Cicero tells us, "was King of Asia and author of the
_Laws_ called Subazian."--_Montfauçon_, i. 144. It is, moreover, said
that Bacchus travelled through all nations as far as India,[178] doing
good in all places, and teaching many things profitable to the life of
man. His conquests are said to have been easy and without bloodshed.
But it is also noted that amidst his benevolence to mankind, he was
relentless in punishing all want of respect for his divinity, and
indeed the _conduct_ and punishment of Chanaan may be said to be
narrated in the history of Pentheus.--_Vide_ _Montf._ i. 161.[179]

 [178] Dionusus like Bacchus came to India from _the
       west_.--_Philostratus_, lib. ii. 64; _Byrant_, ii. 78. The
       Indian Bacchus "appears in the character of a wise and
       distinguished oriental monarch; his features an expression of
       sublime tranquillity and mildness."--_Smith, Myth. Dic._

 [179] This appears to me still more apparent in the 26th Idyll of
       Theocritus, where, when the Bacchanals were at their revels,

          "Perched on the sheer cliff Pentheus would espy
          All....

       (For profaning thus "these mysteries weird that must not be
       profaned by vulgar eyes," Pentheus is torn to pieces by the
       Bacchanals)....

          "Warned by this tale, let no man dare defy
          Great Bacchus; lest a death more awful should he die.
          And when he counts _nine_ years or scarcely _ten_
          Rush to his ruin. May I pass my days
          _Uprightly_, and be loved by _upright_ men.
          And take this motto, all who covet praise
          ('Twas ægis-bearing Jove that spoke it first),
          The godly seed fares well, _the wicked is accurst_."
                                       --_Caverley's Theocritus_, xxvi.

       This seems to bear out what is perhaps only vaguely implied in
       the sacred text that the curse was on Chanaan--the boy and his
       posterity--and not on the whole race of Cham.--_Vide ante_:
       also compare the "Bacchæ" of Euripides, in the following
       passage from Grote's "Plato" (iii. 333):--"So in the 'Bacchæ'
       of Euripides, the two old men, Kadmus and Teiresias, after
       vainly attempting to inculcate upon Pentheus the belief in
       and the worship of Dionysus, at last appeal to his prudence
       and admonish him of the danger of unbelief;" which, if it be
       tradition, would look as if Chanaan's offence was only the
       final and overt expression of previous unbelief.

III. _Janus._--Janus represented the most ancient tradition of Noah in
Italy; subsequent migrations brought in the legend of Saturn, and thus
we find them variously confounded--Saturn sometimes figuring as his
guest, sometimes as his son, sometimes as his colleague on the throne.
Like Saturn he appears as double-headed or bifrons, he is said to have
introduced civilisation among the wild tribes of Italy, and under him,
as under Saturn, there appears to have been a golden age.

I have made reference to _Saturn_ as Oceanus (_vide Montfauçon_, i.
5), and as Oceanus his representations are very remarkable. In one
he appears as an old man sitting on the waves of the sea, with a _sea
monster_ on one side of him, and his spear or rod in his hand. In
another as sitting on the waves of the sea with ships about him; he is
"holding an urn and pours out water, the symbol of _the sea, and also
of rivers and fountains_."

_But Janus is also_ represented in his medals "with a prow of a ship on
the reverse," and he is said to have first invented crowns, _ships_,
and _boats_, and to have coined the first money.

"According to the accounts of mythologists," says Macrobius, "_all
families in the time of Janus_ were full of religion and _holiness_."
"Xenon says he was the first that built temples and instituted sacred
rites," and was therefore always mentioned at the beginning of
sacrifices.

With reference to his description as "bifrons," Macrobius says (some
say) he was so called "because he knew the past and future things....
Some pretend to prove that Janus is the Sun, and that he is represented
with two faces, because he is master of the two _doors_[180] of heaven,
and opens the day at his rising and shuts it at his setting."

 [180] _Vide_ Dr Smith's "Myth. Dict." art. Janus:--"Whereas the
       worship of _Janus_ was introduced at Rome by Romulus, that of
       _Sol_ was instituted by _Titus Tatius_."

A good secondary explanation is,[181] that "as Janus always began the
year" (whence January) "the two heads do look on and import the old
and new year;" but then occurs the question--and this is why I submit
that it is only a secondary explanation--how came Janus to commence the
year?

 [181] If Janus is allowed to have been identified with Saturn
       (_supra_) we may see through the analogy of Saturn how these
       secondary functions came to be attributed to him--Saturn was
       also Chronos [that Chronos = Noah, _vide_  _Palmer's Egypt.
       Chron._, i. p. 60]; "but," as Dr Smith says, "there is no
       resemblance between the deities, except that both were
       regarded as the most ancient deities in their respective
       countries." As Chronos simply personifies antiquity itself,
       this only means that Saturn was the most ancient deity. When
       subsequently he became merged in "Chronos," his ancient sickle
       became converted into a scythe. Dr Smith ("Dict. Myth.")
       says, "He held in his hand a crooked pruning knife, and his
       feet were surrounded with a _woollen_ riband;" and Goguet
       ("Origin of Laws," i. 94) says, "All old traditions speak of
       the _sickle_ of Saturn, who is said to have taught the people
       of his time to cultivate the earth."--_Plut._ i. p. 2, 275;
       _Macrob. Sat._, lib. i. 217.

       Goguet ("Origin of Laws," i. 283) says, "Several critics are
       of opinion that the Janus of the ancients is the same with
       Javan the son of Japhet, Gen. x. 3."

       It may afford a clue if I advert to the circumstance that
       whilst in the Phoenician alphabet (_vide Bunsen's Egypt_.
       iv. 290, 293, 297), Dagon, Dagan = Corn (the Fish-man,
       _vide supra_, p. 200), stands for the letter D. "The
       door" is its hieroglyphic equivalent. Thus we get in strange
       juxtaposition what we may call symbols, connecting Janus with
       the Fish-god and with the god of agriculture.--_Vide supra_,
       p. 200, and _infra_.

In the nomenclature of the calendar connected with any system of hero
worship, worship of ancestors, or even spirit worship, who more fitly
chosen to commence the year than Janus, supposing him to be Noah?

There are, however, two what we may call primary explanations, and
we must take our choice. The epithet is either applied to him, as
exactly according with the reminiscence of Noah, who was pre-eminently
acquainted with the past and the future; or we can take the astral
explanation that Janus was called Bifrons,[182] because he opened the
sun at his rising and shut it at his setting. As a symbol of Noah
this double head appears to me very simple and natural, Noah forming
the connecting link between the antediluvian and modern worlds; but as
applied to the Sun or to Janus as in relation to the Sun, even allowing
for personification, this twofold head of man strikes me as incongruous
in the extreme. Besides, if it be allowed that it might apply to Saturn
and Janus through the connecting idea of Chronos, how does it apply to
_Bacchus_? Let us press this argument further. Here is a symbol common
to Bacchus, Saturn, and Janus, and combining harmoniously in each
instance with the representation of Noah. Can this symbol, common to
these three, combine even congruously with any solar or astral legend?
I have somewhere seen it noted as suspicious and as tending to confirm
the solar theory that these mythological personages all "journey from
_east_ to west, and meet their fate in the evening." But is this so?
Have we not just seen that Bacchus, according to mythology, travelled
from the _west_ into India?

 [182] Bryant ("Mythology," ii. 254) says, "Many persons of great
       learning have not scrupled to determine that Noah and Janus
       were the same. By Plutarch he is called [Greek: Iannos], and
       represented as an ancient prince who reigned in the infancy of
       the world.... He was represented with two faces, with which he
       looked both forwards and backwards; and from hence he had the
       name of Janus Bifrons. One of these faces was that of an aged
       man; but in the other was often to be seen the countenance
       of a young and beautiful personage. About him ... many
       emblems.... There was particularly a _staff in one hand_, with
       which he pointed to a rock, from whence issued a profusion of
       water. In the other hand he held a key.... He had generally
       near him _some resemblance of a ship_.... Plutarch does not
       accede to the common notion" (that it was the ship that
       brought Saturn to Italy), "but still _makes it a question why_
       the coins of this personage bore on one side the resemblance
       of Janus Bifrons, and on the other the representation of
       either the hind part or the fore part _of a ship_.... He
       is said to have first composed a chaplet, and to him they
       attributed the _invention of a ship_. Upon the Sicilian coins
       (at the temple) of Eryx _his_ figure often occurs with a
       twofold countenance, and on the reverse _is a dove_ encircled
       with a crown, which seems _to be of olive_. He is represented
       as a _just man_ and _a prophet_ (comp. pp. 207-208), and had
       the remarkable characteristics of being in a manner the author
       of time and the god of the year."

But not only were Saturn, Janus, and Bacchus represented as "bifrons,"
but so also was Cecrops. Cecrops will present a difficulty the more
in the way of any solar theory; but Cecrops,[183] like all founders
or supposed founders of states, has something in common with Noah.
Like Saturn and Janus in Italy, Cecrops was said to have brought the
population of Attica into cities, to have given them laws, taught
them the worship of the idols, _planted the olive_, and finally, was
represented as half man, half serpent.[184]

 [183] "Megasthenes stated that the first king (of India) was
       Dionysus. He found a rude population in a savage state,
       clothed in skins, unacquainted with agriculture, and without
       fixed habitations. The length of his reign is not given. The
       introduction of civilization and agriculture is a natural
       allusion to the immigration of the Aryans into a country
       inhabited by Turanian races.... Fifteen generations after
       Dionysus, Hercules reigned.... Now all this is obviously pure
       Indian tradition. Dionysus is the elder Manu, the divine
       primeval man, son of the Sun (Vivasvat). He holds the same
       position in the primeval history of India as does Jima or
       Gemshid, another name of the primeval man in the Iranian
       world.... The first era, then, is represented by Megasthenes
       as having fourteen generations of human kings, with a god as
       the founder and a god as the destroyer of the dynasty, in
       all fifteen or sixteen generations."--_Bunsen's Egypt_, iii.
       528. Compare those fifteen generations with Palmer. Compare
       the confusion of Dionysus and Hercules with Deucalion and
       Prometheus, &c., p. 232. Pelasgus among the Arcadians passed
       for the first man and the first legislator (Boulanger, i.
       133). Of Cadmus, too, it is said--"Greece is indebted to him
       for alphabetical writing, the art of _cultivating the vine_,
       and the forging and working of _metals_."--_Goguet_, ii. 41.

 [184] _Vide supra_, Oannes, ch. ix.; _vide_ Smith, "Myth. Dict."

To return to Janus. Before concluding I must note that Janus is called
Eanus by Cicero, which may perhaps have analogy with "Hea and Hoa" (ch.
ix.), and with Eannes and "Oannes," although Cicero derives it from
"eundo."

Janus was also called "consivius a conserendo," because he presided
over generation, a title singularly appropriate to Noah as the second
founder of the race, and through whom the injunction was given
"to increase and multiply."[185] He is moreover called "Quirinus
or Martialis," "because he presided over war," which is precisely
the aspect under which it is the original and main purpose of this
dissertation to consider Noah; and here I think I am entitled to urge,
that if I have succeeded on other grounds in showing that Nin, Hoa,
Janus, &c., represented Noah, then that these epithets, "Quirinus,"
"Martialis," "King of Battle," &c., can only be applied to him whose
conquests were bloodless in the sense of controlling and regulating
war.[186] In connection with this title of "Martialis," as applied to
Janus--and, by the by, all the traditions concerning him are altogether
peaceful and bloodless--it will be remembered that his temple was open
in war and shut in peace, and closed for the third and last time at the
moment of the birth of our Lord.

 [185] "All nations have given the honour of the discovery of
       agriculture to their _first_ sovereigns. The Egyptians said
       that Osiris (_vide supra_, p. 204) made men desist from
       eating each other, by teaching them to cultivate the earth.
       The Chinese annals relate that Gin-Hoang, one of the first
       kings of that country, invented agriculture, and by that
       means collected men into society, who before had wandered in
       the fields and woods like brute beasts." (Goguet, "Origin of
       Laws.") I need not remind the reader that Goguet's learned
       work is not written from our point of view. Compare _infra_,
       p. 240.

 [186] _Vide_, chap. xiii. Golden age, Mexican tradition.

His name was also invoked first in religious ceremonies, "because, as
presiding over armies," &c., through him only could prayers reach the
immortal gods. Is not this a reminiscence of the communications of the
Almighty to man through Noah?


IV. _Ogyges and Deucalion._--I might pass over these traditions of
Noah, since, having reference only to the fact of the Deluge and the
personality of Noah, they will not furnish matter for the special
purpose of this inquiry; but on these grounds the investigation may be
justified, and moreover seems necessary, for the completion of this
chapter, and to indicate the independent source and derivation of the
classical tradition.

It appears to me manifest that the deluges of Ogyges and Deucalion
were neither locally historical nor partial deluges, but merely the
reminiscences of the universal Deluge. Of the universal Deluge, whether
we call it the Mosaic Deluge or not, there is evidence and tradition in
all parts of the world; though in every instance it is localised in its
details and its history of the survivors.[187]

 [187] Although the greater number of these traditions have been
       localised, yet in almost every case we shall find embodied
       in them some one incident or other of the universal Deluge,
       as recorded by Moses. Kalisch ("Hist. and Crit. Commentary
       on the Old Testament") says:--"It is unnecessary to observe
       that there is scarcely a single feature in the biblical
       account which is not discovered in one or several of the
       heathen traditions; and the coincidences are not limited to
       desultory details, they extend to the whole outlines, and the
       very tenor and spirit of the narrative; ... and it is certain
       that none of these accounts are derived from the pages of
       the Bible--they are independent of each other.... There must
       indisputably have been a common basis, a universal source, and
       this source is the general tradition of primitive generations."

       It is not, I think, generally known how widespread these
       traditions are. L'Abbé Gainet has collected some thirty-five
       ("La Bible sans la Bible"); but Mr Catlin (_vide infra_, p.
       245) says he found the tradition of a deluge among one
       hundred and twenty tribes which he visited in North, South,
       and Central America. This accords with Humboldt's testimony
       (Kalisch, i. 204), who "found the tradition of a general
       deluge vividly entertained among the wild tribes peopling the
       regions of Orinoco." To these I must add the evidence of the
       indirect testimony of the commemorative ceremonies which I
       have collected in another chapter (_vide_ p. 242). It has
       been said that the Chinese tradition is too obscure to be
       adduced, but we shall see (p. 65) whether, when in contact
       with other traditions, it cannot be made to give light; and
       I shall refer my readers to the pages of Mr Palmer (_supra_,
       p. 71) for evidence of the tradition in Egypt, where it
       had heretofore been believed that no such evidence was to be
       found. In India (_vide_ ch. ix.) the tradition is embodied
       in the history of Manu and the fish; and Bunsen ("Egypt," iii.
       470) admits "that there is evidence in the Vedas, however
       slight, that the flood does form a part of the reminiscences
       of Iran." _Vide_ also p. 68, evidence of the tradition in
       Cashmere. I wish also to direct attention here to two recent
       and important testimonies to the existence of the tradition
       in India and the Himalayan range. At pp. 151 and 450 of
       Hunter's "Bengal," it will be seen that the Santals have a
       distinct tradition of the Creation, flood, intoxication of
       Noah, and the dispersion; and of the Vedic evidence, which
       Bunsen (_supra_, 223) calls slight, Mr Hunter says:--"On the
       other hand, the Sanscrit story of the Deluge, like that in the
       Pentateuch, makes no mystery of the matter. A ship is built,
       seeds are taken on board, the ship is pulled about for some
       time by a fish, and at last gets on shore upon a peak of the
       Himalayas." Dr Hooker ("Himalayan Journal," ii. 3) says:--"The
       Lepchas have a curious legend of a man and woman having saved
       themselves on the _summit_ of Tendong (a very fine mountain,
       8613 feet) during a flood which _once deluged Sikhim_," which
       he authenticates on the spot. Here, as in many of Mr Catlin's
       instances of local tradition, I may observe that the event
       as recorded proves the universality of the Deluge for the
       rest of the world, or at least all the world below the level
       of Tendong. In speaking, however, of the universal Deluge
       (universal as far as the human race are concerned), I do
       not enter into the geological argument, or exclude the view
       (permissible I believe, _vide_ Reusch, p. 368, and note to
       Rev. H. J. Coleridge's fourth sermon on "The Latter Days")
       that it was not geographically universal. I merely adhere to
       the testimony of tradition, and from this point of view it
       would suffice (_vide_ Reusch) that it was universal so far as
       the horizon of the survivors extended.

Since, however, there is nothing to be said against the possibility of
subsequent partial inundations, there will, I suppose, always be found
persons ready to maintain that the deluges of Ogyges and Deucalion were
partial and historical; although I submit that the arguments which
were formerly used to prove the priority of Ogyges to Deucalion, and
the posteriority of both to the general Deluge, turned upon points of
chronology which will hardly be sustained at the present day.

If, however, I can succeed in showing that the deluge of Deucalion is
identical with the deluge of Noah, I shall consider that I shall have
also proved the point for the deluge of Ogyges, which all agree to have
been much older!

The following is Mr Grote's narrative collating the different
traditions respecting the deluge of Deucalion:--

  "Deukalion is important in Grecian mythical narration under two
  points of view. First, he is the person specially saved at the time
  of the general deluge; next, he is the father of Hellên, the great
  eponym of the Hellenic race; at least that was the more current
  story, though there were other statements which made Hellên the son
  of Zeus." [This was merely the incipient process of the apotheosis
  of their more immediate founder.] "The enormous iniquity with
  which the earth was contaminated, as Apollodorus says, by the then
  existing _brazen_ race, or, as others say, by the fifty monstrous
  sons of Sykorôn, provoked Zeus to send a general deluge." "The
  latter account is given by Dionys. Halic. i. 17; the former seems
  to have been given by Hellenikus, who affirmed that the _ark_
  after the Deluge stopped upon Mount Othrys, and not upon Mount
  Parnassus (_Schol. Pind. ut supra_), the former being suitable
  for a settlement in Thessaly." [I have already pointed out how
  the general tradition is everywhere localised.] "An _unremitting_
  and _terrible rain_ laid the whole of Greece under water except
  the highest mountain-tops, where a few stragglers found refuge.
  Deukalion was saved in a chest or ark, which he had been forewarned
  by his father Prometheus to construct. After he had floated for
  nine days on the water, he at length landed on the summit of Mount
  Parnassus. Zeus hearing, sent Hermes to him, promising to grant
  whatever he asked. He prayed that men and companions might be
  sent him in his solitude: accordingly Zeus directed both him and
  Pyrrha to cast stones over their heads, those cast by Pyrrha became
  women, those by Deukalion men. And thus the 'stony race of men'
  (if we may be allowed to translate an etymology which the Greek
  language presents exactly, and which has not been disdained by
  Hesiod, by Pindar, by Epicharmes, and by Virgil), came to tenant
  the soil of Greece. Deukalion on landing from the ark sacrificed a
  grateful offering to Zeus Phyxios, or the God of Escape; he also
  erected altars in Thessaly to the twelve great gods of Olympus.
  The reality of this deluge was firmly believed throughout the
  historical ages of Greece (localising it, however, and post-dating
  it to 1528 B.C.) Statements founded upon this event were
  in circulation throughout Greece even to a very late date. The
  Magarians ... and in the magnificent temple of the Olympian Zeus
  at Athens, a cavity in the earth was shown, through which it was
  affirmed that the water of the Deluge had retired. Even in the time
  of Pausanias the priests poured into this cavity holy offerings
  of meal and honey. In this, as in other parts of Greece, _the
  idea of the Deukalionian deluge was blended with the religious
  impressions of the people, and commemorated by their most sacred
  ceremonies_."--_Grote's "History of Greece,"_ vol. i. ch. v. 132,
  133, "_The Deluge_."[188]

 [188] Mr Grote certainly says--"Apollodorus connects this deluge
       with the wickedness of the brazen race in Hesiod, according
       to the practice general with the logographers of stringing
       together a sequence out of legends totally unconnected with
       each other." One would have thought in one's simplicity that
       if any two legends linked well together, uniting in common
       agreement with the scriptural account, it would be the legends
       of the Deluge and the brazen age.

Mr Max Müller (comp. "Myth.," "Chips.," ii. 12), incidentally speaking
of the legend of Deucalion, treats it with great contempt. "What is
more ridiculous," he says, "than the mythological account of the
creation of the human race by Deucalion and Pyrrha throwing stones
behind them (a myth which owes its origin to a mere pun on [Greek:
laos] and [Greek: laas])." And ridiculous it certainly is from any
point of view from which Mr Max Müller could regard it, _i.e._ either
as the invention of a mythic period, or as a fugitive allegory arising
out of some astral or solar legend: _per contra_, I shall submit that
there is nothing forced in supposing that this legend arose out of some
one of the processes of corruption to which all tradition is prone, of
the known fact that the human race was re-propagated by Deucalion or
Noah.[189] If I am asked to explain how it came about that there should
have been this identity between the word for a "man" and a "stone,"
I must simply confess my ignorance. Perhaps if Mr Max Müller could
be brought to look at things more from the point of view of biblical
traditions, he might be enabled to see it. All that I can suggest is,
that perhaps it may have a common origin with that Homeric expression
quoted by Mr Max Müller at p. 175 (_vide supra_), "Thou art not
sprung from the olden tree or from the rock." I consider that I shall
definitely establish, however, that it originates in a tradition and
not "a mere pun," and at any rate that it is not local, it is not
Greek. It is no doubt singular that the word for man, [Greek: laos],
populus, should so closely resemble the word for a stone, [Greek:
laas]; but not only is this coincidence found in the Greek, but we
shall see that it is widely spread in all parts of the world. In proof,
I adduce the following extract from Dr Hooker's inaugural lecture at
Norwich in 1868, (since the publication of Mr Max Müller's work):--

  "It is a curious fact that the Khasian word for a stone, 'man,' as
  commonly occurs in the names of their villages and places as that
  of man, maen, and men does in those of Brittany, Wales, Cornwall,
  &c.; thus Mansmai signifies in Khasia the Stone of Oath; Manloo,
  the Stone of Salt; Manflong, the Grassy Stone; and just as in Wales
  Pen mæn maur signifies the Hill of the Big Stone; and in Britanny a
  Menhir is a standing stone, and a Dolmen a table stone," &c.[190]

 [189] Let the significance of the following coincidence be
       considered in connection with the evidence at p. 244,
       Boulanger, "Ces fêtes (Atheniasmes, 'Anthisteries') avoient
       pour objet une commémoration (of the Deluge) et l'on en
       _attribuoit la fondation à Deucalion_; elles étoient _aussi_
       consacrées à _Bacchus_, ce qui les a fait nommés les
       _anciennes_ ou les _grandes Bacchanales_."--Comp. ch. xi. p.
       244, also _supra_, 213.

 [190] It is the fashion to deride Bryant's etymology, and no doubt
       he did not write in the light of modern science; but I find
       ("Mythology," iii. 534) that he had already given this
       information. "_Main_, from whence _moenia_, signified in the
       primitive language a stone, or stones, and also a building."

Here it is seen that the word for stone in these respective places
is the same with our word "man;" it is not specifically said that
the word would carry this sense also in the places indicated, but I
infer it from the analogy which runs through _homo_, _homme_, and
by a connection of ideas through the Greek [Greek: ômos] to the
Sanscrit--thus "âma-ad" ([Greek: ômos-edô]), are names applied "in
the Sanscrit" to "barbarians" who are cannibals. (Max Müller, ii. p.
44.) And I am not sure that Mr Max Müller does not say so directly, in
reference to the word "Brahman," for although the word originally is
said to mean _power_ (i. 363), yet "another word with the accent on
the last syllable, is _Brahmán_, the _man_ who prays."--_Max Müller_,
i. 72.[191]

Also Kenrick ("Essay on Primæval History," p. 59), "Thus the Hindus
attribute the origin of their institutions and race to Manu, whose
name is equivalent to _man_. The Germans made Tuisto (Teutsch) and his
son Mannus to be the origin and founder of their nation." Also Sir
W. Jones' "Asiat. Res." i. 230; Rawlinson's "Bamp. Lect." lect. ii.
67:--"From _Manu_ the earth was re-peopled, and from him _man_kind
received their name _Manudsha_."

Gainet (i. 170) says:--"The stones changed then into men by Deucalion
and Pyrrha, are they not their children according to nature? In Syriac
the word 'Eben' signifies equally a child and a stone. In spite of
these confusions their accounts of the Deluge are striking as well on
account of their resemblance, as on account of their universality, as
the reader will soon be able to convince himself."--_Vide Gainet_, i.
167.[192]

 [191] Mr Max Müller, in his "Lectures on the Science of Language,"
       first series, says of "Man":--"The Latin word 'homo,' the
       French 'l'homme' ... is derived from the same root, which we
       have in 'humus,' soil, 'humilis,' humble. Homo, therefore,
       would express the idea of being made of the dust of the
       earth.... There is a third name for man.... 'Ma,' in the
       Sanscrit, means to measure.... 'Man,' a derivative root, means
       to think. From this we have the Sanscrit 'Manu,' originally
       thinker, then man. In the later Sanscrit we find derivations
       such as 'Mânava, Mânasha, Manushya,' all expressing man. In
       Gothic we find both '_man_,' and 'Maunisk,' the modern German
       'maun,' and 'mensch.' There were many more names for man, as
       there were many names for all things in ancient language." As
       an instance of the correspondence of Old Egyptian and Welsh,
       Bunsen's "Philosophy of Univ. Hist.," i. 169, gives "Egyptian,
       'man' = rockstone; Welsh, 'maen;' Irish, 'main' (coll. Latin,
       'moenia;' Hebrew, 'e-ben')." And (p. 78) Bunsen says--"The
       divine Mannus, the ancestor of the Germans, _is absolutely
       identical_ with Manus, who, according to ancient Indian
       mythology, is the God who created man anew after the Deluge,
       _just as Deucalion did_."

 [192] The _Saturday Review_, Nov. 14, 1868 (reviewing "The Indian
       Tribes of Guiana," by the Rev. W. Brett), says of the Indian
       traditions:--"The 'old people's stories' of the creation and
       the deluge are highly characteristic.... Under the rule of
       Sigu, son of Maikonaima, the tree of life was planted, in
       whose stem were pent up the whole of the waters which were to
       be let forth by measure to stock every river and lake with
       fish. Twarrika, the mischievous monkey, forced open the magic
       cover which kept down the waters, and the next minute was
       swept away with _all things living_ by the bursting flood.
       _The re-peopling_ of the world, as described by the Tamanacs
       of the Orinoco _recalls the legend of Deucalion_. One man and
       one woman took refuge on the mountain Tama_nacu_. _They then
       threw over their heads_ the fruits of the Mauritia (or Ita)
       palm, from the _kernel_ of which sprang men and women who once
       more peopled the earth."

But if the whole human race were re-propagated by Deucalion and Pyrrha,
how are we to locate the _anterior_ legend of Ogyges, occurring among
the same people? It is barely possible that the memory of a long
antecedent and partial deluge may have remained in the memories of the
survivors of the subsequent and universal calamity, but the much more
reasonable conjecture seems to be that it was by a different channel
the reminiscence of the same event. It must be remembered that it was
the Ogygian deluge which was said to have been partial and to have
inundated Attica. The deluge of Deucalion by all accounts, except by
Pindar, was considered to have been universal, and corresponds in
its details with Mosaic accounts, _e.g._ it was universal, covering
the tops of the highest mountains; it was caused by the depravity of
mankind; the single pair who were saved, were saved in a ship or an
ark, and floated many days on the waters. In the end, they settled on
the top of a mountain, went to consult the oracle (as Noah is said
to have sacrificed and to have had communications with God), and
re-peopled the earth. The version of Lucian gives particulars which
brings the tradition to almost exact correspondence. Deucalion and his
wife were saved (on account of their rectitude and piety) together with
his sons and their wives. He was accompanied into the ark by the pigs,
horses, lions, and serpents, who came to him in pairs. If the account
of Lucian is somewhat recent, on the other hand it is the account of a
professed scoffer, and moreover, shows what I do not remember to have
seen noted from this point of view that the tradition was common to
Syria as well as Greece.

This brings us to the contrary, but, as it appears to me, much less
formidable objection--bearing in mind that the tradition of the Deluge
is common to Mexico, India, China, the islands of the Pacific, &c.
&c.--viz. that the tradition came to Greece from Asia.

This is Mr Kenrick's objection[193] (_vide_ Preface to Grote's
"History of Greece," 2d ed.) The most direct, and, as it appears to
me, sufficient answer, seems to be that it was necessarily so; since,
_ex hypothesi_, the population itself came to Greece from Asia. Mr
Kenrick says, "It is doubtful whether the tradition of Deucalion's
flood is older than the time when the intercourse with Greece began
to be frequent," _i.e._ about the fifth century B.C. (p.
31.) But as the Septuagint, according to Mr Kenrick himself, could
not have influenced Greece till the third century, this tradition can
only have been the primeval tradition. Mr Kenrick is a fair opponent,
and I must do him the justice to add that he repudiates the Voltairean
suggestion that this tradition originated in a Hebrew invention. If
then the inhabitants of Greece, who came originally from Asia, had not
the tradition, or had it imperfectly, when they arrived, it can only
have been because they had lost it; but as admittedly they recovered
it at a later period, the presumption, even on this showing, is, at
least for those who can realise how difficult it would be to make a
pure fiction, as distinguished from a corrupt tradition, run current,
more especially among different nationalities and during a lengthened
period,--that when circumstances brought them again into contact with
Asia, they added fresh incidents, only because they found the tradition
fresher there than among themselves. _Voila tout!_ for Mr Kenrick's
whole argument depends entirely upon this--that "as we reach the time
when the Greeks enjoyed more extensive and leisurely communication with
Asia, through the conquests of Alexander ... we find new circumstances
introduced into the story which assimilates it more closely to the
Asiatic tradition."

 [193] "Essay on Primæval History."

It has been allowed (_vide supra_) that the tradition of Deucalion
is as old as the fifth century B.C., and, not to speak of the deluge
of Ogyges, connected with what was earliest in Grecian history,
the following passage from Kenrick seems to me in evidence of long
antecedent traditions among the Greeks themselves, which they must have
brought with them originally from Asia.[194]

 [194] "According to the calculations of Varro, the deluge of Ogyges
       occurred 400 years before Inachus, _i.e._ 1600 years before
       the first Olympiad, which would bring it to 2376 years before
       the Christian era; now, according to the Hebrew text, the
       Deluge of Noah took place 2349 B.C., which makes only
       a difference of 27 years. It is true that many other authors
       have reconciled these epochs." Hesiod and Homer are silent
       on the subject of both Deucalion and Ogyges.... "It results
       from these considerations that the traditions of the ancient
       nations of the world confirm the narrative of Genesis, _not
       only_ as to the existence, but even as to the _epoch_, of this
       catastrophe as fixed by Moses. Mersius (_apud_ Gronovium,
       iv. 1023) cites more than twenty ancient authors who speak
       of Ogyges as appertaining in their eyes to what was _most
       primitive_ in Greece. He is son of Neptune. He is the first
       founder of the kingdom of Thebes. Servius represents him _as
       coming immediately after Saturn and the golden age_ [which
       directly connects Noah with Saturn, and the golden age with
       Noah]. Hesychius says of Ogyges that he represented all that
       was most ancient in Greece. That, indeed, passed into a
       proverb; they said, 'old as Ogyges,' as if they said, 'old as
       Adam'" (Gainet, i. 229).

Mr Kenrick says (p. 31):--

  "The account of Deucalion, given by Apollodorus (i. 7, 2), bears
  evident marks of being compounded of two fables originally
  distinct, in one of which, and probably the older, the descent
  of the Hellenes was traced through Deucalion to Prometheus and
  Pandora, without mention of a deluge. In the other, the destruction
  of the brazen race by a flood, the re-peopling the earth by the
  casting of stones, is related in the common way. That these two
  narratives cannot originally have belonged to the same myths is
  evident from their incongruity; for as mankind were created by
  Prometheus, the father of Deucalion, there was no time for them
  to have passed through those stages of degeneracy by which they
  reached the depravity of the brazen age."

Here are evidently two early traditions, ostensibly Greek, distinct,
it is true, yet perfectly compatible. The one the tradition of Grecian
descent through Noah to Adam and Eve, the other the tradition of
the Deluge. But after what we have already seen (_vide supra_, pp.
157, 158) of reduplications and inversions, can a serious argument
be based upon the expression that Deucalion (Noah) was the son of
Prometheus (Adam)?[195] Is it not a most natural and inevitable
_façon-de-parler_ to connect the descendant directly and immediately
with his remote ancestor, _e.g._ "Fils de St Louis--fils de Louis
Capet--montez au ciel!"

 [195] In the same way we find "Mentuhotep," or "Sesortasen I."
       named, "when all other ancestors are omitted, as the sole
       connecting link between Amosis (xviii. dynasty) and Menes."
       _Vide_ Palmer's "Egyptian Chronicles," i. 385.

       So, too, are Fohi (whom I believe to be Adam) and Shin-nong
       (Noah) connected and linked together in Chinese chronology.
       "I. Fohi the great Brilliant (Tai-hao), cultivation of
       _astronomy_ and religion as well as _writing_. He reigned
       110 years. Then came fifteen reigns. II. Shin-nong (divine
       _husbandman_). Institution of _agriculture_ [compare _ante_,
       ch. x.] The knowledge of simples applied as the art of
       medicine."--Bunsen's "Egypt," iii. 383, chap. on Chinese
       Chronology. _Vide ante_, 61; chap. on Tradition, p. 129;
       Prometheus.

I do not of course attempt, within this narrow compass, to grasp Mr
Kenrick's entire view. I am merely dealing with the special argument;
but it is curious to note how the line of reasoning adopted by Mr
Kenrick, whilst it sustains the Greek traditions, as traditions (though
not Greek), unconsciously neutralises the arguments which would dispose
of the testimonies derived from them, by saying that they were not
traditions of a general, but of a local and a partial deluge.

These latter arguments appear to have had weight with one against whom
I hardly venture to run counter, Frederick Schlegel ("Phil. of Hist."
p. 79)--"The irruption of the Black Sea into the Thracian Bosphorus is
regarded by very competent judges in such matters as an event perfectly
historical, or at least, from its proximity to the historical times, as
not comparatively of so primitive a date." Compare with passage from
Mr Kenrick.[196] Schlegel adds:--"All these great physical changes
are not necessarily and exclusively to be ascribed to the last general
Deluge. The presumed irruption of the Mediterranean into the ocean, as
well as many other mere partial revolutions in the earth and sea, may
have occurred much later, and quite apart from this great event" (p.
79). But it may also have occurred much _earlier_, as is clear from
the following passage from Schlegel, to which I wish to direct the
attention of geologists, and in which Schlegel speaks according to the
original insight of his own mind, and not in deference to the opinions
of others:--

  "These words ('the earth was without form and void, and darkness
  was upon the face of the deep; but the Spirit of God moved upon
  the face of the waters,' Gen. x.), which announce the presage of a
  new morn of Creation, not only represent a darker and wilder state
  of the globe, but very clearly show the element of water to be
  still in predominant force. Even the division of the elements, of
  the waters above the firmament, and of the waters below it, on the
  second day of creation, the permanent limitation of the sea for the
  formation and visible appearance of the dry land, necessarily imply
  a mighty revolution in the earth, and afford additional proof that
  the Mosaic history speaks not only of one but of many catastrophes
  of nature, _a circumstance that has not been near enough attended
  to in the geological interpretation and illustration of the
  Bible_."--_Schlegel_, p. 82.

 [196] Kenrick (p. 37) says:--"The fact of traces of the action of
       water at a higher level in ancient times on these shores
       is unquestionable; under the name of _raised beaches_
       such phenomena are familiar to geologists on many coasts;
       but that the tradition (in Samothrace) was produced by
       _speculation_ on its _cause_, not by an obscure recollection
       of its _occurrence_, is also clear; for it has been shown by
       physical proofs that a discharge of the waters of the Euxine
       (Black Sea) would not cause such a deluge as _the tradition
       supposed_" (Cuvier, Disc. sur les Revolutions du Globe, ed.
       1826).

       If these speculations were made at the commencement of
       Grecian history, and the speculations had reference to
       evidence of diluvian disruption along the highway by which
       they passed into Greece, should we not expect that theories
       of the violent rather than the gentler and gradual action of
       water would dominate in their geological tradition? Colonel
       George Greenwood, in "Rain and Rivers," p. 2, says on the
       contrary--("with reference to the theory that valleys are
       formed by 'rain and rivers'")--"There is, perhaps, no creed
       of man which, like this, can be traced up to the most remote
       antiquity, and traced down from the most remote antiquity to
       the present day. Lyell has himself quoted Pythagoras for it,
       through the medium of Ovid:--

                  'Eluvie mons est deductus in æquor
            Quodquo fuit campus _vallem decursus aquarum_
            Fecit.'

       But Pythagoras only enunciates the doctrine of Eastern
       antiquity; that is, of the Egyptians, the Chaldæans, and
       the Hindoos. But since Pythagoras introduced this doctrine
       in the West, if it has ever slumbered, it has perpetually
       _re_-originated. Lyell shows that among the Greeks it was
       taught by Aristotle; among the Romans by Strabo; among the
       Saracens by Avicenna; in Italy by Moro, Geneselli, and
       Targioni; and in England by Ray, Hutton, and Playfair."--_Rain
       and Rivers_, by Col. George Greenwood. Longmans, 1866. 2d edit.

The point that is material to this discussion is to decide whether or
not those disruptions in Thrace are historical and subsequent to the
Deluge. Now, here Mr Kenrick's main theory, that "speculation is the
source of tradition," comes in with fatal effect to dispose of the
arguments I am combating, and yet in no way at this point militates
against the view I am urging, that these supposed inundations were
localisations of the tradition of the general Deluge which the Pelasgi
brought with them from Asia.

Mr Kenrick says (p. 36):--

  "It was a [Greek: logos], a popular legend, among the Greeks,
  that Thessaly had once been a lake, and that Neptune had opened a
  passage for the waters through the vale of Tempe (Herod. 7, 129).
  The occupation of the banks of the rivers of this district by the
  Pelasgi tribes, which must have been _subsequent_ to the opening
  of the gorge, is the _earliest_ fact in Greek history, and the
  'logos' itself no doubt originated in a very simple speculation.
  The sight of a narrow gorge, the sole outlet of the waters of a
  whole district, naturally suggests the idea of its having once been
  closed, and, as the necessary consequence, the inundation of the
  whole region which it now serves to drain."

Now, if this reasoning is just, it seems to establish two things pretty
conclusively: First, That the current legend among the Greeks was _not_
the tradition of a local deluge; but, if not a reminiscence, was at any
rate the observation of the evidences of a deluge previous to their
arrival. Moreover, the deluge of their tradition exceeding the actual
facts is in evidence of their recollection of an event adequate to such
effects. Second, That the tradition, if it arose out of a speculation,
must have arisen out of a speculation made in the earliest commencement
of Greek history.

It is difficult to reconcile the latter conclusion with Mr Kenrick's
view that the tradition was imported from Asia in the fifth century
B.C.

It is impossible to reconcile the former with the acceptation of a
local and historical inundation in the time of the Ogyges and Deucalion
of popular history.

This digression on the legend of Deucalion has led me away from what is
properly the subject-matter of this inquiry; and I therefore propose
now to summarise the results of the last two chapters. To pursue the
tradition of Noah in all its ramifications would extend the inquiry
beyond the scope which is necessary for the purposes of my argument.
It will have been seen, I think, that my object has not been merely
antiquarian research. I have sought to bring into prominence the
reminiscences of Noah, which recall him at any rate as the depository
of the traditions, if not the expositor of the science of mankind, as
the channel, if not the fountain-head, of law, which thus became the
law of nations--as the intermediary through whom the communications of
the Most High passed to mankind, and under whose authority mankind held
together during some three hundred years.[197]

 [197] Gen. vi. 18; viii. 15; vi. 13; ix. 8; viii. 20; ix. 20; and
       Ecclesiasticus xliv. 1, 3, 4, 19, "The covenants of the world
       were made with Him."

Let me collect more directly and more fully the epithets in this sense
which are dispersed in the above traditions.

We have seen that Calmet properly identifies Saturn with Noah; that
according to Virgil and Plutarch "under Saturn was the golden age;"
Saturn of whom Hesiod says:--"Him of mazy counsel, Saturn;" that in
the tradition, as we see it in Virgil, he is described as bringing his
scattered people into social life, and the noticeable phrase is used
_legesque dedit_;[198] that in Bacchus, directly connected with Saturn
through the _Saturnalia_, we also see much in his characteristics in
common with Saturn, all which equally identifies him with Noah; and
Bacchus, as we are told by Cicero, was the author of the "laws called
Subazian."[199] In Janus, too, we find great resemblances to Saturn,
and in the very respects which would identify him with Noah. Under
Janus as under Saturn was the golden age, and it is added that in the
time of Janus, "all families were full of religion and holiness," and
although his rule is described as singularly peaceful, he is called
Quirinus and Martialis, as presiding over war. The closing and opening
of his temple, too, had a conspicuous and direct connection with peace
and war.

 [198] I feel justified in bringing in attestation also the following
       verses of the "Oracula Sybillina," for, as I have already
       said, even if they be forgeries of the second century A.D.,
       they at any rate represent the tradition at that date (i. v.
       270):--

            "Noë fidelis amans æqui servata periclis
            Egredere audenter, simul et cum conjuge nati
            Tresque nurus: et vos terræ loca vasta replete,
            Crescite multiplice numero, _sacrataque jura
            Tradite_ natorum natis....
            Hinc nova progenies hinc _ætas aurea_ prima
            Exorta est hominum....
            ... ast illo se tempore regia primum
            Imperia ostendent terris quum _foedere facto_
            Tres justi reges, divisis partibus æquis,
            _Sceptra_ diu populis imponent _sanctaque tradent
            Jura_ viris."...

       Compare also the following verses (Orac. Sybil, i. 145) with
       the Vedic tradition (_infra_, p. 238) of the promise made
       to Satiavrata, and the Babylonian tradition respecting Hoa
       (_infra_):

            "... Collige, Noë, tuas vires ...
            ... Si scieris me
            Divinæ te nulla rei secreta latebunt."

 [199] I only instance this as evidence that laws of some sort were
       attributed to Bacchus, whom the traditions also speak of as
       King of Asia: to judge of these laws by what we know of the
       Subazian mysteries, would be as if we were to form our opinion
       of the Mandan ceremonies (_vide infra_, ch. xi.) by the last
       day's orgies only. In this matter we may say with Cicero, _De
       Legibus_, ii. 17--"Omnia tum perditorum civium scelere ...
       religionum jura polluta sunt."

If we turn back to the mythological prototypes in Assyria we find him
as Hoa in connection with "the mystic animal, half-man half-fish, which
came up from the Persian Gulf to teach astronomy and letters to the
first settlers on the Euphrates and Tigris," himself "known to the
first settlers;" he is called "the intelligent guide, or, according
to another interpretation, the intelligent fish," "the teacher of
mankind," "the lord of understanding;" "one of his emblems is the
wedge or arrow-head, the essential emblem of cuneiform writing, which
seems to be assigned to him as the inventor, or at least the patron of
the Chaldæan alphabet." In the Vedic tradition as Satiavrata (_vide_
Rawlinson's "Bampton Lect.," lect. ii. 67), having been saved "from
the destroying waves" in "a large vessel" sent from heaven for his
use--which he entered accompanied "by pairs of all brute animals"--he
is thus addressed, "Then shalt thou know my true greatness, rightly
named the Supreme Godhead; by my favour all thy questions _shall be
answered_ and thy mind abundantly instructed;" and it is added that
"after the deluge had abated," Satiavrata was "instructed in all
_human_ and _divine_ knowledge." In fine, if we recognise him as Hoa,
we shall find his benefactions to mankind thus summed up in Berosus.
(_Vide_ the original in Rawlinson's "Ancient Monarchies," i. 154.)[200]

 [200] Layard ("Nineveh and Babylon," p. 343) says, "We can scarcely
       hesitate to identify this mythic form (at Kosyundik) with the
       Oannes or sacred man-fish, who, according to the traditions
       preserved by Berosus, issued from the _Erethræan_ sea,
       instructed the _Chaldæans_ in all wisdom, in the sciences
       and the fine arts, and was _afterwards_ worshipped as a
       god in the temples of Babylonia.... Five such monsters
       rose from the Persian Gulf at fabulous intervals of time
       (Cory's "Fragments," p. 30). It has been conjectured that
       this myth denotes the conquest of Chaldæa at some remote and
       pre-historic period by a comparatively civilised nation coming
       in ships to the mouth of the Euphrates.... The _Dagon_ of the
       Philistines and of the inhabitants of the Phoenician coast
       was worshipped, according to the united opinion of the Hebrew
       commentators on the Bible, under _the same form_." The five
       apparitions at long intervals may have been the confusion of
       the previous revelations to the patriarchs with those made to
       Noah--or they may be reduplications (_vide supra_, p. 157).

  "He is said to have transmitted to mankind the knowledge of grammar
  and mathematics, and of all the arts, of the polity of cities, the
  construction and dedication of temples, _the introduction of laws_
  ([Greek: kai nomôn eisêgêseis]); to have taught them geometry, and
  to have shown them _by example_ the modes of _sowing the seed_
  and gathering the _fruits of the earth_," [the "vir agricola" of
  Genesis], and along with them to have tradited all the secrets
  which tend to humanise life. And no one else at that time was found
  more super-eminent than he."--_Vide_ Rawlinson, i. 155.

We have seen that he was known to "the first settlers on the Euphrates
and Tigris." The Abbé de Tressan says, Berosus begins his history with
these words:--"_In the first year_ appeared this extraordinary man"
(Oannes). Now, with "the early settlers" on the Euphrates and Tigris
the commencement of all things would have been naturally dated from the
Deluge.

It appears to me worth while, in conclusion, to place more succinctly
before the reader the _identical_ terms in which the ancients (various
authors) spoke of the first founders of states or their earliest
progenitor--compelling the conclusion that allusion was made to one and
the same individual and epoch.

Bryant ("Myth." ii. 253) says that Noah was represented as Thoth,
Hermes, Menes, Osiris, Zeuth, Atlas, Phoroneus, and Prometheus, &c. &c.
"There are none wherein his history is delineated more plainly, than in
those of Saturn and Janus." These I will now omit, as we have just seen
them to be identical--and so too Bacchus, who equally with them plants
the vine, teaches them to sow, and gives them laws.

  _Phoroneus_, "an ancient poet quoted by Clemens Alex. (i. 380)
  calls him the first of mortals, [Greek: phyroneus patêr thnêtôn
  anthrôpôn]." The first deluge took place under Phoroneus: "He
  was also the first who _built_ an altar. He first collected men
  together and formed them into petty communities."--Pausanias, lib.
  2, 145. He first gave laws and distributed justice.--Syncellus,
  67, 125. They ascribed to him the distribution of mankind, "idem
  nationes distribuit" (Hyginus' Fab. 143), "which is a circumstance
  very remarkable."

  _Poseidon's_ epithets connected with the ark are very striking
  (Bryant, ii. 269, _Deucalion, vide ante_, p. 232); but he is also
  said (Apollon. Rhod. lib. 3, v. 1085) to have been "the first man
  through whom religious rites were renewed, cities built, and civil
  polity established in the world."

  _Cecrops_ (_vide ante_, p. 220), the identical terms are used.

  _Myrmidon_, "a person of great justice." "He is said to have
  collected people together, humanised mankind, enacted laws, and
  first established civil polity."--Scholia in Pindar, Ode 3, v. 21.

  _Cadmus, vide ante_, p. 221.

  _Pelasgus_ also is described as equally a benefactor to mankind,
  and instructed them in many arts.--Pausanias, 8, 599. He is said to
  have built the first temple to the deity "ædem Jovi Olympis primum
  fecit Pelasgus."--Hyginus' Fab. 225, 346. Bryant says, "I have
  taken notice that as Noah was said to have been [Greek: hanthrôpos
  gês]," a man of the earth--this characteristic is observable in
  every history of the primitive persons; and they are represented
  as '[Greek: nomioi],' '[Greek: agrioi]', and '[Greek: gêgeneis].'
  Pelasgus accordingly had this title (Æschy. "Supplicants," v. 250),
  and it is particularly mentioned of him that he _was the first_
  husbandman. Pelasgus first found out all that is necessary for the
  cultivation of the ground."--Schol. in Eurip. "Orestes," v. 930.

  _Osiris._--The account of Osiris in Diodorus Siculus is exactly
  similar. He travels into all countries like Bacchus. He builds
  cities; and although represented as at the head of an army, is
  described with the muses and sciences in his retinue. In every
  region he instructed the people in planting, sowing, and other
  useful acts.--Tibullus, i. E. 8, v. 29. He particularly introduced
  the vine, and when that was not adapted to the soil, the use of
  ferment and wine of barley. He first built temples, and was a
  lawgiver and king (Diod. Sic.).--Bryant, ii. 60.

  _Chin-nong_ (_vide_ also Bunsen, _supra_, p. 63) "was a
  husbandman, and taught the Chinese agriculture, &c., discovered the
  virtues of many plants. He was represented with the _head of an
  ox_, and sometimes only with two horns."--Comp. Bryant, iii. 584.

  _Manco Capac._--Peru, _vide infra_, ch. xiii.; very curious.

  Strabo, 3, 204, says of the Turditani in Spain (Iberia), "They are
  well acquainted with grammar, and have many written records of high
  antiquity. They have also large collections of poetry (comp. ch.
  vii.), and _even their laws_ are described in verse, which they
  say is of six thousand years standing."

  _Deucalion_, according to Lucian, was saved from the Deluge on
  account of his wisdom and piety--"[Greek: eubouliês te kai euebiês
  heineka]." [[Greek: euboulia]--literally, "good counsel."]

  _Mercury_ gave Egypt its laws--"Atque Egyptiis leges et literas
  tradidisse."--Cicero, "De Natura Deorum," iii. 22.

  _Apollo._--Cicero says the fourth Apollo gave laws to the
  _Arcadians_ (comp. _infra_, p. 331): "Quem Arcades [Greek:
  Nomion] appellant, quod ab eo se leges ferunt accepisse," id. iii.
  23; _vide_ also Plato, "Leges," i. 1.




                              CHAPTER XI.

           _DILUVIAN TRADITIONS IN AFRICA AND AMERICA._


Boulanger (1722-59), a freethinker, and the friend and correspondent
of Voltaire, was so dominated by his belief in the universal Deluge
as a fact, that he made its consequences the foundation of all his
theories. Writing in the midst of a scepticism very much resembling
that of the present day, he says, "What! you believe in the Deluge?"
Such will be the exclamation of a certain school of opinion, and this
school a very large one. Nevertheless, this profound writer, by the
exigencies of his theory, was irresistibly brought to the recognition
of the fact. "We must take," he continues, "a fact in the traditions
of mankind, the truth of which shall be universally recognised. What
is it? I do not see any, of which the evidence is more generally
attested, than those which have transmitted to us that famous physical
revolution which, they tell us, has altered the face of our globe,
and which has occasioned a total renovation of human society: in a
word, the Deluge appears to me the true starting-point (_la veritable
epoque_) in the history of nations. Not only is the tradition which
has transmitted this fact the most ancient of all, but it is moreover
clear and intelligible; it presents a fact which can be justified and
confirmed." He proceeds, and the drift and animus of the writer will
be sufficiently apparent in the passage--"It is then by the Deluge
that the history of the existing nations and societies has commenced.
If there have been false and pernicious religions in the world it is
to the Deluge that I trace them back as to their source; if doctrines
inimical to society have been broached, I see their principles in the
consequences of the Deluge; if there have existed vicious legislations
and innumerable bad governments, it will be upon the Deluge that I
lay the charge." It is, then, only in attestation of the fact that
I adduce this author; and in his proof he has accumulated a large
mass of indirect evidence, which a certain school of opinion find it
convenient altogether to ignore in reference to this subject. In this
class are the various institutions among different nations to preserve
the memory of the Deluge, as for instance, the "Hydrophories ou la fête
du Deluge à Athenes," and at Ægina, the feast of the goddess of Syria
at Hierapolis, both having strange resemblances with the Jewish feasts
of "Nisue ha Mâim, or the effusion of waters," and the tabernacles, in
their traditional aspects, _i.e._ in their observances _not_ commanded
by Moses; the "effusion des eaux a Ithome ... et de Siloe;" the feast
of the Deluge (of Inachus) at Argos; a feast, the effusion of water,
in Persia, anterior to its Mahometanism; similar festivals in Pegu,
China, and Japan; in the mysteries of Eleusis; in the "peloria,"
"anthisteria," and "_Saturnalia_;" and finally in the pilgrimages to
rivers in India[201] and other parts of the world; "of the multitude
of traditions preserved in the diluvian festivals and commemorative
usages of the gulphs, apertures, and abysses which have at one time
or another vomited forth or absorbed waters" (i. 84); again, the
pilgrimages to the summits of mountains in India, China, Tartary, the
Caucasus,[202] Peru, &c. "It is easy to see," he adds (p. 320), "that
this veneration is based upon a corrupted tradition, which has taught
these people that their fathers formerly took refuge on the top of this
mountain at the time of the Deluge, and subsequently descended from it
to inhabit the plains."

 [201] Dionysius Periegesis says the women of the British Amnitæ
       celebrated the rites of Dionysos:--

          "As the Bistonians on Apsinthus banks
          Shout to the clamorous Eiraphiates;
          Or as the Indians on dark-rolling Ganges
          Hold revels to Dionysos the noisy,
          So do the British women shout Evoë."
          (v. 375.) (_Qy_. Enoë.)
               _Vide_ "The Bhilsa Topes," by Major A. Cunningham, p. 6.

 [202] I would specially draw attention to the instances of temples
       constructed upon the model of ships, concerning which _vide_
       Bryant's "Mythology," ii. 221, 226, 227, 240; and compare with
       Plate XVIII. in Montfauçon, ii.

I shall have occasion to refer again more in detail to some of these
customs[203] when drawing attention to the resemblances which I shall
presently point out; but I wish previously to give, more _in extenso_,
his description of the Hydrophoria at Athens:--

  "This name denoted the custom which the Athenians had on the day
  of this feast of carrying water in ewers and vases with great
  ceremony; in memory of the Deluge, they proceeded each year to
  pour this water into an opening or gulf, which was found near the
  temple of Jupiter Olympus, and on this occasion they recalled the
  sad memory of their ancestors having been submerged. This ceremony
  is simple and very suitable to its subject; it was well calculated
  to perpetuate the memory of the catastrophe caused by the waters of
  the Deluge. Superstition added some other customs.... They threw
  into the same gulf cakes of corn and honey; it was an offering
  to appease the infernal deities.... The Greeks placed it in the
  rank of their unlucky days (also 'un jour triste et lugubre');
  and thus they remarked that Sylla had taken their city of Athens
  the very day that they had made this commemoration of the Deluge.
  Superstition observes everything, not to correct itself, but to
  confirm itself more and more in its errors. It was, according to
  the fable, by the opening of this gulf that the waters which had
  covered Attica had disappeared; it was also said that Deucalion
  had raised near to this place an altar which he had dedicated to
  Jove the Preserver. 'Tradition also attributed to Deucalion the
  temple of Jupiter Olympus,' in which these mournful ceremonies were
  performed. 'This temple was celebrated and respected by the pagan
  nations as far as we can trace history back.' It was reconstructed
  on a scale of magnificence by Pisistratus; every town and prince
  in Greece contributed to its adornment; it was completed by the
  Emperor Adrian in 126 of our era. The antiquity of this monument,
  the respect which all nations have shown it, and the character of
  the traditions which they have of its origin, ought to establish
  for the festival of the Hydrophoria a great antiquity. The feasts,
  in general, are more ancient than the temples."--_Boulanger_, i.
  38-40.

 [203] Compare Bryant.

I will now ask the reader, if he has not read (and seen the
illustrations in) Mr Catlin's "O-kee-pa,"[204] to compare the following
extract with the preceding:--

  "The O-kee-pa, an annual ceremony to the strict observance of which
  those ignorant and superstitious people attributed not only their
  enjoyment in life but their very existence; for traditions, their
  only history, instructed them in the belief that the singular forms
  of this ceremony produced the buffaloes for their supply of food,
  and that the omission of this annual ceremony, _with its sacrifices
  to the waters_, would bring upon them a repetition of _the
  calamity_ which their traditions say once befell them, destroying
  _the whole human race_ excepting one man, who landed from his canoe
  on a high mountain in the west.[205] This tradition, however, was
  not peculiar to the Mandan tribe, for among one hundred and twenty
  different tribes that I have visited in North, South, and Central
  America, not a tribe exists that has not related to me distinct
  or vague traditions of such a calamity in which one or three or
  _eight_ persons were saved above the waters on the top of a high
  mountain. Some of them, at the base of the Rocky Mountains, and
  in the plains of Venezuela and the Pampa del Sacramento in South
  America, _make annual pilgrimages_ to the _fancied summits_ where
  the antediluvian species were saved in canoes or otherwise, and
  under the mysterious regulations of their medicine (mystery) men
  tender their prayers and sacrifices to the Great Spirit to ensure
  their exemption from a similar catastrophe."--P. 2.

 [204] "O-kee-pa, a Religious Ceremony, and other Customs of the
       Mandans," Trübner & Co. London, 1867. Mr Catlin's statements
       are attested by the certificates of three educated and
       intelligent men who witnessed the ceremonies with him, and is
       further corroborated by a letter addressed to Mr Catlin by
       Prince Maximilian of Neuwied, the celebrated traveller among
       the North American Indians, who had previously referred to
       them (he spent a winter among the Mandans).

 [205] I read in the _Times_, March 6, 1871, that "The American
       papers state that workmen in Iowa, excavating for the
       projected Dubuque and Minnesota railroad, in the limestone
       at the foot of a bluff, discovered recently _some caves and
       rock chambers_, and, on raising a foot slab, a vault filled
       with human skeletons of unusual size, the largest being seven
       feet eight inches high. A figured sun on the walls is taken
       as indicating that the skeletons belonged to a people who
       worshipped that luminary [compare _supra_, p. 152] _and the
       representation of a man with a dove stepping out of a boat_,
       as an allusion to a tradition of the Deluge. The fingers of
       the largest skeleton clasped a pearl ornament, and traces of
       cloth were found crumbled at the feet of the remains. Many
       copper implements were found, and it is thought that the Lake
       Superior mines may have been worked at an early period. The
       remains were to be removed to the Iowa Institute of Arts and
       Sciences at Dubuque."

Yet, strange to say, this is _no_ proof to Mr Catlin of the universal
Deluge recorded in Scripture. "If," he says, "it were shown that
inspired history of the Deluge and of the Creation restricted those
events to one continent alone, then it might be that the American
races came from the Eastern continent, bringing these traditions
with them, for until that is proved, the American traditions of the
Deluge are no evidence whatever of an eastern origin. If it were
so, and the aborigines of America brought their traditions of the
Deluge from the East, why did they not bring inspired history of the
Creation?"[206]--P. 3. (_Vide_ pp. 134, 135.)

 [206] Compare account of Mandan tradition of the Creation, from
       "Hist. des Ceremonies Religieuses," _supra_, p. 191.

The "O-kee-pa," Mr Catlin says, "was a strictly religious ceremony,
... with the solemnity of religious worship, with abstinence, with
sacrifices, with prayer; whilst there were three other distinct and
ostensible objects for which it was held,--1. As an annual celebration
of the '_subsiding of the waters_' of the Deluge. 2. For the purpose
of dancing what they call the Bull-dance, to the strict performance
of which they attributed the coming of buffaloes. 3. For purpose of
conducting the young men through _an ordeal of privation and bodily
torture_, which, while it was supposed to harden their muscles and
prepare them for extreme endurance, enabled their chiefs ... to decide
upon their comparative bodily strength, endurance," &c.--P. 9.

The torture no doubt subserved this subsidiary purpose, but it appears
to me that the original intention and idea was torture for the purpose
of expiation, as in the ceremonies in ancient Greece.[207] Sundry
incidents narrated by Catlin seem to establish this. They prepare
themselves by fasting (p. 25); after having sunk under the infliction
of these horrible tortures (and from every point of view they are truly
horrible), "no one was allowed to offer them aid when they lay in this
condition. They were here enjoying their inestimable privilege of
voluntarily intrusting their lives to the keeping of the Great Spirit,
and chose to remain there until the Great Spirit gave them strength to
get up and walk away" (p. 28); and when so far recovered, "in each
instance" they presented the little finger of the left hand, and some
also the forefinger of the same hand and the little finger of the right
hand (all tending to make them _pro tanto_ inefficient warriors) "as
an offering to the Great Spirit, as a sacrifice for having listened to
their prayers, and protected their lives in what they had just gone
through" (p. 28).

 [207] _Supra_, p. 35. These tortures have their exact counterpart
       in India, _e.g._ the ceremony of the _Pota_ (compare
       Sanscrit, "pota" = boat), thus described by Hunter ("Rural
       Bengal," 1868, p. 463):--"Pota (hook-swinging), now stopped
       by Government, but still practised (1865) among the Northern
       Santals [who have the distinct tradition of the Deluge and
       dispersion referred to, _supra_] in _April
       or May_. Lasted about one month. Young men used to swing with
       hooks through their back [as seen in Catlin's illustrations],
       as in the Charak Puja of the Hindus. The swingers used _to
       fast_ the day preceding and the day following the operation,
       and to sleep the intermediate night on thorns."

       "On pleuroit et l'on s'attristoit dans les fêtes _les plus
       gayes et plus dissolues_; les cultes d'Isis et d'Osiris, ainsi
       que ceux _de Bacchus_, de Céres, d'Adonis, d'Atys, &c., étoient
       _accompagnés de macérations et de larmes_."--_Boulanger_, iii.
       355.

For the description of the _bull_-dance,[208] and for the subsequent
history and final extinction of the Mandans, I must refer my readers to
Mr Catlin's valuable testimony to the truth of Scripture, and important
contributions to ethnological science.

 [208] Bryant ("Myth." ii. 432) says, "There were many arkite"
       (_i.e._ commemorative of ark) "ceremonies in different
       parts of the world, which were generally styled _Taurica_
       sacra" (from taurus = _bull_). These mysteries were of old
       attended with acts of _great cruelty_. Of these "I have given
       instances, taken from different parts of the world; from
       Egypt, Syria, Cyprus, Crete, and Sicily."

I shall now proceed to show analogies in what will be admitted to
be most unlikely ground--in the King of Dahome's celebrated "So-sin
customs," described by Captain Richard Burton.

Before, however, proceeding further, I must point out the following
features in the ceremonies or customs as common to Grecian and antique
pagan; to the Mandan (Indian of North America), and to the tropical
African.[209] In the first place they are cyclical; they are all of a
mournful character; all are interrupted at intervals by processions,
dances, and songs of a traditional character; they all close in scenes
of rejoicing or rather in Bacchanalian (yet still traditionally
[_vide_ page 247, note Boulanger] Bacchanalian) scenes of riot
and debauchery. The duration of the festivals varies from three and
four to five days; the days have fantastic names, which, although
different, still in their very peculiarity, and also in the drift and
meaning of the names so far as it can be gathered, are suggestive of
a common origin, _e.g_. the first day of the Anthesteria, at Athens
was called "[Greek: Pithoigia, apo tou pithous oigein]," "because
they tapped their casks." The fourth day of the King of Dahome's
customs is named "So (horse) nan-wen (will break) _kan_ (rope) 'gbe
(to-day)."--Burton, ii. 8. One part of the Mandan ceremony is called
"Mee-ne-ro-ka-Ha-sha," or "the _settling down of the waters_," which
name again closely corresponds to the ceremonies at Athens and at
Hierapolis in Syria (_ante_), where water was poured into the opening
where the waters of the Deluge were supposed to have disappeared. The
fifth day of the Dahome customs is named "Minai afunfun khi Uhun-jro
men Dadda Gezo"="we go to the small mat tent under which the king
sits."--Burton, ii. 27. This approximates to the scene described by
Catlin (p. 20) at the close of the bull-dance (fourth day), when "the
master of ceremonies (corresponding to the king at Dahome) cried out
for all the dancers, musicians," and "the representatives of _animals_
and _birds_," "to gather again around him." He is described as coming
out of the mystery lodge and collecting them round "the big canoe."

 [209] Let the following points of resemblance be noted also
       in the "Panathenæa." The lesser, and it is supposed the
       annual festival, was celebrated on the 20th of Thargelion,
       corresponding to the 5th May (compare Catlin). Every citizen
       contributed olive branches and an ox (_vide_ Catlin) at the
       greater festival. "In the ceremonies without the city there
       was an engine built _in the form of a ship_, on purpose for
       this solemnity;" upon this the sacred garment of Minerva
       "was hung in the manner of a _sail_," "the whole conveyed
       to the temple of _Ceres Elusinia_." "This procession was
       led by _old men_, together, as some say, with old women
       carrying _olive branches_ in their hands." "After them came
       the men of full age with shields and spears, being attended
       by the [Greek: Metoikoi], or sojourners, who carried _little
       boats_ as a token of their being foreigners, and were called
       on that account _boat-bearers_; then followed the women
       attended by the sojourner's wives, who were named [Greek:
       hydriaphoroi], from _bearing water pots_."--Compare Burton,
       Catlin. Then followed select virgins, covered with millet,
       "called _basket-bearers_," the baskets containing necessaries
       for the celebration. "These virgins were attended by the
       sojourner's daughters, who carried _umbrellas_ (_vide_ Pongol
       Festival, appendix), _little seats_, whence they were
       called _seat-carriers_."--Compare Burton (_vide_ Potter's
       "Antiquities," i. 419.)

       Compare also the following in the "Dionysia" or festivals
       in honour of Bacchus (_ante_, p. 215) with Catlin. "They
       carried thyrsi, _drums_, pipes, flutes, and _rattles_, and
       crowned themselves with garlands of _trees_ sacred to Bacchus,
       ivy, vine, &c. Some imitated Silenus, Pan, and the Satyrs,
       exposing themselves in _comical dresses_ and antic motions;"
       and in this manner ran about the hills "invoking Bacchus."
       "At Athens this frantic rout was followed by persons carrying
       certain sacred vessels, the first of which was _filled with
       water_."

       Bryant ("Mythology," ii. 219) speaking of Egypt ("the
       priests of Ammon who at _particular seasons_ used to carry
       in procession a boat," concerning which refer to page 254),
       says--"Part of the ceremony in most of the ancient mysteries
       consisted in carrying about a kind of ship or boat, which
       custom upon due examination will be found to relate to nothing
       else but Noah and the Deluge." He adds that the name of "the
       navicular shrines was _Baris_, which is very remarkable; for
       it is the very name of the mountain, according to Nicolaus
       Damascenus, on which the ark of Noah rested, the same as
       Ararat in Armenia." Herodotus speaks of "_Baris_" as the
       Egyptian name of a ship, l. 2, 96; Eurip. "Iphig. in Aulis,"
       v. 297; Æschylus, Persæ, 151; Lycophron, v. 747, refer to
       names of ships in connection with Noah. _Sup._, p. 196.
       Query--is our word barge a corruption of baris? or perhaps of
       _baris_ in connection with "_argus_," also a term for the ark.
       (With reference to this etymology _vide_ my remark, p. 116,
       and d'Anselme, p. 196, and Bryant, ii. 251.)

But the closest connection is in the nature and order of the ceremonies
on the fourth day at Dahome and among the Mandans. Among the latter,
interrupting the bull-dance on that day, there is an apparition of "the
evil spirit,"[210] graphically described by Mr Catlin (p. 22), and at
Dahome (Burton, ii. 18), there intervenes between the fourth and fifth
days' ceremonies what is called "the evil night" (there are two "evil
nights") which is the night of the horrible massacre. But on this night
also, at the close of the fourth day's ceremonies among the Mandans,
the infliction of tortures (very horrible, but mild in comparison
with the African butchery) commence. Now, I have already ventured the
opinion that these tortures were originally of an expiatory character,
and this gains confirmation by the assurance made to Captain R.
Burton that the victims on "the evil night" were only "criminals"
and prisoners of war, the people of Dahome, on all occasions (_vide
infra_), preferring a vicarious mode of expiation. Captain R. Burton
(ii. 19) says of these massacres:--"The king takes no pleasure in the
tortures and death or in the sight of blood, as will presently appear.
The 2000 killed in one day, _the canoe_[211] paddled in a pool of gore,
and other grisly nursery tales, must be derived from Whydah, where the
slave-traders invented them, probably to deter Englishmen from visiting
the king. It is useless to go over the ground of human sacrifice from
the days of the wild Hindu's Naramadha to the burnings of the Druids,
and to the awful massacres of Peru and Mexico. In Europe the extinction
of the custom _began_ from the time of the polite Augustus," _i.e._
commenced with the advent of our Lord. [_Vide_ a reference to MS. of
Sir J. Acton in Mr Gladstone's address to the University of Edinburgh,
1865, from which it would appear that the final extinction was not
until the triumph of Christianity.]

 [210] Compare the "Bhain-sasur" or _buffalo_-demon at Usayagiri,
       carrying a trident. _Vide_ "The Bhilsa Tope," Major Alex.
       Cunningham, 1854.

 [211] It is as well to note, however, that the Dahomans have
       recently altered their customs. The one Captain Burton
       witnessed (ii. 34) was a "mixed custom," and elsewhere
       allusion is made to "the new" ceremony.

Without carrying rashness to the excess of disputing the interpretation
of Dahoman words with Captain Burton, I may yet demur to accepting
his explanation of the term "So-sin" (the "So-sin customs") _absolute
et simpliciter_. He says (i. 315), "The Sogan ('So' = horse, 'gan'
captain) opens the customs by taking all the chargers from their owners
and by tying them up, whence the word _So-sin_. The animals must be
redeemed in a few days with a bag of cowries."[212] This is certainly
a very likely definition, and although secondary, is no doubt the
explanation current among the present generation of Dahomans. All
I shall venture to do is to supplement it. But may not the old and
primitive idea still lurk in the name? At i. 242, I perceive Captain
Burton says "so" and "sin" mean _water_,[213] and the compound word
"amma-sin" means "medicine" = "leaf-water," and again at 244 the same
word "Sin" is twice used to signify liquid. If so, in the very name of
the feast we find the word _water_, which links it into connection with
"the Mandan custom" and the festivals of ancient Greece.

 [212] Analogies may perhaps be discovered in the representations of
       the procession escorting a relic casket on the architraves
       of the western gate at Sanchi. (_Vide_ "The Bhilsa Tope," by
       Major Alex. Cunningham, p. 227.)

       "Street of a city on the left, houses on each side filled
       with spectators,... a few horsemen heading a procession,
       ... immediately outside the gate are four persons bearing
       either trophies or some peculiar instruments of office. Then
       follows a _led horse_, ... a soldier with a bell-shaped
       shield, two fifers, three _drummers_, and two men blowing
       _conches_. Next comes the king on an elephant, carrying the
       holy relic casket on his head and supporting it with his right
       hand. Then follows two peculiarly dressed men on horseback,
       perhaps prisoners. They wear a kind of cap (now only known
       in Barmawar, on the upper course of the Ravi) and boots or
       leggings. The procession is closed by two horsemen (one either
       the minister or a member of the royal family) and by an
       elephant with two riders."

       It may have had connection with the _As_warnedha or horse
       sacrifice (Cunningham, p. 363.) Boulanger (i. 109) says,
       "That after the winter solstice the ancient inhabitants of
       India descended with their king to the banks of the Indus;
       they there sacrificed _horses_ and _black bulls_, signs of a
       funeral ceremony; they then threw a bushel measure into the
       water without their assigning any reason for it." Compare the
       throwing the cakes into the gulf at Athens, and the hatchets
       into the water at the Mandan custom. Could it be that at the
       Dahoman ceremony the horses were redeemed because the wretched
       victims were substituted, carrying out the idea of vicarious
       sacrifice and expiation?

       Sir John Lubbock ("Origin of Civilization," p. 199) says,
       speaking of _water_ worship, "The kelpie or spirit of the
       _waters assumed_ various forms, those of a man, woman,
       _horse_, or _bull_ being the most common." Compare _supra_,
       pp. 196, 202, 204, Manou, Bacchus.

       Homer (Hom. Il., Heynii, xxi. 130, Lord Derby, 145), says--

         "Shall aught avail ye, though to him (the river Scamander)
          In sacrifice, the blood of countless _bulls_ you pay,
          And living _horses_ in his waters sink;"

       and (210) Asteropoeus is called "river-born," because
       the son of Pelegon, who "to broadly flowing Axius owed his
       birth." Remembering the belief of certain tribes of Indians
       (supra, p. 137) that they were "created under the water,"
       which I have construed to mean, that they were created on
       the other side of the Deluge, so we may take in a similar
       sense the traditions of these Homeric heroes that they were
       "river-born;" and does the expression, son of Pelegon (compare
       "son of Prometheus," _supra_, p. 232), imply more than
       that he was the descendant of Phaleg, or, if not in the line
       of descent, the descendant of progenitors who had retained the
       tradition that Phaleg was so called, "because in his days the
       earth was divided"?--Gen. ch. x. 25. Compare ancient Welsh
       ballad (Davies' "Mythology of British Druids," p. 100)--

            "Truly I was in the ship
            With Dylan (Deucalion), son of the sea....
            When ... the floods came forth
            From heaven to the great deep."

 [213] The name for _river_ in the Chitral or Little Kashghar
       vocabulary (Vigne, "Travels in Kashmir") is river = _sin_;
       also in the Dangon, on the Indus, voc. (_id._) river = _sin_;
       in the Affghan (Kalproth) the sea = _sin_d. _Sind_hu is the
       Sanscrit name for river (Max Müller, "Science of Lang.," 1st
       series, 215); and has also its equivalent in ancient Persian.
       In Danish, river or lake = _so_; in Icelandic, sjor (sjo);
       in Bultistan, touh; German, see; English, sea; in Kashmir,
       sar = marse; Icelandic, saus. Compare Rivers Saar, Soane,
       Seine, Irish Suir; perhaps also Esk and Usk (Vigne, "Trav. in
       Kashmir"). Horse = shtah, in Bultistan. Has not _so_ analogy
       with eau, augr (Chittral), _water_? _Sara_ = water in Sanscrit
       (Max Müller, "Chips," ii. 47); Sanscrit, vari, more generic
       term for water; Latin, mare; Gothic, marie; Slavonic, more;
       Irish and Scotch, muir (_id._) Compare Chinese "ma" = horse;
       Mongol, "mon" = horse; German, machre; English, _mare_.
       Conclusion, either there is the same word for horse and water
       in certain languages, which may have occurred in the way of
       secondary derivation from these "mysteries," or if _so_ means
       water, then "So-sin" may only be a reduplication, as in the
       names of some of our rivers--_e.g._ Dwfr-Dwy = water, of Deva
       = Dee-river (_Archæol. Journal_, xvii. 98). Bryant ("Myth."
       ii. 408) says "The [Greek: hippos], hippus (horse), alluded
       to in the early mythology was certainly a _float_ or _ship_,
       the same as the ceto." There is, moreover, the analogy in the
       Latin of _aqua_ and _equus_. Another Sanscrit word for water,
       "ap" (Max Müller, Sc. of L., 103) has analogy with the Greek
       [Greek: hippos] = horse. It appears (Sc. of L., 2nd series,
       p. 36), that the Tahitians have substituted the word "pape"
       for "vai" = water; but both words "pape," to _ap_, "vai," to
       _vari_, seem to have analogies to Sanscrit as above. Plato
       ("Cratylus," c. 36, Sc. of L., 1st series, p. 116) mentions
       that the name for water was the same in Phrygian and Greek. At
       p. 235, 1st series, Mr Max Müller says that Persian Harôya is
       the same as Sanscrit Saroya; which latter "is derived from a
       root 'sar' or 'sri,' to go, to run; from which 'saras,' water,
       'sarit,' river, and 'Sarayu,' the proper name of the river
       near Oude."

       Here at any rate in the Sanskrit "sar," to run, we may, if
       the above conjecture is rejected, start the words "horse" and
       "water" from a common root.

The word, "So" = horse, will therefore still remain, and may perhaps
stand in the same relation to the "water" celebration, that the "bull"
does to the Mandan celebration of the Deluge. Captain Burton, for
instance, tells us (ii. 15), a "So" was brought up to us (on the fourth
day of the So-sin custom, and on the fourth day of the Mandan custom
"the bull-dance" was performed sixteen times round "the big canoe");
but I will place the two descriptions side by side.

 CAPTAIN BURTON, ii. 15.

 "A 'So' was brought up to us,
 a _bull-face mask_ of natural size,
 painted black, with glaring eyes
 and _peep-holes_, the horns were
 hung with _red_ and _white_ rag
 _strips_, and beneath was a dress
 of bamboo fibre covering the feet,
 and ruddy at the ends. It
 danced with head on one side
 and swayed itself about, to the
 great amusement of the people."
 _Vide_ also p. 93, "Four tall men
 singularly dressed, and with bullocks'
 tails," &c.

                              MR CATLIN, p. 16.

                              "The chief actors in these
                              strange scenes (bull-dance) were
                              eight men, with the entire skins
                              of buffaloes thrown over them,
                              enabling them closely to imitate
                              the appearance and motions of
                              those animals, as the bodies were
                              kept in as horizontal a position,
                              the horns and tails of the animals
                              remaining on the skins, and the
                              skins of the animals' heads served
                              as _masks_ through the eyes of
                              which the _dancers were looking_."
                              The legs of the dancers were
                              painted _red_ and _white_" (plate 6.)

If we might (on the strength of so many words of primary necessity
being in common) connect "So" = horse, with the Saxon "soc" or
plough (as in the soc and service tenure), we could then see a way
in which the same word might apply indifferently to ox or horse; and
we would, moreover, see through the common relation to Noah how the
water ceremony came to be associated with the worship of Ceres in the
mysteries of Eleusis. _Vide_ Boulanger, i. 70-107.[214]

 [214] Compare (Klaproth, "Mem. Asiat." ii. 12)--Eng. _ox_; Mongol,
       char; Hebrew, chor; French, charrue (plough.) Klaproth, ii.
       405, "Les cheveux en Thou Khin (whom he identifies with the
       Turks) portaient le nom de _Sogo_ ou _so_ko; cest le même
       nom que le Turc sâtch ou sadg." Can it have affinity with
       Chinese _sa_ (Chinese szu = boeuf sauvage); German, säen;
       Swedish, _sá_; French, semer; English = to _sou_; Peruvian,
       sara = maize; also French, _cou_dre, to sow with English
       corn; Sanscrit, go; High German, chus; Sclavonic, _go_ws
       (Max Müller, "Chips," ii. 27); and Kashmir and Dongan,
       gau; Icelandic, ku? In Affghan a bull = _sak_hendar and
       _souk_handar. In the extinct Tartar Coman (_vide_ Klaproth) ox
       = _ogus_ or _seger_ = Turkish, okus; Sanscrit, oukcha; German,
       ochse. Plough = Sanscrit, sinam; Irish, serak; Persian, siar.
       Horse = _as_p, Persian; _ess_, Sclavonic = English _ass_; and
       in Chittral on Indus (_vide_ horse or bull used in ceremonies
       on banks of Indus, _infra_) horse = _astor_. (Has not _tor_
       here affinity with _taur_eau.) Corn = _As_lek (Kirghish)
       and Ashlyk (?) Turkish. Max Müller (Science of Language, p.
       231), says--"Aspa was the Persian name for horse, and in the
       Scythian names, Aspabota, Aspakara, and Asparatha, we can
       hardly fail to recognise the same element." Also, p. 242, "The
       comparison of ploughing and sowing is of frequent occurrence
       in ancient language." Eng., plough; Sclav., ploug = Sanscrit,
       plava, ship = Gk. [Greek: ploion], ship. "In English dialects,
       plough is used as a waggon or conveyance. In the Vale of
       Blackmore, a waggon is called a plough, or plow, and _Zull_
       (A.-S., syl) is used for aratrum."--Barnes, "Dorset Dialect,"
       p. 369, ap. Max Müller.

The above enumeration does not exhaust the points of resemblance.
Compare the following:--

 BURTON, ii. 23.

 "Conspicuous objects on the left of the pavilion
 were two Ajalela or fetish pots made by the
 present king (according to the customs.) _Vide_
 note 16. Both are lamp black, shaped like
 amphoræ (amphoræ, for holding wine) about 4 feet
 high, and planted on tripods. The larger was
 solid, the smaller callendered with many small
 holes, and both were decorated with brass and
 silver crescents, stars, and similar ornaments.
 The second, when filled _with water and
 medicine_ allows none to escape, so great is its
 fetish power; an army guarded by it can never be
 defeated, and it will lead the way to Absokuta."
 Compare Pongol ceremony, p. 275.

                    CATLIN, p. 8.

                    "In an open area in the centre of the village
                    stands the ark or 'big canoe,' around which
                    a great proportion of the ceremonies were
                    performed. This rude symbol, of 8 or 10 feet in
                    height, was constructed of planks and hoops,
                    having somewhat the appearance of a large
                    hogshead standing on its end, and containing some
                    mysterious things, which none but the _medicine_
                    (mystery) men were allowed to examine."

This must be considered in connection with the following.

 BURTON.

 In the opening procession of the third day's
 customs, Captain Burton tells us (ii. 2), "First
 came a procession of eighteen Tansi-no or fetish
 women, who have charge of the last monarch's
 grave.... They were preceded by bundles of
 matting, eight _large stools_, calabashes,
 pipes, _baskets_ of _water_, grog, and meat
 with segments of _gourd_ above and below,
 tobacco bags, and other commissariat articles;
 and they were followed by a band of horns and
 _rattles_."[215]

 [215] Compare the procession in the Panathenæa
       and Dionysia, _supra_, p. 248.

 In another procession (ii. 47), "The party was
 brought up by slave girls carrying baskets and
 calabashes. (Query, of water?) These, preceded
 by six bellowing horns, stalked in slowly, and
 with measured gait the _eight_ Tansi-no, who
 serve and pray for the ghosts of dead kings.
 (Query, eight dead kings?) In front went _their_
 ensign, a copper measuring rod 15 feet long
 and tapering to a very fine end; behind it
 were two chauris and seven mysterious pots and
 calabashes wrapped in _white_ and _red_ checks,"
 and presently "three brass, four copper, and six
 iron pots, curiosities on account of their great
 size.... _Eight_ images, of which three were
 apparently _ship's figureheads_ whitewashed,
 and the rest very hideous efforts of native
 art."[216]

 [216] "Eight men representing eight buffalo
       bulls," in Mandan celebration, "took their
       positions on the four sides of the ark or
       'big canoe.'"--Catlin, p. 17. "The _chief
       actors_ in these strange scenes were
       _eight_ men with skins of buffaloes," &c.
       p. 16. Four images were suspended on poles
       above the mystery lodge, p. 8.

                    CATLIN.

                    In Captain Burton's account of the articles
                    paraded in the procession, the pipes (to which
                    great mystery is attached), the _horns_ and
                    _rattles (vide pl.)_, and _the baskets of water_
                    are common to the Mandan ceremony. May not the
                    eight stools be representative of the eight
                    diluvian survivors. _Vide supra_, 197, Cabiri?
                    Let us, however, confine our attention to the
                    "baskets of water." Compare with the following
                    account in Catlin.

                    "In the medicine (mystery) lodge ... there were
                    also four articles of _veneration_ and importance
                    lying on the ground, which were _sacks_
                    containing each some three or four gallons of
                    _water_. These seemed to be objects of great
                    superstitious regard, and had been made with
                    much labour and ingenuity, being constructed of
                    the skins of the _buffaloes'_ neck, and sewed
                    together in the forms of large _tortoises_ lying
                    on their backs (comp. p. 138; also p. 269),
                    each having a sort of tail made of _raven's_
                    quills and a stick like a drumstick lying on
                    it, with which, as will be seen in a subsequent
                    part of the ceremony, the musicians beat upon
                    the _sacks_ as instruments of music for their
                    _strange dances_. By the sides of these sacks,
                    which they called Ech-tee-ka (drums), there
                    were two other articles of equal importance
                    which they called Ech-na-da (rattles) made of
                    undressed skins shaped into the form of _gourd_
                    shells," &c. (Note the segments of _gourd_
                    accompanying the _water_ baskets in the Dahome
                    procession, _supra_.) Catlin adds--"The sacks of
                    water had the appearance of great antiquity, and
                    the Mandans pretended that the water had been
                    contained in them ever since the Deluge."--pp.
                    15, 16.[217]

                    [217] In the _Japanese_ (_vide_ p. 269)
                           version of the legend of the _bull_
                           breaking the mundane egg (_vide_ p.
                           396), a _gourd_ or pumpkin is also broken
                           which contained the first man.--_Vide_
                           Bryant's "Mythology," iii. 579. "I have
                           mentioned that _the ark_ was looked
                           upon as the mother of mankind, and
                           styled Da-Mater, and it was on this
                           account figured under the semblance of
                           a _pomegranate_," "as it abounds with
                           seed"--Bryant, ii. 380. _Vide_ also
                           plate (Bryant, ii. 410), where Juno
                           (_vide_, p. 395) holds a _dove_ in one
                           hand and a _pomegranate_ in the other.

 BURTON, ii. 35.

 It must be remembered that at Dahome, royalty as
 there represented has absorbed and monopolized
 the most important parts of the ceremonial:
 it is natural, therefore, to expect that the
 conspicuous figures in the original (or in
 the Mandan), which conflicted or would not
 consort with royalty, would be thrown into the
 background. Accordingly I am only able to get
 a glimpse of the conspicuous figures opposite
 in the following passage:--"The jesters were
 followed by a dozen _pursuivants_ armed with
 gong-gongs, who advanced bending towards
 the throne, and shouted the 'strong names'
 or titles. Conspicuous amongst them was an
 _oldster_ in a crimson sleeveless tunic and
 yellow shorts: his head was red with dust, he
 carried a large _bill-hook_,[218] and he went
 about attended by _four_ drums and one cymbal."

 [218] Compare also _sup._, p. 210, with
       Saturn. "Ipsius autem canities," &c., and
       "cum falce messis insigne."

 It will be remembered (if my readers have read
 Mr Catlin, p. 11, 12) that the first thing "the
 aged white man" does on entering the mystery
 lodge is to call on the chiefs "to furnish him
 with _four_ men," and the next is to "receive at
 the door of every Mandan's wigwam _some edged
 tool_ to be given to the water as a sacrifice,
 as it was with _such tools_ that the "big canoe"
 was built.[219]

 [219] Compare again these two figures, one
       figuring in the Dahoman procession, the
       other in the Mandan bull dance.


                    CATLIN, p. 10.

                    The opening scene in the Mandan customs,
                    effectively described by Mr Catlin, begins
                    with "a solitary human figure descending the
                    prairie hills and approaching the village," "in
                    appearance a very _aged_ man," "a centenarian
                    white man," dressed in a robe of four white
                    wolves' skins." He was met by the head chief and
                    the council of chiefs, and addressed by them
                    as "Nu-mohk-muck-a-nah" (the _first_ and only
                    man.) "He then harangued them for a few minutes,
                    reminding them that every human being on the
                    surface of the earth had been destroyed by the
                    water excepting himself, who had landed on a high
                    mountain in the west in his canoe, where he still
                    resided, and from whence he had come to open the
                    medicine (mystery) lodge, that the Mandans might
                    celebrate the _subsiding of the waters_, and make
                    the proper sacrifices to the water, lest the same
                    calamity should again happen to them."


 BURTON, ii. 38.

 "The ministers ... they were conducted by a
 'Lali' or half-head, with right side of his
 pericranium clean shaven, and the left in a
 casing of silver that looked like a cast or a
 half melon."

        *       *       *       *       *

 Burton says (ii. 87), "One of the Dahoman
 monarch's peculiarities is that he is double,
 not merely binonymous, nor dual, like the
 spiritual Mickado and temporal Tycoon of Japan,
 but two in one. Gelele, for instance, is king of
 the city and addo-kpon of the 'bush'; _i.e._ of
 the farmer folk and the country as opposed to
 the city. This country ruler has his _official_
 mother, the Dank-li-ke.... Thus Dahome has two
 points of interest to the ethnologist--the
 distinct precedence of women and the double
 king."--_Vide_ also p. 80.

                    CATLIN, p. 30.

                    Compare with the two athletic young men (_vide_
                    Plate XIII.) assigned to each of the young men
                    who underwent the torture--"their bodies painted
                    _one half red_ and the other blue, and carrying a
                    bunch of willow-boughs in one hand."

                    Here two or three questions suggest themselves.
                    If this ceremony is primitive, will not dual
                    royalty give a clue to the duality we find so
                    commonly in mythology, assuming the basis of
                    mythology to be historical? 2d, Is there no clue
                    in the name, _official_ name, of Dank-li-ke? What
                    does the reader guess the meaning to be? (p. 58.)
                    Mr Burton tells us it means, "Dank (the rainbow),
                    li (stand), and ke (the world)." Is it a forced
                    paraphrase to construe this to mean--The rainbow
                    is the sign that the world shall stand?

Upon the point of the precedence of woman, to which the Dahoman
ceremony testifies, but to which it gives no clue, I shall, as it is
so very important in more bearings than one, give at some length the
following scene from Catlin:--

  "When 'the evil spirit' enters the camp during the ceremony,
  he proceeds to make various attacks, which are defeated by the
  intervention of the master of the ceremonies. In several attempts
  of this kind the evil spirit was thus defeated, after which he
  came wandering back amongst the dancers, apparently much fatigued
  and disappointed.... In this distressing dilemma he was approached
  by an old matron, who came up slyly behind him, with both hands
  full of yellow dirt, which (by reaching around him) she suddenly
  dashed in his face, covering him from head to foot, and changing
  his colour, as the dirt adhered to the undried bear's grease on his
  skin; ... at length _another_ snatched his _wand_ from his hand and
  broke it across her knee ... his power was thus gone ... bolting
  through the crowd, he made his way to the prairies."--P. 24.

We shall not be surprised to learn, then, that when the "Feast of
the Buffaloes" (distinct from the bull-dance) commences (p. 33),
several old men perambulated the village in various directions, in
the character of criers, with rattles in their hands, proclaiming
that "the _whole government of the Mandans_ was then in the hands of
one woman--she who had disarmed the evil spirit ... that the chiefs
that night were old women; that they had nothing to say; that no one
was allowed to be out of their wigwams excepting the favoured ones
whom 'the governing woman' had invited," &c. Will not this give a
clue to the precedence in Dahome, _probandis probatis_, and is not
the precedence in Dahome thus interpreted, and the interlude above
described evidence of the tradition, that the _woman_ should break the
head of the _serpent_? (Gen. iii. 15). It is of great significance,
and, if so many points of comparison had not occurred, ought to have
been stated at the outset, that at Dahome "the Sin-kwain ("sin,"
water--"kwain," sprinkling), or water-sprinkling custom follows closely
upon the "So-sin or Horse-tie rites."--_Vide_ Burton, ii. 167.

Now, if the reader will turn to Boulanger, i. 90, 91, he will find this
identical custom in Persia, Pegu, China, and Japan. But I relinquish
the details, as I fear I shall have exhausted the patience of the few
readers I shall have carried with me to this point; and because the
King of Dahome has a custom perhaps still more demonstrably cognate to
not only the ancient Grecian ceremonies on the shores of the ocean and
on the banks of rivers, but with widely diffused tradition. I shall
here place four writers in juxtaposition, and with this testimony I
shall conclude:--

BOULANGER.

  The ancient inhabitants of Italy repaired once a year to the Lake
  Cutilia, where they made sacrifices and celebrated secret mysteries
  or ceremonies (Dion. Halicarnassus, i. 2).

  The pontiffs in ancient Rome also went annually to the banks of the
  Tiber, "là ils faisoient des sacrifices _expiatoires_ à Saturne, ce
  Dieu chronique," &c. (Dion. Hal. i. 8.)

  In the kingdom of Saka in Africa their greatest solemnity was
  celebrated on the banks of the rivers; the king himself presides at
  it (Hist. Gener. des Voy., iii. 639).

  The same custom has been already (_supra_, p. 252) noticed on the
  Indus.

  In all these cases human sacrifices were offered, or
  substitutes.--Boulanger, i. pp. 110-11. Compare _supra_, p. 243,
  lines from Dionysius Periegesis.

BURTON.

  At Whydat the youngest brother of their triad is Hu, the ocean or
  sea. [Compare with Assyrian Hoa, _supra_, p. 194, and Chinese
  Yu, p. 68.] "The Hu-no, or ocean priest, is now considered the
  highest of all.... At times the king sends as an ocean sacrifice
  from Agborne a man carried in a hammock, with the dress, the stool,
  and the umbrella of a Caboceer; a canoe takes him out to sea, where
  he is thrown to the sharks. The custom for this element is made at
  Whydat, in a place near the greater market, and called Hu-kpa-man.
  It is a _round_ hut, with thatch and chalked walls: outside is a
  heap of bones, whilst _skulls_, carapaces of the _tortoise_, and
  similar materials, cumber the _interior_. The priest is a fetish
  woman, who _offers water_ and kola nuts to, and expects rum from,
  white visitors."--ii. p. 141.

  Compare also _supra_, in Preface, extract from Davies' "Celtic
  Researches" on the Celtic god Hu.

CATLIN.

  The water ceremonies in Catlin's account have already been
  sufficiently adverted to. He thus describes the medicine or mystery
  lodge in which they took place. Exteriorly, with the exception of
  the four images, it differed only in dimensions from the other
  wigwams, which are thus described? "They were covered with earth.
  They were all of one form; the frames or shells constructed of
  timbers, and covered with a thatching of willow boughs, and over
  and on that with a foot or two in thickness of a concrete of tough
  clay and gravel, which became so hard as to admit the whole group
  of inmates to recline on _their tops_. They varied in size from
  thirty to sixty feet, and _were perfectly round_." For extract
  describing _interior_, _vide supra_, p. 257, noting (_vide_ Plate
  iii. in Catlin) the four human and four ox _skulls_; "the sacks of
  water in the form of large _tortoises_ lying on their backs."

  _N.B._--With reference to the tortoise, _vide ante_ p. 257.

  Compare the "Buddhist Topes" in Major Cunningham's "Bhilsa Tope,"
  _vide_ p. 243.

HUNTER.

  Hunter ("Annals of Rural Bengal," p. 153) says of the Santals:
  "The only stream of any consequence in their present country--the
  Damouda--is regarded with a veneration altogether disproportionate
  to its size. Thither the superstitious Santal repairs to consult
  the prophets and diviners, and once a year the tribes make a
  pilgrimage to its banks in commemoration of their forefathers....
  However remote the jungle in which the Santal may die, his nearest
  kinsman carries a little relic of the deceased to the river, and
  places it in the current to be conveyed to the far-off eastern land
  from which his ancestors came."

  In connection with the above, it must be remembered (_vide_
  Appendix G, p. 480, "Santal Traditions") that they have, although
  confused with the Creation, an unmistakable tradition of the
  Deluge, the intoxication of Noah, and the dispersion.

If, then, I have shown that the custom, for the preservation of which
from oblivion, so far as the Mandans (now extinct) are concerned, we
are indebted to Mr Catlin, and which so plainly tells its own tale,
is common to Europe, Asia, and Africa, as well as America, I shall
have established it as a tradition, not of a local American, but of
an universal Deluge; and if the tradition of the universal Deluge is
proved, then, according to Mr Catlin's narrative itself, there is
tradition of the Creation also (_vide_ pp. 7, 13, 42).[220]

 [220] I allude to the opening of the ceremony by the centenarian
       _white_ man, "the first and only man." Mr Catlin is of opinion
       that this incident was introduced and superadded by some
       missionaries, though he adds it would be still more strange
       if the (Jesuit) missionaries had instructed them "in the
       other modes." This, however, is understating the case. It is
       conceivable that missionaries should have come among them, but
       in this case we should have expected some trace of Christian
       practices and dogmas; it is difficult to conjecture what
       set of missionaries could have indoctrinated them with the
       recondite pagan mysteries of Eleusis and Hierapolis.

I have replied more fully, in chap. vii., to Mr Catlin's
objection--that though they have a tradition of a deluge, it is not the
tradition of the Deluge, because they have not also the tradition of
the Creation.

Mr Catlin argues upon the view that the American race "were created
upon the ground on which they were found" ("Last Rambles," p. 321,
1868); and (p. 319) adds, "I can find nothing in history, sacred or
profane, against this."

He takes his stand (in "O-kee-pa") upon this--that there is nothing in
the Mandan tradition which can be brought in proof of their migration
from another continent. In reply I shall adduce their very name.

The American continent may have been peopled by way of Behring's
Straits, or from Europe in the East by way of Greenland, or by the
connection of the Pacific Islands from the opposite coasts of Japan,
China, and the Corea, or from the Polynesian groups in the south.
The population may have poured in by all these routes. It is said
(Prescott, "Conquest of Mexico," ii. 473)[221] that MSS. exist at
Copenhagen proving that the American coast was visited by the Northmen
in the eleventh century. The Polynesian route we may leave out of
consideration, as it will not probably have been the one by which the
Mandans came. As to the route by Behring's Straits, Mr Catlin admits
"it is a possibility, and therefore they say it is probable" (p. 217,
"Last Rambles"). But if, as there appears to me reason to think, they
came from the opposite coast of the Corea, it might as reasonably be
conjectured that the migration took the route of Behring's Straits,
or by way of the Sandwich Islands. The possibility of the former is
conceded. I will confine my attention, therefore, to the latter, which
Mr Catlin pronounces absolutely impossible. In the first place, the
distance between the Sandwich Islands and America is not greater than
between Otaheite and New Zealand.[222] Now it is admitted that New
Zealand was peopled from Otaheite. Moreover (_vide_ Sir J. Lubbock,
"Pre-historic Times," p. 390), the inhabitants of the Sandwich Islands,
at two thousand miles distance, belong to the same race as those of
Tahiti (Otaheite) and New Zealand, and resemble them "in religion,
languages, canoes, houses, weapons, food, habits, &c."[223] The canoes
of the Pacific islanders generally (_vide_ Captain Cook _passim_)
were of considerable size, and of very perfect workmanship. But also
Prescott ("Conquest of Mexico," ii. 473, quoting Beechey's "Voyage to
Pacific," 1831, p. 2 Appendix, Humboldt's "Examen. Critique de l'Hist.
de la Geog." and Nuov. Cont. ii. 55) says, "It would be easy for the
inhabitant of Eastern Tartary or Japan to steer his canoe from islet
to islet quite across to the American shore, without ever being on the
ocean more than two days at a time."[224]

 [221] _Vide_ also Giebel, "Tagesfragen," p. 91; _apud_ Reusch, p.
       500.

 [222] _Vide_ "Cook's Voyages," i. 199; Prescott, ii. 476.

 [223] "There have been recent instances of Japanese vessels having
       been thrown by shipwreck upon the coasts of the Sandwich
       Islands, and even on the mouth of the Columbia."--Reusch, "La
       Bible et la Nature," p. 499.

       "Since the north-west coast of America and the north-east of
       Asia have been explored, little difficulty remains on this
       subject.... Small boats can safely pass the narrow strait.
       Ten degrees farther south, the _Aleutian_ and Fox islands
       form a continuous chain between Kamschatka and the peninsula
       of Alaska in such a manner as to leave the passage across a
       matter of no difficulty."--Warburton's "Conquest of Canada,"
       i. 194.

       Ellis ("Polynesian Researches," ii. 46) says: "There are also
       _many_ points of _resemblance_ in language, manners, and
       customs between the South Sea Islanders and the inhabitants of
       Madagascar in the west; the inhabitants of the _Aleutian_ and
       _Kurile_ islands in the north, which stretch along the mouth
       of Behring's Straits, and forms the chain which connects the
       old and new worlds," &c.

 [224] "The Sandwich Islands, with a population of 500,000, are more
       than two thousand miles from the coast of South America. How
       did the population of those islands get there? Certainly
       not in canoes over ocean waves of two thousand miles. But I
       am told 'the Sandwich islanders are Polynesians;' not a bit
       of it; they are two thousand miles north of the Polynesian
       group, with the same impossibility of canoe navigation, and
       are as different in _physiological traits_ of character and
       _language_ from the Polynesian, as they are different from the
       American races.--"Last Rambles" (Catlin), p. 317. 1868.

       Captain King, "Transactions on returning to Sandwich Islands,"
       &c., continuation of Cook's voyages, Pinkerton (xi. 730) says
       on the contrary: "The inhabitants of the Sandwich Islands
       are undoubtedly of the same race with those of New Zealand,
       the Society and Friendly Islands, Easter Islands, and the
       Marquesas. This fact, which, extraordinary as it is, might be
       thought sufficiently proved by the _striking_ similarity of
       their _manners_ and _customs_, and the general resemblance of
       their _persons_ is established beyond all controversy by the
       _absolute identity_ of their language."

       Shortland says that the New Zealanders, "when speaking of any
       old practice, regarding the origin of which you may inquire,
       have the expression constantly in their mouths, 'E hara i te
       mea poka hou mai; no Hawaika mai ano.'--It is not a modern
       invention; but a practice brought from Hawaiki, Sandwich
       Islands)."--Shortland's "Traditions of the New Zealanders," p.
       61.

We may agree, then, that the Mandans might have come by this route.
Is there anything which makes it probable that they came? Well, yes;
in the first place their name. Mr Catlin tells us ("O-kee-pa," p. 5),
"The Mandans (Nu-mak-ká-kee, _pheasants_, as they call themselves) have
been known from the time of the first visits made to them, to the day
of their destruction, as one of the most friendly and hospitable tribes
on the United States frontier." It transpires, therefore, that they are
called _pheasants_. Is the pheasant a native of America?--on the other
hand, is it not common on the opposite Asiatic continent, and on the
islands adjacent to it from New Guinea to the Corea? I have never heard
of the pheasant in the American continent;[225] but in reading the
accounts of the missionaries of the Corea (the only foreigners who have
penetrated into the country), I read, "that clouds of _pheasants_ and
birds of all kinds perch at night in the branches of the trees" ("Life
of Henri Dorie," translated by Lady Herbert; Burns & Oates, p. 77); and
if the reader will turn to p. 79 in the same Life, and will compare
the description of the Coreans, which he will find there, with the
description and portraits of the Mandans in Mr Catlin's "O-kee-pa," pp.
4, 5, he will, I think, recognise a sufficient resemblance to warrant
and sustain the presumption created by their name.[226]

 [225] As far as I can ascertain, the pheasant is not a native of
       America. Yarrell speaks of it as Asiatic, and that it has
       been domesticated "in all parts of the _old_ continent."
       So also Gould. Of the American writers, _neither_ Wilson,
       Audubon, Bonaparte, Nuttall, Richardson, or Jameson include
       the pheasant. Mr Catlin, however, says, p. 44: "From the
       translation of their name, already mentioned (Nu-mah-ká-kee,
       pheasants), an important inference may be drawn in support of
       the probability of their having formerly lived much farther
       to the south, as that bird does not exist on the prairies of
       the Upper Missouri, and is not to be met with short of the
       hoary forests of Ohio and Indiana, eighteen hundred miles
       south of the last residence of the Mandans. In their familiar
       name of Mandan, which is not an Indian word, there are equally
       singular and important features. In the first place, that they
       knew nothing of the name or how they got it; and next, that
       the word Mandan in the Welsh language [Mr C.'s theory is that
       they are the survivors of Prince Madoc's expedition from Wales
       in the fourteenth century] means red dye, of which further
       mention will be made." On the legend of the Welsh expedition,
       _vide_ Warburton's "Conquest of Canada," ii., Appendix iv.

 [226] "The Indians resemble the people of north-eastern Asia in form
       and feature more than any other of the human race; their
       population is most dense along the districts nearest to Asia;
       and among the Mexicans, whose records of the past deserve
       credence, there is a constant tradition that their Aztec
       and Toltec chiefs came from the north-west."--Warburton's
       "Conquest of Canada," i. 195.

       Brace ("Manual of Ethnology," p. 115) says, after noting
       that whereas the prominence in the head "is anterior in the
       Chinese rather than lateral, as in the American Indians and
       the Tangusic tribes," adds, "The peculiar distinguishing
       characteristics are the smallness of the eyes and the
       obliquity of the eyelids. The nose is usually small and
       depressed, though sometimes, in favourable physical
       conditions, natives are found with a slightly aquiline nose,
       _giving the face a close resemblance to that of the American
       Indians or New Zealanders_."

       Refer to argument at p. 70, with reference to the Mozca
       Indians.

To the peculiarity of name, and resemblance of feature, I shall now
proceed to add the evidence of some traces of their peculiar customs,
or at least of some trace of the tradition out of which they arose.

I am not at present in possession of evidence to show this in the
Corea itself (almost totally unknown and unexplored), but in the
island of Formosa the same mode of burial is observed, only that
among the Formosans other customs are added, which remind one of the
commemorative customs of the Mandans.

 CATLIN, p. 8.

 "Their (Mandan) dead, partially embalmed, are
 tightly wrapped in buffalo hides softened with
 glue and water, and placed on slight scaffolds,
 above the reach of animals or human hands, each
 body having its separate scaffold."

 The Mandan dance was round "_the big canoe_,"
 and a part of their ceremony on the roof of
 their wigwams.

 Among the Opischeschaht _Indians_ (_vide Field_,
 Oct. 2, 1869) there was a dance which they
 called "the roof dance." "While the dance and
 song were going on below, leaped up and down
 between the roof-board, pushed aside for that
 purpose, making a noise like thunder.... After
 the dance was finished an old Seshaaht came
 forward, and remarked, that as it was a dance
 peculiar to his tribe it could not be omitted,"
 though "very injurious to the roof."

                    OGILBY'S JAPAN, p. 52.

                    "The manner of disposing of their (Formosans')
                    dead and funeral obsequies is thus: When any
                    one dies, the corpse being laid out, after
                    twenty-four hours they elevate it upon a
                    convenient scaffold or stage, four feet high,
                    matted with reeds and rushes, near which they
                    make a fire, so that the corpse may dry by
                    degrees.... They drink intoxicating liquors. One
                    beats on a drum made _like a chest_, but _longer_
                    and _broader_, and turning _the bottom upwards_;
                    the women get up, and two by two, back to back,
                    move their legs and arms in a dancing time and
                    measure, which pace, or taboring tread, sends
                    a kind of murmuring or doleful sound from the
                    _hollow tree_."

                    _N.B._--Their boats were constructed by hollowing
                    out a tree (_vide_ Catlin's "Last Rambles," p.
                    99).[227]

 [227] Compare what Ogilby (p. 36) says: "Near Firando (Japan) at an
       _inlet of the sea_ stands an idol, _being nothing but a chest
       of wood_, about three feet high, _standing like an altar_ [the
       big canoe was placed on end among the Mandans], whither women,
       when they suppose they have conceived, go in pilgrimage,
       offering on their knees rice or other presents." At p. 136, at
       Jado, it is said, "somewhat farther stands a temple _dedicated
       to all sorts of animals with a very high double roof_."
       (Query, Noah's ark?)

       In the _Illustrated London News_, January 13, 1872, its
       correspondent from Yokohama gives a short account of
       the Japanese religious festivals, in which among other
       coincidences I note the following: "The most absurd," he says,
       "is one in which the foul fiend is simultaneously expelled
       from every house by dint of pelting him with boiled peas. The
       devil is chased out of the town with a dance of derision, by
       young fellows in grotesque costumes, for the public mirth."
       Compare with the scene in the Mandan ceremonies, described by
       Catlin, _vide supra_, p. 260.

Now, compare with the above, and also with the extracts from Burton and
Catlin, at p. 254, remembering the prominence of the ox or bull (the
ox and bull dance) in the Mandan customs, and the connection of the
bull with Nin or Ninip, p. 200, 203, and other mythological figures
of which I believe Noah to have been the antitype. The following
description of the most curious traditional representation in Japan
(Ogilby, p. 279):--

  "Moreover, besides the ox temple in Meaco, there is also to be seen
  the stately chapel dedicated to the Creator of all things (the
  ox in the above-mentioned temple is represented as breaking the
  mundane egg, _vide supra_, p. 257), who is represented in a very
  strange manner. In the middle of the temple is a great pot _full
  of water_ surrounded with a wall, seven feet high from the ground,
  in the middle of which appears an _exceeding great tortoise_,
  whose shell, feet, and head stands in the water; out of its back
  rises the body of a great tree, on the top of which sits a strange
  and horrible figure" ... [then follows a good deal which has its
  explanation, but must be curtailed] ... "the image hath four arms"
  ... in one "the hand grasps a cruse, _from whence water issues
  continually_; the other hand _holds a sceptre_.... The tree whereon
  he sits is of brass, ... about the middle of this tree an exceeding
  great serpent hath wreathed itself _twice_, whose head and body is
  on the right side held fast by two horrible shapes, the remaining
  part thereof to the tail, two kings and one of Japan sages stretch
  forth" [evidently representing the contending influences (as in
  Mandan dance), one of the kings having the duplicated Janus head,
  _supra_, p. 220.][228]

 [228] Compare p. 448 in "Flint Chips," (E. T. Stevens). "The Omahas
       possess a _sacred shell_, which is regarded as an object of
       great sanctity by the whole nation. It has been transmitted
       from generation to generation, and its origin is unknown. A
       skin _lodge is appropriated to it_, and in this lodge a man,
       appointed as a guard to the shell, constantly resides. It
       is placed upon a stand, and is _never suffered to touch the
       earth_. It is concealed from sight by a _number of mats_ made
       of strips of skin plaited. The whole forms a large package,
       from which _tobacco_" (comp. Stevens' "Flint Chips," p. 315,
       and Catlin, _supra_) "and the _roots of trees_" (comp. supra,
       p. 155), "and other objects are suspended," &c. &c.

At pp. 477-78 there is perhaps a still more definite tradition of
the Deluge (confused as usual with traditions of the Creation) in
connection with the idol Topan. "Not far from Mettogamma (said the
interpreter) lies an exceeding _high mountain ... the top of which_
stand several temples which may be seen a great distance off at sea.
In these temples the Bonzies worshipped that great God which formerly
created the sun, moon, and stars, but also fifteen lesser deities which
some ages since conversed upon the earth (compare pp. 63, 97.) Then
follows their account of the Creation. "Mankind not only increased
in number but also in wickedness, differing more and more from their
heavenly extract, growing still worse and worse, mocking at thunder,
_rainbows_, and fire; nay, they blasphemed the great God himself
(whom when the interpreter named, he bowed his head to the ground),
whereupon He called His inferior deities about Him, telling them that
He resolved to destroy and ruin all things ... and make a _round_
globe, in which the four elements should be all resolved _into their
former mass_; and chiefly He commanded the idol Topan to make thunder
balls to shoot through the air and fire all the kingdoms with lightning
... so that none were saved except _one man and his family_, that had
entertained and duly worshipped the gods." Of the god Topan it had been
previously said "that some years since he saw the temple of the idol
Topan, whose image stood on a copper altar, cast like clouds, himself
armed as a warrior, a coronet helmet on his head, his hand grasping a
mighty club, and seeming to fly through the sky and moving his club to
occasion thunder. When it thundered, a Bonzi, whose head was adorned
with consecrated leaves [Query, the olive or willow?] which no thunder
could harm," offered _several fishes_." (Comp. 197, 203.) _Vide_ also
p. 94, representation of the fish-god in the person of their "god
Canon" [where we read of their "gods Canon and Camis or Chamis;" if we
were to substitute Canaan and Cham, _quid vetat_?][229]

 [229] _Vide_ Japanese tradition of the Deluge (Bertrand, "Dict.
       des Relig.," Gainet, i. 208; also _id._), it is said that
       the Japanese commemorate this event in their third annual
       festival, which takes place on the fifth day of the fifth
       month. Compare with Mandan's, _supra_.

To complete the circle of evidence, as regards the general tradition,
I must add the following extracts from Captain Cook's voyages, i.
110 (London, 1846):--"In the island of Huahieine, thirty-one leagues
from Otaheite N.-W.," Captain Cook came upon an erection, of which
he says--"The general resemblance between this repository and the
ark of the Lord among the Jews is remarkable; but it is still more
remarkable that upon inquiring of a boy what it was called, he said
'Ewharre no Eatua,' it is the house of God. He could, however, give
no account of its signification or use." At p. 111, "Saw (at Uliatea)
several Ewharre-no-Eatua or houses of God, to which carriage poles were
attached as at Huahieine.... From thence we went to a long house not
far distant, where among rolls of cloth and several other things we saw
the _model of a canoe_, about three feet long, to which were tied eight
human jawbones" [eight the number saved in the ark. Compare p. 197 with
Kabiri. Compare with Ogilby (Japan, 177), where the god Canon (Canaan)
is represented with seven heads on _his_ breast, eight with himself, he
having been substituted for Noah as the head of the race.] Captain Cook
adds, however, "We had already learnt that these, like scalps among the
Indians of North America, were trophies of war," and suggests that the
canoe "may be a symbol of invasion." That I must leave to the reader
to decide, but the heads might be "trophies of conquest," and at the
same time memorial heads,--the memorial heads having necessarily been
replaced many times since the custom was first instituted.[230]

 [230] Captain Cook, speaking of their dances (p. 115), says,
       "Between the dances of the women the men performed a kind of
       dramatic interlude, in which there was _dialogue_ as well as
       dancing; but we were not sufficiently acquainted with their
       language to understand the subject. Some gentlemen saw a much
       more regular entertainment of the dramatic kind, which was
       divided into _four acts_."

       _Vide_ Abbe Gainet, "La Bible sans la Bible," i. 213, quotes
       l'Abbe Domenech, who speaks of "the dance of the Deluge among
       many nations of the north and west of America." Gainet also
       says that there were two distinct traditions of the Deluge in
       the east and west groups of the Society Islands (Otaheite).

       L'Abbe Gainet (i. 211) gives an account of the _Mandans_ from
       "Ceremoníes Religieuses," i. 7, which it will be interesting
       to compare with Catlin, as it was written a century previous
       to his visit. "The Mandans pretend that the Deluge was
       formerly raised up against them by the white men to destroy
       their ancestors.... Then the _first man_, whom they regard
       as one of their divinities, inspired mankind with the idea
       of constructing upon an eminence a _town_ and fortress in
       wood, and promised them that the water should not pass that
       point. They followed his advice and constructed the ark on
       the banks of the Heart river. It was of a very large size,
       so that a part of their nation found safety there whilst the
       rest perished. In memory of this memorable event they place in
       each of their villages a small model of this _edifice_ [which
       may account for the erect position of 'the big canoe'], this
       model still exists. The waters abated after that, and to this
       day they celebrate, in memory of this ark, the fête of the
       '_Okippe_,' which lasts _four days_."

This leads me to the final question, When was this custom instituted?
Up to this I have not considered whether the custom was good or bad,
demoniac or only corrupted; and as to the time of its institution I
have merely assumed from the fact of its universality that it was
primeval.

Before expressing my opinion, I must fortify myself with an extract
from the Rev. W. Smith's very able work on the Pentateuch.[231]

 [231] Longmans, 1868, i. 290.

  "Strange, too, though it may appear, there is much in the outward
  ceremonial of the Levitical worship that indicates an Egyptian
  type. The fact need startle no one. For it is derogatory neither
  to the holiness of the Almighty nor to the inspiration of his
  delegate, that Moses should have borrowed from others rites which
  were good in themselves, and which became idolatrous only then,
  when employed in the worship of false gods. The most of external
  forms are in themselves indifferent and receive their determinate
  value from the feeling that prompts them, and the object to which
  they are directed: when given to God they are divine worship--when
  given to idols, they are idolatry. Nor is inspiration jeopardised
  because the material details may have come from a human source.
  Care and study and observation are not dispensed with in the mind
  that receives the divine communications; and Moses was instructed
  in all the wisdom and learning of the Egyptians for the very
  purpose of enabling him to use it to the best advantage ... as
  the Church consecrated to a higher purpose the temples and the
  rites and festivals found among the pagan populations at their
  conversion. We need not then be scandalised if we find the _ark
  of Jehovah_ to be the counterpart of the shrine of Amun. The
  resemblance strikes us at once on a glance at the woodcut token
  from Lepsius' Denkmäler, Ab. iii., Bl. 109."

Let the reader refer to the engravings in Rev. W. Smith's Pentateuch,
291, 292. Dr Smith does not discuss the point further, only he says (p.
294), "In Egypt it is _the canopied boat_ in which the Deity is steered
on the heavenly ocean; in Israel it is the covered chest, the form best
adapted for holding the stone tables of the law."

But if "the canopied boat" should have corresponded among the Egyptians
to "the big canoe" among the Mandans, and the other similar memorials
we have come upon, what more appropriate symbol could Moses have
incorporated? Was not the ark of the covenant, in which the law was
preserved in the widespread inundation of corruption, the counterpart
of the ark in which mankind, in the persons of Noah and his family,
were saved? and in carrying on and embodying the tradition, we may
see a motive why there may have been an intentional alteration of the
symbol--viz. in order to wean his people from the corruption into
which the whole Egyptian ceremonial had sunk?[232] And why should
it not have been so? Is there not a probability and fitness in the
conjecture of some such commemorative sacrifices and memorials among
mankind when they lived together before the dispersion in the times
immediately following the Deluge?

 [232] Cardinal Wiseman in his letters to John Poynder, Esq. ("Essays
       on Various Subjects," i. 257), says, "Dr Spencer, a learned
       divine of the Established Church, published two folio volumes
       replete with extraordinary erudition, entitled 'De Legibus
       Hebræorum ritualibus et eorum ratione,' which has gone through
       many editions both here and on the Continent. Now, the entire
       drift and purport of this work is manifestly twofold--first,
       to prove that the great design of God, in giving rites and
       ceremonies to the Jews, was to prevent their falling into
       idolatry; secondly, to demonstrate that almost every practice,
       rite, ceremony, and act so given was directly borrowed from
       the Egyptian heathens; ... that whether we speak of the more
       solemn and especial injunctions, or of the minutest details
       of the ceremonial law, of circumcision and of sacrifice in
       all its varieties, and with all its distinctive ceremonies
       of purification and lustrations and new moons; of the ark of
       the covenant and the cherubim; of the temple and its oracles;
       of the Urim and Thummim, and the emissary goat; of them all
       Spencer has endeavoured to prove, and that to the satisfaction
       of many learned men, that they pre-existed among the Egyptians
       and other neighbouring nations."

       I have not met with Dr Spencer's work. I may mention, however,
       the pomegranates in the Levitical robe as an instance. _Vide_
       references in this chapter and appendix.

                        APPENDIX TO CHAPTER XI.

                          THE PONGOL FESTIVAL.

 "The Pongol Festival in Southern India," by
 Charles E. Govat. "Journal of the Royal Asiatic
 Society of Great Britain and Ireland," new
 series, vol. v., part i. (1870.)

 "I had seen the Pongol, the touching domestic
 festival it is now my chief object to describe.
 It had proved by its simple pathos that the
 Hindus were akin to the noblest nations of
 the world, and that in their antiquity they
 were worthy of the honour that has come to
 them of being the best and the least altered
 representatives of the 'Juventus Mundi,' which
 all nations count to have been the golden age."
 He contrasts it with the worship in the great
 temple at Siringham near Trichinopoly, in which
 there "was ample justification for every epithet
 employed by Ward, Dubois, or Wilberforce."
 "Yet the Pongol declared with equal force in
 favour of domestic love and chastity, of simple
 thanksgiving and rural contentment.... There is
 much reason to suppose that the Pongol is one
 of the most complete and interesting of these
 remnants of primitive life. That it is primitive
 is shown by the fact that the old Vedic deities
 are alone worshipped. Indra is the presiding
 deity. Agni is the main object of worship. A
 further proof of this point is given by the
 efforts that have constantly been made by the
 Brahmans to corrupt the ritual, and introduce
 Pauranic deities. Krishna is always declared
 by the Brahmans to be the Pongol god, but the
 _tradition itself_ bears witness that the feast
 is older than the god. The tale is that when the
 great wave of Krishna worship passed over the
 Peninsula, the people were so enamoured of him
 that they ceased to perform the Pongol rites
 to Indra. This made the latter deity _so angry
 that he poured down a flood upon the earth_. The
 affrighted people ran to Krishna, who seized
 the great mountain Govardhanas, wrenched it
 from its place, and held it aloft on the tip of
 his little finger, like some huge umbrella. The
 people then ran beneath with their flocks and
 were saved.... The occasion of the festival is
 also primitive, for the Pongol is another feast
 of ingathering, the centre of Hebrew festivals,
 as this is of those of Southern India.... The
 Pongol is remarkable, as will be seen, for the
 strange combination of pastoral, hunting, and
 agricultural life. There are 'harvest homes' in
 almost every nation, but I do not know of any
 other example of the combination. The _great_
 days of the feast are two--one of these devoted
 to the new crops, the other to the cattle alone
 ... while the feast winds up with a grand hunt,
 first of the cattle themselves and next of a
 hare." Compare ch. vii.; compare Patagonian.

 "Long before the commencement of the feast an
 unwonted activity pervades native society. The
 Pongol is _the_ social festival of the year,
 and must be celebrated with due honour, else
 an ineffaceable stain will rest on the family
 name. It is the Christmas and Whitsuntide of
 England made into one.... So soon as the _rains
 have finished_, and this may be expected by
 about the first week in December, the carpenter,
 the builder, and the artists are in full work
 repairing the houses.... The sides of the road
 in the bazaar are heaped with 'chatties' of
 all sizes and shapes. Presents are bought for
 children. Distant relatives have no fields of
 their own from which to get their rice, so a
 sack of the new grain from the ancestral acres
 goes off to each. To this is added a pot of
 ghee, a set of brass pots, or perhaps a jewel;
 that the Pongol may not lack wherewith to make
 it joyful." Creditors and debtors are often
 brought then to a compromise, or the process is
 postponed "till after Pongol."

 "All must be ready by the early part of January,
 when, according to the Hindu astrologers, the
 sun enters the tropic of Capricorn. The feast
 hangs upon this, and it will be seen that the
 most interesting event of the celebration must
 exactly coincide with the passage of the sun.
 The festival commences on the previous day,
 and lasts for seven days, of which the second
 marks the sun's passage, and is called Mahâ (or
 great) Pongol, ... the next day is Bhôgi Pongol,
 or Pongol of rejoicing, equally well known by
 the name of Indra, ... bonfires and torches are
 illuminated (compare Boulanger, lib. i. ch.
 ii.) The feast is now begun, and all turn from
 the fire, as it is extinguished by the rising
 sun, to the _bath_, with which every religious
 rite must commence. No image is used during
 the whole course of the celebration, except
 that of Ganesa.... Indra is represented on
 ordinary occasions as _a white man_ sitting on
 an elephant. In his left hand is a bow (compare
 ch. xv.), and in his right a thunderbolt,
 while his body is studded with a thousand eyes.
 [Query, a reference to the peacock? Compare ch.
 xv.] Agni has also his special image, that
 of a stout man, red and hairy as Esau, riding
 on a goat [compare Bacchus, p. 214]. Sûrya
 is also a red man, sitting on a water lily.
 He has four arms and three eyes. But none of
 these (deities) are known at Pongol any more
 than they were at the time when the hymns of
 the Rig Veda were composed.... The gifts are
 laid out on trays,--a vase of sugar, or perhaps
 an idol, _peacock_ or elephant, round which
 will be grouped smaller works in sugar for the
 children.... One thing may not be forgotten,
 that is a lime [compare 'gourd,' p. 256]. This
 must be _as large_ as money can buy, and then
 be carefully encased in gold leaf till it looks
 like one of the golden apples of antiquity. The
 next day is Mahâ (or great) Pongol. It is often
 called Sûrya Pongol. At noon the sun will cross
 the equator, and bring the culminating glory of
 the feast. So great a day must commence with
 appropriate ceremonial, and _in this instance
 it is bathing_. In country places the women run
 early in the morning to the _nearest tank_ and
 _plunge bodily in without undressing_." [This
 is alluded to by Mr Gover as "an innovation so
 uncomfortable and possibly dangerous;" but no
 evidence is adduced of its being an innovation,
 and its being the custom of the "country parts"
 would incline us to the contrary belief.]
 The men also bathe very carefully, as if the
 occasion _were very solemn_. Reference is made
 to the Rig Veda, i. 23, 15-24 (Wilson, i. 57);
 but in these verses occur the words, "waters
 take away whatever sin has been found in me."

 "Dripping wet, the women proceed, without
 changing their clothes, to prepare the feast,
 ... new chatties, or earthen vessels had been
 purchased for the occasion; one of them is now
 taken and is filled with rice, milk, sugar,
 dholghee or clarified butter, grain, and other
 substances, calculated to produce a tasty
 dish.... The ingathering must be celebrated
 with things that have just been garnered.
 Usually Hindoos will not eat new rice, as it
 is indigestible" (refer to Leviticus xxiii.
 10-14). Another incident is that--"The head of
 the house approaches the image (of Ganesa), and
 performs pûja. Then follows a procession of
 the young married couples to propitiate their
 mothers-in-law.... So a present, the best the
 house can provide, is carefully put together on
 a tray. It may be fruit, or brass pots, or ghee,
 or whatever else may be thought most acceptable.
 Then a small procession is formed. In front
 go three or four men, beating on tom-toms and
 blowing pipes. Then follows the gift, held
 aloft. Over it, if the family be respectable,
 is held an umbrella, carried by a servant who
 walks behind the bearer of the gift.... The
 nearest relative steps forward and asks that
 the daughter and her husband may come to the
 'boiling,' to fill up the family circle. Then
 follows the boiling of the pot; 'as the milk
 boils, so will the coming year be.' The Pongol
 is one long series of visits, entertainments,
 and social joys." (Comp. Mandan Festival,
 _supra_.)

 "The third day of the feast is Mâttu Pongol, or
 the Pongol _of the cattle_. It commences with
 a general _wash_. They betake themselves to
 the nearest _sacred_ tank, driving or dragging
 with them the whole bovine possessions of
 the village. They are then driven home, and
 adornment commences; the horns are carefully
 painted _red_, _blue_, _green_, _or yellow_,--if
 the owner be rich, gold leaf is employed,--heavy
 garlands of flowers placed on the horns.
 Meanwhile the women have prepared another new
 chatty, filling it with water, steeping within
 saffron, cotton seeds, and mangora leaves. The
 master of the ceremonial, usually the head of
 the house, comes for it, and places himself at
 the head of a procession of all the men--the
 women may not see the rite we now describe. In
 solemn silence they march round each animal four
 times, while the first man sprinkles the bitter
 water upon it and the ground as often as they
 pass the four cardinal points of the compass....
 This done, the women and children are again
 admitted. The patient cattle are led out one by
 one to receive their final adornment.... Then,
 at a given signal, every rope is untied, every
 tom-tom, pipe, and guitar is banged or blown to
 the extreme of its endurance, and in an instant
 the herd, hitherto so patient, is careering down
 the street in an extremity of terror.... Any one
 may possess himself of whatever is carried by
 the cattle. No little skill and a vast amount of
 courage are shown by the 'timid' Hindoos in this
 dangerous and exciting pell-mell. The next day
 is Kanen Pongol, or Pongol of the calves.

 "On the evening of this day we find the only
 token of corruption in the ceremonial." ... Then
 follows a dance, just as is described by Catlin
 as _closing_ the Mandan ceremonial, in which
 very similar scenes occur.

                    Before adverting to the points of contrast
                    between the Pongol and the Mandan and Dahoman
                    ceremonies, I will give an extract from a
                    book recently published, giving an account of
                    a country hitherto unexplored--viz. Northern
                    Patagonia. Traces I think will be recognised of
                    the same primitive custom, though with evidences
                    of corruption.

                    "Three Years Slavery among the Patagonians," by
                    Guinnard (Bentley, 1871), p. 269.[233]

                    [233] Much doubt has been expressed as to the
                           veracity of M. Guinnard's narrative, but
                           the scenes and customs referred to are
                           not likely to have been invented; and on
                           the supposition of a fictitious narrative
                           (although I see nothing incredible) they
                           will probably have been imported from true
                           narratives of other tribes. In either case
                           they supply additional evidence.

                    "At certain periods of the year the Indians keep
                    religious festivals. The first takes place in the
                    summer, and is consecrated to Vita-ouènetrou (the
                    god of goodness) for the purpose of thanking him
                    for all his past favours, and of begging him to
                    continue them in the future. It is generally the
                    grand cacique who fixes the date and duration
                    of the festival.... The preparations are made
                    with all the religious pomp of which they are
                    capable; the Indians grease their hair and paint
                    their faces with greater care than usual.... At
                    the commencement of the ceremony the women move
                    their tents provisionally to the centre of the
                    spot chosen by the cacique. The men do not arrive
                    until these preparations are finished, they ride
                    three times round the place at full gallop,
                    shouting their war cry and shaking their lances.
                    Then, their rides ended, they range themselves
                    in single file, and tilt their lances with such
                    perfect regularity as to make it a striking
                    sight. The women _afterwards take the places of
                    their husbands_" (compare Catlin, _sup._, p.
                    260), "who, after dismounting and tying up their
                    horses, form a second rank behind them."

                    "The dance then commences without change of
                    place, except from right to left. The women sing
                    in a plaintive tone [laughter being expressly
                    forbidden during the whole continuance of the
                    ceremonies], accompanying themselves by striking
                    a _wooden drum_." Compare Catlin, _sup._, 257.
                    It is also said (Guinnard, p. 198), "The drum is
                    composed of a sort of wooden bowl, more or less
                    large, over which a wild-cat skin is stretched,
                    or a piece of the paunch of a _horse_. _This
                    instrument_ ... is much used by them, _especially
                    in their religious festivals_ and character
                    dances." The drum is "decorated with colours and
                    designs similar to those on their faces. The men
                    pirouette, limping upon the opposite leg to that
                    of the women." Compare Catlin, 254, 260. "At a
                    signal given by the cacique presiding over the
                    festival, cries of alarm are raised, the men
                    spring into their saddles, abruptly _interrupting
                    the dance_ to take part in a fantastic cavalcade
                    round the site of the festival, all waving their
                    weapons, and raising the sinister cry they utter
                    in their pillages."

                    "In the intervals of these exciting diversions
                    everybody _goes visiting_ in the hope of tasting
                    a little rotted _milk_ kept in a horse-hide."
                    Compare Pongol Festival, p. 280.

                    "At a very early hour on the fourth day, to close
                    the ceremony, a young _horse_, an _ox_, and two
                    sheep, given by the richest men amongst them, are
                    sacrificed to their god. The head turned towards
                    the east, and the heart still palpitating is hung
                    upon a lance and inclined towards the rising sun."

                    "The second festival takes place in the autumn;
                    it is celebrated in honour of Houacouvou
                    (_director of_ the evil spirits). The object
                    of it is to conjure him to preserve them from
                    all enchantment. As in the first festival, the
                    Indians dress themselves in their best, and
                    assemble by tribes only, headed by their cacique.
                    An assemblage of _all the cattle_ takes place
                    _en masse_. The men form a double circle around,
                    galloping unceasingly in opposite directions, so
                    that none of these unruly animals may escape.
                    They invoke Houacouvou aloud, throwing down, drop
                    by drop, fermented _milk_ out of _bull's horns_,
                    handed to them _by their wives_, while they are
                    riding round the cattle. After repeating this
                    ceremony three or _four_ times, they sprinkle
                    the horses and oxen with whatever remains of the
                    milk, with the view, they say, of preserving
                    them from all maladies; this done, each man
                    _separates his own cattle_, and _drives it to
                    some distance_, then returns for the purpose of
                    assembling round the cacique, who, in a long and
                    fervid address, advises them never to forget
                    Houacouvou in their prayers, and to lose no
                    time in preparing themselves to please him, by
                    carrying desolation amongst the Christians, and
                    increasing the number of their own flocks and
                    herds."

                    This festival, therefore, in its original
                    conception would not appear to be a worship of
                    the evil spirit, but of him who curbs him; the
                    same idea of the subordination of the evil spirit
                    will be seen in Catlin's account of the Mandans.

                    There is nothing certainly in this account which
                    directly connects these Patagonian ceremonies
                    with the diluvian commemorations, unless,
                    perhaps, the sacred drum; but there is much in
                    common with the Pongol and the Mandan which we
                    have seen to have been commemorative.

                    The prominence of sun worship will not have
                    escaped observation; but this discovery cannot
                    militate against my position, for I have already
                    shown (p. 160) that such admixture was
                    probable, and also indicated how it was likely
                    to have come about. Any hostile argument which
                    would seek to deprive those ceremonies of their
                    significance must be directed to the extrusion of
                    the diluvian symbols.

                      Further trace of these diluvian ceremonies
                    might be traced in the Buddhist systems; but
                    it would open out too large a question for
                    discussion here.



                              CHAPTER XII.

                 _SIR JOHN LUBBOCK ON TRADITION._


                        DE MAISTRE'S VIEW.[234]

  "We have little knowledge of the times which preceded the
  Deluge.... A single consideration interests us, and it must
  never be lost sight of, and that is, that chastisements are ever
  proportioned to crimes, and crimes always proportioned to the
  knowledge of the criminal; in such sort that the Deluge supposes
  unheard-of crimes, and that these crimes suppose a knowledge
  infinitely transcending that which we possess.... This knowledge,
  freed from the evil which had rendered it so noxious, survived in
  the first family the destruction of the human race. We are blinded
  as to the nature and advance of science by a gross sophism which
  has fascinated every eye; it is to judge of times when men saw
  effects in their causes by those in which men painfully ascend from
  effects to causes, in which they are only concerned with effects,
  in which they say it is useless to occupy themselves with causes,
  and in which they do not know what constitutes a cause. They never
  cease repeating--'Think of the time that has been required to know
  such and such a thing.' What inconceivable blindness! A moment only
  was required. If man would know the cause of a single phenomenon of
  nature, he would probably comprehend all the rest. We are unwilling
  to see that truths, the most difficult to discover, are very easy
  to understand.... 'These things,' as Plato says, 'are perfectly
  and easily learned if any one teaches them, [Greek: ei didaskoi
  tis]; but,' he adds, 'no one will teach them us, unless, indeed,
  God shows him the road, [Greek: all oud an didaxeien ei mê Theos
  yphêgoito].' 'I doubt not,' said Hippocrates, 'that the arts were
  in the first instance favours ([Greek: theôn charitas]) granted to
  men by the gods.'... Listen to sage antiquity in its account of the
  first men: it will tell you that they were marvellous men, and that
  beings of a superior order deigned to favour them with the most
  precious communications. On this point there is no disagreement,
  ... reason, revelation, all human tradition make up a demonstration
  which the mouth only can contradict. Not only, then, did mankind
  commence with science, but with a science different from ours, and
  superior to ours.... No one knows to what epoch remounts, I do not
  say the early commencements of society, but the great institutions,
  the profound knowledge, and the most magnificent monuments of
  human industry and human power.... Asia, having been the theatre
  of the greatest marvels, it is not astonishing that its people
  should have preserved a leaning to the marvellous stronger than
  what is natural to man in general, and than each one recognises in
  himself individually. Hence it comes that they have always shown
  so little taste and talent for our science of _conclusions_. One
  would say rather that they recalled something of primitive science
  and of the era of intuition. Would the enchained eagle ask for a
  balloon to raise himself into the air? No, he would demand only
  that his fetters should be broken. And who knows if these people
  are not destined yet to contemplate sights which will be refused
  to the cavilling genius of Europe? However this may be, observe,
  I pray you, that it is impossible to think of modern art without
  seeing it constantly environed with all the contrivances of the
  intellect and all the methods of art.... On the contrary. So far as
  it is possible to discover the science of primitive times at such
  an enormous distance, we see it always free and isolated, flying
  rather than marching, and presenting in all its characteristics
  something of the ærial and supernatural.[235]... But then comes
  the corollary.... If all men descend from the three couples who
  repeopled the universe, and if the human race commenced with
  knowledge, the savage cannot be more, as I have said to you, than
  a branch detached from the social tree.... Now, what matter does
  it make at what epoch such and such a branch was separated from
  the tree? It suffices that it is detached: no doubt as to its
  degradation; and I venture to say no doubt as to the cause of
  degradation, which can only have been some crime. A chief of a
  nation having altered the principle of morality in his household
  by one of those prevarications which, so far as we can judge, are
  no longer possible in the actual state of things, because happily
  our knowledge is no longer such as to allow us to become culpable
  in this degree; this chief of a nation, I say, transmits the curse
  to his posterity; and every constant force being accelerating
  in its nature, this degradation, weighing incessantly upon his
  descendants, has ended in making them what we call _savages_. Two
  causes extremely different have thrown a deceptive cloud over the
  lamentable state of savages: the one of ancient date, the other
  belonging to our century.... One cannot for an instant regard
  the savage without reading the curse written, I do not say only
  in his soul, but even in the exterior form of his body. He is an
  infant, robust, yet deformed and ferocious, in whom the flame of
  intelligence no longer throws more than a lurid and intermittent
  glare.... I cannot abandon this subject without suggesting an
  important observation: The barbarian who is intermediate between
  the civilised man and the savage, has been and may be again
  civilised by some sort of religion; but the savage, properly so
  called, has never been so except by Christianity. It is a prodigy
  of the first order, a species of redemption, exclusively reserved
  to the true priesthood.[236]... For the rest, we must not confound
  the _savage_ with the _barbarian_.

 [234] I need not remind my reader that these speculations of De
       Maistre anticipated by many years the analogous, though at the
       same time independent, conclusions of Archbishop Whately, in
       his lecture "On the Origin of Civilisation," published in 1854.

 [235] "We ought then to recognise that the state of civilisation and
       of science is, in a certain sense, the natural and primitive
       state of man. Thus, all oriental traditions commenced with
       a state of perfection and light, and, I repeat it, of
       supernatural light; and Greece--lying Greece, which 'has dared
       everything in history'--renders homage to this truth, in
       placing its Golden Age at the beginning of things. It is no
       less remarkable that it does not attribute to the following
       ages, even to the iron age, the state of savagery, so that all
       that it has told us of those primitive men living on acorns,
       &c., puts it _in contradiction with itself_, and can only have
       reference to particular cases, _i.e._ to some races degraded,
       and then reclaimed to a state of nature, which is a state of
       civilisation."--_De Maistre's "Soirées de St Petersbourg"_ i.
       _Deux: Entretien_, p. 98.

 [236] I consider that this remark has been fully substantiated in
       Marshall's "Christian Missions."

  "No language could possibly have been invented, either by a single
  man, who could not have extorted obedience, or by many who would
  not have made themselves understood to each other.... But I would
  wish, before concluding this subject, to recommend to your notice
  an observation which has always struck me. Whence comes it that in
  the primitive language of every ancient people, we find words which
  necessarily suppose a knowledge foreign to these people? Whence,
  for instance, have the Greeks, three thousand years ago at least,
  found the epithet 'physizoos' (giving or possessing life), which
  Homer sometimes gives to the earth?.... Where have they taken the
  still more singular epithet of 'philomate' (liking or thirsting for
  blood), given to this same earth in a tragedy? (Euripides, Phoen.
  v. 179). Æschylus had alluded before 'to the earth drinking the
  blood of the two rival brothers, the one slain by the other.'[237]
  Humboldt ('Monum. des Peuples Indigènes de l'Amerique,' Paris,
  1816) has said: 'Many idioms which at present belong only to
  barbarous nations seem to be the remains of rich and flexible
  languages, which indicate a high culture.... But tell me, I pray
  you, how it entered the heads of the ancient Latins, at a time when
  they were only acquainted with the arts of war and of tillage, to
  express by the same word the idea of prayer and of punishment? Who
  taught them to call fever the "purifier," or the "expiator"?'[238]
  Would not one say that there was here a judgment, a veritable
  knowledge of the cause, by virtue of which the people affirmed the
  name so justly? But do you believe that these sorts of judgments
  could possibly have belonged to a time when they scarcely knew
  how to write, when the Dictator dug his garden, and in which they
  composed verses which Varro and Cicero no longer understood?... The
  Greeks had preserved some obscure traditions in this regard--[Mr
  Gladstone has shown them to be neither few nor obscure],--and who
  knows if Homer does not attest the same truth, perhaps without
  knowing it, when he speaks of certain men and certain things 'which
  the gods called after one manner, and men after another?'"--_Count
  Joseph de Maistre, "Soirées de St Petersbourg,"_ i. _Deux:
  Entretien._[239]

 [237] Compare with Gainet, i. 92, 93.

 [238] "Now it is clear that the train of thought which leads from
       purification to penance, or from purification to punishment,
       reveals a moral and even a religious sentiment in the
       conception and naming of poena, and it shows us that in
       the very infancy of criminal justice punishment was looked
       upon (Mr Max Müller is speaking with reference to what I may
       call briefly the Sanscrit epoch) not simply a retribution or
       revenge, but as a correction, as a removal of guilt. We do not
       feel the presence of these early thoughts when we speak of
       corporal punishment or castigation; yet _castigation_ too was
       originally chastening, from '_castus_,' pure; and 'incestum'
       was impurity or sin, which, according to Roman law, the
       priests had to make good, or to punish by a 'supplicium,' or
       supplication or prostration before the gods."

 [239] Compare with Max Müller, "Chips," ii. 256.

Against this view of De Maistre, which I consider to be indirectly
sustained by the testimony of all antiquity, stands the theory of
Sir John Lubbock. There is the constant historical tradition and
testimony of the human race on one side, and there is the history of
"Pre-historic Times" on the other. Nevertheless, I venture to say, that
the author of "Pre-historic Times" only takes up with man at the point
where De Maistre leaves him.

Of course I do not seek to detach Sir John Lubbock from the evidence he
has collected; neither do I forget that he is the representative of an
opinion and a school; at any rate, that there is an opinion of which he
is the most conspicuous exponent.

So far as my limited acquaintance with the special subjects with which
Sir John Lubbock deals extends (and with these I am only indirectly
concerned), he appears perfectly straightforward and candid; and,
moreover, I must acknowledge my obligations to him, for he has
written with remarkable breadth and ability; and it is with the aid
of the interesting matter which he has accumulated,[240] expressly in
disparagement of tradition, that I venture to undertake to reinstate it
in honour.

 [240] _Vide_ chapter on Savage Life in "Pre-historic Times."

Neither do I wish to ignore that Sir John Lubbock's main argument is
the geological argument derived from the discovery of the fossils and
implements in the drift. But on this point I beg to be allowed to say a
word in protest.

As a geologist Sir John Lubbock may be entitled to rely mainly upon the
geological evidence of a palæolithic age;[241] but as an ethnologist
dealing with history and writing on the subject of tradition, his
argument, however incontrovertible he may deem it, sinks to the second
rank; and secondary I shall take the liberty of considering it. On the
same grounds, though I think with more reason, that Sir J. Lubbock
seeks to be relieved from "the embarrassing interference of tradition"
("Pre-historic Times," p. 336), I protest, when tradition is the
subject-matter of the discussion, against a geological argument being
brought to take the ground from under our feet!

 [241] It may perhaps be doubtful to what extent Sir J. Lubbock
       maintains his theory of a Stone Age; although Sir John
       formally excludes China and Japan from the argument, he
       nevertheless appears to me to assume the existence of
       universal transitional periods through which the human race
       necessarily passed. "It would appear that pre-historic
       archæology may be divided into four great epochs. Firstly,
       that of the Drift: when man shared the possession of Europe
       with the mammoth, &c. This we may call the 'palæolithic
       period.' Secondly, the later or polished Stone Age; a period,
       &c. Thirdly, the Bronze Age, &c. Fourthly, the Iron Age." Sir
       John adds, certainly--"In order to prevent misapprehension,
       it may be well to state at once, that for the present I only
       apply this classification to Europe, though in all probability
       it might be extended also to the neighbouring parts of Asia
       and Africa. As regards other civilised countries, China
       and Japan for instance, we as yet know nothing of their
       pre-historic archæology. [I should rather say, as we as
       yet have no reason to suppose that they have ever lost the
       knowledge of metals.] It is evident also that some nations,
       such as the Fuegians, Andamaners, &c., are _even now_ only
       in an age of stone. But even in this limited sense, the
       above classification has not met with general acceptance;
       there _are still some_ archæologists who believe that the
       arms and implements--stone, bronze, and iron--were used
       contemporaneously."--_Pre-historic Times_, pp. 2, 3. I think
       that the concluding sentence makes it quite clear that Sir
       John assumes the existence of universal progressive periods
       as above. In any case it may be proved in this way. Sir John
       argues upon the hypothesis of the unity of the human race; and
       I also think that he will not refuse the unbroken testimony
       to the fact of the civilisation of Europe from Asia. Either,
       then, the _first_ colonisation took place when Asia was in the
       state of the "Drift," or in the "later polished Stone Age," or
       else the migration left Asia with the knowledge of bronze or
       iron. On the latter supposition the argument I contend for is
       conceded, and original civilisation and subsequent degeneracy
       is established. To escape this alternative the universality of
       a Stone Age in Asia as well as in Europe, must be proved or
       assumed. This assumption I maintain is essential to Sir John's
       argument.

In the first place, I beg to urge that if Sir J. Lubbuck's argument be
well founded, Professor Rawlinson's reconstruction of Assyrian history
cannot be true. Now I assume that the one order of facts is as well
established as the other.

If Professor Rawlinson takes back Assyrian history and corroborates
history and tradition by the evidence of recent excavations to
B.C. 2234, identifies the Erech of Scripture with the Huruk
of the cuneiform tablets and the modern Urka; similarly identifies the
other three cities of Nimrod; and, finally, identifies Nimrod himself
as Bil-Nipru; and if, further, bronze implements are found (Rawlinson,
i. 101, 123, 211), along with flint doubtless (but this was common
throughout the bronze age, as Sir John himself admits), at an early
period;--and bronze, though comparatively rare, yet exists among the
very early Assyrian remains--there seems no good reason to suppose that
the knowledge of metals, which we know (Gen. iv. 22) to have existed
before the Deluge, and which the construction of the ark presupposes,
was ever lost.

A stone age, exclusive of metals, common to the whole world and to
all mankind, is therefore an untenable hypothesis according to the
testimony of history. If it existed anywhere it must have been only
partially, locally, and contemporaneously with this traditional
knowledge of metals, which seems to be historically proved.[242] I
may at least be permitted to believe in the accuracy of Professor
Rawlinson's conclusions, and to regard them as the verdict of
history: and if the historical arguments so pronounce, why should the
geological or palæontological argument override it? Is not history
supreme on its own ground--and if Scripture is always found in perfect
consistency with history, is it not as much as in strictness we should
have a right to expect? "Tradidit mundum disputationi eorum" (Eccles.
iii. 11).

 [242] Wilson ("Archæologia of Scotland," 360) says, "But after all
       it is to Asia we are forced to return for the _true source
       of nearly all our primitive arts_, nor will the canons of
       archæology be established on a safe foundation till the
       antiquities of that older continent have been explored and
       classified." Not only bronze but iron has been found in the
       East in use at an early period (_vide_ Layard, "Nineveh and
       Babylon," 178-9, 194). At Nimroud, Dr Percy (_id._ 670) says
       the iron was used to economise the bronze; if so it must have
       been cheaper, and therefore probably more abundant; and he
       is of opinion that "iron was more extensively used by the
       ancients than seems to be generally admitted." Philology seems
       also to establish an early common knowledge, and subsequent
       tradition of the use of metals. Mr Max Müller (ii. 45) says,
       "That the value and usefulness of some of the metals was known
       before the separation of the Aryan race can be proved only
       by a few words; for the names of most of the metals differ
       in different countries. Yet there can be no doubt that iron
       was known, and its value appreciated, whether for defence
       or attack. Whatever its old Aryan name may have been, it is
       clear that Sanscrit 'ayas,' Latin 'ahes,' in 'ahencus' and
       even the contracted form 'æs, æris'; the Gothic 'ais,' the
       old German 'er,' and the English iron, are names cast in the
       same mould, and only slightly corroded even now by the rust of
       so many centuries." The Swedish Gothic race had no tradition
       but of weapons of iron. (Professor Nillson's "Stone Age," p.
       192.) I find in Captain Cook's Voyages that in Otaheite their
       word for iron is "eure-eure." Germans (_apud_ Tacitus) called
       their iron lances "framea," which has great resemblance to
       _ferrum_. (_Vide_ Wilson, 195.) The following passage from
       Wilson's "Archæologia" seems to prove this common terminology
       still more extensively--"The Saxon 'gold' differs not more
       essentially from the Greek '[Greek: chrysos]' than from the
       Latin 'aurum'; iron from '[Greek: sideros]' or 'ferrum';
       _but_ when we come to examine the Celtic names of the metals
       it is otherwise. The Celtic terms are: Gold: Gael, 'or,'
       golden, 'orail'; Welsh, 'aur'; Latin, ' aurum.' Silver: Gael,
       'airgiod,' made of silver, 'airgiodach'; Welsh, 'ariant';
       Latin, 'argentum'--derived in the Celtic from 'arg,' white, or
       milk, like the Greek '[Greek: argos],' whence they also formed
       their '[Greek: argyros].' Now, is it improbable that the Latin
       'ferrum' and the English 'iron' spring indirectly from the
       same Celtic root? Gael, '_iarunn_'; Welsh, '_haiarn_'; Saxon,
       iron; Danish, 'iern'; Spanish, 'hierro,' which last furnishes
       no remote approximation to 'ferrum.' Nor with the older metals
       is it greatly different, as bronze, Gael, 'umha' or '_prais_';
       Welsh, 'pres,' whence our English 'brass,' a name bearing no
       very indistinct resemblance to the Roman 'æs.' Lead in like
       manner has its peculiar Gaelic name 'luaidha,' like the Saxon
       'læd' (lead), while the Welsh 'plwm' closely approximates to
       the Latin 'plumbum.' It may undoubtedly be argued that the
       Latin is the root instead of the offshoot of these Celtic
       names, but the entire archæological proofs are opposed to this
       idea," p. 350.

       Sir J. Lubbock, "Pre-historic Times" (p. 372) says, "The tools
       of the Tahitians when first discovered were made of stone,
       bone, shell, or wood. Of metal they had no idea. When they
       first obtained nails they mistook them for the young shoots of
       some very hard wood, and hoping that life might not be quite
       extinct, planted a number of them carefully in their gardens."

       Captain Wallis, however, speaking of the islands within the
       Polynesian group, remarks "as an extraordinary circumstance
       that although no sort of metal was seen on any of the lately
       discovered islands, yet the nations were no sooner possessed
       of a piece of _iron_, than they began to _sharpen it_, but did
       not treat copper or brass in the same manner."--"Voyages of
       English Navigators round the World," iii. 108.

       Would not these different appreciations of iron and brass be
       accounted for if we suppose iron to be the _last_ metal they
       had been traditionally acquainted with? iron being the more
       common and inexpensive metal.

Now, secondly, as it happens that bronze is only a combination of
copper and tin in certain proportions, and as neither existed on the
spot (in the Mesopotamian valley), it is a curious question how they
could have hit upon the discovery through actual experiment. Tin,
for instance, is only found in Cornwall, Banca (between Sumatra and
Borneo), Spain, Saxony, and Siberia. Now, how did it enter the heads of
even these wise Chaldæans to go to these distant countries in search
of this metal unless they knew beforehand through tradition, that if
procured along with copper it would produce the useful amalgam they
sought? True, it might have been brought to them through commerce,
but in that case there must have been some other race more advanced
in civilisation than themselves. If the Phoenicians, much the same
argument will recur. If some race in the countries where tin was
procured, where is it now? If it exists it must be represented by
some race at present or historically known to have been in a state of
barbarism. This, however, at this stage of the argument, would be too
precipitate an admission of degeneracy!

Now, in a certain modified sense, I should be quite prepared to
admit a stone age. Nothing more probable than that in the dispersion
certain families would have taken only what came readiest to hand.
Those who made long marches, and came to countries where minerals
were scarce, would have been in the way of losing the knowledge of
metals altogether, except in so far as they preserved the tradition
of them; and this would much depend upon how far they preserved other
traditions.[243] Some instance should be given us--and as there are
savages who are still using nothing but flint, there is still the
chance--of some set of savages who have spontaneously hit upon the
plan of fusing different metals, or even of smelting metals which
were under their eye? Certainly not our supposed flint ancestors,
who, as Professor Nillson and Sir J. Lubbock agree, must have got
their knowledge of bronze from Asia: Sir J. Lubbock inclining to an
Indo-European, Professor Nillson to a Phoenician "origin of the
bronze age civilisation." ("Pre-historic Times," p. 49.) All this
perfectly coincides with the view I have indicated, that the contrast
arose through the divergence of the lines of the dispersion, leading
the tribes to varied fortunes, some losing and others retaining the
tradition; and those who retained it eventually communicating it to
those who had lapsed. But then there are those unfortunate Bashkirs,
who, Professor Nillson tells us, are still in their stone age, and who
have remained Bashkirs since Herodotus described them as such 2300
years ago. As they have resisted the contact of civilisation so long,
one can only watch with careful curiosity the transitionary process by
which they will pass by internal development from their stone to their
bronze age.[244]

 [243] "Mr Vaux of the British Museum has added the following
       interesting note on the metallurgy of the ancients. 1st, The
       earliest form of metal work appears to have been employed
       in the ornamentation of sacred vessels for temples, &c....
       Occasionally the floor or foundation of some temples was of
       brass: thus [Greek: chalkeos oudos] (Soph. OEd. Col.),
       perhaps like the room at Delphi called [Greek: laïnos oudos],
       itself also a treasury."--Layard, "Nineveh and Babylon," p.
       673.

       Boulanger, "L'antiquité dévoilée par ses usage," (iii. 359),
       says, "Ce sont les mystères qui out tiré les hommes de la vie
       sauvage pour les ramener à la vie sociale et policée. Ces
       mystères étoient un composé de cérémonies religieuses ...
       _leur origine remonte_ au temps des héros et des demi-dieux."

 [244] "Of all the different phases of civilisation, those which a
       nation _must pass_ before it attains the highest grade of
       development, the first rude state is the most enduring and the
       most difficult to get over."--Professor Nillson's "Stone Age,"
       191.

       "The evidence of the transition from a stone to a bronze
       age among the Egyptians _appears merely to be_ the use of
       a stone knife found in their catacombs, and used for the
       _sacred_ incision into the dead, although they used bronze and
       iron knives for ordinary purposes, and whereas the _stone_
       knife was used by the early _Hebrews_ in circumcision,
       and by the priests of Montezuma as instruments of human
       sacrifice."--Wilson's "Archæologia," p. 29.

I must now revert to what I at present wish to limit the discussion,
viz. Sir J. Lubbock's views on the subject of tradition.

Sir John says that history can throw no light upon the question of
the stone and bronze age, "because the use of metals has in all cases
preceded that of writing." I should like to know whether Sir John is
prepared to adhere to this "dictum" under all circumstances, inasmuch
as, if he does, he must allow me to trace the use of metals in Assyria
even beyond the date at which Professor Rawlinson seems actually to
have found evidence of their use; for (pp. 80, 198) "in the ruins
of Warka, the ancient Huruk or Erech" (the city of Nimrod) we find
inscriptions on bricks of the date of the reign of Urukh or Orchamus,
who, according to classical tradition, was the seventh in succession
from Bel or Nimrod; which tradition, says Rawlinson (p. 189), "accords
very curiously with the information derived from the inscriptions."
There is nothing to indicate that the bricks here discovered were
the first bricks ever _inscribed_; on the contrary, wherever we find
bricks and metals there will be a _prima facie_ presumption as to their
previous use.[245] Only upon Sir John Lubbock's "dictum," finding
evidence of writing at this date, we must necessarily conclude that
the use of metals preceded it. This would bring us well up the seven
reigns, and into close contact with the time of Nimrod.

 [245] It amounts to this, that we are requested first of all to
       discard and absolutely exclude all that we do know through
       direct historical evidence of our origin, and to determine it
       merely by scientific induction.

       Sir J. Lubbock says in his introduction to Professor Nillson's
       "Stone Age" (which is a summary of the whole question), "I
       have purposely avoided all reference to history, all use of
       historical data, because I have been _particularly anxious
       to show_ that in archæology we can arrive at definite and
       satisfactory conclusions, on independent grounds, without any
       assistance from history; consequently regarding times before
       writing was invented, and therefore before written history had
       commenced" (p. xlii.) Compare with _supra_, ch. vii.

  "Nor," says Sir J. Lubbock (p. 335), "will tradition supply the
  place of history. At best it is untrustworthy and shortlived. Thus
  in 1770 the New Zealanders had no recollection of Tasman's visit.
  Yet this took place in 1643, less than one hundred and thirty
  years before, and must have been to them an event of the greatest
  possible importance and interest.... I do not mean to say that
  tradition would never preserve for a long period the memory of any
  remarkable event. The above-mentioned facts (De Soto's expedition
  is also referred to) prove only that it will not always do so; but
  it is unnecessary for us to discuss this question, as there is in
  Europe no tradition of the Stone Age, and when arrow-heads are
  found the ignorant peasantry refer them to the elves or fairies;
  stone axes are regarded as thunderbolts, and are used not only in
  Europe but also in various other parts of the world for magical
  purposes" (p. 336).

  _"Relieved" then_ "from _the embarrassing interference of
  tradition_, the archæologist can only follow the methods which have
  been so successfully pursued in geology" (p. 336).[246]

This is partly a limitation of the question to oral tradition, and
partly an anticipated denial of what I shall now venture to assert,
namely, that we can only look for the savages' traditions of things
known to them before they were savages, religious impressions which
have not been effaced from their minds, legends connected with
their race, facts which have determined their destiny. The very
characteristic of the savage is that he lives only for the present;
that he has little memory for the past, and no forecast for the future;
that his mind is stricken with a hopeless sterility and fixedness, so
that he only seems to remember things that are bred in the bone, and
the tradition of which he cannot divest himself.[247]

 [246] "It must not be forgot to the honour of the Babylonians that
       they are acknowledged, by all antiquity, to have been the
       first who made use of writing in their public and judicial
       acts, but at what period it is not known."--Goguet, "Origin of
       Laws," i. 45.

       Diodorus, however, says of the Egyptians (_vide_ p. 48),
       "_Menes_ without doubt has been esteemed the first legislator
       of Egypt, _because_ he was the first who put his _laws
       in writing_. For before him Vulcan, Helius, and Osiris
       (_vide ante_, p. 189) had given laws to
       Egypt."--Diod. l. 1, 17-18.

       But also it must be recollected that the copper mines of Egypt
       were worked from the earliest period.

 [247] But there are savages and savages; or rather there are savages
       who are strictly such, and savages who have still the germ of
       life and who are more properly distinguished as barbarians.
       _Vide ante_, p. 285, De Maistre's definition of the
       barbarian.

And so the ignorant peasantry when these flints were first dug up,
although they had "no tradition," rushed instinctively upon these
hatchets and considered them magical, apparently on no better grounds
than that they had belonged to a former race of men whom they
associated with elves and fairies. Was not this their way of saying
with Cicero, "Antiquitas proxime accedit ad deos."[248]

 [248] I find curious testimony to the belief in M. Maupertius'
       (Pinkerton, i. 252-4) account of an expedition of thirty
       leagues which he was induced to make into the interior of
       Lapland, by the accounts which he had received of a monument
       which the Laplanders "looked upon as the wonder of their
       country, and in which they conceived was _contained the
       knowledge of everything_ of which they were ignorant." In
       the end a monument was found bearing on it the appearance of
       great antiquity, and an inscription which M. Celsius, his
       companion ("very well acquainted with the Runic"), could
       not read. M. Maupertius indeed says, "If the tradition of
       the country be consulted, all the Laplanders assure us that
       they are characters of great antiquity, containing valuable
       secrets; but what can one believe in regard to antiquity from
       those people who do not even know their own age, and who
       for the greater part are ignorant who were their mothers."
       Without supposing that the mysterious stone actually concealed
       any valuable and recondite knowledge, I am still struck
       by this attestation to the belief that antiquity shrouded
       such secrets; and if, which does not altogether accord with
       other accounts, the Lapps are as ignorant as they are here
       represented, then it would seem to be true that when mankind
       lose the knowledge of everything else, they still retain
       the tradition of their loss and the knowledge of their
       degradation. Concerning the superstitious veneration for stone
       arrow-heads very generally diffused, _vide_ Mr E. T. Stevens'
       "Flint Chips" (Salisbury, 1870, p. 89.)

And so far from tradition supplying us with no clue to solve the
problem of the stone age, does it not in this way suggest a very
decided though an antagonistic view to that of Sir John Lubbock.
The superstitious regard of the peasantry for these newly found
relics--which I presume came under Sir John's own observation when
exploring the northern coast-finds--is really very curious, because it
shows that their ideas and feelings in these matters were, after the
lapse of at any rate a thousand years, identical with those of their
ancestors. In evidence of which I adduce the following passage from
Professor Nillson, having reference to the legend of the "guse arrows"
or "Orvar Odd's saga":--

  "This ancient romance shows very clearly that at the time when
  it was composed, neither arrows, nor other weapons of stone were
  in common use as weapons, but _that even then_ the opinion was
  _generally current_ that these stone weapons, which owed their
  existence to the dwarf race skilled in sorcery, were endowed with a
  magic power against witches and witchcraft which no other weapons
  possessed."--Professor Nillson, "Stone Age," p. 199.

But this suggests the further reflection, whether this stone age among
certain tribes was not as much in rejection as in ignorance of metals.
Professor Nillson (p. 97, 98) shows that flint was used for _sacred_
sacrificial purposes by the Jews, Egyptians, Phoenicians, and Latins,
long after they were acquainted with weapons of metal. Among these
the traditional idea about flint, whatever it was, was kept in due
subordination; but among tribes that had sunk into savagery it is
conceivable that it may have become a superstition, and dominated.

I am not sure that we do not underrate the capacity for tradition among
savages where it has once taken hold; still, if it had been a question
of mere savages, at the first glance I should have been disposed to
agree with Sir John Lubbock. But let us take the case of Tasman, which
Sir John puts forward as a sort of crucial case, and which may be
accepted as such, seeing that the New Zealanders may fairly claim to be
regarded as "barbarians."[249]

 [249] _Vide_ Sir George Grey's "Polynesian Mythology," p. xiii.;
       F. A. Weld's (Governor of Western Australia) "Notes on New
       Zealand," pp. 15, 60.

In the first place, I find the following in a note to "Cook's Voyages"
(Smith, 1846):--"Mr Polack, in his 'Narrative of Travels and Adventures
during a residence in New Zealand between the years 1831-37,' collected
all the particulars relating to Cook's brush with the natives, 1769, on
the spot."

Next, let us see what Cook says on the subject of Tasman ("Cook's
Voyages," i. 164)--

  "But the Indians still continued _near the ship_, rowing round many
  times [hardly the most favourable conditions under which to recover
  a tradition], conversing with Tupia [the Otaheitan interpreter]
  chiefly concerning the traditions they had among them with respect
  to the antiquities of their country. To this subject they were led
  by the inquiries which Tupia had been directed to make, whether
  they had ever seen such a vessel as ours, or had ever heard that
  any such had been on their coast. These inquiries were all answered
  in the negative, _so that_ tradition has preserved among them no
  memorial of Tasman, though by an observation made this day we find
  we are _only fifteen_ miles south of Murderers' Bay!"

Evidently the shrewd and gallant investigator himself was not satisfied
with the cross-examination, for we find at p. 170--

  "When we were under sail one old man, Topaa [a native], came on
  board to take leave of us; and as we were still desirous of making
  further inquiries whether any memory of Tasman had been preserved
  among their people, Tupia was directed to ask him whether he had
  ever heard that such a vessel as ours had before visited the
  country. To this he replied in the negative; but said that _his
  ancestors had told him_ there had once come to this place a _small_
  vessel from a distant country called Ulimaroa, in which were _four_
  men, who upon coming on shore were _all killed_. Upon being asked
  where this distant land lay he pointed to the northward."

But what does Tasman himself say?--

  "On the 17th December these savages began to grow a little bolder
  and more familiar, insomuch that at last they ventured on board
  the _Heemskirk_, in order to trade with those in the vessel. As
  soon as I perceived it, being apprehensive that they might attempt
  to surprise that ship, _I sent my shallop_, with seven men, to
  put the people in the _Heemskirk_ on their guard, and to direct
  them not to place any confidence in these people. My seven men,
  being _without arms_, were attacked by these savages, who _killed
  three_ of the seven, and _forced_ the other _four_ to swim for
  their lives; _which_ occasioned my giving that place the name of
  the Bay of Murderers.[250] Our ship's company _would undoubtedly_
  have taken a severe revenge if the rough weather had not prevented
  them."--_Tasman's Voyage of Discovery, Pinkerton_, xi.

 [250] This was a recognition on Tasman's part that there was a
       violation of the law of nations, which he evidently considered
       ought to have been recognised by these people. For killing
       unarmed men he does not stigmatise them as savages, but
       as murderers, which name has clung to the spot and to the
       transaction to this day.

Now, I submit that this old man Topaa's recollection of the tradition
of an event which occurred one hundred and thirty years before his
time, was much more perfect than Captain Cook's, Sir Joseph Banks', Dr
Solander's, and Sir J. Lubbock's recollection of the same event from
geographical records.

Emboldened by this instance of the fallibility of scientific men, I
now proceed to question the truth of the two following propositions of
Sir J. Lubbock, after which I shall ask to be allowed to enunciate a
proposition of my own.

First, Sir J. Lubbock says: "It has been asserted over and over again
that there is no race of man so degraded as to be entirely without a
religion--without some idea of the Deity. So far from this being true,
the very reverse is the case" (p. 467).[251]

 [251] I am aware that what I have opposed to Sir J. Lubbock is only
       the contrary and not the contradictory of his proposition.
       I find, however, that a very competent authority, Wilson,
       "Archæology and Pre-historic Annals of Scotland," p. 42, says:
       "No people, however rude or debased be their state, have yet
       been met with so degraded to the level of the brutes as to
       entertain no notion of a Supreme Being, or no anticipation
       of a future state." "All polytheism is based on monotheism;
       idolatry implies religious feeling."--_Bunsen's Egypt_, iv.
       69. But in truth it was not a priest or a missionary who
       first enunciated the contradictory of Sir John Lubbock's
       proposition--it was Cicero. "Itaque ex tot generibus nullum
       est animal, præter hominem, quod habeat notitiam aliquam dei:
       ipsisque in hominibus nulla gens est, neque _tam immansueta_,
       neque _tam fera_, quæ non _etiam si ignoret qualem habere deum
       deceat_, tamen _habendum sciat_." De Legibus; i. 8.

Second, "It is a common opinion that savages are, as a general rule,
only the miserable remnants of nations once more civilised; but
although there are some well-established cases of national decay, there
is no scientific evidence which would justify us in asserting that this
is generally the case" (p. 337).

In opposition to the first proposition, I maintain that there is no
race of men so degraded as to be without some vestige of religion.

And in opposition to the second, I assert that if they have a vestige
of religion, and nothing else, they have still that which will convict
them of degeneracy.

First, To say that a savage has no idea of the Deity, is to say merely
that he is a savage; and it appears to me that this extinction of all
knowledge of the Deity among a people, precisely marks the point where
the barbarian lapses into the savage.

Taking the range of the authorities quoted by Sir J. Lubbock,[252]
I find a great concurrence of testimony to the fact that there is
some vestige of religion. One only--whose authority on any other
point incidental to African travel I should regard as of the highest
value--Captain Richard Burton, asserts without qualification, and in
language sufficiently explicit, that "some of the tribes of the lake
district of Central Africa admit neither God, nor angel, nor devil."
Others assert the same negatively--they did not come upon any signs of
religion, any external observances, any trace of ceremonial worship.
For instance, it is said that the Tasmanians had no word for a Creator
(p. 468, Lubbock), which need not excite surprise, as it is also said
of them that they were incapable of forming any abstract ideas at all
(p. 355, Lubbock). Again, in many of those cases where it is more or
less roundly asserted that there is no vestige of religion, we find it
plainly intimated that there is a belief in the devil, _e.g._ Lubbock,
p. 469.

 [252] I should not have considered it necessary to have entered so
       elaborately into this argument, if I had previously read the
       chapter on Animism in Mr Tylor's "Primitive Culture." The
       instances, however, which follow will stand as supplementary.

  "The Tonpinambas of Brazil had _no religion_, though if the name is
  applied 'à des notions fantastiques d'êtres surnaturals et puissans
  on ne sauroit nier qu'ils n'eussent une croyance religieuse et
  _même une sorte_ de culte exterieur.'"--_Freycinet_, i. 153.

Now, although the devil may, and in many instances no doubt has,[253]
made a special revelation of himself to his votaries, the ordinary
channel of information concerning him is through tradition, and through
the tradition of the fall of man.

 [253] Sir J. Lubbock says (p. 370) of the Feegee islanders: "They
       did not worship idols, but many of the priests seem to have
       really thought that they had been in actual communication with
       the Atona; and some of the early missionaries were inclined
       to believe that Satan may have been permitted to practise a
       deception upon them, in order to strengthen his power. However
       extraordinary this may appear, the same was the case in
       Tahiti."

But I ask further of those who dispute this, If savages are found with
this fear of the supernatural world, after they have lost the idea of
God, how do they get it? If not from tradition, then from reflection?
But savages do not reason (Lubbock, p. 465). Moreover, at p. 470, Sir
J. Lubbock says, what really brings us very nearly to agreement, "How,
for instance, can a people who are unable to count their own fingers,
possibly raise their minds so far as to admit even the rudiments of
a religion?" This is said with reference to a previous allegation,
"That those who assert that even the lowest savages believe in a
Deity, affirm that which is entirely contrary to the evidence" (p.
470). But there is a great concurrence of evidence that "even the
lowest savages" believe in the devil. Belief in the devil involves a
realisation more or less obscure of the fallen angel, of the Spirit
of Evil--and this for the savage who "cannot count his fingers" is
as great an intellectual effort as would be, merely considered as an
intellectual effort, a belief in the Deity. On any theory of growth or
development how could he ("the lowest savage") have got the idea?

Several writers who are quoted, whilst they deny the existence of any
notion of religion among a particular people, mention facts which are
incompatible with that statement. I may also say, parenthetically, that
to detect or elicit the sentiment of religion in others, one must have
something of the sentiment in ourselves; _e.g._ there is the instance
of Kolben (Lubbock, p. 469), "who, _in spite_ of the assertions of the
natives themselves, _felt quite sure_ that certain dances _must be_ of
a religious character, let the Hottentots say what they will." Now I
must say there is great _à priori_ probability in the truth of Kolben's
conviction, although he was probably led to it merely by the insight of
his own mind. Let it be taken in connection with the following evidence
in Washington Irving's "Life of Columbus," iii. 122-124:--

  "The _dances_ to which the natives seemed so immoderately addicted,
  and which had been _at first_ considered by the Spaniards mere
  idle pastimes, were _found_ to be often _ceremonials of a serious
  and mystic character_." Again--"Peter Martyn observes that they
  performed these dances to the chant of certain metres and ballads
  _handed down from_ generation to generation, in which were
  rehearsed the deeds of their ancestors. Some of these ballads were
  of a _sacred_ character, containing their _traditional_ notions of
  theology, and the superstitions and fables which comprised their
  religious creeds."

Pritchard, "Researches into Phys. Hist. of Man" (i. p. 205), quoting
Oldendorp, and speaking of the African negroes, says:--"At the annual
harvest feast, which _nearly all_ the nations of Guinea solemnise,
thank-offerings are brought to the Deity. These festivals are days of
rejoicing, which the negroes pass with feasting and dancing." _Vide_
also "Hist. of Indian Tribes of North America, 120 portraits from the
Ind. Gal. in Depart. of War at Washington, by T. M'Kenney (late Ind.
Dep. Wash.) and J. Hall of Cincinnati" (Philadelphia, 1837).

  "Dancing is among the most prominent of the aboriginal
  _ceremonies_; there is no tribe in which it is not practised. The
  Indians have their _war_ dance and their _peace_ dance, their dance
  of _mourning for the dead_, their _begging_ dance, their pipe
  dance, their green-corn dance, and their Wabana (an offering to
  the devil). Each of these is distinguished by some peculiarity ...
  though to a stranger they appear much alike, except the last....
  It is a ceremony and not a recreation, and is conducted with a
  seriousness belonging to an important public duty."

At p. 437 (Lubbock) it is said, "Admiral Fitzroy never witnessed
or heard of any act of a decidedly religious character among the
Fuegians." Still, as Sir John admits, "some of the natives suppose
that there is a great black man in the woods who knows everything, and
cannot be escaped." If this is not the devil, it looks very like him.
Again, p. 469, Mr Mathews says, speaking of the Fuegians, "he sometimes
heard a great howling or lamentation about _sunrise_ in the morning;
and upon asking Jemmy Button what occasioned the outcry, he could
obtain no satisfactory answer; the boy only saying, 'people very sad,
cry very much.'" Upon which Sir John remarks, "This appears so natural
and sufficient an explanation, that why the outcry should be 'supposed
to be devotional' I must confess myself unable to see" (469).

Now, if this was not their traditional notion and mode of prayer,
degraded according to the measure of their degeneracy, the degeneracy
is at least proved in another way, for, being still reasonable beings,
they had, according to the account, congregated together to send up
a lamentation, which, if it was not prayer, could be likened only to
the moonlight howling of wolves. This mode of prayer resembles what
Father Loyer and the missionary Oldendorp (Pritchard, i. 197) tells
us of the negroes. Father Loyer "declares that they have a belief in
a universally powerful Being, and to him they address prayers. Every
morning after _they rise_ they go to the river side to wash, and
throwing a handful of water on their head, or pouring sand with it
to express their humility, they join their hands and then open them,
whisper softly the word 'exsuvais.'" Oldendorp says (p. 202): "The
negroes profess their dependence on the Deity, ... they pray _at the
rising_ and setting of the sun,[254] on eating and drinking, and when
they go to war." Compare also Helps' "Spanish Conquest in America," i.
285:--

  "The worship of the Peruvians was not the mere worship of the
  sun alone as of the most beautiful and powerful thing which they
  beheld; but they had _also_ a worship of a far more elevated and
  refined nature, addressed to Pachacamac, the soul of the universe,
  _whom_ they hardly dared to name; and when they were obliged to
  name this Being, they did so inclining the head and the whole body,
  now _lifting_ up the eyes to heaven, now lowering them to the
  ground, and _giving kisses in the air_. To Pachacamac they made
  no temple and offered no sacrifices, but they adored him in their
  hearts."[255]

 [254] After all, is there not something in their mode of prayer
       which recalls the language of Psalm cxl., "Dirigatur oratio
       mea sicut incensum in conspectu tuo: _elevatio manuum mearum
       sacrificium vespertinum_."

       If the reader will refer to Bunsen's "Egypt," &c. vol. i.
       p. 497, he will find "a man with uplifted arms" as the
       ideographic sign (19) for "to praise, glorification," which
       is in evidence not only that it was the natural but the
       traditional mode.

 [255] Garcilasso de la Vega's authority is so unimpeachable, and at
       the same time his testimony is so unmistakable on this point,
       that it will be as well to give his own words, as he was well
       acquainted with the Peruvian traditions, through his mother,
       who was one of the Yncas. He adds: "When the Indians were
       asked who Pachacamac was, they replied that he it was who gave
       life to the universe, and supported it; but that they knew him
       not, for they had never _seen_ him, and that for this reason
       they did not build temples to him, nor offer him sacrifices;
       but that they worshipped him in their hearts (mentally),
       and considered him to be an _unknown God_.... From this it
       is clear, that these Indians considered him to be the maker
       of all things." Hakluyt ed. of Garcil. de la Vega's "Royal
       Commentaries of the Yncas," ed. C. Markham, 1869, i. 107. He
       further remarks that, whereas they hesitated to pronounce the
       name of Pachacamac, "they spoke of the sun on every occasion."

       Compare the accounts we have of the Guanches. M. Pegot Ogier,
       "The Fortunate Isles" (Canaries), 1871, says (p. 283), that
       a comparison of the Chronicles of the Conquest shows that,
       "far from being idolaters, the Guanches worshipped one God,
       the Creator and Preserver of the world," and that (p. 282),
       "in their worship, they _raised their hands_ to heaven, and
       sacrificed on the mountains by pouring milk on the ground
       from a _height_; their milk was carried in a sacred vase
       called _ganigo_." The name of their god, "Achoron Achaman"
       = "He who upholds the heaven and earth," and "Achuhuyahan
       Achuhucanac" = "He who sustains every one," has resemblances
       with "Pachacamac" = "Pacha," the earth; and "camac" participle
       of "camani," "I create."--(C. Markham, Hakluyt ed. of Garcil.
       de la Vega, i. 101.)

At p. 468 Sir John somewhat too roundly asserts that "Dr Hooker tells
us that the Lepchas of Northern India have _no religion_."

Turning to Dr Hooker's "Himalayan Journal," I find (i. 135), "The
Lepchas profess no religion, _though_ acknowledging the existence of
good and bad spirits.... Both Lepchas and Limboos _had, before the_
introduction of Lama Boodhism from Tibet, many features in common with
the natives of Arracan, especially in _their creed_, _sacrifices_,
faith in omens, worship of many spirits, absence of idols, and of the
doctrine of metempsychosis" (p. 140). We have already seen (_supra_, p.
224) that they had a very distinct tradition of the Deluge; indeed
there is much in the account of them which reminds us of the primitive
monotheism.

So, too, Sir John asserts, p. 469, "Once more Dr Hooker states that
the Khasias, an Indian tribe, _had no religion_. Col. Yule, on the
contrary, says that they have, but he admits that breaking hens' eggs
is the principal part of their religious practice."

It is true that Dr Hooker says (ii. 276), "The Khasias are
superstitious, but have no religion;" he adds, however, "_like the
Lepchas, they believe in a Supreme Being_, and in deities of the
grove, cave, and stream." It seems, however, that the only outward
manifestation of their religion is in "breaking hens' eggs"! What
can be more ludicrous! yet here, too, would seem to be a vestige of
primitive tradition. We know (_vide_ Wilkinson, "Ancient Egyptians,"
second series) how primitive truth was concealed under material
symbols. Gainet (i. 127) also says, "Even upon the hypothesis that
these fragments of the Egyptian cosmogony were lost, one of the
hieroglyphics which this people has left us would suffice to convince
us of their belief in a Creator. It is the image of the god Kneph,
whom they represent with _an egg_ in his mouth; _this egg_ being the
natural image of the world taking its birth from this divinity." Again,
p. 115, "In the mysteries of Bacchus[256] the dogma of the Creation
was proposed under the emblem of that celebrated _egg_, of which the
poets have so often spoken, which contained the germ of all things."
"_The egg_," says Plutarch, "is consecrated to the sacred ceremonies of
Bacchus, as a representation of the Author of nature who produces and
comprehends all things in himself." There is a passage in Athenagoras
to the same effect.

 [256] Compare with pp. 156, 214.

Superstitions were also connected with cocks and hens in Khasia.
Whether these again were connected with the symbolical representation
of the egg can only be conjectured. It may possibly be that the
representation had a common origin with the cock of Apollo and the
cock of Æsculapius, if, indeed, these were not also originally derived
from the same primal conception. This would be only to renew the old
classical dispute as to whether the hen proceeded from the egg, or the
egg from the hen, which I take to be only the form in which the great
question of the First Cause was debated by the Gentile world after
their ideas of a Creator had become indistinct, and with reference to
this ancient symbol. However that may be, I wish to point out that
this ceremonial use of the cock may be traced in Europe, Asia, and
Africa: _e.g. Asia_--"The Lepchas scatter eggs and pebbles over the
graves of their friends.... Among the Limboos, the priests of a higher
order than the Lepcha, Bijoras officiate at marriages, when a _cock_
is put into the bride-groom's hands, and a _hen_ into those of the
bride. The Phedangbo then cuts off the birds' heads, when the blood
is caught in a plantain leaf, and runs into pools, from which omens
are drawn" (Dr Hooker, "Himalayan Journal," i. 238). _Africa_--_vide_
Pritchard, "Phys. Hist. of Man," i. 203, 204, 208: "Even the dead are
not buried without sacrifices. A white hen is slain by the priest
before the corpse comes to the grave, and the bier whereon the body
lies is sprinkled with its blood. This custom was introduced by the
nation of Kagraut." _Europe_--If any one will turn to the _Illustrated
London News_ of Nov. 14, 1868, he will find an account and illustration
of a local ceremony peculiar to the village of Gorbio in the Maritime
Alps, in which the priest, on a particular day in the year, is solemnly
presented with four cocks hung upon a halberd--together with an apple
by the bachelors and spinsters of the village--from which it would seem
to have had originally some connection, as we have seen above, with a
marriage ceremony. Wilson ("Archæologia") remarks that the custom of
"Easter, or, in the north, Paste eggs (Pasch), was very prevalent in
the north."[257]

 [257] Compare the following passage in the Bishop of Chalons' "Le
       Monde et l'Homme Primitif" (with reference to Gen. i.--the
       Creation). At p. 11 the Bishop says, "That when the Book
       of the Law of Manou and the Mahabarata relate that God,
       who contains within Himself his own principle in the first
       instance, the water, and gave it fecundity, and that the
       produce of this fecundity became _an egg_, ... can we see in
       this anything else than the fantastic translation of this
       phrase of Scripture, 'L'esprit de Dieu _couvait_ la surface
       des eaux--Rouha Elohim meharephet hal pene hammaïm.'" _Vide_
       also p. 11 (as to universality of tradition) and p. 34 as to
       text also. J. G. Vance ("Archæol." xix.) says, upon the
       mundane egg "the whole system of ancient religion was based"
       (J. B. Waring, "Stone Monuments of Remote Ages," p. 5, 1870).

It strikes me that it would be difficult to assign a Christian
origin for the custom. It must then have been a custom which the
Church diverted or sanctioned in giving it an innocent or Christian
application; in which case, in so far as it is pagan, it may possibly
be traced to a common origin with the practices in Khasia among the
Lepchas.

It would extend the inquiry too far to follow Sir J. Lubbock through
all the cases adduced by him. I will conclude, therefore, with his
account of the Andaman islander--who, with the Australians, Esquimaux,
and Fuegians, dispute the point of being considered the lowest of
mankind. It is said of the Andamans, "that they have no idea of
a Supreme Being, no religion, or any belief in a future state of
existence" (p. 346). It is, however, casually mentioned that, "after
death, the corpse is buried in a sitting posture." Now this mode of
burial is common to them with Esquimaux (p. 409), the Australians (p.
353), the Maories (p. 369), and the natives of the Feegee Islands
(p. 361), among whom we seem to get a clue to this strange mode of
burial; "the fact is, _they_ (the Feegee islanders) not only believe
in a future state, but are persuaded that as they leave this life, so
will they rise again." Sir J. Lubbock, in his "Introduction to Prof.
Nillson" (xxxiii.), says that this was the common mode of burial in
the Stone Age; and Prescott ("Hist. of Mexico," ii. 485) says, "Who
can doubt the existence of an affinity, or at least an intercourse,
between tribes, who had _the same strange habit of burying the dead in
a sitting position_, as was practised to some extent by most if _not
all_ of the aborigines from Canada to Patagonia?"[258] But not only may
it be presumed that they had an affinity and intercourse, but a common
religious idea. It may be doubted then whether even the naked Andaman
is so entirely destitute of all religious impressions as he is supposed
to be.

 [258] I find, in _Archæological Journal_, No. 89, 1866, p. 27,
       that corpses in a sitting posture were found under the long
       cromlechs in South Jutland.

I have already urged that if any vestiges of religion remain they must
be considered as evidence of tradition and proof of degeneracy. I think
the following reflection will tend to clench this argument.

Although it is obscure and disputed to what extent certain savages
do retain glimmerings of religion, it is certain and admitted that
some savages have religion and a religious ceremonial. Now, as Sir J.
Lubbock says, "How, for instance, can a people who are unable to count
upon their fingers possibly raise their minds so far as to admit even
the rudiments of religion." It is clear, then, that the lowest grade
of mankind did not invent it, how then did the higher grade get it,
"assuming always the unity of the human race"?

Finally, if man commenced with the knowledge of the devil, how did
they proceed on to the idea of God? "The first idea of a God is almost
always as an evil spirit" (Lubbock, p. 468). How then did they advance
to the knowledge of the God of purity and love, or even of "the Great
Spirit" of the Indians?[259]

 [259] _Vide_ Dr Newman's "Grammar of Assent," p. 386, _et seq._

Let us at least know whether it is supposed that this was the order
of knowledge ordained by Divine Providence, or whether it is believed
that man in this manner developed the idea of God out of his own
consciousness, his primitive, or perhaps innate, idea being, the
conception of evil and of the evil spirit.[260] Sir John says (p.
487), "There are no just grounds for expecting man to be ever endued
with a sixth sense." But why not? If by his own mental vigour he can
out of the primitive idea of evil generate the idea of good--what may
we not expect?

 [260] _Per contra_, I invite Sir J. Lubbock's attention to the
       following passage from Mr Gladstone's "Homer" (ii. 44), "As
       _the derivative idea_ of sin depended upon that of _goodness_,
       and as the shadow ceases to be visible when the object
       shadowed has become more dim, we might well expect that the
       contraction and obscuration of the true idea of goodness
       would bring about a more than proportionate loss of knowledge
       concerning the true nature of evil. The impersonation of evil
       could only be upheld in a lively or effectual manner as the
       opposite of the impersonation of good; and when the moral
       standard of Godhead had so greatly degenerated, as we find
       to be the case even in the works of Homer, the negation of
       that standard could not but cease to be either interesting
       or intelligible. Accordingly we find that the _process of
       disintegration_, followed by that of arbitrary reassortment
       and combination of elements, had proceeded to a more advanced
       stage _with respect to the tradition of the evil one_ than in
       the other cases."

Yet, if any one will compare the evidence which Sir John has collected,
he will come, I think, to the conclusion, that the invention and
adaptability of the savage is very slight indeed. He will find (p.
350) that the inhabitants of Botany Bay had fish-hooks, but no nets;
those of Western Australia, nets but not hooks; that those who had the
throwing-stick and boomerang, were ignorant both of slings and bows
and arrows; that those who had retained the knowledge of the bow did
not pass on to the use of the bola; that the northern tribes visited by
Kane were skilful in the capture of birds with nets, yet were entirely
ignorant of fishing (452); that the nearest approach to the South
American bola is among the Esquimaux (450); that the throwing-stick is
common only to the widely distant Esquimaux, Australians, and some of
the Brazilian tribes (_id._); that the "sumpitan" or blowpipe of the
Malays occurs only in the valley of the Amazons. Does not this point
to a traditional knowledge of these things? Nevertheless, this mass of
evidence seems to have produced the very opposite conviction with Sir
J. Lubbock.

"On the whole, then, from a review of all these and other similar
facts which _might have been_ mentioned, it seems to me most probable
that many of the simpler weapons, implements, &c., have been invented
independently by various savage tribes, although there are no doubt
also cases in which they have been borrowed by one tribe from another"
(p. 451). Instances in which they have been borrowed from each other
are not infrequent, but then neither are they inconsistent with the
theory of tradition; but the instances of invention _are limited to
one_. (See for instance p. 394.) At p. 394 we find--"Although they (the
Esquimaux) had no knowledge of pottery, Captain Cook saw at Unalashka
vessels "of flat stone, with sides of clay, not unlike a standing pye."
We here obtain an idea of the manner in which the knowledge of pottery
_may have been_ developed. After using clay to raise the sides of
their stone vessels, it _would_ naturally occur to them, that the same
substance would serve for the bottom also, and thus the use of stone
_might be_ replaced by a more convenient material."

Recollecting how roast pig came to be discovered, it cannot be said
to be impossible that pottery may thus have been invented; but in
this instance it might equally have been the rough substitute for the
pottery of their recollection. Besides, the proof is wanting that they
ever did pass on to the invention of pottery. It may, for anything we
know to the contrary, be in this inchoate state amongst them still.

Now, until further evidence is forthcoming, I shall take the liberty of
maintaining that savages seem to show no inventive faculty or power of
recovery in themselves.[261] Whatever they possess seems to be limited
to what they have retained of primitive civilisation, and what they
have retained of civilisation seems exactly in proportion to what they
have retained of primitive religion.

 [261] Sir J. Lubbock ("Pre-historic Times," p. 337) says, "The
       largest erection in Tahiti was constructed by the generation
       living at the time of Captain Cook's visit, and the practice
       of cannibalism had been recently abandoned." For these
       statements he refers to Forster, "Observations made during
       a Voyage round the World," p. 327, a work I have not at
       hand, and also Ellis, "Polynesian Researches," ii. p. 29. I
       have made the reference to the latter, but I do not find a
       syllable about cannibalism; and as to the other point Ellis
       says, "In the bottom of every valley, even to the recesses
       in the mountains ... stone pavements of their dwellings and
       courtyards, foundations of houses and ruins of family temples,
       _are numerous_.... _All these relics_ are of the _same kind_
       as those observed among the nations at the time of _their
       discovery_, evidently proving that they belong to the same
       race, though to a more populous era of their history." I
       draw attention to this inadvertence, as the above instances
       (two) are the most important of the four which Sir J. Lubbock
       adduces in support of his view. _Vide_ Appendix.

In supporting this proposition I shall hardly have occasion to go
beyond the four corners of Sir J. Lubbock's "Pre-historic Times."

It is indeed a moot point with the travellers and ethnologists who have
given their attention to the subject, which race of savages is "the
lowest in the scale of civilisation." In this competitive examination
a concurrence of opinion seems to decide in favour of the Fuegian, who
at any rate is miserable enough, living, when better food fails him, on
raw and putrid flesh, eked out with cannibalism; and whose clothing (in
Central Fuego) consists "in a scrap of otter skin, about as large as a
pocket handkerchief, laced across the breast with strings, and shifted
according to the wind" (Darwin, _apud_ Lubbock). Their religion, as we
have just seen, consists in a vague apprehension of the black man who
lives up in the woods--and their prayer is something slightly elevated
above the howl of the wolf. Their civilisation, therefore, like their
religion, may be considered to be at a "minimum." The Australians
have been called "the miserablest people in the world" (p. 445). They
are said to have "no religion or any kind of prayer, but most of them
believe in evil spirits, and all have a dread of witchcraft" (p. 353).
Here again we see their civilisation degraded _pari-passu_ with their
religious belief--so, too, with the Andaman (_vide supra_) and the
Tasmanian (p. 355).

When, however, we come to the inhabitants of the Feegee Islands,
not greatly different from the people surrounding them, their
characteristics, manners, and customs being partly Nigrito and partly
Polynesian, although in the matter of cannibalism they are simply
horrible, and eat their kind, not on any high notion that they are
appropriating the spirit and glory of him whom they devour (_vide_
Lubbock, 371), but from a repulsive preference; yet they have a
distinct notion of religion, with temples, and ceremonies, and we are
told they look down upon the Samoans because they had no religion.
Well, we find the Feegeeans in a state of material civilisation exactly
corresponding--they live in well built houses, 20 to 30 feet long and
15 feet high, in fortified towns, with earthen ramparts, surmounted by
a reed fence, &c. "Their temples were pyramidal in form, and were often
erected on terraced mounds like those of Central America" (p. 357).
They had efficient weapons, agricultural implements, well-constructed
canoes, and (p. 372) pottery.[262]

 [262] The Duke of Argyll, balancing the conclusions of Archbishop
       Whately and Sir J. Lubbock ("Primeval Man," p. 139), says,
       "Whately defies the supporter of Development to produce a
       single case of savages having raised themselves. Sir J.
       Lubbock replies by defying his opponent to show that it has
       not been done and done often. He urges, and urges as it seems
       to me with truth, that the great difficulty of teaching many
       savages the arts of civilised life, is no proof whatever
       that the various degrees of advance towards the knowledge
       of those arts which are actually found among semi-barbarous
       nations may not have been of strictly indigenous growth. _Thus
       it appears that one tribe of red Indians called Mandans_
       practised the art of _fortifying_ their towns. _Surrounding
       tribes_, although they saw the advantage derived from this
       art, yet _never practised_ it, and _never learned it_." So
       far as to the fact. The Duke of Argyll continues the argument
       on the side of Sir J. Lubbock. But what I wish to indicate is
       that this crucial instance of the Mandans may be triumphantly
       adduced in support of my proposition. Why, these are the _very
       Mandans_ among whom Catlin and the Prince Maxmilian of Neuwied
       discovered the curious commemorative ceremony of the Deluge!
       _Vide_ ch. xi.

When, however, we come to the Tahitians we find a very high state
of civilisation. Of their religion it is said--"That though they
worshipped numerous deities," and sometimes sacrificed to them, "yet
they were not idolators." "Captain Cook found their religion, like
that of most other countries, involved in mystery and perplexed with
apparent inconsistencies." They had a priesthood (p. 387). "They
believed in the immortality of the soul, and in two situations of
different degrees of happiness somewhat analogous to our heaven and
hell, though not regarded as places of reward and punishment; but the
one intended 'for the chief and superior classes,' 'the other for
the people of inferior rank.'" This is substantially Captain Cook's
account of the Tahitians, and allowing it to be exact, although
I have a suspicion that a missionary would have put it somewhat
differently,[263] it shows a comparative state of religion very much
elevated above anything we have yet seen. They had besides curious
customs, such as that of eating apart. "They ate alone," they said,
"because it was right, but why it was right they were unable to
explain"--a custom which is common to them with the Bachapins (p.
384), (who, _by the way_, are also among the races classified as "of
no religion"). Although the inhabitants of Tahiti present to us a much
higher standard of religion and morality than we have yet met with,
_also_ "they, on the whole, may be taken as representing _the highest
stage_ in civilisation to which man has in any country raised himself,
before the discovery or introduction of metallic implements" (Lubbock,
p. 372).

 [263] Since writing the above, I have referred to Wallis and
       Bougainville. Wallis could not discover "that these people
       had any kind of religious worship among them." Bougainville
       says "that their principal deity is called 'Ein-t-era,'
       _i.e._ 'king of _light_' or 'of the sun'; besides whom they
       acknowledge a number of inferior divinities, some of whom
       produce evil and others good; that the general name for these
       _ministering_ spirits is Eatona; and that the natives suppose
       _two_ of these divinities attend _each affair of consequence
       in human life_, determining its fate either advantageously or
       otherwise. To one circumstance our author speaks in decisive
       terms. He says, when the moon exhibits a certain aspect which
       bears the name of 'Malama Tamai' (the moon is in a state of
       war), the natives offer up human sacrifices.... When any one
       sneezes, his companions cry out 'Eva-rona-t-eatona,' _i.e._
       'May the good genius awaken thee,' or 'May not the evil genius
       lull thee asleep.'"

       Captain King ("Journal of Transactions on returning to the
       Sandwich Islands," &c., Pinkerton, xi. 737) says of the
       Sandwich Islanders, "The religion of these people resembles
       in most of its principal features _that of the Society and
       Friendly Islands_. Their morais, their whattas, their idols,
       their sacrifices, and their sacred songs, _all of which_ they
       have in common with each other, are _convincing proofs_ that
       their religious notions are derived _from the same source_."

It is impossible within these limits to investigate every case. I
have taken the more salient cases, as instanced by Sir J. Lubbock,
and contrasted them. I now wish to present the contrast in somewhat
livelier form, and I do not see that I can do better than to present
to the reader two scenes precisely similar, as to substance, yet under
different conditions, in different parts of the world. The first shall
be a description of "a whale ashore," by Sir J. Lubbock, among the
Australians; and the second, a description of the same scene by Catlin
("Last Rambles, &c., among the Indians of Vancouver's Island").

I must preface that Sir J. Lubbock says that the Australians "have
no religion nor any idea of prayer, but most of them believe in evil
spirits, and all have great dread of witchcraft" (p. 353).

The following is the scene to which I refer:--

  "They are not, so far as I am aware, able to kill whales for
  themselves, but when one is washed on shore it is a real godsend
  to them. Fires are immediately lit to give notice of the joyful
  event.... For days they remain by the carcase, rubbed from head to
  foot with the stinking blubber, gorged to repletion with putrid
  meat, out of temper from indigestion, and therefore engaged in
  constant frays, suffering from a continuous disorder from high
  feeding, and altogether a disgusting spectacle."--_Capt. Grey, apud
  Lubbock_, p. 347.

This is one picture; now for the other. It may be said that it is
only the different idiosyncrasies of the writers transferred to their
pages--that one is the narrative of _Jean qui pleure_, &c., or of the
_médicin tant pis_, &c.; but I do not think so.

Mr Catlin premises by telling us that the scene occurred when on a
visit with the chief of the Klah-o-gnats, of whom he says that he
knew at first sight by his actions that he was "a chief, and by the
expression of his face that he was a good man," and whom his companion
described as "a very fine old fellow; that man is a gentleman; I'd
trust myself anywhere with that man." Of their religion, the chief
himself told Catlin that on that western coast of Vancouver's Island
"they all believed in a Great Spirit, who created them and all things,
and that they all have times and places when and where they pray to
that Spirit, that he may not be angry with them."

One day came the startling announcement that a whale was ashore.

  "The sight was imposing when we came near to it, but not until we
  came around it on the shore side had I any idea of the scene I was
  to witness. Some hundreds, if not thousands of Indians, of all
  ages and sexes, and in all colours, were gathered around it, and
  others constantly arriving. Some were lying, others standing and
  sitting in groups; some were asleep and others eating and drinking,
  and others were singing and dancing." The monster was secured by
  twenty or thirty harpoons, to which ropes were attached. "These
  were watched, and at every lift of a wave moving the monster nearer
  the shore, they were tightened on the harpoons, and at low tide the
  carcass is left on dry land, a great distance from the water....
  The dissection of this monstrous creature, and its distribution
  amongst the thousands who would yet be a day or two in getting
  together, the interpreter informed us, would not be commenced until
  all the claimants arrived."

Several immense baskets had been brought in which to carry away the
blubber. The possession of these baskets made all the difference in the
scene which followed. To some this will be a sufficient explanation.
How, then, did the others come to know nothing of baskets? Truly
there are people who cannot be made to see the effect of "character
upon clover." I rely, however, upon the broad lines of the contrast.
The absence in this latter scene of the disgusting sights above so
graphically described--their quick use of the harpoons--and the general
order and equity of the distribution. "A whale ashore," Mr Catlin says
("Last Rambles," p. 105), "is surely a gift from heaven for these poor
people, and they receive it and use it as such."

Whilst quoting from Catlin, I must be allowed to refer my readers to
the very striking proof (p. 248) he incidentally affords of the theory
of degeneracy in his comparative illustration of the heads of the alto
and bas Peruvian, and of the Crow and modern Flathead:--

  "The Crow of the Rocky Mountains and the alto-Peruvian of _the
  Andes_, being the two great original fountains of American man,
  to whom all the tribes point as their origin, and on whom, of
  course, all the tribes have looked as the _beau ideals_ of the
  Indian race. The Flathead (letter _c_), aiming at the Crow skull
  (like the copyists of most fashions), has carried the copy into a
  caricature; and the Bas-Peruvian (_d_), aiming at the _elevated
  frontal_ of the mountain regions, has squeezed his up with
  circular bandages to equally monstrous proportions." Also _vide_
  Prescott's "Mexico," ii. 493, 6th ed., 1850. "Anatomists also have
  discerned in crania disinterred from the mounds, and in those
  of the inhabitants of the high plains of _the Cordilleras_ an
  _obvious difference_ from those of the more barbarous tribes. This
  is seen especially in the _ampler forehead_, intimating a decided
  intellectual superiority.... Such is the conclusion of Dr Warren,
  whose excellent collection has afforded him ample means for study
  and comparison."

Before quitting this subject I must revive a question which I think Sir
John Lubbock will admit, if he turns to the evidence dispersed in his
pages, is at present involved in some obscurity. It is simply this,
"How did the savage come by the knowledge of fire?" Sir John Lubbock
suggests (p. 473) "that in making flint instruments sparks would be
produced; in polishing them it would not fail to be observed that they
became hot, and in this way it is easy to see how the two methods of
obtaining fire may have originated.... In obtaining fire _two totally
different_ methods are followed; _some_ savages, as for instance the
Fuegians, using percussion, while others, as the South-Sea Islanders,
rub one piece of wood against another.... Opinions are divided
whether we have any trustworthy record of a people without the means
of obtaining fire" (p. 453). To this point I shall recur. I will now
give Sir John's quotation from Mr Dove: "Although fire was well known
to them (the Tasmanians), some tribes at least appear to have been
ignorant whence it was originally obtained, or how, if extinguished,
it could be relighted. In all their wanderings," says Mr Dove, "they
were particularly careful to bear in their hands the materials for
kindling a fire. Their memory supplies them _with no instances_ of a
period in which they were obliged to draw upon their _inventive powers_
for the means of resuscitating an element so essential to their health
and comfort as flame. How it came originally into their possession is
unknown. _Whether_ it may be viewed as the _gift of nature_ or the
product of art and sagacity, they _cannot recollect a period when it
was a desideratum_" ("Tasmanian Journal of Natural Science," i. 250,
_apud_ Lubbock, p. 355).[264]

 [264] The "Popul Vul" (pp. 223-227, Paris, 1861, _vide_ Baring
       Gould, "Origin and Development of Religious Belief," p. 383)
       gives an instance--or embodies a reminiscence--of a people who
       had lost the tradition of fire.

       "Then arrived the tribes perishing with cold, ... and all the
       tribes were gathered, shivering and quaking with cold, when
       they came before the leaders of the Iniches.... Great was
       their misery. 'Will you not compassionate us,' they asked;
       'we ask only a little fire. Were we not all one, and with one
       country, when we were first created? Have pity on us.' 'What
       will you give us that we should compassionate you,' was the
       answer made to them.... It was answered, 'We will inquire
       of Tohil'" (their fire-god); and then follows the horrible
       condition of human sacrifices to be offered to their fire-god
       Tohil, with reference to which Mr B. Gould quotes it. _Vide
       supra_, p. 81, tradition among the Sioux Indians, of fire
       having been sent to them from heaven after the Deluge.

       In Colden's "Five Indian Nations," p. 167, I find an Indian
       chief says: "Now before the Christians arrived, the general
       council of the Five Nations was held at Onondaga, where
       there has from _the Beginning_ a _continual fire_ been kept
       burning; it is made of two great logs, _whose fire never
       extinguishes_."

Now, if it is a tenable opinion--and at least these are the statements
of Father Gobien, and of Alvaro de Saavedra, and of Commodore Wilkes,
to whose testimony I shall revert, that there are some tribes who are
unacquainted with fire--that there are some who have and some who have
not the art of rekindling fire, then arises the question whether those
who have it not have lost the art, or whether those who now possess
it invented it. If they did not invent it, they must have held it
as a tradition, until, reaching a lower point of degradation still,
they lost it. Mr Dove's testimony to this effect is very strong. What
an emblem that never-extinguished torch of primitive tradition! We
find the same tradition among the American Indians. "The Chippeways
and Natchez tribes are said to have an institution for keeping up a
perpetual fire, certain persons being set aside and devoted to this
occupation" (Lubbock, p. 421). Freycinet certainly declares that Peré
Gobien's statement, that the inhabitants of the Ladrone were totally
unacquainted with fire until Magellan burnt one of their villages,
to be "entirely without foundation." "The language," he says, "of
the inhabitants contains words for fire, burning, charcoal, oven,
grilling, boiling, &c." Again, as against Commodore Wilkes' assertion
as an eye-witness, that he saw no appearance of fire in the island of
Fakaafo, and that the natives were very much alarmed when they saw
sparks struck from flint and steel, we are told that "Hale gives a list
of Faakaafo words in which we find _asi_ for fire" (Lubbock, p. 454).
However, Sir John does not attribute to this argument the same force
that Mr Tylor does, as _asi_ is evidently the same word as the New
Zealand _ahi_, which denotes light and heat as well as fire.[265] If,
then, we have positive evidence that they have not the thing (Wilkes),
and also evidence that they have the word (_vide_ note), does not this
prove that it is a tradition which they have lost? and is there not the
presumption that they have lost it through degeneracy?

 [265] I find, in Falkner's "Description of Patagonia," &c., 1774
       (Falkner resided near 40° 7' in those parts), "that in the
       vocabulary of the Moluches, although the word for 'fire' is
       'k'tal,' the word for 'hot' is '_asee_,' 'cold' 'chosea.'"

       But Sir J. Lubbock admits "asi" is the same word as "ahi," and
       if "ahi" denotes light and heat, _it also_ signifies fire.

       Should we not expect, at least ought it to cause surprise,
       that the word for "fire," where poverty of language may be
       presumed, should stand also for light and heat? In the Andaman
       vocabulary (Earl's "Papuans") "ahay" is their word for the
       sun--in which the two senses seem to combine. In Shortland's
       "Comp. Table of Polynesian Dialects" ("Traditions of the New
       Zealanders"), I find _ahi_ means fire, and not light.

  ---------+------------+------------+-------------+-----------------
           |New Zealand.| Raratonga. | Navigator's | Sandwich Islands
           |            |            |  (Savaii).  |     (Hawaii).
           +------------+------------+-------------+-----------------
  _Fire_ = |   Ahi.[C]  |     Ai.    |     Afi.    |        Ahi.
  ---------+------------+------------+-------------+-----------------

   [C] And as would appear from Shortland (_id._ pp. 55, 56, "_ao_,"
       a seemingly cognate though not identical word with "ahi,"
       is the New Zealand word for light. But in Bougainville's
       "Vocabulary of Faiti (Otaheite) Island," I find again "eaï,"
       _i.e._ their word for _fire_, whereas their word for light,
       not darkness, is "Eouramaï" and "Po" = day light), whilst they
       have a distinct word for "hot" = "Ivera"--"Era" being the sun.
       Compare Sanscrit "aghni" = ignis, fire.--_Vide_ Card. Wiseman,
       "Science and Revealed Religion," p. 40, 5th ed.


   APPENDIX TO CHAPTER XII.

   Compare the following account of the New Zealanders:--

   "Shut out from the rest of the world, without any to set them
       a pattern of what was right or to reprove what was wrong,
       is it surprising that morally they should have degenerated,
       even from the standard of their forefathers? They were not
       always addicted to war, neither were they always cannibals;
       _the remembrance of the origin_ of these horrid customs is
       _still preserved amongst them_. If the progressive development
       theory were true, aboriginal races should have progressively
       advanced; every successive generation should have added some
       improvement to the one which preceded it; but experience
       proves the contrary. A remarkable instance of this may be
       adduced in the fact, that the New Zealanders have retrograded,
       even since the days of Captain Cook; they then possessed large
       double canoes, decked, with houses on them similar to those of
       Tahiti and Hawaii, in which, traditionally, their ancestors
       arrived; it is now more than half a century since the last was
       seen. Tradition also states that they had finer garments in
       former days and of different kinds; that, like their reputed
       ancestors, they made cloth from the bark of trees--the name
       is preserved, but the manufacture has ceased. There are
       remains also in their language which would lead us to suppose
       that, like the inhabitants of Tonga, they once possessed a
       kingly form of government, and though they have now no term
       to express that high office, still they have words which are
       evidently derived from the very one denoting a king in Tonga.
       Their traditions, which are preserved, also establish the
       same fact, and perhaps one of the strongest proofs is their
       language; its fulness, its richness, and close affinity not
       only in words but in grammar to the Sanscrit, carries the mind
       back to a time when literature could not have been unknown."
       From "Te Ika a Maui," or "New Zealand and its Inhabitants,"
       by the Rev. Richard Taylor, M.A., F.G.S., a Missionary in New
       Zealand for more than thirty years, pp. 5, 6.




                             CHAPTER XIII.

                      _NOAH AND THE GOLDEN AGE._


Taking as the basis of this theory that the law of nations forms part
of a tradition, that the stream of this tradition has never ceased to
flow, and that the diffusion of its waters has ever been the source and
condition of fecundity; and further, that this tradition in its main
current has run in the channels which Dr Newman (_infra_, p. 338)
has indicated--for although there are other reservoirs, they have
become stagnant, and exist like the fresh-water lake, the Bahr-i-Nedjig
(_vide_ Rawlinson's "Ancient Monarchies," i. 18), whose waters are
"fresh and sweet" so long as they communicate with the Euphrates, but
when they are cut off become "unpalatable," so that those "who dwell in
the vicinity are no longer able to drink of it"--taking these various
facts as the basis, we come inevitably to the question--Whence this
tradition arose, and upon what authority and sanction it rests?

In answer to this I do not hesitate to affirm that presumptively it
goes back to the commencement of human history, and more demonstrably
to that commencement--which for historical and practical purposes is
sufficient--the era of Noah.

I propose now to inquire how near this theory can be brought to the
facts.

A fairer opportunity could hardly have been afforded for ascertaining
the force and fulness of primitive tradition than the discovery of
the American continent; yet this opportunity was totally disregarded
by the Spanish conquerors,[266]--rough men, and for the most part
the offscourings of Spain,--and its evidences were but sparsely and
negligently collected by the explorers of a different character who
followed at a later date.

 [266] The works of Garcilasso de la Vega, Valera, P. de Cieza, and
       De Sahagun must be excepted. As an instance of the neglect
       which we have reason to regret, the former gives an account
       of one only (the Raymi) of the four annual festivals of the
       Peruvians.--Hakluyt Soc. ed. ii. 155. He gives the name,
       however, of another--namely, the _Si_tua.

Something, however, of primitive tradition has been thus preserved
(_vide_ Help's "Spanish Conquest of America," i. 278, 286, 290;
Prescott, "Mexico," i. 54). Indeed, the approximation to the biblical
narrative is so close that the suspicion would be quite reasonable that
missionaries of whom we have no record had found their way to these
people before the continent became known to us; or that the people
themselves were of Jewish descent; or that they had left the Asiatic
mainland subsequently to the preaching of St Thomas the apostle. Manco
Capac (_vide infra_), according to this conjecture, may have been one
of these missionaries; or it may even be that in the venerable image
which the description calls up we see in vision the apostle himself.

When, however, the description is compared with the traditions I have
collated of a patriarchal character--still more remote and venerable,
"Him of mazy counsel--Saturn" (Hesiod), I shall ask the reader to
decide whether the more improbable conjecture, measured according to
time and distance, has not the greater weight of evidence.

I proceed to place in juxtaposition a recapitulation of the classical
and oriental traditions, and the quotations from Helps above referred
to.

 "One peculiar circumstance, as Humboldt remarks,
 is very much to be noted in the ancient records
 and traditions of the Indian nations. In no less
 than three remarkable instances has superior
 civilisation been attributed to the sudden
 presence amongst them of persons differing from
 themselves in appearance and descent."

 [As to the argument to be derived from colour
 and appearance, _vide supra_, p. 79.]

 "Bochica, a white man with a beard, appeared
 to the Mozca Indians in the plains of Bogota,
 _taught them how to build and to sow_, formed
 them _into communities_, gave an outlet _to the
 waters of the great lake_ [compare _supra_,
 p. 70, Chronology], and having settled the
 government, civil and ecclesiastical, retired
 into a monastic state of penitence for two
 thousand years.[267]

 [267] Probably a tradition of the penitence of
       Adam.

 "In like manner Manco Capac, accompanied by
 his sister Mama Ocllo, descended amongst the
 Peruvians, gave them _a code of admirable laws_,
 reduced them into communities, and then ascended
 to his father the Sun."[268] (A confusion with
 the tradition of Enoch, parallel to the like
 confusion in the person of Xisuthrus,[269]
 unmistakably identified with Noah in the
 Babylonian tradition.)

 [268] Here, the admixture of sun-worship, as
       identifying the mythology at any rate
       with the Hamitic and "Cuthite," directly
       militates in favour of my view against
       the conjecture that Manco Capac was a
       missionary.

 [269] _Vide_ also the like confused tradition
       of Nimrod (Assyria) and Menes (Egypt),
       Bunsen, p. 192.

 "Amongst the Mexicans there suddenly appeared
 Quetzalcohuatl, the green-feathered (_i.e._
 elegant) snake" (compare with Chaldæan fish-god,
 p. 199), "a white and bearded man of broad
 brow, dressed in strange dress, a _legislator_
 who recommended severe penances, lacerating his
 own body with the prickles of the agave and
 the thorns of the cactus, but who dissuaded
 his followers from human sacrifices. While he
 remained in Anahuana it was a Saturnian reign;
 but this _great legislator_, after moving on
 to the plains of Cholulas, and governing the
 Cholulans with wisdom, passed away to a distant
 country" [if this looks more like the movement
 among them of some apostolic missionary, it is
 also in keeping with the journey of Bacchus,
 "travelling through all nations," &c.], "and was
 never heard of more." It is said briefly of him,
 that "he _ordained sacrifices_ of flowers and
 fruit, and stopped his ears, when he was spoken
 to of war."[270] Such a saint is needed in all
 times, even in the present advanced state of
 civilisation in the old world."[271]--_Help's
 "Spanish Conquest of America,"_ i. 286.

 [270] If an identity has been established
       between Quetzalcohuatl and Manco Capac
       (_vide_ Prescott "Conquest of Peru," i.
       9), it will appear that this legislator,
       who shut his ears when he was spoken to of
       war, did nevertheless leave them admirable
       maxims (compare with Indian (Aryan)
       maxims, p. 400) and laws of war, _e.g._
       Prescott, "Peru," p. 69. Compare extract
       from Davies--_vide supra_, preface.

       "The Peruvian soldier was forbidden to
       commit any _trespass on the property_ of
       the inhabitants whose territory lay in
       the line of march. From the moment _war
       was proclaimed_," &c., "in every stage
       of the war he was open to _propositions
       for peace_, and although he sought to
       reduce his enemies by carrying off their
       harvests and destressing them by famine,
       the Peruvian monarch allowed his troops to
       commit no unnecessary outrage on person
       or property." It is not to the point that
       these rules were not always observed.

 [271] Compare _supra_, p. 201, note to Manou
       (Bacchus).

                    I have shown (p. 211) that Calmet (and other
                    authorities of the same date might be adduced)
                    identifies Saturn with Noah. Among other proofs
                    he points to the tradition of Saturn devouring
                    his children (with the exception of three), as a
                    distorted tradition of the destruction of mankind
                    according to the prediction of Noah, upon the
                    canon of interpretation, "that men are said often
                    to do what they do not prevent, or even what they
                    predict." I have also shown that this conjecture
                    receives attestation from a fragment of
                    Sanchoniathon's (Phoenician),important whether
                    regarded as a more ancient parallel tradition, or
                    as the same tradition nearer the fountain-head.

                    Without recapitulating the other points of
                    resemblance (_vide_ ch. x.), let us compare
                    what is said of Saturn with what is said of
                    Bochica, Manco Capac, &c.

                    "Under Saturn," says Plutarch, "was the golden
                    age." "Saturn is represented with a scythe, as
                    the _inventor of_ agriculture." Virgil (Æn. viii.
                    315) describes Saturn as bringing the dispersed
                    people from the mountains and _giving them laws_.
                    I have also drawn attention to the _Saturnalia_
                    as connecting _Bacchus_ with _Saturn_. Now Cicero
                    tells us that one Bacchus was king of _Asia_, and
                    author of _laws called Subazian_; and Bacchus
                    is also said to _have travelled_ through _all
                    nations doing good_, in all places, and teaching
                    many things profitable to the life of man.

                    Noah has also been identified with Janus, and
                    under Janus as under Saturn was the golden age;
                    and it is, moreover, said (_vide_ p. 218),
                    "that in the time of Janus all families were
                    full of religion and holiness." He is said
                    to have been _the first that built temples_
                    and _instituted sacred rites_, and was
                    therefore always mentioned at the beginning of
                    sacrifices. [This, in common with what is said
                    of Quetzalcohuatl is again possibly a combined
                    tradition of Enoch and Noah.]

Let both these traditions be compared with Berosus' account of Hoa, or
the fish-god (_vide_ Rawlinson, "Anct. Mon." i. p. 155, and _supra_, p.
238).

  "He is said to have transmitted to mankind the knowledge of grammar
  and mathematics, and of all arts (or of any kind of art), and of
  the _polity of cities_, the _construction_ and _dedication of
  temples_, the _introduction of laws_, to have taught them geometry,
  and _to have shown them by example_, the _mode of sowing the seed_
  and gathering the _fruits of the earth_; and along with them to
  have tradated _all the secrets which tend to harmonise life_. And
  no one else in that time was found so experienced as he."[272]

 [272] Compare with Gen. vi. 18, viii. 15, "And God spoke to Noe,
       saying"; also vi. 13, ix. 8; and Gen. viii. 20--"And Noe built
       an altar unto the Lord, and taking of all cattle"; and ix.
       20--"And Noe, a husbandman, began to till the ground, and
       planted a vineyard." Also Ecclesiasticus xliv. 1, 3, 4, 19,
       "The covenants of the world were made with him." Compare also
       with the "Oracula Sybillina," _supra_, p. 237.

In the traditions, however, which connect Noah with the Saturnian
reign,[273] it appears to me that threefold confusion has to be
disentangled.

 [273] It may be well here to recall to recollection the well-known
       lines of Virgil--

                "Ultima Cumæi venit jam carminis ætas:
                 Magnus ab integro seclorum nascitur ordo,
                 Jam redit et Virgo, redeunt Saturnia regna
                 Jam nova progenies coelo dimittitur alto."
                                                   _Eclogues_ IV.

I. There is a tradition of a golden and of a silver age frequently
transfused.

II. When thus transfused there is often along with the tradition of a
golden or silver age trace of a subordinate and incongruous tradition
of a state of nature as a state of barbarism--both at the early
commencement of things.

III. There is a double tradition of the succession of ages, the one
ante-, the other post-diluvian.

       *       *       *       *       *

I. The tradition of the golden age is primarily the tradition of
Paradise, to which succeeded in gradation of degeneracy a silver,
brass, and iron age. Of this line of tradition we have seen distinct
trace in Sanchoniathon (_supra_, p. 127).

But there is also, as we have just seen, a tradition of another golden
age connected with Saturn, Janus, &c., and of this perhaps we have the
most direct testimony in the Chinese tradition.

  "The Chinese traditions," says Professor Rawlinson (Bampton
  Lectures, ii., quoting "Horæ Mos." iv. 147) "are said to be less
  clear and decisive (than the Babylonian). They speak of a 'first
  heaven' and age of innocence when 'the whole creation enjoyed a
  state of happiness; when everything was beautiful, everything was
  good; all things were perfect in their kind. Whereunto succeeded
  a _second heaven, introduced by a great convulsion_, in which the
  pillars of heaven were broken, the earth shook to its foundations,
  the heavens sank lower towards the north, the sun, moon, and
  stars changed their motions, the earth fell to pieces, and _the
  waters enclosed within its bosom burst forth with violence and
  overflowed_,'" &c.

Here, then, is a tradition of a second heaven, or a Saturnian reign,
following a convulsion which will perhaps be conceded to be a tradition
of the _universal_ Deluge (_vide_ p. 223), and which links the
tradition of the Saturnian reign with the patriarch Noah?[274]

 [274] Boulanger ("L'Antiquité Devoilée," i. 10), recognises,
       although it perplexes him, the tradition which places the
       gold and silver age after the Deluge--"à la suite de cet
       évenement, les traditions de l'age d'or, et du regne des Dieux
       paroissent encore plus bizarres;" also _id._ iii. 338; also
       308. Also 328, "Ce n'est donc point un état politique qu'il
       faut chercher dans l'age d'or, ce fut un état tout religieux.
       Chaque famille pénétrée des jugemens d'en haut, vecut quelque
       temps sous la conduite des pères qui rassembloient leurs
       enfans." It is thus that Seneca depicts the golden age. _Vide_
       p. 231.

I ask now to be allowed to look at the same tradition from a different
point of view.

I have elsewhere shown (p. 27) that according to the operation of
natural causes everything in the primitive ages would have led to
dispersion, but however probable or even certain these conjectures may
be, we know as a fact that they did not operate (Gen. xi. 1, 3, 8) for
some three hundred years or more, probably until after the death of
Noah. Does not this look as if mankind were kept together for a period,
in order that they might become settled in their ideas and confirmed
in their maxims, under the influence and direction of the second
father of mankind, whose direct communications with the Most High had
been manifest, and whose authority necessarily commanded universal
respect--"Him of mazy counsel, Saturn?" (Hesiod, "Theog.")[275]

 [275] It might be a sufficient answer to say that they did not
       operate because a miraculous intervention ordained it
       otherwise; but if we seek the explanation in natural causes
       they will be found such as will exactly confirm the theory.
       The causes which lead to dispersion are the necessities of
       the pastoral life. If there, then, was no dispersion, the
       conclusion is that during the three or four centuries after
       the Deluge mankind were mainly engaged in husbandry--"and
       Noe, a husbandman, _began_ to till the ground." But husbandry
       is the first and essential condition of civilisation. We
       have seen that Mr Mill, Mr Hepworth Dixon, &c., believe
       that mankind _slowly_ arrived at this stage through the
       intermediate stages of shepherd and hunter. On the contrary
       it would appear that they _started_ in this career. Again,
       given the conditions which Genesis describes--families living
       in patriarchal subjection to a chief who had the knowledge
       of husbandry--cultivation would be the natural consequence;
       for the one and only hindrance to cultivation, supposing
       the knowledge, is insecurity. "Most critical of all are the
       causes which conduce to agriculture, agriculture at once
       the most fruitful and the most dangerous expedients for
       life. He who tills the soil exposes his valuable stores to
       the malice or enmity of the whole world. Any marauder,"
       &c. ("Miscell." by Francis W. Newman, 1869). But as the
       conditions described in Genesis exclude the probability of
       such interruption--agriculture would have been the preferable
       resource of life--and so it would have continued until
       circumstances led to the extension of the pastoral mode. So
       far, then, as we are brought to regard the different modes
       of life as progressive or successive (I believe that even at
       this early stage they were contemporaneous), the order of
       the succession according to the theory now in vogue must be
       reversed; and we must regard mankind as first a community of
       husbandmen, gradually extending themselves as shepherds, to
       be finally still more dispersed in some of their branches as
       hunters.

If this theory appears far-fetched and fanciful, let it be recollected,
on the other hand, that there has long subsisted a tradition among
mankind of a code of nature as connected with a state of nature, which
has to be accounted for (_vide_ chap. ii.)

And when we consider how the impulsion which a nation receives at the
commencement of its history continues--how much, for instance, at the
distance of a thousand years we resemble our Saxon ancestors of the
eighth century, and even our ancestors of the German forest in identity
of character, sentiment, and institution--we must not make the lapse
of centuries an impassable barrier to a belief in the traditions of
mankind in the early periods of history.

Let us also, in regarding the golden or silver age, glance beyond it
to that iron age which ultimately followed it, in which the world,
becoming crowded and also corrupted, many families and tribes collected
together for warfare, and in which one nation swallowed another until
all came to be absorbed, at least on the Asiatic continent, into one or
two great empires, which again contended for supreme dominion. An age
of universal war, of many sorrows, of great perturbations, but one in
which the process of dispersion was stayed, and mankind settled down
within certain definite lines of demarcation, which in great part have
continued to this day.

No wonder, then, that men turned to each other in these dark days,
and talked with regret of the simple agricultural and pastoral age
which had passed, and which came variously to be called, in their
recollection, the second heaven, the Arcadian era, the Saturnia
regna,[276] the golden age. Neither is it surprising that the idea
of a state of nature misconceived as to the facts, and of a law of
nature dimly remembered and distorted by human perversity, has so often
obtained among mankind in modern times and also in antiquity. This is a
point which I shall discuss with reference to the historical evidence
in another chapter.

 [276] "And truly there is a sap in nations as well as in trees,
       a vigorous inward power, ever tending upwards, drawing its
       freshest energies from the simplest institutions, and the
       purest virtues and the healthiest moral action.... And if of
       nations we may so speak, what shall we say of the entire human
       race, when all its energies were, in a manner, pent up in its
       early and few progenitors; when the children of Noah, removed
       but a few generations from the recollections and lessons of
       Eden, and possessing the accumulated wisdom of long-lived
       patriarchs, were marvellously fitted to receive those strange
       and novel impressions, which a world, just burst forth in all
       its newness, was calculated to make?"--Card. Wiseman, "Science
       and Revealed Religion," Lect. ii.

       It is to this period that I am inclined to refer the belief
       in an age of high chivalry and virtue, with subsequent
       degeneracy, widely diffused in the legends of King Arthur. I
       will surrender my opinion whenever the historical information
       respecting that monarch shall have been more exactly
       determined.

       *       *       *       *       *

II. The conception of the state of nature (chap. ii.) as a basis of
theory and belief arose in the main out of the speculations of lawyers
and philosophers; yet it is curious that we frequently come upon a
concurrent yet always subordinate tradition of equality associated
with the tradition of a golden age which, if the age of Noah, we
know _aliunde_ to have been a state of hierarchical subordination
to a patriarchal chief; and, along with a reminiscence of a time of
peaceful prosperity at the commencement of things, the tradition of the
primitive age as one of great barbarism and privation, man living on
acorns, &c.

That these testimonies of tradition are incongruous and confused,
I am bound to admit; but then, looked at from the point of view of
tradition, they seem to me to have their explanation. If this happens
to be deemed somewhat fanciful, I contend that the test in all these
cases must be--(1.) Does the key fit the lock? (2.) Is there any other
key producible?[277] I venture, then, to suggest (p. 211) that the
notion of the primitive equality may be traced through the Bacchanalian
traditions; and the tradition of a primitive age of great privation I
believe to be the recollection of that brief but probably sharp period
of suffering during which mankind clung to the mountains in distrust
of the Divine injunction and promise, until brought into the plains by
Noah.[278] (_Vide_ p. 137.)

 [277] "The evidence, therefore, of the meaning of this part of
       the Homeric system is like that which is obtained, when,
       upon applying a new key to some lock that we have been
       unable to open, we find it fits the wards and puts back the
       bolt."--Gladstone, "Homer and the Homeric Age," ii. 30.

 [278] Plato's testimony to this tradition is remarkable (Plato
       de Legibus, lib. i.) Boulanger extracts the passage with
       reference to the golden age (iii. 296). (_Vide_ also Grote's
       Plato, iii. 337.) Plato says--"That it is a tradition that
       there was formerly a great destruction of mankind caused
       by inundations and other general calamities [are not these
       calamities those to which Horace alludes, I. Ode iii.,

            "Semotique prius tarda necessitas
            Lethi corripuit gradum,"

       from which only a few escaped?] those who were spared led a
       pastoral life _on the mountains_. We may suppose," he adds,
       "that these men possessed the knowledge of some useful arts,
       of some usages to which they had previously conformed." Plato
       indeed goes on to tell how this knowledge must have been
       lost, and one reason he gives is, "mankind remained _many_
       centuries on the _summits_ of the highest mountains--fear
       and remembrance of the past did not permit them to _descend
       into the plains_." Strabo (_apud_ Boulanger, iii. 301) also
       discusses this question. He says that mankind descended into
       the plains at different periods according to their courage
       and sociability (lib. xiii.) Varro (De re Rustica, lib. xiii.
       cap. i.) says they were a long time before they descended."
       Now, in these passages from Plato, Strabo, and Varro, there
       is distinct testimony to the fact of mankind remaining on the
       mountains after the Deluge, and their subsequent inferences
       are drawn from the fact that they supposed them to have
       remained there a long time. Is not this merely that they have
       recorded one tradition to the exclusion of another--viz., that
       mankind were brought into the plains by Saturn, in accordance
       with the indications in Genesis ix. 20, "and Noe, a husbandman
       began to till the ground." Compare _supra_, p. 137, and
       p. 212; Bryant, "Mythology," iii. p. 22, following [St]
       Epiphanius, says the descendants of Noah remained 659 years in
       the vicinity of Ararat--_i.e._ five generations.

Moreover, the characteristics of this subsequent period, when mankind
were living together in groups of families under the mild sway of the
patriarch, when "all families were good" (p. 218), and when

          ... "With abundant goods midst quiet lands,
          All willing shared the gatherings of their hands."

was just that semi-state of nature which it only required the
Bacchanalian tradition on the one side to transform into the fiction of
the state of savage and absolute equality, or the touch of poetry to
convert into the golden reminiscence on the other.

In this way, in the person of the patriarch Noah, the fiction of a
state of nature was brought into contact with the tradition of a law of
nature and a law of nations, regarded as the law of mankind "when men
were nearest the gods."

       *       *       *       *       *

III. I have already noticed (p. 127) the double tradition of the
succession of ages, the tradition from the fragment of Sanchoniathon,
upon which Mr M'Lennan relies, being ante-, that of Hesiod partly ante-
and partly post-diluvian. The following lines of Hesiod, for instance,
bearing allusion to the confusion of tongues and the shortening of
life, being plainly post-diluvian:--

        "When Gods alike and mortals rose to birth,
        The immortals formed a _golden race_ on earth
        Of _many-languaged men_; they lived of old,
        When Saturn reigned in Heaven; an age of gold.

        "The Sire of Heaven and earth created then
        A race the third, of _many-languaged men_,
        Unlike the silver they; of brazen mould,
        Strong with the ashen spear, and fierce and bold."[279]

 [279] With reference to the stone age, _vide_ p. 288.

And again, of the iron race which followed them, he says--

  "Jove on this race of many-languaged men
  Speeds the swift ruin which but slow began;
  For scarcely spring they to the light of day
  E'er age untimely strews their temples grey."

I must here, too, point out how curiously the testimonies of tradition
and science coincide.[280] _Both_ are agreed as to the transition
from a brass (bronze) to an iron age; but in one it is referred to
as evidence of degeneracy--in the other, the transition is adduced
in proof of progress. But the fact is established by the evidence
of tradition, as certainly as by the conclusions of science, and is
referred to accordingly by Sir John Lubbock ("Pre-historic Times," p.
6).

 [280] Concerning the evident tradition of the dispersion in Hesiod,
       "Theog." v. 836, _vide_ Bryant's "Mythology," iii. 51, _et
       seq._

The lines of Lucretius are certainly remarkable--

        "Arma antiqua, manus ungues dentesque fuerunt,
        Et lapides, et item sylvarum fragmina rami
        Posterius ferri vis est, ærisque reperta,
        Sed prior æris erat, quam ferri cognitus usus.
        Quo facilis magis est natura et copia major
        Ære solum terræ tractabunt, æreque belli
        Miscebant fluctus."--_De Rerum Natura_, lib. 5.

But here I cannot help thinking the tradition has reference rather to
the use than to the knowledge of metals. We have seen, for instance,
that the cultivation of the ground commenced with Noah--the fact
being attested both by Scripture and tradition. Now, in the above
passage, although the primitive weapons are referred to, as of stones,
yet it is said "æreque solum terræ tractabunt," an averment which
no doubt has reference to the brazen age; yet nothing forbids the
construction, which on other grounds seems the more natural that the
land was from the first so cultivated,[281] and that in strictness the
commencement of the brazen age was identical with the commencement of
cultivation, although in the mind of the poet it had reference to the
introduction of bronze weapons and implements of war. Moreover, the
_sylvarum fragmina rami_ may point to the period immediately preceding
cultivation, when the human race clung to the mountains. The testimony
of Scripture to the point seems plain. Not only does the construction
of the ark appear to imply the use of metals, but the reference to
Tubalcain, "who was a hammerer and artificer in every work of brass and
iron" (Gen. iv. 22), seems to put the antediluvian knowledge of metals
beyond question.

 [281] This appears to me to be borne out by the Sanscrit root "_ar_,
       to plough," being seemingly cognate with "æs, _ær_is," and
       with the produce corn = "_aris_ta," aroum, aratrum, Greek
       [Greek: arsmêa], &c.

       Sanscrit, "ar, to plough," _vide_ note 1 in Brace's
       "Ethnology." _Vide_ also Max Müller, "Science of Language,"
       _id._ _Vide_ also Max Müller, "Chips," ii. p. 45.

       "The name of the plough (in Egypt) was [Greek: ZHbix],
       _ploughed land_, appears to _have been_ [Greek: art], a
       word still traced in the Arabic 'hart,' which has the same
       import; and the Greek [Greek: arêtron] and Roman _aratrum_
       appears to indicate, like the [Greek: aroura], an Egyptian
       origin."--_Wilkinson's Ancient Egyptians_, i. 45.

       If "ar," as in "[Greek: aristos]," should be proposed as the
       primitive root, it must be after rejection of the evidence of
       secondary derivation; but does not our common parlance still
       run to the comparison of virtues with metals, "good as gold,"
       "hard as iron," "true as steel." Why then at a later period
       should not brass have become the expression for _best_ in the
       brazen or warlike age, when courage was the virtue principally
       regarded? If this is accepted, "[Greek: Arês]," or Mars, so
       far from being the root, would be a tertiary derivation--the
       embodiment and deification of what was regarded as best in the
       brazen age. Gladstone ("Homer," ii. p. 225), shows that Mars
       was a deity of late invention, and not one of the traditionary
       deities. Rawlinson, _vide supra_, p. 164, identifying Ares
       with Nimrod.

       Bunsen ("Egypt," iii. 466), says in a note, "Arya" in Indian
       means lord. Its original meaning was equivalent to "upper
       noble." The popular name "Arja" is derived from it, and means
       "descended from a noble." I will only add that "Ari" in
       Egyptian means "honourable" (in Nofruari). But "ar" might mean
       to plough; for the Aryans were originally and essentially an
       agricultural, and therefore a peasant race. Agriculture at the
       time we are contemplating would have been the most honourable
       employment (_supra_, p. 329), it would not have been "an
       agricultural and therefore peasant" employment till insecurity
       brought about the state of dependence and vassalage. The
       Aryans would have been noble as being of the Japhetic race.

In the first commencement after the Deluge, unless miraculously
supplied, there would have been no grain or bread food until time had
been allowed for its production. During this interval acorns, &c., may
have been the only food. Perhaps it was so ordained to incite to the
new permission to eat flesh meat. On the other hand, I ask, in those
ages when men were supposed to live exclusively on acorns, was not
flesh meat eaten,--were there no hunters? Had man no control over the
domestic animals?

That in a peaceful period, and the intercommunication of families
previous to the dispersion implies a state of peace (ch. xiii.), in a
period in which, if we follow the other traditions, "all families were
good," and were under the rule of an old man, "who held his hands to
his ears when they spoke to him of war," it is not surprising to learn
either that they had no weapons, or that they were of the simplest
description. It is characteristic of an age which piques itself upon
the perfection of its artillery, and whose greatest triumphs and
inventions have been in the science of destruction, to look back upon
a totally different age which happened only to have stone weapons, as
necessarily an age of barbarism. But from our point of view it must be
regarded not as an age of barbarism, but of prosperity,--not as a state
of equality, but of the subordination of the members of the family to
each chief, and of families relatively to each other; an age of much
mental vigour and spiritual intuition, and, so far from being a period
of misery, it left reminiscences of happiness such as lingered long in
the memory of mankind.




                              CHAPTER XIV.

               _SIR H. MAINE ON THE LAW OF NATIONS._


  Dr Newman in his inaugural discourse as Rector of the Dublin
  University ("On the Place held by the Faculty of Arts in the
  University Course"), which I think never received the attention it
  deserved, has with a few masterly touches sketched the history of
  Western civilisation, which in its main lines may be considered
  to run into, and be found identical with, the tradition I am now
  regarding--with this difference, that Dr Newman regards Western
  civilisation in its progressive, whereas we are concerned with its
  traditive aspects. Dr Newman says: "I take things as I find them
  on the surface of history, and am but classing phenomena (I have
  nothing to do with ethnology). Looking, then, at the countries
  which surround the Mediterranean seas as a whole, I see them from
  time immemorial the seat of an association of intellect and mind
  such as to deserve to be called the intellect and mind of human
  kind. Starting and advancing from certain centres, till their
  respective influences intersect and conflict, and then at length
  intermingle and combine, a common thought has been generated,
  and a common civilisation defined and established. Egypt is one
  starting-point, Syria another, Greece a third, Italy a fourth (of
  which, as time goes on, the Roman empire is the maturity, and
  the most intelligible expression), North Africa a fifth, ... and
  this association or social commonwealth, with whatever reverses,
  changes, and momentary dissolutions, continues down to this day....
  I call it, then, pre-eminently and emphatically Human Society,
  and its Intellect the Human Mind, and its decisions the sense of
  mankind and its humanised and cultivated states--civilisation
  in the abstract; and the territory on which it lies the _orbis
  terrarum_, or the world. For unless the illustration be fanciful,
  the object which I am contemplating is like the impression of a
  seal upon the wax; which rounds off and gives form to the greater
  portion of the soft material, and presents something definite to
  the eye, and pre-occupies the space against any second figure, so
  that we overlook and leave out of our thoughts the jagged outline
  or unmeaning lumps outside of it, intent upon the harmonious circle
  which fills the imagination within it." ("There are indeed great
  outlying portions of mankind, ... still they are outlying portions
  and nothing else, fragmentary, &c., protesting and revolting
  against the grand central formation of which I am speaking, but
  not uniting with each other into a second whole.") The same _orbis
  terrarum_, which has been the seat of civilisation, has been
  the seat of the Christian polity. "The natural and the divine
  associations are not indeed exactly coincident, nor ever have
  been." "Christianity has fallen partly outside civilisation and
  civilisation partly outside Christianity; but on the whole the two
  have occupied one and the same _orbis terrarum_.... The centre of
  the tradition is transferred from Greece to Rome.... At length the
  temple of Jerusalem is rooted up by the armies of Titus, and the
  effete schools of Athens are stifled by the edict of Justinian....
  The grace stored in Jerusalem, and the gifts which radiate from
  Athens, are made over and concentrated in Rome. This is true as
  a matter of history. Rome has inherited both sacred and profane
  learning; she has perpetuated and dispensed the traditions of Moses
  and David in the supernatural order, and of Homer and Aristotle
  in the natural. To separate these distinct teachings, human and
  divine, is to retrograde; it is to rebuild the Jewish temple and
  to plant anew the groves of Academus; ... and though these were
  times when the old traditions seemed to be on the point of failing,
  somehow it has happened that they have never failed.... Even in
  the lowest state of learning the tradition was kept up;" ... and
  this experience of the past we may apply to the present, "for as
  there was a movement against the classics in the Middle Ages, so
  has there been now.... Civilisation has its common principles, and
  views, and teaching, and especially its books, which have more or
  less been given from the earliest times, and are in fact in equal
  esteem and respect, in equal use, now, as they were when they were
  received in the beginning. In a word, the classics and the subjects
  of thought and study to which they give rise, or to use the term
  most to our present purpose, the arts have ever on the whole been
  the instruments which the civilised _orbis terrarum_ has adopted;
  just as inspired works, and the lives of saints, and the articles
  of faith and the Catechism have been the instrument of education
  in the case of Christianity. And this consideration you see,
  gentlemen (to drop down at once upon the subject of discussion
  which has brought us together), invests the opening of the schools
  in arts[282] with a solemnity and moment of a peculiar kind, for
  we are but engaged in reiterating an old tradition, and carrying
  on those august methods of enlarging the mind, and cultivating
  the intellect and ripening the feelings, in which the process of
  civilisation has ever consisted."--_Dr Newman on Civilisation._

 [282] _I.e._, "The teaching and government of the University
       remained in the Faculty of Arts," and not in the faculty
       of theology or law or modern philosophy. I have for my
       own purposes of condensation been obliged to take certain
       unpardonable liberties of transposition in the above abstract,
       for which I can only plead my necessity. I should not in any
       case have so exceeded in quotation, were this very masterly
       address at all accessible, but, as far as I know, it is only
       to be found in the _Catholic University Gazette_, November 16,
       1854.

       In order to show the full significance of these extracts
       from Dr Newman, and also their bearing on points still to be
       discussed, I will append the following suggestive passage
       from Sir H. Maine's "Ancient Law," p. 22:--"It is only with
       the progressive societies that we are concerned, and nothing
       is more remarkable than their extreme fewness. In spite of
       overwhelming evidence, it is most difficult for a citizen of
       Western Europe to bring thoroughly home to himself the truth
       that the civilisation which surrounds him is a rare exception
       in the history of the world. The tone of thought common
       among us, all our hopes, fears, and speculations, would be
       materially affected, if we had vividly before us the relation
       of the progressive races to the totality of human life. It is
       indisputable that much the greatest part of mankind has never
       shown a particular desire that its civil institutions should
       be improved since the moment when external completeness was
       first given to them by their embodiment in some permanent
       record.... There has been a material civilisation, but instead
       of the civilisation expanding the law, the law has limited the
       civilisation."

       I must also express my belief that if Mr Lowe had read the
       lecture of Dr Newman, he would have very much modified
       the views he enunciated in his lecture on "Primary and
       University Education," at the Philosophical Institution at
       Edinburgh.--_Times_, November 4, 1867.

Before examining Sir H. Maine's view on the Law of Nature and the Law
of Nations, it will perhaps facilitate the inquiry if I gather up,
out of the evidence which has accumulated in the previous chapters,
such conclusions as will show how we stand in regard to Sir H. Maine's
general theory.

I. Accepting Sir H. Maine's dictum that "the family and not the
individual was the unit of ancient society;" and, in a certain sense,
the further position, that it is difficult "to know where to stop,
to say of what races of men it is _not_ allowable to lay down that
the society in which they are united was originally organised on the
patriarchal model,"[283] I venture to maintain against Sir H. Maine the
continuance of family life in a quasi state of nature, before either
the development or creation of the State.

 [283] "Ancient Law," p. 123.

II. But in maintaining that there was a period in human history
anterior to the formation of governments, I am far from asserting--on
the contrary, I distinctly repudiate the notion--that there was ever an
ante-social state. Society is complete within the family circle;[284]
and society in any wider organisation is only the requirement and
consequence of imperfection and corruption within the family, or of
collision between families. Undoubtedly, there were instances in which
the State grew up imperceptibly out of the extension of the family
into the patriarchal system;[285] but these instances will probably
have occurred among the families who remained stationary, whether by
right of seniority, or by virtue of superior power, at the central
point from which the Dispersion commenced. So long, however, as family
government sufficed, there would have been nothing but the family; but
when mankind increased, and actual relationship died out, disputes must
have multiplied and become complicated--not only between individuals
but between families; hence the necessity of State government--hence
the necessity of an appeal on the part of individuals from the family
to some supreme authority. This would be the first mode in which
governments would have arisen among those who came under the action
of the Dispersion. But even here--assuming the family groups to have
descended from the same progenitor--we see first the family, first
property, then the State. The second mode would be where several
families, differing in language and race, came together and formed
States.[286] Although they would have come together on unequal and
varying conditions, yet they would necessarily have come together
on some conditions, and for the mutual protection of their rights,
their property, and their personal security. In all such cases there
would have been something of a recognition and adjustment of rights,
something of the nature of a compact more or less explicit, but much
more formal and explicit in this mode than in the former. In any case,
the end and intention of the formation of States and governments would
have been the security of rights, as Cicero tells us:--"Hanc enim ob
causam maxime _ut sua tuerentur_ respublicæ civitatesque constitutæ
sunt. Nam etsi, duce naturæ, congregabantur homines, _tamen spe
custodiæ rerum suarum_ urbium præsidia quærebant." But does not Sir H.
Maine himself supply similar testimony? Referring to the notions of
"primitive antiquity," he says:--

  "How little the notion of injury to the community had to do with
  the earliest interferences of the State, through its tribunals,
  is shown by the curious circumstance, that in the original
  administration of justice the proceedings were a close imitation
  of the series of acts which were likely to be gone _through in
  private life_ by persons who were disputing, but who afterwards
  suffered their quarrel to be appeased. The magistrate carefully
  simulated the demeanour of a _private arbitrator, casually called
  in_."--Chap. x. 374; _vide_ also pp. 375, 376.

 [284] It by no means follows that God does not will, and did not
       foreordain society in its wider organisation, according to the
       conditions and circumstances out of which it arose.

 [285] Sir H. Maine says (p. 124):--"The points which lie on the
       surface of history are these: the eldest male parent--the
       eldest ascendant--is absolutely supreme in his household. His
       dominion extends to life and death, and is as unqualified
       over their children and their _houses_ as over his slaves.
       The flocks and herds of the children are the flocks and herds
       of the father." [This is not borne out by what we read of
       Abraham and Lot, Esau and Jacob--_e.g._, "But Lot also, who
       was with Abraham, _had_ flocks of sheep, and herds and tents.
       Neither was the land able to bear them, that they might
       dwell together" (Gen. xiii.) "And the possessions of the
       parent, which he holds in a representative rather than a
       proprietary character, are equally divided at his death among
       his descendants in the first degree, the eldest son sometimes
       receiving a double share, under the name of birthright, but
       more generally endowed with no hereditary advantage beyond an
       honorary precedence." The separation then commenced with the
       division of the inheritance; and whether it was ever an equal
       division, and not proportioned to the respective ages of the
       sons, or determined by other motives, or again, a division of
       different kinds of property, may be open to question; but at
       any rate a division took place, and a separation of families
       was consequent upon it. The division was not only the sign
       and token, but the efficient cause of the separation; and so
       not only the dispersion of families, but separate ownerships
       commenced with the descendants in the first degree.

 [286] Compare Plato, "Leges;" Grote's "Plato," iii. 337.

III. We come to the conclusion that the collation of the sentiments and
maxims, as preserved in tradition by the families who had coalesced
into States, would have formed the basis of the morality and of the
jurisprudence of the States so constituted; and that in every case
of oppression appeal would have been made to their pre-existing and
natural rights.

IV. That whilst certain traditions--the tradition of religion, for
instance--would have been perhaps more faithfully preserved in the
patriarchal governments of the East, and we find evidence of this in
the monotheism of the Persians; on the other hand, if there was a
tradition of a law common to all nations, it would be more likely to
be preserved in States formed by the amalgamation of many distinct
families and races.[287]

 [287] "In that old heathenism of the Roman world, into which it
       was the will of God that the Christian religion should be
       introduced by the apostles, there were then diverse and often
       conflicting elements. There was a good element, which came
       from God; there was a thoroughly bad element, which came from
       Satan; and there was a corrupt element, which was the fruit of
       the workings of unregenerate human nature upon society, and
       upon the objects of sense and intelligence with which man is
       placed in relation. The good element we see embodied in great
       part of the laws and institutions of the ancient world, as
       also in much of the literature, the poetry, the philosophy of
       Greece and Rome, which literature consequently--after having
       been purified, and as it were baptized--has always been used
       by the Christian Church in the education of her children. This
       element, I say, was originally the gift of God, the Author of
       nature, to man, the offspring of reason and conscience, the
       tradition of a society of which God was Himself the founder.
       It enshrined whatever fragments of primeval truth as to God,
       the world, and man himself, still lingered, in whatever shape,
       among the far-wandering children of Adam. St Paul alludes to
       this element (Acts xvii. 22); ... and his words altogether
       seem to imply that God watched over it, supported it and
       fostered it, as far as men were worthy of it, and that it
       might even have been expanded into a perfect system of natural
       religion and of reasonable virtue, had men been grateful
       enough to earn larger measures of grace from God, who left not
       Himself without witness in His daily providence, and was not
       far from 'any one of His children.'"--"_Four Sermons_," by the
       Rev. Henry J. Coleridge, S. J. Burns & Oates. 1869. P. 52.
       (48.)

V. That such was the origin and history of the Greeks and Romans--the
two nations which formed the nucleus of the _orbis terrarum_ within
which, as Dr Newman tells us (_supra_, p. 339), is found the centre
of Christianity and the seat of civilisation.

VI. That, whether the Roman law goes back in tradition, or, as Sir H.
Maine will say, in fiction only--the fact remains, that it does so
trace itself back to remote antiquity, and that the Roman law subsists
to this day as the foundation of most of the codes of Europe, and
has extended its ramifications to all; and that outside the circle
of its influence other nations equally retrace their codes to remote
antiquity, and, as a rule, to revelations made to their earliest
founder. That nothing is more striking in ancient times than the manner
in which their codes, which are the embodiment of laws previously in
tradition, were held as a sacred deposit. This was the reason why the
laws of the Medes and the Persians might not be altered; and that,
according to the laws of the Visigoths, no judge would decide in any
suit unless he found in their code a law applicable to the case; and
perhaps we may find trace of it in the phrases familiar to us--_nolumus
leges Angliæ mutari_, _stare super vias antiquas_, and so, too, in the
_ita scriptum est_, which, as Sir H. Maine says (p. 31), silenced all
objections in the Middle Ages.

VII. That the fact of a tradition of "a law common to all nations" and
of "a lost code of nature," is in accordance with the historical and
scriptural evidence which would render such a tradition probable.

       *       *       *       *       *

Sir H. Maine, with whose argument I now propose to deal, is, as far as
I am aware, the most conspicuous opponent of the common belief in the
"Law of Nations;" and yet it appears to me that we shall find testimony
to the tradition even in the very terms in which he repudiates it. I
must at least consider this a recognition on his part of the strength
and inveteracy of the opposite view. In the following extracts I shall
suppose my readers fresh from the perusal of Sir H. Maine.

Sir H. Maine says ("Ancient Law," pp. 7, 8), that the further "we
penetrate into the primitive history of thought, the further we find
ourselves from the conception of law of any sort." And again, "It is
certain that in the infancy of mankind, no sort of legislation, not
even a distinct author of law, is contemplated or conceived of." Now if
Sir H. Maine had said nothing more, I should have felt bound to take
this assertion upon his authority; but Sir H. Maine adds:--"Law has
scarcely reached the footing of custom; it is rather a habit. It is, to
use a French phrase, 'in the air,'" [Is not Sir H. Maine here hunting
for a phrase which shall not imply that it is in tradition?] "The only
authoritative statement of right and wrong is a judicial sentence after
the facts, _not one presupposing a law which has been violated_, but
one which is breathed for the first time by a higher power into the
judge's mind at the moment of adjudication."

This passage may be adduced in evidence of the tradition of Noah and
his heavenly-inspired judgments, but apparently it is in contradiction
to the view of a law of nature, since it supposes the judge to decide
through direct inspiration, or in the way of _stet pro ratione
voluntas_, and not with reference to a "law which has been violated."
Now, Sir H. Maine comes to his conclusion upon the ground of the
"Themistes" of the Homeric poems. "The earliest notions connected with
the conception ... of a law or rule of life are those contained in the
Homeric words 'Themis' and 'Themistes'" (p. 4). "The literature of
the heroic ages discloses to us law in the germ under the 'Themistes,'
and a little more developed in the conception of 'Dike'" (p. 9). If
this were so, law according to the conception of "Themistes" and law
according to the conception of "Dike" were never contemporaneous, but
necessarily successive, or rather progressive; but at page 8 we read,
"The Homeric word for a custom in the embryo is _sometimes_ 'Themis'
in the singular, more often 'Dike,' the meaning of which visibly
fluctuates between 'a judgment' and a 'custom' or 'usage.' '[Greek:
Nomos],' a law ... does not occur in Homer."[288]

 [288] The word '[Greek: nomos]' is found in the Hymn to Apollo, v.
       20, attributed to Homer [the term [Greek: themistes] also, v.
       391]--and in Hesiod, Op. et Dies, v. 276.--Goguet, ii. 78.
       In the Hymn to Apollo it is only applied to song. The Greeks
       had the same word, however--viz. [Greek: nomoi], as for laws,
       songs, and pastures--that is to say, the term law, [Greek:
       nomos], is applied to the instrument of its transmission, and
       to what would then have been its most ordinary subject matter.
       This seems to me in evidence of its primitive use.

       Take, moreover, the following passage in the First Book of the
       Iliad, v. 233:--

          [Greek: 'All' ek toi ereô, kai epi megan horkon omoumai
          nai ma tode skêptron, to men oupote phylla kai ozous
          physei, epeidê prôta tomên en oressi leloipen,
          oud' anathêlêsei; peri gar rha he chalkos elepse
          phylla te kai phloion; nyn aute min hyies Achaiôn
          en palamês phoreousi, dikaspoloi, hoite Themistas
          pros Dios heiryatai; ho de toi megas essetai horkos.]
                               --_Heyne's Homer_, i. v. 233-239.

          "But this I say, and with an oath confirm,
          By this my royal staff, which never more
          Shall put forth leaf nor spray since first it left
          Upon the mountain side its parent stem,
          Nor blossom more; since all around, the axe
          Hath lopped both leaf and bark, and now 'tis borne,
          _Emblem of justice_, by the sons of Greece,
          _Who guard the sacred ministry of law
          Before the face of Jove!_ a mighty oath.
          The time shall come when all the sons of Greece
          Shall mourn Achilles' loss," &c.
                      --_Lord Derby's Translation_, 275-285.

       Here we have the term "dike" not merely in embryo, but in
       the compound word "dikaspoloi," administrators of justice,
       implying something akin to judges, and a condition of things
       in which law was reduced to a state in which there was
       something to guard and administer. Not only so, but the staff,
       the "emblem of justice," is borne by them when they _guard_
       the "Themistes" before the gods.

       It will not only be curious to discover, but the discovery
       of vestiges in modern times of the old traditional modes and
       ceremonial will throw light upon the administration of justice
       in ancient times. I dare say many other instances may be
       indicated. I will adduce the following:--If my readers will
       turn to the _Pall Mall Gazette_ (July 12, 1870), they will
       find an account of "The Manx Thing," or "the ancient custom
       of the Ruler, his Council, and the Commons meeting together
       in the open air to proclaim the law to the people standing
       around." "The Lieutenant-Governor is the representative of
       the King, and takes an oath to deal truly and uprightly
       between our sovereign lady the Queen and her people," "and
       as indifferently betwixt party and party _as this staff now
       standeth_." "He is assisted by two demesters or supreme
       judges, who must deem the law truly, as they will answer to
       the Lord of the Isle." Here, as in Homer, there is reference
       to an emblem and a ceremonial repugnant to the notion that
       (_infra_) "every man under the patriarchal despotism was
       practically controlled by a regimen not of law but of caprice."

       Mr Adams describes the following scene in one of the islands
       in the archipelago off the mainland of Korea--"The chief, who
       really has something very noble and majestic about him, as
       is generally the case with men in high authority among the
       natives of these islands.... The demeanour of those of his
       countrymen who surrounded him was as free and independent as
       his own was reserved and dignified.... In his hand he held
       _his badge of office, a wand of ebony with a green silken cord
       entwined about it like the serpent of Æsculapius_."--"Travels
       of a Naturalist in Japan and Manchuria," by Arthur Adams,
       F.L.S. 1870. Compare also with _infra_, p. 390.

Well, allow that there need not be as yet the metaphysical conception
of law, or law as a positive enactment, embracing indifferently a
variety of cases. Eliminate the word "law." Instead of the phrase "law
of nature" substitute "natural justice," and "the sense of right and
wrong;" and it suffices that we detect "usage," "custom," right; for
even if it were conceded that right is a post-Homeric rendering of
[Greek: dikê], yet "custom" and "usage" in their definition would have
been in recognition of pre-existing right. This becomes more clear if
we consider the alternative opinion. Sir H. Maine says that "under
the patriarchal despotism," "every man was practically controlled
in all his actions by a regimen not of law but of caprice" (p. 8).
The judgments, then, of the patriarchal times were mere "caprice,"
and rights were defined without reference to any sense of justice.
From "Themistes" of caprice they would proceed to legislation upon
"caprice," and, ultimately, to codes which would represent nothing
but a digest of the precedents of "caprice." It is difficult, then,
to understand in what way and at what point the sense of justice, the
conception of "dike," originated, and most of all, if this is true, it
is difficult to account for the "Themistes" being regarded as akin
to inspiration, as well as for the veneration with which, we have the
authority of Sir H. Maine (_vide infra_) for saying, that Archaic law
was held, and, moreover, for the persistent tendency to revert to the
past.[289]

 [289] I feel very much supported in my argument by the following
       passage from Mr Gladstone's "Homer" (ii. 420): "Mr Grote says
       that 'the primitive import' of the words [Greek: hagathos],
       [Greek: esthlos], and [Greek: kakos], relates to power and not
       to worth; and that the ethical meaning of these is a later
       growth, which 'hardly appears until the discussions raised by
       Socrates, and prosecuted by his disciples.' I ask permission
       to protest against whatever savours of the idea that any
       Socrates whatever was the patentee of that sentiment of right
       and wrong which is the most precious part of the patrimony of
       mankind. The movement of Greek morality with the lapse of time
       was chiefly downward and not upward.... But as to the words
       [Greek: hagathos] and [Greek: kakos], the case is far more
       clear; and here I ask, Can it be shown that Homer ever applies
       the word [Greek: hagathos] to that which is morally bad? or
       the word [Greek: kakos] to that which is morally good? If it
       can, _cadit quæstio_; if it cannot, then we have advanced a
       considerable way in proving the ethical signification.... In
       the word [Greek: dikaios], however, we have an instance of the
       epithet never employed except in order to signify a moral or
       a religious idea. Like the word _righteous_ among ourselves,
       it is derived from a source which would make it immediately
       designate duty as between man and man, and also as it arises
       out of civil relations. But it is applied in Homer to both the
       great branches of duty. And surely there cannot be a stronger
       proof of the existence of definite moral ideas among a people,
       than the very fact that they employ a word founded on the
       observance of relative rights to describe also the religious
       character. It is when religion and morality are torn asunder,
       that the existence of moral ideas is endangered."

If, however, we follow Sir H. Maine in his illustration taken from
English law, we shall find ourselves reinstated in our original
convictions. Sir H. Maine says (p. 8), "An Englishman should be
better able than a foreigner to appreciate the historical fact that
the 'Themistes' preceded any conception of law;" but at page 32, he
says, "Probably it will be found that _originally_ it was the received
doctrine that somewhere _in nubibus_ [Q. "in the air"], or in _gremio
magistratuum_ there _existed_ a complete, coherent, symmetrical body
of English law, of an amplitude sufficient to furnish principles which
would apply to any conceivable combination of circumstances." If, then,
we take the analogy of the English law, we come also to the identical
conclusion for which I contend--viz. that the "Themistes," whether they
partook of the character of commands or of judgments, _were_ still in
recognition of a "law which was violated."

If the "Themistes" had no reference to a law which was violated; if
they were mere caprice, I have already asked, whence arose the regard
for ancient law among the nations of antiquity? and I may add, how came
it about that their ideas of justice were inseparably connected with
the notions of morality? Does Sir H. Maine deny either of these facts?
On the contrary, he affirms them:--

  "Quite enough, too, remains of these collections ['ancient codes']
  both in the East and in the West, to show that they mingled
  up religious, civil, and merely moral ordinances _without any
  regard_ to differences in their essential character; and this is
  consistent with all we know of ancient thought from other sources,
  the _severance_ of law from morality, and of religion from law,
  belonging very distinctly to the later stages of mental progress"
  (p. 16).

  And at p. 121, "Much of the old law which has descended to us, was
  preserved merely _because it was old_. Those who practised and
  obeyed it did not pretend to understand it; and in some cases they
  even ridiculed and despised it. _They offered no account of it
  except that it had come down to them from their ancestors._"

Does Sir H. Maine dispute the persistency of tradition in general?
No. At p. 117, _vide supra_, I have quoted a passage in which he
explicitly maintains it.

I must observe further, that in the very passages in which he
repudiates the notion of a "law of nature," two things irresistibly
transpire--(1.) That there was a persistent tradition in ancient
society of a law of nature; (2.) That this tradition was invariably
associated with the golden age, _e.g._:--

  "After nature had become a household word in the mouths of
  the Romans, the belief gradually prevailed among the Roman
  lawyers,[290] that the old _jus gentium_ was in fact _the lost
  code of nature_, and that the prætors, in framing an edictal
  jurisprudence on the principles of the _jus gentium_, were
  gradually restoring a type from which law had only departed _to
  deteriorate_" (p. 56). "But then, while the _jus gentium_ had
  little or no antecedent credit at Rome, the theory of a law of
  nature came in surrounded with all the prestige of philosophical
  authority, and invested with the _charms of association with an
  elder and more blissful condition of the race_" (p. 60). "The law
  of nature confused the past and the present. Logically it implied
  a state of nature which had once been regulated by natural law;
  yet the juris-consults do not speak clearly or confidently of
  the existence of such a state, which indeed is little noticed by
  the ancients _except_ when it finds a poetical _expression in
  the fancy of a golden age_" (p. 73). "Yet it was not on account
  of their simplicity and harmony that these finer elements were
  primarily respected, but on the score of their _descent from the
  aboriginal reign of nature_" (p. 74). "Yet it is a remarkable proof
  of the essentially _historical_ character of the conception that,
  after all the efforts which have been made to evolve the code of
  nature from the necessary characteristics of the natural state
  [_i.e. à priori_] so much of the result is just what it would have
  been if men had been satisfied to adopt the dicta of the Roman
  lawyers without questioning or reviewing them. Setting aside the
  conventional or treaty law of nations, it is surprising how large a
  part of the system is made up of pure Roman law" (p. 97). [Because
  the Roman law was in the main stream of the tradition.][291]

 [290] Either, then, the Roman lawyers fell back upon the old
       traditions, or else the lawyers introduced the superstition of
       the law of nature, and then became victims to the superstition
       they had invented. In any case, the "belief" in "the lost
       code of nature gradually prevailed." I am presently going to
       discuss with Sir H. Maine how far in the latter case such a
       belief is likely to have prevailed.

 [291] _Vide_ also Sir H. Maine, p. 77: "It is important, too, to
       observe that this model system, unlike many of those which
       have mocked men's hopes in later days, was _not entirely the
       product of imagination_. It was never thought of as founded
       on quite untested principles. The notion was that it underlay
       existing law, and must be looked for through it. Its functions
       were, _in short, remedial_, not _revolutionary_ or anarchical.
       And this unfortunately is the exact point at which the modern
       view of a law of nature has often ceased to resemble the
       ancient."

I now come to what I may call the exposition of Sir H. Maine's argument
proper, and, although I feel the full difficulty of doing this, in the
case of so subtle and able a writer, I shall endeavour to condense into
as short a space as possible whatever is material to Sir H. Maine's
position. Sir H. Maine says (p. 46):--

  "I shall attempt to discover the origin of these famous phrases,
  Law of Nations, Law of Nature, Equity, and to determine how the
  conceptions which they indicate are related to one another. The
  most superficial student of Roman history must be struck by the
  extraordinary degree in which the fortunes of the Republic were
  affected by the presence of foreigners under different names on
  her soil. The causes of this immigration are discernible enough
  at a later period, for we can readily understand why men of all
  races should flock to the Mistress of the World; but the same
  phenomenon of a _large population of foreigners_ and denizens meets
  us in the _very earliest_ records of the Roman State--no doubt
  the instability of society in ancient Italy.... It is probable,
  however, that this explanation is imperfect, and it could only
  be completed by taking into account those active commercial
  relations, which though they are little reflected in the military
  traditions of the Republic, Rome appears certainly to have had
  with Carthage and with the interior of Italy in pre-historic
  times.... In the _early Roman Republic_ the principle of the
  absolute exclusion of foreigners pervaded the civil law no less
  than the constitution. The alien or denizen could have no share
  in any institution supposed to be coeval with the State. He
  could not have the benefit of the Quiritarian Law, &c.... Still
  neither the interest nor the security of Rome permitted him to
  be quite outlawed.... Moreover, at no period of Roman history
  was foreign trade entirely neglected. It was therefore probably
  half as a measure of policy and half in furtherance of commerce
  that jurisdiction was first assumed in disputes to which the
  parties were either foreigners or a native and a foreigner. The
  assumption of such a jurisdiction brought with it the immediate
  necessity of discovering some principles on which the questions to
  be adjudicated upon could be settled.... They refused, as I have
  said before, to decide the new cases by pure Roman civil law.
  They refused, no doubt, because it seemed to involve some kind of
  degradation, to apply the law of the particular State from which
  the foreign litigant came. The expedient to which they resorted
  was that of selecting the rules of law common to Rome, and to the
  different Italian communities in which the immigrants were born.
  In other words, they set themselves to form a system answering
  to the primitive and literal meaning of _jus gentium, i.e._ law
  common to all nations. _Jus gentium_ was, in fact, the sum of
  the common ingredients in the customs of the old Italian tribes,
  for they were _all the nations_ whom the Romans had the means of
  observing, and who sent successive swarms of immigrants to the
  Roman soil.... The _jus gentium_ was, accordingly, a collection of
  rules and principles determined by observation _to be common_ to
  the institutions which prevailed among the various Italian tribes.
  The circumstances of the origin of the _jus gentium_ was probably
  a sufficient safeguard against the _mistake of supposing_ that the
  Roman lawyers had any special respect for it. It was the fruit in
  part of their disdain of all foreign law, and in part of their
  disinclination to give the foreigner the advantage of their own
  indigenous _jus civile_. It is true that we, at the present day,
  should probably take a very different view of the _jus gentium_....
  We should have a sort of respect for rules and principles so
  universal.... But the results to which modern ideas conduct the
  observer, are, as nearly as possible, the reverse of those which
  were instinctively brought home to the primitive Roman. What we
  respect or admire, he disliked or regarded with jealous dread. The
  points of jurisprudence which he looked upon with affection were
  exactly those which a modern theorist leaves out of consideration
  as accidental and transitory--the solemn gestures ... the endless
  formalities, &c.... The _jus gentium_ was merely a system forced
  on his attention by a political necessity. He loved it as little
  as he loved the foreigners from whose institutions it was derived,
  and for whose benefit it was intended. A complete revolution in his
  ideas was required before it could challenge his respect.... This
  crisis arrived when the Greek theory of a law of nature was applied
  to the practical Roman administration of the law common to all
  nations."--_Sir H. Maine's Ancient Law_, 46-52.

Sir H. Maine's theory may be summarised as an attempt to identify
the "Law of Nations" with the history of Roman law, leaving out of
sight the tradition of it which may be traced in other nations.
Now, although there is nothing, as Napoleon used to say, which one
nation hates more than another nation--and this certainly holds true
of the Roman people--yet it is scarcely possible to point to any
which, from the circumstances of its origin, would have been less
predisposed to look in the abstract with disdain upon the laws and
customs of surrounding nations, however much they may have hated them
as concrete nationalities; and least of all would they have had this
feeling for the institutions of the Latins, a people whom, from their
peculiar connection with themselves, they would principally have had
as residents among them. Sir H. Maine seems unable to shake off the
prepossession, which the analysis of Roman law, to the exclusion of
other evidence, would tend to lead him, viz. that the Romans were a
homogeneous people, and we have just heard him speak of their "own
indigenous _jus civile_." This indigenous _jus civile_ was compounded,
as was their nationality, of many miscellaneous elements. Whatever
truth may be attached to the legends as to the foundation of Rome,
and they are various, it cannot well be disputed that there was a
strong trace of Sabine[292] and Etruscan,[293] in addition to the
original miscellaneous Roman, or, if not miscellaneous, pure Latin
element; to which, in any case, in the subsequent reigns a large Latin
immigration must be added, when Rome, through the conquest of Alba
Longa, became the head of the Latin league, and the infusion of a Greek
in addition to an Etruscan element in the dynasty of the Tarquins. The
Latin league has its significance over and above its bearing upon the
present argument; and to this I shall presently revert. But to go no
further, does not the existence of the Latin league[294] sufficiently
account for the large influx of strangers into Rome, on account of
which Sir H. Maine sees the necessity for an extension of the Roman
jurisprudence? But, if this be so, his theory must fall to the ground;
for, if the Roman element was distinctive at all, and was a pure
Latin population, miscellaneously collected by Romulus, and not a
miscellaneous population of various tribes--it was Latin _quâ_ Roman.
How then, supposing the Roman element to have become predominant, did
it come to contemn the Latin element and the law of the Latins? That it
excluded them is another thing, or that they were kept in a subordinate
position, and not admitted to the full privileges of naturalisation,
is quite conceivable on other grounds; but that there should have
existed a feeling of contempt for the laws and customs of the people
among whom, if their legends were true (and at any rate we have nothing
else to go upon), was found the cradle of their race, is hard to
understand, yet this assumption is essential to Sir H. Maine's position.

 [292] I shall consider that Dr Dyer has fairly reinstated a large
       portion of early Roman history until I see his arguments
       refuted. Without endorsing his opinion I may quote what Dr
       Dyer says ("Hist. of the City of Rome," p. 27) in evidence
       of the admixture of the Sabine element:-- "The importance of
       the Sabine element at Rome has not perhaps been sufficiently
       considered. The late M. Ampere has discussed the subject
       with great learning and ability in his interesting work,
       'L'Histoire Romaine à Rome.' He remarks that not only did the
       Romans borrow from the Sabines almost all their religious
       and much of their political and social organisation, their
       customs, ceremonies, arms, &c., but also that the far greater
       part of the primitive population of Rome was Sabine, that most
       of the men who played a part in Roman history were of Sabine
       extraction, and that what is called the Latin tongue contains
       a strong infusion of Sabine elements."

 [293] Evidences of the Etruscan element are so marked, that Niebühr,
       in his first edition, asserted the Etruscan origin of the
       city. He subsequently, however, came to the conclusion that
       "there was so much in the Roman state that was peculiar to
       Rome and Latium, as to be incompatible with the supposition of
       Rome being an Etruscan colony."--_Appendix to Travers Twiss'
       Epitome of Niebühr._

 [294] A federal union existed between the Roman people and the
       Latins in the reign of Servius Tullius (Niebühr, i. ch. xxv.)
       "The old Latin towns had retained their ancient rights, and
       the colonies, that together with them formed the Latin nation,
       had all received the _full freedom_ of Rome, and had become
       _municipia_ a full century before the Consul Junius Norbanus
       introduced the franchise of the Latin freedmen.... The towns
       on the north of the Po, inhabited by a mixed population of
       Italians and Celts speaking Latin,... were termed the 'Lesser
       Latium.'... A law which regarded Latin citizens as foreigners,
       and applied to them the principle that the child follows the
       condition of the baser parent, _can only have_ related to this
       inferior Latium." (Niebühr, ii. ch. vi.)

Again, the Roman family and tribal system, with their principle of
agnatic relationship, was in all probability part of their organisation
for war: it was the secret of their strength. Grant that they shrank
from applying the principles of their domestic law, which in their
application would have involved in time an organisation in conformity
with it, we can at once see why they withheld the principles of
their jurisprudence without withholding it in mere scorn of an alien
nationality.

We rather see influences which would have predisposed them to look with
reverence on the laws and customs of a people among whom they must
have known that they had sprung, even if there had been no tradition
of a law common to all nations "of the lost code of nature," a notion
which the edicts of the prætors of the later period would hardly have
generated if it had had no foundation in tradition.

If you change the _venue_ to Etruria, the same arguments will apply.
In proof, I quote the following passage from a competent, if somewhat
antiquated (1837) authority--(Pastoret, "Hist. de la Legislation," xi.
355)--more especially as it mentions a circumstance to which I do not
remember that Sir H. Maine adverts, and which would make it a matter
of some difficulty for the prætors to introduce laws and principles of
their own making: "Peu amis de la guerre, Ancus Martius voulut du moins
ajouter à l'art de la faire quelques formalités _pour la declarer;
elles étoint d'usage avant lui_ chez des _peuples voisins_; ce sont les
lois féciales, lois que nous avons déjà fait connoître (c. iii. 286).
L'adoption des lois étrusques par les Romains reçoit une force nouvelle
d'un fait conservé par Dénys et Halicarnasse (Liv. ii. § 27); c'est que
_après_ l'abolition de la monarchie on exposa dans la place publique de
Rome _à la vue de tous les citoyens_ toutes _les lois et coutûmes_ de
la patrie, avec les lois étrangeres nouvellement _introduites, afin_
que le droit publie ne changeât pas en même temps que les pouvoirs du
magistrat."

Sir H. Maine says, at p. 151, "The prætors early laid hold on
_cognation_ as the _natural_ form of kinship, and spared no pains
in purifying their system from the older conception [_i.e._ older
according to Roman law]. Their ideas have descended to us, but still
traces of agnation are to be seen in many of the modern rules of
succession after death."

The reader will find (from p. 146 to 160)[295] in Sir H. Maine the
distinction between cognation and agnation very completely and lucidly
stated. I may say roughly, however, that cognation is the form of
relationship which we acknowledge and which is familiar to us,
descending in graduated degrees, including males and females alike,
from common ancestors. Agnatic relationship is rigidly confined to
the male lines, excluding the connections and descendants of females,
upon the maxim, _Mulier est finis familiæ_, though including unmarried
females on the side of the father.

 [295] _Vide_ also De Fresquet, "Droit Romain," ii. 25-29.

Now, I venture to think that the argument which may be drawn from the
passage which I have quoted ought not lightly to be dismissed as a mere
_argumentum ad hominem_.

Sir H. Maine says that the prætors early laid hold on cognation as the
_natural_ form of kinship. Either, then, they did this really detecting
this principle as inhering in the natural law which was in tradition,
or as detecting it as the "law common to all the nations known to the
Romans." In the latter case, it shows that, whereas cognation was
common among the surrounding nations, agnation obtained among the
Romans. The latter was therefore their peculiar institution, which
sustains the argument which I have just put. If, on the contrary, they
detected cognation underlying the institutions of all nations, and as
part of their traditional law of nature, we cannot wish for a better
and clearer instance of the natural law cropping up. And it is an
instance, too, of the advantage at which those argue who have on their
side the authority of Scripture, indicating the landmarks. Knowing
that mankind sprang from a single pair, we can see that cognation must
have been the law from the commencement: for it stands to reason that
commencing with common ancestors the normal and natural mode would be
to include all the relations according to degrees of descent, until
there was some object in excluding them. With some political necessity
or expediency for the limitation to males and the exclusion of females
would agnation have commenced. If we require a case in point we
have it in the relationship of Laban to Jacob. According to agnatic
relationship they were second cousins, but according to cognatic
relationship Laban was his maternal uncle, and such accordingly he is
called in the sacred text (Gen. xxviii. 2). But in the seventh century
before Christ, in the thickness of Paganism, men would scarcely have
come to this conclusion, since they had apparently lost, as far as we
know, the knowledge of their origin; although, as we have already seen,
they retained dimly the tradition of many things of which they had
forgotten the specific history. From the information we derive from Sir
H. Maine, the memory of cognation, as the earliest and most natural
scheme of kinship, must somehow have subsisted in tradition. It was not
certainly in their power to verify the truth of the tradition as we can
by a reference to revelation, and yet it would seem as if, having come
to this conclusion, that it was almost within the grasp of human reason
to have inferred from it the origin from a single pair, and thus to
have recovered the knowledge they had lost from the tradition they had
preserved.[296]

 [296] "The above table shows that before the separation of the
       Aryan race, every one of the degrees of affinity had received
       expression and sanction in language, for, although some spaces
       had to be left empty, the coincidences, such as they are, are
       sufficient to warrant one general conclusion."--_Vide_ table,
       Max Müller's Essays, ii. p. 31.

       Of course, I am speaking only of the actual affinity, not of
       laws of succession founded upon it. These must be controlled
       by other considerations, and by other natural rights, as,
       for instance, the right of testation or by reasons of State
       requiring hereditary succession and a Salic law, or by reasons
       of family compelling the agnatic rule as the only mode of
       preserving the ancestral domain to the family--a necessity
       which applies as stringently to small freeholds as to broad
       manors.

       In illustration, I quote the following passage from the
       Rev. W. Smith's "Pentateuch" (above referred to, ch. xiii.,
       "Indirect internal evidence of Mosaic authorship," vol. i.
       307)--"As the journey (Exodus) proceeds so laws originate
       from the accidents of the way.... The laws regulating the
       succession to property furnish an example of the same kind.
       In Numbers xxvi. 32-36 it is ordained in accordance with
       patriarchal usage, that the family inheritance descend by the
       male line. But a case immediately turns up where there happens
       to be no male issue. Zelophahad had left no sons, but only
       daughters, and what was to become of the property? How was the
       succession to be regulated? To meet the case, Jehovah orders
       Moses to proclaim the law of Numbers xxvii. 8-11, in virtue of
       which daughters, in failure of sons, are to succeed. Shortly
       after, a new difficulty arises. As heiresses, the daughters
       of Zelophahad were now to have property of their own. But if
       they married out of their tribe, was the property to go with
       them? (Num. xxxvi. 1-9.) Such a condition would at once have
       upset the fundamental laws of inheritance. Hence, to avoid the
       evil, they are enjoined to marry within their own tribe; and a
       general law to the same effect is promulgated" (xxxvi. 8, 9).

A few points in Sir H. Maine's argument (_supra,_ p. 352) remain
to be noticed. I must take exception, for instance, to his averment
"that what we respect and admire," viz. "principles so universal,"
the Roman "regarded with jealous dread." "The parts of jurisprudence
which he looked upon with affection, and the solemn gestures, &c.,
were the parts which a modern theorist leaves out of consideration,"
for he seems to have recognised their justice, and allowed them to
operate so effectually that his whole system of jurisprudence, which
was originally based on agnatic kinship, came round to the principle
of cognation.[297] In the process, and through the action so skilfully
evolved and unfolded in Sir H. Maine's pages, two principles, equally
to our mind, were brought into gradual recollection, viz. the comity
of nations and equality before the law. The "solemn gestures," "the
nicely-adjusted questions and answers of the verbal contract," "the
endless formalities," are at least in evidence of the tradition.

 [297] "We should know almost nothing about it (agnation) if we
       had only the compilations of Justinian to consult; but the
       discovery of the MS. of Gaius discloses it to us at a most
       interesting epoch, just when it had fallen into complete
       discredit, and was verging on extinction."--_Ancient Law_, p.
       153.

And this suggests a reflection upon the basis of Sir H. Maine's
argument, viz. that the Romans could only draw their induction from
"the customs of the old Italian tribes, as these were all the nations
whom the Romans had the means of observing." Now, if we attach the
weight which is due to Dr Newman's remarkable view (_vide supra_) as to
the course and confines of civilisation, we shall be, I think, struck
with the fact that the two nationalities of Greece and Rome, which were
destined to form its heart and centre, had as their common substratum
a very peculiar people, whose characteristics exactly adapted them to
retain traditions, and to carry out the scriptural saying about the
people, "And they shall maintain the state of the world"--a people who
were the first occupiers of the soil of Greece and Italy, and who, if
not directly and historically, can through philology be traced back
to the most primitive times;[298] a people tenacious of customs and
traditions,[299] who were the guardians of the worship and tradition
of the Dodonæan Jupiter,[300] and in possession of his shrine when
the worship of Jupiter was only the thinly-disguised corruption of
the worship of the true God;[301] a people to whom, according to Mr
Gladstone, the Greek religion owed its sacerdotal and ceremonial
development,[302] and who also inclines to the opinion, which has a
more especial significance, and bearing on the present argument, that
the Amphictyonic Council was a Pelasgian institution.

 [298] Gladstone's Homer, i. 305-372.

 [299] _Id._ i. 106-108.

 [300] "The Greek mythology was derived from the Pelasgians, and the
       oracle of Dodona belonged to them."--_Niebühr, Hist._ i. 28.

       "The Pelasgians were a different nation from the Hellenes:
       their language was peculiar, and not Greek.... The Pelasgians,
       as well as the Hellenes, were members of the Amphictyonic
       association, the main tie of which was religion, in which
       both nations agreed."--_Niebühr, Hist._ i. (_Travers Twiss'
       Epitome_, ch. iii.)

       "The royal laws became odious or obsolete, the mysterious
       deposit was silently preserved by the priests and the nobles,
       and at the end of sixty years the citizens of Rome still
       complained that they were ruled by the arbitrary sentence of
       the magistrate; yet the positive institutions of the kings
       had blended themselves with the public and private manners of
       the city; some fragments of that venerable jurisprudence were
       compiled by the diligence of antiquarians, and above twenty
       texts still speak the rudeness of the Pelasgic idiom of the
       Latins."--_Gibbon's Decline and Fall_, vol. viii. ch. xiv.

 [301] Gladstone, ii. 173, &c.; Strabo.

 [302] _Id._ i. 294.

Now, let us consider this special significance of the Amphictyonic
Council. On the one hand, it is attributed to Amphictyon, the son of
Deucalion; on the other hand (as I shall presently show), we see the
almost identical institution in Italy in contact with Roman law. What,
then, was the Amphictyonic Council? Those who have written upon it
appear to me to have endeavoured to regard it too much as a federation.
Hence a double error. On the one side it was found that, instead of
being a federation of all Greece, at most it was only a federation of
twelve cities; it was further found that it had no external action,
and that on occasions, as, _e.g._ the Persian war, in which the whole
nation of Greece acted as one people, it made no appearance.[303] A
feeling of disappointment necessarily supervened, and it was asked,
if not a federation, what was it? On the other hand, although not a
federation for the purposes of government or war, it would be an equal
error to deny that it was a federation for certain purposes, more
or less invisible to the eye, and which for such purposes retained
sufficient vitality to assemble deputies twice a year, and during
several centuries, for it is certain that it subsisted to the close
of Grecian history, when, indeed, we are astonished to find that when
faith in everything else had died out, belief in the Amphictyons again
flickers into life. It is true that we know little, but the little
that has transpired implies so much more. Were it not for a casual
passage in a speech of Æschines, we should hardly have known more than
of their existence. As it is, we are thrown back upon conjecture,
and upon what we can recover indirectly from tradition. Now, if we
suppose the Amphictyonic Council to have tradited down, and to have
been a federation for the purposes of traditing down from primitive
times, even in their rudimentary form, the rules and principles of the
laws of nations, much that is strange and mysterious in its history
will disappear.[304] It will at once account for its duration and
prestige, in spite of its inactivity and merely passive existence,
even supposing that it is reduced in our estimation to a sort of
convocation, powerless for action, and merely keeping alive a tradition
of the past. From this point of view, the fact of its merely being a
federation of twelve States, which is generally adduced to reduce it
to unimportance, taken in connection with another fact which I shall
presently substantiate, really militates in favour of my argument. It
shows that instead of being the one typical institution of the sort,
it is only the one which stands out most prominently in history, and
merely handed down a tradition which was common to many others. I have
already alluded to the Latin league, through which, apparently, the
Romans recovered their tradition of the law common to all nations.
If all these isolated federations retained their tradition of a law
common to all nations--although practically limited to the members of
their own confederation--is it not at once in evidence of the action
of the Dispersion and at the same time of a tradition anterior to the
disruption? Without pretending to have gone over the ground necessary
to present an exhaustive catalogue of such federations, I may present
the following facts in evidence and illustration.

 [303] _Vide_, Pastoret, "Hist. de la Legislation," v. 21.

 [304] "The oath taken by the deputies bound the Amphictyons not to
       destroy any of the Amphictyonic cities, or to debar them from
       the use of their fountains in peace or war; to make war on any
       who should transgress in these particulars ... or who should
       plunder the property of the god (the Delphine Apollo).... This
       is the oldest form of the Amphictyonic oath which has been
       recorded, and is expressly called by Æskines the ancient oath
       of the Amphictyons."--_Cyclop. of Arts and Sciences._

Outside the Amphictyonic union there were other federations, even
within the confines of Greece itself:--

  "Qui avoient le même caractère, et peut-étre un caractère plus
  intime d'association entre des etats voisins, pour honorer
  ensemble des dieux, ou pour se prêter, dans certains cas, un appui
  necessaire. Il s'en reunissoit une non loin de Trezime ou Argolide,
  une autre à Corinthe, une autre à Onchiste en Beotie; on en trouve
  de semblables encore dans plusieurs îles de la Grece, et dans les
  colonies de l'Asie Mineure.[305] Ces associations, au reste, ne
  seconderent pas moins la civilisation generale que n'auroit pu le
  faire un Amphictyonat universel."--_Pastoret, Hist. de la Legis._,
  v. 27.

 [305] The Ionian federation, composed also of twelve cities, was
       almost identical. "L'association s'etoit formée d'abord entre
       les douze cités, en y comprenant les deux îles voisines de
       Samos et de Chio.... On s'assembloit dans un lieu sacré du
       Mont Mycale, que les Ionians avoient dediés en commun _à
       Neptune_."--_Pastoret_, ix. 170. There was also a confederacy
       of seven states, which met in the _temple of Neptune_, in
       the island of Calauria, "and which is even called by Strabo,
       viii. 374, an Amphictyonic Council."--_Cyclop. of Arts and
       Sciences_, art. Amphic. Council.

We find the same federations when we come to Italy:--

  "Among the other works of Servius Tullius was a temple of
  Diana, which he erected on the Aventine, apparently near the
  present church of Sta. Prisca. This temple, in imitation of the
  Amphictyonic confederacy, was to be the common sanctuary and place
  of meeting for the cities belonging to the Latin league, of which
  Rome had become the chief through the conquest of Alba Longa; and
  her supremacy was tacitly acknowledged by the temple being erected
  with money contributed by the Latin cities. It is said to have been
  an imitation of the Artemisium, or temple of Diana at Ephesus.
  (Liv. i. 45; Dionys. iv. 26; Varro, L. L. v. § 43; Val. Max., vii.
  3, § 1.) The brazen column containing the terms of the league, and
  the names of the cities belonging to it, was preserved in the time
  of Dionysius."--Dyer's _Hist. of City of Rome_, p. 51.

Compare this with Niebühr, Hist. ii. chap. ii. (Travers Twiss'
"Epitome.")

  "So long as Latium had a dictator, none but he could offer
  sacrifice on the Alban mount, and preside at the Latin holidays,
  as the Alban dictator had done before. He sacrificed on behalf of
  the Romans likewise, as they did in the temple of Diana on the
  Aventine for themselves and the Latins.... The opinion that the
  last Tarquinius or his father constituted the festival is quite
  erroneous, as its antiquity is proved to have been far higher. It
  is true that Tarquinius converted it into a Roman festival, and
  probably, too, by throwing it open to a larger body, transformed
  the national worship of the Latins into the means of hallowing
  and cementing the union between the states. The three allied
  republics had each its own place of meeting--at Rome, at the
  spring of Ferentina, and at Anagnia, where the concilium of the
  Hernican tribes was held in the circus; that the sittings of the
  diets were connected with the Latin festival, seems to be evinced
  by the usage, that the consuls never took the field till after it
  was solemnised; and by its variableness, which implies that it was
  regulated by special proclamation. Like the Greek festivals it
  ensured a _sacred truce_."

In these extracts we come upon a federation resembling the Amphictyonic
league, whose union is also cemented at a religious festival, the
origin of which must be sought for in remote antiquity, and which
festival has a direct connection with questions of peace and war. We
also catch glimpses of similar federation among the Hernici and Marsi.

Now, let us go to quite an opposite point; and, if we find the same
stratification cropping up, may we not conjecture it to have been once
the same throughout.

  "When the Europeans made their first settlements in America,
  six such nations had formed a league, had their Amphictyons or
  states-general, and by the firmness of their union, and the ability
  of their councils, had obtained an ascendant from the mouth of
  the St Lawrence to that of the Mississippi. They appeared to
  understand the objects of the confederacy as well as those of
  separate nations; they studied a balance of power.... They had
  their alliances and treaties, which, like the nations of Europe,
  they maintained or they broke upon reasons of state, and remained
  at peace from a sense of necessity or expediency, and went to war
  upon any emergency of provocation or jealousy."[306]

 [306] Adam Fergusson, "Essay on Civil Society," 130. Whatever the
       conduct of the Iroquois or Five Nations (sometimes counted as
       six) may have been towards surrounding nations, the fidelity
       with which they held to their compacts among themselves is
       fully acknowledged.

       Colden ("History of the Five Indian Nations") says, "This
       union has continued so long that the Christians know nothing
       of the original of it.... Each of these nations is an absolute
       republick by itself, and every castle in each nation makes an
       independent republick and is governed by its own 'Sachems' or
       old men.... They have certain customs which they observe in
       their publick transactions with other nations, and in their
       private affairs among themselves; which it is scandalous for
       any one among them not to observe, and these always draw after
       them either publick or private resentment whenever they are
       broke."

       In Plato's Republic, "It is laid down that the Greeks are
       natural enemies of the barbarians, but are natural friends and
       _allies of one another, so that all hostilities between Greek
       states_ are to be avoided--are to be conducted on principles
       of mildness and forbearance, and to be considered as civil
       discord rather than foreign war." "The ten kings of the
       Atlantic island were never to make war on each other--there
       was a sort of Congress between them." Critias, chap. 15. Sir
       G. C. Lewis, "Method," &c., ii. 234. This, taken in connection
       with what we know of the Amphictyonic Council, reads more like
       tradition than fiction.

In Mexico also there was "that remarkable league, which indeed has no
parallel in history (?) It was agreed between the States of Mexico,
Tezcuco, and the neighbouring little kingdom of Tlascopan, that
they should mutually support each other in their wars, offensive
and defensive, and that in the distribution of the spoil one-fifth
should be assigned to Tlascopan, and the remainder be divided--in what
proportions is uncertain--between the two other powers.... What is
more extraordinary than the treaty itself, however, is the fidelity
with which it was maintained."--_Prescott's Mexico_, i. p. 17. And in
the republic of Tlascala, it is said (_id._ i. 378) "after the lapse
of years, the institutions of the nation underwent an important change
[they had previously separated into three divisions, of which Tlascala
was the largest]. The monarchy was divided, first into two, afterwards
into four separate states, bound together by a sort of federal compact,
probably not very nicely defined. Each state, however, had its lord
or superior chief, independent in his own territories, and possessed
of co-ordinate authority with the others in all matters concerning
the whole republic. The affairs of government, especially _all those
relating to peace and war_, were _settled_ in a _senate_ or _council_,
consisting of the four lords, with their inferior nobles." The
Tlascalans subsequently incorporated the Othonius, or Otomius (p. 378).

Here, as in the Greek and Latin Leagues, the primary objects of
the law of nations seem to have been secured within the limits of
their confederation, or of what they would have deemed the pale of
civilization. The requirements of their horrible worship (_i.e._ the
necessity of procuring human victims for their sacrifices) seems,
however, to have overridden every other consideration, and to have
impelled them to frequent wars with the nations outside the pale. In
the case of the Tlascalans, the traditional lines seem more clearly
defined. I have already hinted, in a note, with reference to the
Greek and Latin Leagues that the Atlantis of Plato was, as indeed it
professes to be, an embodiment of tradition, and not, as it is commonly
regarded, as a figment of the imagination; but this strikes me still
more forcibly when the League of the Ten Kings in the Atlantis is
compared with the League of the Tlascalans.

Plato says: "The particulars respecting the governors were instituted
from the beginning as follows. Each of the ten kings possessed absolute
authority, both over the men and the _greater part_ of the laws in
his own division and in his own city, punishing and putting to death
whomsoever he pleased. But the government and communion of these kings
with each other were conformable to the _mandates given by Neptune_;
and this was likewise the case with their laws. These mandates were
delivered to them by their ancestors on a pillar of orichalcum,
which was erected about the middle of the island, _in the temple of
Neptune._ These kings, therefore, assembled together every fifth,
and alternately, every sixth year, for the purpose of distributing
an equal part both of the even and the odd; and when they assembled
they deliberated on the public affairs, inquired if any one had acted
improperly ... a sacrifice of _bulls_ was made in the temple of
Neptune, at the foot of the pillar of orichalcum.... But on the pillar,
besides the laws, there was an oath, supplicating mighty imprecations
against those who were disobedient.... There were also many _other
laws_ respecting _sacred_ concerns, and such as were peculiar to
the several kings; but _the greatest_ were the following: that they
should _never wage war against each other_, and that all of them
should give assistance if any one person in some one of their cities
should endeavour to extirpate the royal race. And as they consulted in
common respecting war, and other actions, in the same manner as their
ancestors, they assigned the empire to the Atlantis family."--_Plato's
Works_, Sydenham and Taylor's tr., ii. 589.

I think it will then be conceded, that whether or not there was a
tradition "of a law common to all nations," there were at any rate
channels provided, well adapted to conduct and disseminate it, and
that these channels everywhere converge upon the most primitive
times. Before proceeding to ascertain whether anything has in fact
been transmitted, I must draw attention more particularly to the
circumstance that the tradition of all law is everywhere closely
connected with the traditions of religion, has been handed down in
a similar manner; and, so far as it retains the purity of primitive
truth, under the same sanction. From this point of view the following
passages from Cicero appears to me to be very significant:

  "Hanc igitur video sapientissimorum fuisse sententiam legem
  neque hominum ingeniis excogitatum, neque scitum aliquod esse
  populorum, _sed æternum quiddam_ quod universum mundum regerat
  imperandi, prohibendique sapientiâ.... Quæ non tum denique incipit
  lex esse, cum scriptum est, sed tum cum orta est; orta autem simul
  est cum mente divina." "Jam ritus familiæ patrumque servari, id
  est _quoniam antiquitas proxima accedit ad Deos_, a Deis quasi
  _traditam_, religionem tueri."--_Cicero de Legibus_, ii. 4, 11.

  There is another curious passage which seems to prove that the
  oracles originally existed simply for the preservation of the
  primitive tradition; and, although mixed up with imposture, that
  they seem to have had the knowledge, or at least the instinct, that
  their prestige and power of influence was within the limits of the
  traditions which they had corrupted or preserved.[307]

 [307] The general assemblies of Greece were held at Delos, "Comme
       Métropole du Culte," Pastoret ix. 13. "Ce qu'il y a d'assuré,
       c'est que le Pontife exerçoit sur plusieurs objets une
       véritable administration de la justice. La décision n'en
       appartenoit qu' à lui. Les règles qu'il devoit suivre, le
       caractère et l'étendue de ses droits, étoient pareillement
       établis dans le recueil connu sous le nom de Jus Pontificum
       (Macrobe parle deux fois de ce Jus Pontificum, mais comme d'un
       ouvrage perdu. Saturn, vii. chap. xiii.) Un fils du pontife
       romain Publius Scævola est même cité dans le livre des Lois
       comme prétendant qu'on ne pouvoit exercer un si haut ministère
       sans savoir le _droit civil_. Quoi, tout entier? dit Cicéron,
       qui le refute; et qui font au pontife le droit des mers, le
       droit des eaux, ou d'autres droits semblables?"--Pastoret ix.
       203. "Torts, then, are copiously enlarged upon in primitive
       jurisprudence. It must be added that _Sins_ are known to it
       also. Of the Teutonic codes it is almost unnecessary to make
       this assertion.... But it is also true that non-Christian
       bodies of archaic law entail penal consequences on certain
       classes of acts and on certain classes of omissions, as being
       _violations of divine prescriptions and commands_. The law
       administered at Athens by the senate of the Areopagus was
       probably a _special religious code_; and at Rome, apparently
       from a _very early period_, the Pontifical jurisprudence
       punished adultery, sacrilege, and perhaps murder. There were,
       therefore, in the Athenian and in the Roman states laws
       punishing _sins_."--Sir H. Maine, pp. 371, 372.

       The expression unwritten laws ([Greek: agraphoi nomoi])
       first occurs in the funeral oration of Pericles (Thuc. ii.
       37), when it appears to denote those laws of the state which
       are corroborated by the moral sanction. It next occurs....
       Xenophon, Mem. iv. 4, § 19, 25, ... the expression was
       doubtless adopted by Socrates from popular usage. Thus Plato
       speaks of [Greek: ta kaloumena hypo tôn pollôn agrapha nomima]
       (Leg. vii. 793). _Vide_ Sir G. C. Lewis, "Method of Rea. in
       Pol.," ii. 27. [The "laws called unwritten by the multitude"
       must evidently imply laws known to the multitude but in
       tradition.]

       Cicero, "De Natura Deorum," iii., says, "Habes, Balba, quid
       Cotta, quid _pontifex_ sentiat. Fac nunc, ego intelligam,
       quid tu sentias: a te enim philosopho rationem accipere debes
       religionis; _majoribus autem nostris etiam nulla ratione
       reddita credere_." "Lex est cui homines obtemperare convenit,
       cum ob alia multa, tum ab eo maxime quod lex omnis inventus
       quidem, ac _dei munus est_." "Lex est sanctio sancta, jubens
       _honesta_, prohibens contraria."

  "Deinceps in lege est, _ut de ritibus patriis_ coluntur optimi,
  de quo cum consulerent Athenienses Apollinem Pythium, quas
  potissimum religiones tenerent, oraculum editum est _eas quæ essent
  in more majorum_. Quo cum iterum venissent, majorumque morem
  dixissent, sæpe esse mutatum, quæsivissentque quem morem potissimum
  sequerentur, e variis respondit, optimum. Et perfecto ita est
  ut id habendum sit antiquissimum et a _Deo proximum_ quod sit
  optimum."[308]--_Cicero de Legibus,_ ii. 16.

 [308] This last sentence is only a gloss of Cicero's from the
       stoical point of view, since clearly the enunciation of the
       oracle would compel the conclusion, that what was most ancient
       and nearest the gods was the best, and not that the best, as
       abstractly conceived, was to be held the most ancient, &c.
       A moment's consideration will suffice to show that in this
       substitution is involved the whole extent of the difference
       between the principle of conservation and the principle of
       change.

       "Demosthène qui avait en faire tant de mauvaises lois,
       prononçait que" toutes les lois sont l'ouvrage et le présent
       des dieux "et c'était à ce titre qu'il réclamit pour
       elles l'obéissance des hommes. Socrate professait la même
       doctrine."--Ozanam, "Les Germains avant le Christianisme," i.,
       159. Again, "Quand on étudie les lois indiennes on y voit tout
       un grand peuple enchaîné par la terreur des dieux. Le livre de
       la loi s'annonce comme une revelation.... Les prescriptions du
       droit sacré enveloppent pour ainsi dire toute la vie civile,
       et c'est là qu'on decouvre enfin la raison de tant de coutumes
       dont les Occidentaux avaient conservé la lettre, mais non
       l'esprit."--_Id._ p. 161. "If the customs and institutions of
       barbarians have one characteristic more striking than another,
       it is their _extreme uniformity_" (Maine's "Ancient Law," p.
       366). "There are in nature certain fountains of justice whence
       all civil laws are derived but as streams; and like as waters
       do take tinctures and tastes from the soils through which
       they run, so do civil laws vary according to the regions and
       governments where they are planted, though they proceed from
       the same fountains." (Bacon, "Advancement of Learning," B. ii.
       W. iii. 475, ap.; D. Rowland, "On the Moral Commandments," p.
       85.)

But this sentiment and tradition was not only common to the people of
Greece and Rome, but to the yet uncivilised tribes of Germany.

  "Or les dispositions, où la coutume barbare et la loi romaine
  s'accordent, sont encore celles qui semblent faire le fond des
  législations grèques: non que les douze tables aient été copiées,
  comme on l'a cru, sur les lois de Solon, mais à cause de l'étroite
  parenté des peuples de la Grèce et du Latium. A travers l'obscurité
  des siècles héroïques, on découvre un sacerdoce puissant qui a
  ses premiers établissements en Thrace, en Samothrace, à Dodone,
  et qui perpétuera son autorité par l'institution des mystères. On
  voit aussi la resistance d'une race belliqueuse."--_Ozanam_, "Les
  Germains avant le Christianisme,"_ vol. i. chap. "Les Lois."

  "Au premier abord rien ne semble plus contraire aux moeurs
  barbares que la loi romaine, si subtile, si précise, si bien
  obéie. Cependant si l'on en considère les origines, on n'y trouve
  pas d'autres principes que ceux dont la trace subsistait dans les
  vieilles coutumes de la Germanie. Le droit primitif du Rome, comme
  celui du Nord, est un droit sacré."--_Ib._ p. 148.

  "Il existait chez les Germains une autorité religieuse,
  _dépositaire de la tradition_, et qui y trouvait l'idéal et le
  principe de tout l'ordre civil. Cette autorité avait créé la
  propriété immobilière en la rendant respectable par des rites et
  des symboles, ... elle l'engageait dans les liens de la famille
  légitime, consacrée par la sainteté du mariage, par le culte des
  ancêtres, par la solidarité du sang: elle l'enveloppait dans le
  corps de la nation sédentaire, ou elle avait établi une hierarchie
  de caste et de pouvoir, à l'exemple de la hierarchie divine de la
  création" (p. 147). "Dans cette suite de scènes dont se compose
  pour ainsi dire le drame judiciaire, on reconnaît un pouvoir
  religieux, qui cherche _à sauver la paix, à désarmer la guerre_ et
  qui s'y prend de trois façons différentes" (p. 142).

Now, if we are agreed that fitting channels for the diffusion of
the tradition existed; if, further, we find that all law seems to
trace itself back to a common source of supernatural revelation;
if the resemblances in the traditions concerning the lawgivers of
antiquity--and, with the exception of Lycurgus, the agreement in
the fundamentals of their codes--in the great lines of the family,
property, and the external relations of life, seems to require the
supposition of some common fountain-head at which they all filled the
pitcher--we shall, I think, when we come to the question of public
law, only require further some evidence of a tradition of maxims,
rules, and precedents of procedure in war, founded on and appealing
to natural right, and claiming the sanction of the gods, to establish
the existence of a law common to all nations different from that which
would have arisen from the judgment of the prætors, merely applying
the rules and maxims common to the Romans and the adjoining nations,
in case of conflict where the law of the State was not allowed to be
applied (_supra_, Maine).

I shall, doubtless, be reminded that this was only part of Sir H.
Maine's argument, and that it was this, taken in connection with the
influence of the Stoics on Roman law, and the stoical conception of
nature,[309] which created the fiction of a law of nature, and of a law
common to all nations.

 [309] "L'erreur a été de croire qu'il n'est rien de plus facile à
       l'homme que de suivre la nature, tandis que c'est au contraire
       le chef-d'oeuvre de l'art que de la contenir dans les bornes
       que la nature lui prescrit: c'est où peuvent à peine parvenir
       les legislateurs les plus sages. Que de préjugés à éteindre!
       que d'erreurs à combattre! que d'habitudes à vaincre! toutes
       choses qui dans tous les temps commandent impérieusement au
       genre humain."--_L'Antiquité dévoilée par ses usages_, i. 1.
       ii. ch. iii. _par Boulanger_.

Let it then be granted that the theories and maxims of the Stoics had
their influence on Roman society and Roman law. It was only part of
the influence which stole over and everywhere impregnated the field of
primitive tradition. Sir H. Maine shows us how it at once seized upon
the element of law, which, be it in fiction only, was said to be common
to all nations. Would it the less have seized upon it if, instead of
being a fiction, it had been a reality?--_à fortiori_, it would have
done so. Therefore Sir H. Maine leaves the question as to the belief
among the ancients in a "law common to all nations" still open, or
rather, so far as there is an argument, it is only with the previous
part of his theory that it is necessary to deal; for all that Sir H.
Maine's finely-drawn reasoning and subtle detection of the influence
of Grecian stoicism on Roman law accounts for--so far as the present
argument is concerned--is the greater attention and respect which was
henceforward paid to the fiction, supposing that it had not heretofore
and always been paid to the fact, that there was a traditional law
common to all nations.

I have previously (p. 3) pointed out the distinction between the
law of nations and international law, and I am under the impression
that I made the distinction before the publication of Sir H. Maine's
work--certainly before I had become acquainted with it. The manner
in which Sir H. Maine makes the distinction does not appear to me to
be quite accurate. He says:--"It is almost unnecessary to add that
the confusion between _jus gentium_, or law common to all nations,
and international law, is entirely modern. The classical expression
for international law is _jus feciale_, or the law of negotiation and
diplomacy" (p. 53). The Fecial College was very far from corresponding
with our Corps Diplomatique, neither was its law a law of negotiation
and diplomacy; and the distinction between the law of nations and
international law was made in modern times, _precisely because_ in
antiquity treaty law was subordinate to, and identified with, the
traditional law. The Fecial College corresponded much more nearly to
what our Heralds' College would be, supposing the Heralds' College
invested with the authority of our Admiralty Courts, and also made the
trustees of the foundation for the study of international law, which
Dr Whewell's bequest had the intention of instituting at Cambridge.
We should then have, as in ancient times, a body of men who would
be at once the depositaries, the interpreters, and the heralds of
a tradition, though, to complete the picture, we should have to
invest them with a sacred character, and in some way to give to their
decisions the sanction of religion. Dionysius of Halicarnassus tells
us that they were priests chosen from the best families at Rome, and
that their special intention was to see that the Romans never made an
unjust war. "The seventh part of the Sacred Laws was devoted to the
college of the Fecials, whom the Greeks call [Greek: eirênodikai].[310]
They are men selected from the most illustrious families, and are
dedicated during their whole life to this priesthood.... It would
take long to enumerate all the various duties of the Fecials, which
were multifarious, ... but in the main they are these,--to take heed
lest the Romans should ever undertake an unjust war with a city with
which they were in league" (Lib. ii.); it was their duty to demand
reparation, and, failing, to declare war; in case of differences with
allies, they acted as mediators, and they adjudicated in case of
disputes. It was for them to decide what constituted an injury to the
person of an ambassador, and whether or not the generals had acted
according to their oaths; to draw up the articles of treaties, truces,
and the like; and to decide as to their nullity and validity, and to
communicate accordingly with the Senate, which deliberated upon their
report.

 [310] [Greek: Eirênodikai]--"Feciales quia _interpretes_ et
       _arbitri_ sunt pacis et belli."--_Lexicon_, Ben-Hederic,
       Ernesti.

       _Vide_ also Plutarch, "Numa;" Livy, lib. i. c. 34.

       Vattel, iii. c. iv., says:--"It is _surprising_ to find among
       the Romans such justice, such moderation and prudence, _at a
       time too_ when apparently nothing but courage and ferocity was
       to be expected from them."

What Cicero tells us is not less to the point:--

  "There are certain peculiar laws of war also, which are of all
  things most strictly to be observed.... As we are bound to be
  merciful to those whom we have actually conquered, so should those
  also be received into favour who have laid down their arms.... Our
  good forefathers were most strictly just as to this particular, the
  custom of those times making him the patron of a conquered city or
  people who first received them into the faith and allegiance of
  the people of Rome. In short, _the whole right and all the duties
  of war_ are most rigorously set down in the _fecial laws_, out of
  which it is manifest that no war can be justly undertaken _unless
  satisfaction has been first demanded_, and _proclamation_ of it
  made _publicly beforehand_."--Cicero, _Offices_, i. xi.; again,
  also, _vide_ iii. xxxi.

Compare these passages with Mr Gladstone's account of the Homeric age:--

  "In that early age, despite the prevalence of piracy, even that
  idea of political justice and public right, which is the germ of
  the law of nations, was not unknown to the Greeks. It would appear
  that war could not be made without an appropriate cause, and that
  the offer of redress made it the duty of the injured to come to
  terms. Hence the offer of Paris in the third Iliad is at once
  readily accepted; and hence, even after the breach of the act,
  arises Agamemnon's fear, at the moment when he anticipates the
  death of Menelaus, that by that event the claim to the restoration
  of Helen will be practically disposed of, and the Greeks will
  have to return home without reparation for a wrong, of which
  the _corpus_, as it were, will have disappeared."--_Iliad_, iv.
  160-62.[311]

 [311] Gladstone, "Homer and the Homeric Age," iii. 4.

It is certainly not within the scope of this chapter to indicate the
multiform applications of the law of nations, which it would require a
legist's special knowledge (to which the writer can lay no claim) to
determine with any exactness. My object has been merely to sustain
the traditional belief against those who deny it. I shall indeed, for
the purposes of illustration, go into detail on one point, viz. the
declaration of war; but I may mention incidentally that the Fecial and
Amphictyonic law presumably extended to many other points, such as
treaties, trophies,[312] truces,[313] hostages, and the like. Moreover,
the maritime law of Rhodes and the islands of the Ægean, known to
the Romans long before it was embodied in their code (which was not
probably until they had extended maritime relations), presents, as
Pastoret (ix. 118) informs us, "analogies et rapprochemens multipliés"
with modern maritime legislation from the time of the Romans to the
"ordonnance de la marine" drawn up by order of Louis XIV.

 [312] "To demolish a trophy was looked on as unlawful, and a
       kind of sacrilege, because they were all dedicated to some
       deity; nor was it _less a crime to pay crime_ to pay divine
       adoration before them, or to repair them when decayed, as may
       be _likewise_ observed of the Roman triumphal arches.... For
       the same reason, those Grecians who introduced the custom of
       erecting pillars for trophies incurred a severe censure from
       the ages they lived in."--_Potters "Archæologia_," ii. c. 12.
       "Before the Greeks engaged themselves in war it was usual
       to publish a declaration of the injuries they had received,
       and to demand satisfaction by ambassadors; which custom was
       observed even in _the most early ages_.... It is therefore no
       wonder what Polybius relates of the Ætolians, that they were
       held for the common _outlaws_ and robbers of Greece, it being
       their manner to strike without warning, and make war without
       any previous or public declaration."--_Id._ ii. c. vii. p. 64.
       (Compare _infra_, ch. xv.)

 [313] "Omnes portas concionabundus ipse imperator circumiit, et
       quibuscumque irritamentis poterat, iras militum accuebat, nunc
       fraudem hostium incusans, qui, pace petita, induciis datis,
       per ipsum induciarum tempus, _contra jus gentium_ ad castra
       oppugnando venisset."--_P. Livius_, 1. xc.

In an article on "Belligerent Rights at Sea" (in the _Home and Foreign
Review_, July 1863), in which there will be found a nice discrimination
of these questions, Mr E. Ryley says:--

  "The very largest rule of belligerent rights limits the voluntary
  destruction of life and property by the necessity of the occasion
  and the object of the war. Bynkershock and Wolf insist that
  everything done against the enemy is lawful, and admit fraud,
  poison, and the murder, as we should call it, of non-combatants,
  as permissible expedients for attaining the object of the war. But
  these are the writers who lay the foundations of the law of nations
  in reason and custom, and ignore that perception and judgment of
  right and wrong which God has communicated to man. It is true that
  for the most part, and practically, we know the law of nations by
  reason and usage; but this law is founded not on that by which we
  know its decisions, but on justice; and reason must admit, and
  usage must adopt, whatever is clearly shown to be just and right,
  however this may be against precedent, and what has hitherto been
  held to be sound reason. There is no law without justice, nor any
  justice without conscience, nor any conscience without God. Grotius
  thus admirably expresses himself:--'Jus naturale est dictatum
  rectæ rationis, indicans actui aliqui, ex ejus convenientiâ
  aut disconvenientiâ cum ipsa naturâ rationali, inesse moralem
  turpitudinem, aut necessitatem moralem, _ac consequenter ab auctore
  naturæ, Deo, talem actum vetari aut præcipi_. Actus, de quibus tale
  extat dictatum, _debiti sunt aut illiciti per se, atque ideo a
  Deo necessario præcepti aut vetiti intelliguntur_.'[314] And this
  principle obtains greater force from the objections which have
  been made to it, and the efforts to establish another foundation
  for the law of nations. Thus the principle of utility is only a
  feeble attempt to give another name to the law of justice which
  God has implanted in His creatures; and to pretend to found a law
  on general usage and tacit consent is to mistake the evidence of
  justice for justice itself."

 [314] "De Jure Belli ac Pacis," l. i. c. l. § x. n n, 1 et 2.

At first sight the passage quoted from Mr Ryley's article would
seem to militate against my position; in reality we merely take up
different weapons against Bynkershock and Wolf. If custom means merely
precedent, it may or may not be in accordance with "that perception of
right and wrong which God has communicated to man;" but if there is a
tradition of a law of nations, the fact creates so great a presumption
in favour of its pronouncements, that what is of usage and custom
will be the criterion of what is right until the human intellect has
shown that what has hitherto been held to be permissible was founded
in a precedent of iniquity. On the other hand, we are agreed that the
law of nations must be such as to stand the test of the "perception
and judgment of right and wrong." As this perception, however, has
never wholly died out among mankind, whatever is of general acceptance
carries with it an assurance that it has stood this test; and "general
usage and the tacit consent" is so much "the evidence of justice," that
it has practically been taken, or mistaken by mankind "for justice
itself," and the law of nations has always been discussed on the basis
of usage. This, I contend, would not have been the case if there had
not been behind usage the immemorial sanction and tradition, or if
the tacit consent had been only acquiescence in wrong. I am the more
confirmed in this view on perceiving that Mr Ryley, after stating his
own opinion as to the right of blockade, finds his conclusions, when
he has discriminated such precedents as were of an exceptional and
retaliatory character, to be in conformity with usage and the decision
of legists.

From this point of view those who contend for the basis of tradition
and those who contend for the basis of natural justice mean the same
thing. They both affirm that there are limitations to human passion
even in war. They are both opposed to precedents based on force, and
are equally hostile to "the principle of utility," for if, as Mr Ryley
puts it, "the principle of utility" is only "another name for the law
of justice which God has implanted in His creatures," the phrase is
an understatement of the truth, liable to misconstruction, and tends
to lower the standard of right; and if it means something different
or distinct from this, it means that against which the tradition of
mankind protests.

I have already said that international law, as distinguished from
the law of nations, requires to be constantly discriminated by the
intellect or the conscience of mankind, and more especially now that
diplomatists are no longer legists.

There was a certain indirect and collateral influence arising out of
the tradition of a law of nations from the fact that a body of men
existing as its interpreters, or at least as its depositaries, which
it appears to me was destined to operate powerfully in the interests
of peace. The existence of such a body of men perpetuated a public
opinion in these matters, they fostered an _esprit de corps_ stronger
even than the spirit of nationality which then reigned supreme and
dominated society. When a violation of treaties or an unjust aggression
took place there was thus found a body of men who would stigmatise or
at least recognise it as such. The sentiment thus sustained was not
all-influential for the purposes of peace, but it was operative to
the extent of arresting the attention and perturbing the consciences
of mankind. In like manner I venture to say that the diplomatic body,
although the depositaries only of a bastard tradition, subserve
this purpose also after a fashion, and I much doubt whether many
well-intentioned men, in striving to compass its abolition would not,
as matters stand, destroy the last breakwater which secures the peace
of Europe.

In ancient times the comity of nations was virtually restricted to
groups of cities or nations of kindred descent, or which had become
confederate by reason of contiguity. This circumstance has been
adduced by Sir G. C. Lewis to stop _in limine_ the theory of a law of
nations;[315] as if it was necessarily in denial of a tradition of
morality common to all nations. Yet, I think that I shall be able to
show instances of its recognition as between the groups, but it is
precisely in its restricted application within the groups, and in the
channels thus provided, that I think we shall find common features, and
dimly and obscurely, though certainly, catch glimpses of the tradition.

 [315] Sir G. C. Lewis ("Method, &c., of Reasoning in Politics," ii.
       35), quotes Mr Ward, "History of Law of Nations" (i. 127), to
       the effect "That what is commonly called the law of nations,
       is not the law of _all_ nations, but only of such sets or
       classes of them as are united together by similar religions
       and systems of morality." Sir G. C. Lewis' view is that "as
       there are no universal principles of civil jurisprudence
       which belongs to each community, so there are no universal
       principles of international law which are common to all
       communities."--_Id._

If I may complete my thought, these confederations were so many types
and anticipations of that Amphictyonic Council, which, if things had
not persistently gone wrong in the world, might have been formed in
mediæval times by Christendom under the presidency of the Popes,[316]
and which may yet be realised in the triumph of religion which seems
to be signified in the motto _lumen in coelo_, as attaching to the
successor of the present Pope, whose pontificate has been so singularly
prefigured in the indication _crux de cruce_.[317]

 [316] Since writing the above, I have read a series of papers (which
       commenced I think in August 1871) in the _Tablet_ under the
       title of "Arbitration instead of War," and I perceive that the
       writer arrives by a different route at a similar conclusion.
       I should have had pleasure in incorporating the argument with
       this chapter, but I shall do better if I induce my readers to
       peruse and weigh it as it deserves.

 [317] I allude to the ancient prophecy of St Malachy. Its
       authenticity as the prophecy of St Malachy may be questioned;
       but the antiquity of the prediction, and its existence in
       print early in the sixteenth century is, I believe, fully
       established. The copy which lies before me will be found in
       Moreri's Dictionary of 1732, in the Pontificate of Innocent
       XIII. Twelve mottoes given _in prediction_ from that date,
       fits the motto "_crux de cruce_," to the 12th successor of
       Innocent, viz. Pius IX. Ten other mottoes follow commencing
       with "lumen in coelo."

In the _Times_, November 29, 1867, it was said, "If this theory ['the
states of Christendom constituted as a species of commonwealth'] could
be rendered effectual, international law would be furnished at once
with its greatest need, a court to enforce its behests; but nothing is
plainer than that for such arbitration _the arbitrators must be fetched
from another planet_."

But, inasmuch as Abraham Lincoln practically remarked, you cannot have
"a cabinet of angels" in this world, the thing is to discover the
arbitrator who is the furthest removed from sublunary influences. Now,
how strong soever may be our national mistrusts and prejudices, we
cannot refuse to recognise that the Papacy ostensibly satisfies these
conditions, and this irrespective of the belief of the preponderant
section of the Christian world that he is the infallible guide, and the
divinely appointed interpreter of the tradition of morals.

Its representatives being always old men naturally inclined to
peace,[318] the sovereign of a small state which a general war would
imperil--professing maxims and therefore pledged to a programme of
peace--(so that any deviation from it, as in the case of Julius II.,
would render glaring and abnormal acts which would have been unnoticed
in an ordinary sovereign), a sovereign without a family (and whatever
may be said of nepotism, it must be conceded that a man who has only
collateral relatives is _less_ tempted to found a family than one
who has sons), a sovereign, in fine, representing the oldest line of
succession in the world,[319] in the oldest city, in the centre of
tradition, and like Noah in the traditional symbols (_ante_, p. 220),
linking the new world with the old.

 [318] "The pontifical power is, from its essential constitution, the
       least subject to the caprices of politics. He who wields it
       is, moreover, always aged, unmarried, and a priest; all which
       circumstances exclude ninety-nine hundredths of all the errors
       and passions which disturb states."--_De Maistre, Du Pape_, B.
       II. chap. iv.

 [319] "The history of that Church joins together the two great ages
       of human civilisation. No other institution is left standing
       which carries the mind back to the times when the smoke of
       sacrifice rose from the Pantheon, and when the cameleopards
       and tigers bounded in the Flavian amphitheatre. The proudest
       royal houses are but of yesterday when compared with the
       line of the supreme Pontiffs. That line we trace back in an
       unbroken series, from the Pope who crowned Napoleon in the
       nineteenth century, to the Pope who crowned Pepin in the
       eighth; and far beyond the time of Pepin the august dynasty
       extends, till it is lost in the twilight of fable.... The
       Catholic Church is still sending forth to the farthest ends of
       the world missionaries as zealous as those who landed in Kent
       with Augustine, _and still confronting hostile kings with the
       same spirit with which she confronted Attila."--Macaulay's
       Essays, "Review of Ranke's Popes._"

This, I find (I quote from a series of important papers on "English
statesmen and the independence of Popes," _Tablet_, November 1870),
was fully recognised by our greatest minister, Mr Pitt. In 1794, "Pitt
suggested, through François de Conzié, Bishop of Arras, that the Pope
should put himself at the head of a European league." "On more than
one occasion," he wrote, "I have seen the continental courts draw back
before the divergences of opinion and of religion which separate us. I
think that a common bond ought to unite us all. _The Pope alone can be
this centre._... We are too much divided by personal interests or by
political views. Rome alone can raise an impartial voice, and one free
from all exterior preoccupations. Rome, then, ought to speak according
to the measure of her duties, and not merely of her good wishes, which
no one doubts."

There have been at different periods of the world various projects of
universal pacification;[320] but it is worthy of remark that they have
almost all, from that of Henri IV. to the one recently broached by
the Professor of Modern History at Cambridge, taken the traditional
lines of a confederation of states more or less circumscribed with an
amphictyonic council. This has its significance from the point of view
I am indicating, but I do not see that it is satisfactorily accounted
for on any other view.[321]

 [320] Sir G. C. Lewis, "Method, &c.," ii. 285, enumerates several.

 [321] In De Quincey's Works, xii. 140, there is a disquisition on
       Kant's scheme "of a universal society founded on the empire of
       political justice," where it is competent that as the result
       of wars man must be inevitably brought "to quit the barbarous
       condition of lawless power and to enter into a federal league
       of nations, in which even the weakest number looks for its
       rights and protection--not to its own power, or its own
       adjudication, but to this great confederation (_foedus
       amphictyonum_), to the united power, and the adjudication
       of the collective will," and is said to be "the inevitable
       resource and mode of escape under that pressure of evil which
       nations reciprocally inflict," and which seems to contemplate
       a situation like the present. "Finally war itself becomes
       gradually not only so artificial a process, so uncertain in
       its issue, but also is the after-pains of inextinguishable
       national debts (a contrivance of modern times) so anxious and
       burdensome; ... that at length those governments which have no
       immediate participation in the war, under a sense of their own
       danger, offer themselves as mediators, though as yet without
       any sanction of law, and thus prepare all things from afar for
       the formation of a great primary state-body or cosmopolitic
       Areopagus, such as is wholly _unprecedented_ in all preceding
       ages." I am fully aware of the divergence of this view from
       that which I have indicated, but I wish to point out that it
       is only "unprecedented" in so far as it is cosmopolitic and
       extends to all humanity; but so extending it ought not to
       include the traditional notions of an "Areopagus"--_foedus
       amphictyonum_--or confederation of states. It ought rather
       to talk of an interfusion of states, the only condition upon
       which the cosmopolitic Areopagus would be possible; yet it
       inevitably falls into the traditionary lines. Moreover, before
       mankind can attain to this _inter-fusion_ of states, one
       supreme difficulty, which seems always to be over-looked, must
       be overcome, we must bring mankind back to be "of one lip and
       one speech." The scheme, on the other hand, of a federation
       cannot be pronounced impracticable until it has been tried;
       yet, although it lies latent in the idea of Christendom, and
       although it has had a sort of informal recognition in the
       theory and policy of the balance of power, there has never
       been any understanding from which we can gather what the
       results would be, if the bond of federation were ever cemented
       by any solemn pledge or sanction.

It would seem, then, that there has always existed in the world the
tradition, and since the triumph of Christianity, the conditions by
which, if it had so willed, it might have recovered the golden age of
peace and happiness of which it has never entirely lost the tradition.

Until this consummation we must fall back upon the law of nations,[322]
though even here it must be borne in mind that Christianity has
exercised an indirect influence, and has raised the standard of
morality for the world at large.[323] But when all is abated the law
of nations remains the _lex legum_, deeply founded in the maxims,
sentiments, and usages of mankind. These maxims in their tradition have
been concurrently interpreted, adapted, and in a certain sense moulded
by the intellect of legists, whose discriminations or conclusions have
received the tacit approbation of mankind. Rarely has the production
of any profane writer received such an unanimous ratification as the
great work of Hugo Grotius, mainly, as we have seen (_ante_, p. 4),
based on tradition. Again, the agreement and correspondence among
the legists of different nationalities is substantial, and is only
to be accounted for upon the supposition that each in his own groove
faithfully incorporated and elaborated a tradition; and if you say that
this was only an argument among the separate traditions of the Roman
law, you only put back the argument one remove, as I have attempted to
demonstrate. If conversely you say that the law of nations as we find
it is purely the work and elaboration of legists, and the conclusions
of abstract reason, put it to this test, bring all the legists of the
world into a congress--such a congress is much needed just now--with
instructions to create a new code on abstract principles, and upon the
basis of the rejection of what is of custom and tradition, and see what
they will accomplish! Do not all our difficulties begin exactly where,
owing to the complications of modern civilisation, tradition ceases?
For the rest we shall presently see what the Congress of Paris, in
1856, was able to effect in this kind.

 [322] "Historicus" (Letter in the _Times_, February 12, 1868)
       writes--"The system of international law professes to be a
       code of rules which ought to govern, and in fact in a great
       degree _does govern_, the conduct of independent nations in
       their dealings with one another.... How can one doubt that
       in fact such a rule exists and does operate? Let us test the
       matter by an example. When the news of the affair of the
       _Trent_ reached England, what was the first question that
       every one asked? Was it not this, 'Is this act conformable to
       the law of nations, or is it not?' Did not the English Cabinet
       summon all the most distinguished jurists to advise them
       what the law of nations was? Was not the decision absolutely
       dependent on their advice.... The code of the law of nations,
       based on all other laws, on morality, deduced by the reasoning
       of jurists from well established principles, illustrated by
       precedents, gathered from usage, confirmed by experience, has
       become from age to age more and more respected as the arbiter
       of the rights and duties of nations, ... and now, after this
       system has been elaborated with so much care, and has yielded
       results so beneficial to the human race, we are to be told
       that the only real question in differences between nations
       is, 'Whether, all things considered, it is or _is not worth
       while to go to war_?' not, be it observed, _right_ or _wrong_
       to go to war. This is exactly the doctrine set forth in the
       celebrated Thelian controversy recorded in Thucydides." W. Oke
       Manning, "Commentaries on the Law of Nations" (p. 17), says,
       "Sir J. Mackintosh in his 'Hist. of the Progress of Ethical
       Philosophy' (prefixed to the 'Encyclopædia Britannica,'
       p. 315), speaks of _Suarez_ as the writer who first saw
       that international law was composed not only of the simple
       principles of justice applied to intercourse between states,
       but of those _usages long observed_ in that intercourse by the
       European race which have since been more exactly distinguished
       as the consuetudinary law acknowledged by the Christian
       nations of Europe and America. But Suarez himself speaks of
       this distinction as already recognised by previous writers."

 [323] "La religion Chrétienne, qui ne semble avoir d'objet que
       la félicité de l'autre vie, fait encore notre bonheur dans
       celle-ci.... Que d'un côté, l'on se mette devant les yeux les
       massacres continuels des rois et des chefs grecs et romains,
       ... et nous verrons que nous devons au Christianisme, et dans
       le gouvernement un certain droit politique, et dans la guerre
       un certain droit des gens, que la nature humaine ne saurait
       assez reconnaître."--_Montesquieu, "Esprit des Lois_," i. xxiv.
       chap. 3.



                              CHAPTER XV.

                     _THE DECLARATION OF WAR._


I think we have already distinct evidence that the Fecial Law was
something more than our Treaty and Diplomatic Law. Let us examine it
more particularly in action. If the law of nations ever was appealed
to, and, if over and above, there was a tradition of a Divine
revelation, or even of a prescriptive law founded on natural right,
and having reference to war, which was ever invoked, it would have
been in the first instance of aggression, supposing, as is implied in
the term, that it was without fair cause and without fair warning. The
declaration of war, therefore, is manifestly the hinge upon which the
whole system of the law of nations turns.[324] Accordingly, the further
we go back the more solemn and formal do we find the declaration of war
to be.

 [324] I must here do Mr Urquhart the justice to point out that he
       has been the principal advocate of this doctrine, that the
       declaration of war is the turning-point upon which everything
       depends, and more than any other man has laboured to enforce
       it. (_Vide_ "Effects on the World of the Restoration of Canon
       Law," by D. Urquhart, 1869.) At p. 61, Mr Urquhart refers to
       the action taken by the Fecials. I have the misfortune to
       differ with Mr Urquhart on many points, but I have pleasure in
       bearing testimony as above.

  "In every instance the declaration of war was accompanied by
  _religious formalities_. When the Senate believed that it had cause
  of complaint against a nation, it sent a Fecial to his frontier.
  There the pontiff, his head bound with a woollen veil,[325] exposed
  the griefs of the Romans and demanded satisfaction. If it was
  not granted, he went back to render an account of his mission to
  the Senate, ... and after a delay of thirty or thirty-three days
  they voted a declaration of war. Then the Fecial returned to the
  frontier, and, _casting a javelin_ into the enemy's country, he
  pronounced the following formula--'Quod populus Hermundulus,'
  &c.... Every war which had not been declared in this manner was
  considered as unjust, and certain to incur the displeasure of the
  gods. In the _course of time_ this solemn declaration was replaced
  by a vain formality."[326]

 [325] The Very Rev. Dr Rock ("Textile Fabrics," p. xii.) says--"The
       ancient British speciality was wool, and the postulants asking
       admission to the different castes, the sacerdotal, bardic,
       and the leeches or natural philosophers, were distinguished
       by _stripes_ of white [Cicero (De Legibus, ii. 18) says,
       "Color autem albus præcipere decorus deo est quum in cateris
       tum maxima in textili"], blue, and green severally on their
       mantles, although the bards themselves were distinguished by
       some one of the colours above-mentioned (_vide infra_). [The
       significance of this will be noted at p. 391.] I may further
       remark, parenthetically, that here is an instance of national
       civilisation being _pari passu_ with religious traditions.
       The British speciality was wool--_query_, because "of the
       heavy stress laid upon the rule which taught that the official
       colour in their dress," &c. (_Id., vide ante_, chap. xii. p.
       292.)

       St Paul says (Heb. ix. 19), "For when every commandment of the
       Lord had been read by Moses to all the people, he took the
       blood of calves and goats, with water, and scarlet _wool_, and
       hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people"
       (Goguet, "Origin of Laws," ii. p. 9). The Spaniards in 1643
       made a treaty of peace with the Indians of Chili; they have
       preserved the memory of the forms used at the ratification.
       It is said that the Indians killed many sheep, and stained
       in their blood a _branch_ of the cane-tree, which the deputy
       of the Caciques put into the hands of the Spanish general in
       token of peace and alliance." Goguet also refers to Heb. ix.
       19.

 [326] De Fresquet, "_Droit Romain_," i. 48.

Montfauçon ("L'Antiquité Expliquée," ii. 1, p. iv., p. 35) says:--

  "Lorsqu'ils alloient parlementer, ils avoient sur la tête un voile
  tissu de laine,[327] et ils étoient couronnéz de vervaine: leur
  office étoit d'impêcher que les Romains n'entreprissent point de
  guerre injuste: d'aller comme legats vers les nations qui violoient
  les traitez, etc.... ils prenoient aussi connaissance faits au
  legats de _part et d'autre_. Quand la paix ne se trouvoit pas
  faite selon les loix, ils la declaroient nulle. Si les commandans
  avoient fait quelque chose _contre la justice et contre le droit
  des gens_, ils reparoient leur faute et expioient leur crime, ...
  à cause du violement des traites faits devant Numance, dit Ciceron
  par un décret du Senat le Patrapatratus livra, C. Mancinus aux
  Numantins."[328]

 [327] Compare with the description of Saturn, "Saturnus, velato
       capite falcam gerens."--_Fulgent. Mythol._ i. c. 2.

 [328] In the above extract from Montfauçon it should have been
       added, that when the Romans sent one of their fecials to
       declare war he went in sacerdotal habit--"Arrivant au confins
       de la ville, il _appelloit_ à temoins Jupiter et les autres
       dieux comme il alloit demander réparation de l'injure au
       nom des Romains, il faisoit des _imprécations_ sur lui et
       sur la ville de Rome, s'il disoit rien contre la vérité,
       et continuoit son chemin ... s'il rencontroient quelque
       citoien quelque payisan (paysan) il _repétoit toujours_ ses
       imprécations," &c.

We must content ourselves, of course, with what evidence we may get
of similar institutions elsewhere; but what strikes me as strange
in the contrast of modern civilisation with barbarism, is, that
whereas our advances, whether in the sense of peace and war (whenever
they are formally made), are commonly understood, the corresponding
demonstrations on the side of barbarism are invariably misconstrued.

When, for instance, Captain Cook approached the shores of Bolabola, he
describes the following scene, which reads to me very like the account
we have just been reading of the Roman herald:--

  "Soon after a _single man_ ran along the shore armed with _his
  lance_, and when he came abreast of the boat he began to dance,
  brandish his weapon, and call out in a very _shrill tone_, which
  Tupia [a native of an adjacent island who was on board] said was a
  _defiance from the people_.... As the boat rowed slowly along the
  shore back again, _another_ champion came down, shouting defiance,
  and brandishing his lance. His appearance was more formidable
  than that of the other, for he wore a large cap made of the tail
  feathers of the topia bird, and his body was covered _with stripes
  of different coloured cloth_, _yellow, red, and brown_.... Soon
  after a more grave and elderly man came down to the beach, and
  hailing the people in the boat, inquired who they were, and from
  whence they came.[329]... After a short conference they all began
  _to pray very loud_. Tupia made his responses, but continued to
  tell us they were not our friends" (i. 119).

 [329] A somewhat similar scene is also indistinctly traced in the
       following:--"Wood relates that on his visit to St Julian
       in 1670, in walking inland he 'met seven savages, who came
       running down the hill to us, making _several signs_ for us
       to go back again, with much warning and noise, yet did _not
       offer to_ draw their arrows. But one of them who was _an old
       man_ came nearer to us than the rest, and made also signs we
       should depart, to whom I threw a knife, a bottle of brandy,
       and a neckcloth, to pacify him; but seeing him persist in the
       _same signs as before_, and that the savageness of the people
       seemed incorrigible, we returned on board again.'" Quoted by
       R. O. Cunningham, "Natural History of the Straits of Magellan
       and West Coast of Patagonia," 1871, p. 143. A similar scene
       is described by Roggerwsen in his voyage, I think, to Easter
       Island.

       This, in connection with the scene at Bolabola, recalls the
       mode of procedure in the Odyssey, ix. 95 (Pope), when Ulysses
       reaches

            "The land of Lotus and the flowering coast.
            We climbed the beach and springs of water found,
            Then spread our hasty banquet on the ground.
            Three men were sent deputed from the crew
            (A herald one) the dubious coast to view,
            And learn what habitants possessed the place.
            They went and found a hospitable race,
            Not prone to ill, nor strange to foreign guest:
            As our dire neighbours of Cyclopean birth."

Let this be taken in connection with the following narrative:--[330]

  "The large canoes came close round the ship, some of the Indians
  playing on a kind of flute, others singing, and the rest blowing
  on a sort of shells. Soon after, a large canoe advanced, in which
  was an awning, on the top of which sat _one_ of the natives holding
  some _yellow_ and _red_ feathers in his hand. The captain having
  consented to his coming alongside, he delivered the feathers,
  and while a present was preparing for him, he put back from the
  ship, and _threw the branch_ of a cocoa-tree in the air. This was
  doubtless the _signal_ for an onset, for there was an instant
  shout from all the canoes, which, approaching the ship, threw
  volleys of stones into every part of her."

 [330] _Vide_ Captain Wallis' Voyage, in "Hist. Account of all the
       Voyages round the World," 1773, iii. p. 79.

Here the question appears to me to be whether this act of throwing
the branch, so analogous to the throwing the javelin, which was the
final act in the Roman declaration of war (and to which our throwing
down the glove or the gauntlet has analogy), was merely the signal
to themselves, or whether it was not also the _notice_ of attack to
the enemy. Upon this will depend whether we are to consider it a
treacherous "ruse" (and the presentation of the feathers has that
aspect), or whether it was their traditional mode of declaration of
war, and construed to be a treacherous attack, because the gallant
navigator belonged to a nation more ignorant of the laws of nations
than the savages they encountered.

From the very fact of their having enacted this comedy or ceremonial,
it must be inferred either that they attached some superstitious
importance to its performance, and expected some good effects from it
to themselves, or that they thought that it would be understood by
their adversaries, in which case they must implicitly have believed it
to be common to all nations.

In either case it is just possible that after the manner of savages,
they may have confused the symbols of peace and war, and ran into one
what the Romans had carefully distinguished--the "caduceatores",[331]
who went to demand peace, and the "fecials," who were sent to denounce
war.

 [331] Caduceatores--compare _supra_, p. 348. In connection with
       these latter, let us inquire more particularly as to their
       wand of office, the _caduceus_. "In its _oldest_ form" it "was
       merely a _bough_ twined round with _white wool_; afterwards
       a white or gilded staff with imitations of _foliage_ and
       _ribands_ was substituted for the old rude symbol. These
       were probably not turned into snakes till a much later
       age, when that reptile had acquired a mystic character."
       Müller's explanation is that it was originally the _olive
       branch_ with the stemmata, which latter became developed into
       serpents.--_Encyc. of Arts and Sciences._ If, therefore,
       Müller's explanation is correct, the oldest form of the
       symbol of office of those who were the depositaries of laws
       of nations in the matter of peace and war, was a symbol which
       has a special history and significance in connection with
       the Deluge. Will this not tend to identify their institution
       with that epoch? It will, perhaps, be said that the branch
       of a tree is in any case a natural symbol of peace. But why
       a symbol or token at all? Why more than a simple gesture
       of salutation? unless the symbol embodied some idea which
       conveyed a pledge over and above? What, then, was this idea,
       unless the traditional idea? It may appear to us a natural
       emblem, but it is not so from association of ideas with
       the scriptural dove and olive branch? and yet consider how
       universal it is. Captain Cook's Voyages (i. p. 38; London,
       1846) says, "It is remarkable that the chief, like the people
       in the canoes, presented to us the same symbol of peace that
       is known to have been in use _among the ancient_ and mighty
       nations of the northern hemisphere, _the green branch of
       a tree_." This occurred both in New Zealand and Otaheite.
       Wallis ("Voyages round the World," iii. 98) says that on an
       occasion when the Otaheitans wished to testify fidelity and
       friendliness, "the Indians cut branches from the trees and
       laid them in a _ceremonious_ manner at the feet of the seamen;
       they painted themselves _red_ with the berries of a tree, and
       stained their garments _yellow_ with the bark of another." We
       have, as we have just seen, found this symbol in the caduceus,
       and it appears to me that the caduceus in its earlier form
       of a staff with foliage and ribands, is recognisable in the
       Gothic monuments as given in Stephens' "Central America."
       _Vide_ also Cunningham's "Bhilsa Topes." Washington Irving
       ("Life of Columbus," iii. 214) speaks of the natives coming
       forward to meet them with _white flags_; and the same, if I
       remember rightly, is recorded in Cook's visit to the Sandwich
       Islanders. The _white flag_ is our own symbol; but what is the
       white flag but the development and refinement of the staff
       and white wool? Again, why are _stripes_, in a variety of
       combination of colour, the characteristic symbol of flags? The
       reader will find the answer on returning to the text, where he
       will also learn the significance of the red and yellow, in the
       above descriptions.

The red and yellow colours of the feathers in the above account may
afford a clue, when it is remembered (_vide_ note), that they
coincide with the colour used by the Otaheitans to testify fidelity
and friendliness; but, to appreciate this in its full significance,
it will be necessary to show how commonly the traditional symbols of
peace among the ancients had reference to the diluvian traditions, more
especially the Dove and the Rainbow.

Assuming for the moment that Bryant is right in his derivation of the
names of Juno and Venus from Jönah (Hebrew), and [Greek: Oinas] (Greek)
= Dove,[332] I ask attention to the following, in connection with the
red and yellow feathers of the Polynesians, and the tail feathers of
the topia bird mentioned by Cook (_supra_, p. 388).[333] (Bryant, ii.
345), "As the peacock, in the full expansion of his plumes, displays
all the beautiful colours of the Iris (the rainbow), it was probably
for that reason made the bird of Juno, instead of the dove, which was
appropriated to Venus. The same history was variously depicted in
different places, and consequently as variously interpreted." (Compare
p. 279.)

 [332] II. p. 317.

 [333] _Vide_ also in Carver's "North America" (p. 296), an engraving
       of the Indian "Calumet of Peace,"--the stem is of a light wood
       curiously painted with hieroglyphics in various colours, and
       adorned with the _feathers_ of the _most beautiful_ birds.
       It is not in my power to convey an idea of the _various
       tints_ and pleasing ornaments of this much-esteemed Indian
       implement"(p. 359).

If this is true, if the rainbow is the symbol of peace, and the peacock
is the symbol of the rainbow, will it absolutely surprise us to find
feathers of various colours presented as tokens of peace? I am prepared
for the reply, that Bryant's etymology is now considered obsolete; but
I shall fall back upon the argument which I have urged elsewhere, that
in cases where tradition renders the transmission of certain words
probable, there is a presumption which overrides the ordinary canons of
philological criticism. Philologers very properly lay down, _e.g._ Mr
Max Müller's "Chapter of Accidents in Comparative Theology," _Contemp.
Rev._, April 1870, p. 8:--

  "Comparative philology has taught us again and again that when
  we find a word exactly the same in Greek and Sanscrit, we may be
  certain that it cannot be the same word; and the same applies to
  comparative mythology ... for the simple reason that Sanscrit and
  Greek have deviated from each other, have both followed their own
  way, have both suffered their own phonetic corruptions, and hence,
  if they do possess the same word, they can only possess it either
  in its Greek or in its Sanscrit disguise."

This is of course only upon the assumption that the languages have gone
their own way, have followed their own corruptions; but if it can be
shown that certain words, &c. &c., were preserved in tradition, and
so guarded as not to come under the laws of deviation which philology
traces out, or to come under them on different conditions, then, on
the contrary, it is exceedingly probable that we should find them
identical, or at least recognisable; in any case, this is a point
which must be decided according to the evidences of tradition, and not
according to the laws of philology. This will be better understood from
a case in point. I append the evidence respecting the traditions of the
Dove and the Rainbow--which are just the incidents which are likely to
have impressed the imagination and memory of mankind.[334]

 [334] It will hardly be denied that the tradition of the rainbow as
       a sign and pledge to man existed among the ancients. _Vide_
       Bryant, ii. 348. [The goddess Iris, who was sent with the
       _messages_ of the gods, bore the same name as the rainbow
       Iris.]

       _E.g._ Homer--

            "[Greek: Irissin eoikotes has te Kroniôn
            en nephehi stêrixe, teras meropôn anthrôpôn].--_Il._ xi. 27.

            "Like to the bow which Jove amid the clouds
            Placed _as a token to desponding man_."


       Also--Il. xvii. 547.

            [Greek: hêute porphyreên irin thnêtoisi tanhussê
            Zeus ex ouranothen teras emmenai].

            "Just as when Jove mid the high heavens displays
            His bow mysterious for a _lasting sign_."

       And the lines (Theog. v. 700) in Hesiod, in which Iris is
       called the daughter of Wonder, who is sent over the broad
       surface of the sea when strife and discord arose among the
       immortals, and who is also called "the _great oath_ of the
       gods"--["This is the token of the _covenant_ between you and
       me, for _perpetual generations_," Gen. ix. 12.]--who is told
       to bring from afar in her golden pitcher the many-named water.

       Iris is called the daughter of Thaumas (which so closely
       approximates to the Greek [Greek: Thauma] = wonder, Bryant
       says to the Egyptian "Thaumus"). Bryant further thinks that
       Iris and Eros were originally the same term, but that in time
       the latter was formed into the boyish deity Cupid = Eros.
       According to some, Iris was the mother of Eros by Zephyrus.
       [There were indeed three Eroses, which mark three different
       lines of tradition, _vide_ Gladstone on Iris (the rainbow),
       "Homer and the Homeric Age," ii. 156.] Eros (Cupid), though
       a boy, was supposed to have been at the commencement of all
       things; and Lucian says, "How came you with that childish
       face, when we know you to be as _old as Japetus_?" The union
       of Cupid and Chaos (the Deluge is frequently alluded to as
       chaos, _vide_ Bryant) "gave birth to men and all the animals."
       Hesiod makes Eros the first to appear after Chaos. "At this
       season (Deluge) another era began; the earth was supposed
       to be renewed, and time to return to a second infancy. They
       therefore formed an emblem of a child with a rainbow, to
       denote this renovation of the world, and called him Eros, or
       Divine Love," ... "yet esteemed the most ancient among the
       gods."--Bryant, ii. 349. (Cupid is represented with a bow,
       as is also Apollo and Diana, which was an allusion to the
       supposed resemblance of the bow and the rain_bow_.) Probably
       from his connection with Iris, he is represented as breaking
       the thunderbolts of Jupiter, and riding on _dolphins_ and
       subduing other monsters of the sea. Smith ("Myth. Dict.")
       says Iris is derived from [Greek: erô eirô], "so that Iris
       would mean the speaker or messenger," ... "but it is not
       impossible that it may be connected with [Greek: eirô], 'I
       join,' whence [Greek: eirênê]; so that Iris, the goddess of
       the rainbow, would be the joiner, or conciliator, or the
       messenger of heaven, who restores peace in nature," It appears
       to me more likely that [Greek: eirênê] = _peace_ (derivation
       uncertain--Liddell and Scott) was derived directly from Iris,
       in accordance with the tradition, and that the Greek word for
       wool, [Greek: eiros], was cognate to [Greek: eirênê], from
       being an emblem of peace (_e.g._ the pontiff's caduceator,
       woollen veil). In the same way, if we do not actually find
       the rainbow as the token of the herald or caduceator, may we
       not discover it conversely in the circumstance that _Iris_ is
       represented as carrying in her hand a _herald's_ staff?

       It is curious that we actually find, what I may call the
       sister emblem, viz. the Dove, used by the ancients, though
       just as we find, if I am right in the conjecture, the rainbow
       among the Polynesians, used in a perverted way as an ensign
       of war. It was possibly in superstitious remembrance of the
       tradition which we find more directly among the ancient Aryans
       and the Peruvians (p. 326-400), that war ought only to be
       made with a disposition towards peace; and that they thought
       to place themselves under the sanction of heaven by carrying
       this emblem as their ensign of war. Such, however, was the
       fact. Bryant (ii. 302) says:--"The dove became a favourite
       hieroglyphic among the Babylonians and Chaldees.... In respect
       to the Babylonians, it seems to have been taken by them for
       their national ensign, and to have been depicted on their
       military standard when they went to war. They seem likewise
       to have been styled Iönim, or the children of _the Dove_;"
       and they are thus alluded to by the Prophet Jeremiah, ch.
       xxv. ver. 38 (_id._) Bryant says (ii. 285), "The name of the
       Dove among the ancient Amonians (by which term he intends the
       descendants of Chus) was Iön and Iönah; sometimes expressed
       Iönas, from whence came the [Greek: Oinas] of the Greeks."

       I should rather put it that we find the word for the Dove
       common to the Hebrew and the Greek (Iönah, Hebrew; [Greek:
       Oivas], Greek), and, as Bryant seems to imply, among other
       nations also--_e.g._ the Babylonians--which is precisely what
       we should have expected. But if this identity is allowed, we
       must proceed with Bryant to see in Juno, Venus, and Diana,
       simply embodiments of the tradition of the Dove. Bryant says
       that "Juno is the same as Iöna," and although, as we have
       seen, the peacock is said to be her bird (with reference to
       the other symbol, the rainbow), and although Ovid (Bryant,
       344) sends her to heaven accompanied by Iris (rainbow), yet in
       the plate (from Gruter) p. 410, she will be seen with a dove
       on her wand, and a pomegranate, as symbol of the ark (_vide_
       p. 380), in her hand. Bryant, moreover (344), considers Juno
       to be identical with Venus. There was a statue in Laconia
       called Venus-Junonia. Of Dione and Venus Bryant says (ii.
       341):--"I have mentioned that the name Diona was properly
       Ad, or Ada, Iöna. Hence came the term Idione; which Idione
       was an object of idolatry as early as the days of Moses.
       But there was a similar personage named Deione.... This was
       a compound of De Iöne, the dove; and Venus Dionoea may
       sometimes have been formed in the same manner.... Dionusus was
       likewise called Thyomus." _Vide_ also Bryant, pp. 316, 317.
       In Genesis viii. 9, the dove returned to the ark, not having
       found "where her foot might rest." "In the hieroglyphical
       sculptures and paintings where this history was represented,
       the dove could not well be depicted otherwise than as hovering
       over the face of the deep. Hence it is that Venus or Dione
       is said to have risen from the sea. Hence it is, also, that
       she is said to preside over waters; to appease the troubled
       ocean; and to cause by her presence an universal calm; that
       to her were owing [on the retiring of the waters] the fruits
       of the earth.... She was the Oenas ('[Greek: Oinas]') of the
       Greeks; whence came the Venus of the Latins." The address of
       Lucretius to this deity concludes with two lines of remarkable
       significance--

            "Te Dea, te fugiunt venti; te nubila coeli
            Adventumque tuum; tibi rident æquora ponti;
            _Pacatumque_ nitet diffuso lumine _coelum_."

       "In Sicily, upon Mount Eryx, was a celebrated temple of this
       goddess, which is taken notice of by Cicero and other writers.
       Doves were here held as sacred as they were in Palestine or
       Syria [_vide_ also in Cashmere, p. 64]. It is remarkable that
       there were two days of the year set apart in this place for
       festivals, called [Greek: Anagôgia] and [Greek: Katagôgia], at
       which time Venus was supposed to _depart over the sea_, and
       after a season to return. There were _also sacred pigeons_,
       which then took their flight from the island; but one of
       them was observed on the ninth day to come back from the
       sea, and to fly to the shrine of the goddess. This was upon
       the festival of [Greek: Anagôgia]. Upon this day it is said
       that there were great rejoicings. On what account can we
       imagine this veneration for the bird to be kept up, ... but
       for a memorial of the dove sent out of the ark, and of its
       return from the deep to Noah? The history is recorded upon
       the ancient coins of Eryx; which have on one side the head of
       _Janus_ bifrons, and on the other the sacred dove."--Bryant,
       ii. 319.

       Mr Cox's ("Mythology," ii. ch. ii. sec. vii.)
       counter-explanation, if I rightly gather it, is that "on
       Aphroditê (Venus), the child of _the froth or foam of the
       sea_, was lavished all the wealth of words denoting the
       loveliness of the morning; and thus the Hesiodic poet goes
       on at once to say that the grass sprung up under her feet as
       she moved, that Eros, Love, walked by her side, and Himeros,
       longing, followed after her." "This is but saying, in other
       words, that the morning, the child of the heavens, springs up
       _first from_ the sea, as Athene is born by the water-side."
       But why should the morning spring first from the sea?--more
       particularly when the effects of her rising is noted in the
       springing up of flowers on the land? If the rainbow, we
       see the reason in her connection with the Deluge, and her
       connection with the subsequent renovation of nature. Mr Cox
       also says (p. 3):--"In her brilliant beauty she is Argunî, a
       name which appears again in that of Arguna, the companion of
       Krishna and the Hellenic Argynius." Does not this complete the
       chain of her connection with Juno? Mr Cox (p. 8) says:--"The
       Latin Venus is, in strictness of speech, a mere name, to which
       any epithet might be attached according to the conveniences
       or the needs of the worshipper.... The name itself has been,
       it would seem, with good reason, connected with the Sanscrit
       root 'van,' to desire love or favour,"--a derivation which
       equally accords with Bryant's view. Then there is the striking
       connection of Venus with Dionusos (_vide_ p. 395). Mr
       Cox (p. 9) says, "The myth of Adonis links the legends of
       Aphrodite (Venus) with those _of Dionusos_. Like the Theban
       _wine_-god Adonis, born only on the death of his mother; and
       the two myths are, in one version, _so far the same_ that
       _Dionysos_, like Adonis, is placed _in a chest_, which, being
       _cast into the sea_, is carried to Brasiæ, where the body of
       his mother is buried." (Comp. Kabiri, Bunsen.) Mr Cox connects
       Athene with Aphrodite (Venus) (p. 4). Therefore we must ask
       him to reconsider his explanation of "the Athenian maidens
       embroidering the sacred peplos for _the ship_ presented to
       Athêne at the great Dionysiac festival." Compare evidence,
       _supra_, in chap. on Boulanger, &c.; Catlin.

The digression we have just made involves some risk of distracting
attention from the point it was intended to enforce--viz. the
traditionary character of the mode, and, by implication, the
traditionary recognition of the obligation, of the declaration of
war. We have already seen in Ozanam (_supra_, p. 371) indications of
the probability of similar traditions among the primitive tribes of
Germany. Will it clench the argument if we find Romans and Gauls on a
common understanding in these matters, when brought for the first time
into contact since their original separation?--

  "The great misfortunes which befel the city from the Gauls, are
  said to have proceeded from the violation of these sacred rites.
  For when the barbarians were besieging Clusium, Fabius Ambustus was
  sent ambassador to their camp with proposals of peace, in favour
  of the besieged. But receiving a harsh answer, he thought himself
  released from his character of ambassador, and rashly taking up
  arms for the Clusians, challenged the bravest man in the Gaulish
  army. He proved victorious, ... but the Gauls having discovered who
  he was, sent _a herald_ to Rome to accuse Fabius of bearing arms
  against them, contrary to _treaties and good faith_, and _without
  a declaration of war_. Upon this the Feciales exhorted the Senate
  to deliver him up to the Gauls, but he appealed to the people, and,
  being a favourite with them, was screened from the sentence. Soon
  after this, the Gauls marched to Rome, and sacked the whole city
  except the Capitol, as we have related at large in the life of
  Camillus."--_Plutarch's Numa._

I venture further to think that the traditionary modes of the
declaration of war may be detected among the Gauls in Cæsar's time,
in the manner of their challenge. _E.g._ it so came about that Cæsar
wished to draw the enemy (the Nervii) to his side of the valley and to
engage them at a disadvantage before his camp. To this end he simulated
fear. "Our men meanwhile retiring from the rampart, they approached
still nearer, _cast their darts_ on all sides within the trenches and
_sent heralds_ round the camp to proclaim," &c. (Duncan's Cæsar, B. v.
xlii.)

We will now turn to the Greek tradition. I quote from an old author who
has examined the matter more fully than I find it treated elsewhere.
Rous. ("Archæologiæ Atticæ," lib. 6, s. 3, civ.) says:--"As careful
and cunning as they were in warlike affairs, I cannot find but that
they did 'propere signi quæ piget inchoare,' bear a great affection to
_peace_; as may appear in their honourable receiving of ambassadors,
to whom they gave hearing in no worse place than a _temple_.... The
usual ensign carried by Greek ambassadours was [Greek: kêrykeon],
_caduceus_,[335] a right _staff of wood_ with snakes twisted about it
and looking one another in the face.... If the peace could not be kept,
but they must needs have war, yet they would be sure to give warning
and fair play, and make proclamations of their intentions before they
marcht. The manner in proclaiming war was to send a fellow of purpose
_either to cast a spear_ or let loose _a lamb_ into the borders of the
country, or into the city itself whither they were marching (which
Hesychius rather thinks to have been the signal before a battel),
thereby showing them, that what was then a habitation for men, should
shortly be a pasture for sheep."[336] I should rather have thought
that it had analogy with the Jewish scapegoat; but, whatever the idea,
it was apparently symbolled and commemorated in the _woollen_ veil
prescribed to the Roman pontiff in the declaration of war. It would
seem, however, that the signal for battle (chap. v.) was "instead
of sounding a trumpet, they had fellows whom they called [Greek:
pyrphorous], that went before with torches, and throwing them down in
the midst between the two armies, gave the sign.... Now, this business
they might do safely and without any danger, ... for the torch-bearers
were peculiarly protected by Mars, and accounted sacred."[337]

 [335] _Vide ante_, 391. That the entwined snakes were of late date
       would appear, I think, from the allusions to the suppliants'
       wands in Æschylus, _e.g._ (_vide_ Plumtre's Æschylus,
       "Libation Pourers," v. 1024) when Orestes puts on the
       suppliants wreaths, and takes the olive branch in his hand--

            "The branch of _olive_ from the topmost growth,
            With amplest tufts of _white wool_ meetly wreathed."

       and in the Supplicants (22)--

            "Holding in one hand the branches
            Suppliant, wreathed with _white wool_ fillets."

 [336] Also, "Joannis Meursii Themis Athica, sive de Legibus
       Alticis," i. xi. says, "Postquam vero exercitus eductus esset
       pugnam inire, non _licebat antiquam_ emissum agmen hostium
       quis, hunc _expectans accepisset_."

 [337] This has something in common with the fiery cross sent round
       by the Highlanders as the summons to war. In another aspect
       it has resemblances with the Indian mode of declaration of
       war. "The manner in which the Indians declare war against
       each other is by sending a slave with a hatchet, the handle
       of which is painted _red_, to the nation which they intend
       to break with; and the messenger, notwithstanding the danger
       to which he is exposed from the sudden fury of those whom he
       thus sets at defiance, executes his commission with great
       fidelity."--_Carver's "Travels in North America,"_ p. 307.

The sense of national responsibility in war, and the reluctance of
kings to involve themselves without the consent of their people would
appear from OEschylos' "Supplicants" (v. 393, 363).

I have referred (p. 326) to the Peruvian traditions of Manco Capac's
laws of war, and that "in every stage of the war the Peruvian was open
to propositions for peace."

From the Hindoo tradition, apparently, Manu's code was conceived in an
identical spirit. (_Vide_ "Hist. of India," "The Hindu and Mahometan
Periods," by the Hon. Mountstuart Elphinstone; Murray, 1866, ch. ii.
p. 26.) "The laws of war (Manu's code) are honourable and humane.
Poisoned arrows and mischievously barbed arrows and fire arrows are all
prohibited." [Dr Hooker, in his "Himalayan Journal," mentions a similar
tradition among the Limboos, I think, or Lepchas.[338]] "There are many
situations in which it is by no means allowable to destroy the enemy.
Among those who must always be spared are unarmed or wounded men,
and those who have broken their weapons, and one who says, 'I am thy
captive.' Other prohibitions are still more generous.... The settlement
of a conquered country is conducted on equally liberal principles.
Immediate security is to be assured to all by proclamation. The
religion and laws of the country are to be maintained and respected."
And I have fancied (_vide_ 395) that the recognition at least of such
a tradition, if it be only the "homage which vice pays to virtue," is
to be read in the devices carried by the Babylonians.[339]

 [338] That there may be limitations to the horrors of war, seems
       to be established by the instance of the prohibition
       of explosive bullets. I read in the _Times_ (March 11,
       1871):--"The _British Medical Journal_ declares its opinion
       that the charges which have been put forward of _explosive
       bullets_ having been used by the contending armies have been
       groundless; and is inclined to believe that the _articles of
       the St Petersburg Convention_ have been _faithfully adhered
       to_, notwithstanding the mutual recriminations to the contrary
       by both French and German Governments."

 [339] Indirect evidence of the importance formerly attached to the
       declaration of war may, I think, be discovered in the formal
       addresses and invocations of the gods by the Homeric heroes
       previous to combat, which to us seem so forced and unnatural;
       and the same sentiment was noticed by the Spaniards, when they
       first came over, among the Peruvians, who did not neglect
       the punctilio of the declaration of war even in their most
       high-handed aggressions, _e.g_. Garcilasso de la Vega (Hakluyt
       Soc. ed. ii. 141) says--"The invaders sent _the usual summons_
       that the people might not be able to allege afterwards that
       they had been taken unawares."

There was, moreover, a law at Athens which forbade them to declare
war until after a deliberation of three days--"Bellum vero antequam
decerneretur, triduo deliberare lex jubebat" (Apsines, Marcell. in
Hermog. ap. J. Meursii Them. Att., l. i. c. xi.); and we have seen that
the Senate at Rome postponed the declaration of war for thirty days. I
cannot help thinking, though it is the merest surmise, that it is in
the dim recollection of some such tradition that we must account for
the meaningless and superstitious delays which we occasionally read of
in the warfare of barbarous nations; _e.g_. Cæsar (De Bello Gallico,
i. xl. c.) had drawn up his troops and offered the enemy battle, but
Ariovistus thought proper to sound a retreat. "Cæsar inquiring of the
prisoners why Ariovistus so obstinately refused an engagement, found
that it was the custom among the Germans for _the women_ to decide by
lots and divination when it was proper to decide a battle; and that
these had declared the army would not be victorious if they fought
_before the new moon_."[340] [There was also a law at Athens that it
was not lawful to lead forth an army before the seventh day of the
month. "Vetitum Athenis erat, exercitum educere ante diem septimum."]
J. Muersii, _id._

 [340] Carver ("Travels in North America," p. 301) says of the
       Indians--"Sometimes private chiefs make excursions.... These
       irregular sallies, however, are not always approved of by
       the elder chiefs, though they are often obliged to connive
       at them.... But when war is national, and undertaken by the
       community, their deliberations are formal and slow. The elders
       assemble in council, to which all the head warriors and young
       men are admitted, when they deliver their opinions in solemn
       speeches; weighing with maturity the nature of the enterprise
       they are about to engage in, and balancing with great sagacity
       the advantages or inconveniences that will arise from it.
       Their priests are also consulted on the subject, and even
       sometimes the advice of the most intelligent of _their women_
       is asked. If the determination be for war they prepare for it
       with much ceremony."

I have discussed the ancient mode of declaration of war at some
length as an instance of tradition. There are some, I am afraid, to
whom the discussion will appear ineffably trifling; and I may even
be misconstrued to say that everything would be set right in Europe,
if only a herald were sent in proper form to declare war. There are
men of a certain cast of mind to whom forms are repugnant; there
are others to whom they are unintelligible. It has been observed,
however, that the rejection of forms is one thing, the neglect of them
another. The rejection of forms may be, on some principle, good, though
misapplied, often does unconscious homage when it means to spurn, and
may be compensated for in other ways. The neglect of them is simply
evidence of laxity. Cromwell perfectly well knew the divinity which
attached to forms when he said, "Take away that bauble;" and, on the
other hand, no one better than he would have judged the state of an
army (not his own) in which he was told that it was the custom of
soldiers not to salute their officers. The declaration of war without
any solemnity, still more the commencement of hostilities without any
declaration at all,[341] seems to me closely analogous--as a sign of
disorganisation--to the absence of any form of salute at a parade. I
am far from contending that old forms, when they have become obsolete,
can be resuscitated; but I do contend for the resuscitation of ancient
maxims and ideas. In any age fully imbued with the responsibility of
war, in which it was considered unseemly to declare it until after
a three days' deliberation in solemn conclave, and which even then
protracted the declaration till the seventh or the thirtieth day, would
it have been possible for two great nations to have gone to war because
there had been "a breach of etiquette," if indeed there was a breach
of etiquette, "at a German watering-place?"[342] Allowing that this
was merely the ostensible pretext, and that the real grounds remained
behind--if these long deliberations had been necessarily interposed,
would there not have been a thousand chances in favour of such a
European intervention as saved the peace of Europe three years before
in the affair of Luxembourg? Yet, so far as we know at present, the
following is the history of the commencement of the most horrible, the
most destructive, and the most barbarous war[343] of modern times.

 [341] "In ancient times war was solemnly declared either by certain
       fixed ceremonies or by the announcement of heralds; and a war
       commenced without such declaration was regarded as informal
       and irregular, and contrary to the usages of nations. Grotius
       says that a declaration of war is not necessary by the law
       of nations--"Naturali jure nulla requiritur declaratio," but
       _that it was required by the law of nations, jure gentium_, by
       which term, be it remembered, he means the usages of nations.
       And in this he was right, as until the age in which he lived
       wars were almost invariably preceded by solemn declarations.
       The Romans, according to Albericus Gentilis, did not grant a
       triumph for any war which had been commenced without a formal
       declaration (De Jure Belli, c. ii. § i.); but the Greeks do
       not seem to have been at all regular in the observance of the
       custom (Bynkershock, Quæs. Jur. Pub., l. i. c. ii.) During the
       times of chivalry declarations of war were usually given with
       great formality, the habits of knighthood being carried into
       the customs of general warfare, and it being held mean to fall
       upon an adversary when unprepared to defend himself (Ward,
       Introd. ii. 206-230). With the decline of chivalry this custom
       fell into disuse. Gustavus Adolphus invaded Germany without
       any declaration of war (Zouch, De Judicio inter Gentes, P.
       ii. § x. 1); but this appears to have been _an exception_ to
       the usages of the age, and Clarendon speaks of declarations
       of war as being customary in his time, and blames the war in
       which the Duke of Buckingham went to France, as entered into
       'without so much as the formality of a declaration from the
       king, containing the ground and provocation and end of it,
       according to custom and obligation in the like cases.' Formal
       denunciations of war _by heralds_ were discontinued about the
       time of Grotius; the last instance having been, according
       to Voltaire, when Louis XIII. sent a herald to Brussels
       to declare war against Spain in 1635."--_W. Oke Manning's
       Commentaries on Law of Nations._

 [342] "Looking back on the history of the autumn ... we may yet
       be impressed by the conviction that, had the union of
       the _European family of nations_ been strengthened as it
       might have been before the war broke out, it might never
       have been begun, or would have long since terminated. The
       Treaty of Paris put on record a declaration in favour of
       arbitration, but it proved to be worthless when sought to be
       applied."--_Times_, Feb. 15, 1871. I shall have a word to say
       presently on the declaration of the Treaty of Paris.

 [343] It must not be forgotten, however, that it was the revolution
       in Paris which gave this war its abnormal character, and
       created situations for which the law of nations had no
       precedents, or precedents only which were of doubtful
       application.

  "A private letter from Paris relates that the Duc de Grammont,
  who has taken to spend his evenings at the Jockey Club, was
  lately asked there, 'How he came to blunder into such a fatal
  war?'[344] He replied, 'I asked the Minister of War, Leboeuf,
  if he was ready, and he answered, "Ready! ay, and doubly ready;"
  _otherwise_,' added the Duc, 'I should have taken care not
  _to have counselled_ a war which there _were twenty modes of
  averting_.'"--_Times_, Sept. 1, 1870.[345]

 [344] Compare _infra_, p. 412.

 [345] Compare with the following account of the declaration of war
       by M. F. de Champagny, de L'Acad. Fr., in the _Correspondant_,
       25 Juin 1871:--"A government wrongly inspired proposed to
       us a war. Without asking it why it wished to make it,
       without asking if it could make it, without reflection,
       without discussion, without listening to the men of name and
       experience, who implored of us _at least twenty-four hours
       for reflection_, we accepted this war, I do not say with
       enthusiasm, but with frivolous levity, not as crusaders,
       but as children. It seemed to us sufficient to tipple in
       the 'cafés,' singing the 'Marseillaise,' to intoxicate
       the soldiers, to throw squibs into what were then called
       sensational journals, to cry 'à Berlin!' in order to go right
       off to Berlin. And when it was discovered that we were not
       going on at all to Berlin, but that Berlin was coming to
       Paris, that this enthusiasm of the 'café' did not cause armies
       to spring into life, what was our resource? Always the same:
       to overthrow a government!"

The extent of the disorganisation and the laxity into which we
have fallen, appears perhaps as strikingly as in any anything else
in the frequency of the complaints of the little regard paid to
"parlémentaires" and officers bearing flags of truce. But what startles
us more than all is the light manner in which this transgression of the
law of nations is referred to even by the parties aggrieved.

I will here place two extracts which I have made in juxtaposition:--

 Carver ("Travels in North America," p. 358)
 says, that when a deputation sets out together
 for their enemy's country with propositions
 of peace, "They bear before them the pipe of
 peace, which, I need not inform my readers,
 is of the same nature _as a flag of truce_
 among the Europeans, and is treated with the
 greatest respect and veneration _even by the
 most barbarous_ nations. _I never heard of
 an instance_ wherein the _bearers of this
 sacred_ badge of friendship were ever treated
 disrespectfully, or its rights violated. The
 Indians believe that the Great Spirit _never
 suffers an infraction_ of this kind to go
 unpunished."

                    Count Chandordy, in his reply to Count Bismarck,
                    dated Bordeaux, Jan. 25, 1871, says:--"Count
                    Bismarck reproaches the French armies with
                    having _fired on parlémentaires_." An accusation
                    of this nature had already been brought to the
                    knowledge of the Paris Government, and we may
                    quote the following words of M. Jules Favre
                    in his circular of 12th January--"I have the
                    satisfaction to acquaint your excellency that
                    the Governor of Paris has hastened to order an
                    inquiry into the facts alleged by Count Bismarck,
                    and in announcing this to him he has brought
                    _much more numerous facts_ of the same nature to
                    his own cognizance which are imputed to Prussian
                    sentinels, but _which he never would have allowed
                    to interrupt ordinary relations_."

I do not know whether this contrast between barbarism, such as it
existed in the last century, and modern civilisation, will astonish
those partisans of success whom in truth nothing in all the multiform
atrocities of this dreadful war seems to have astonished or shocked,
so that it was at times almost ludicrous to hear these _introuvables_
declare such things as the bombardment of hospitals and churches, as
at Strasburg and Paris, quite right, which even the German commanders,
when the matter was brought to their attention, admitted to be wrong.

This perhaps is the worst symptom of corruption we have yet seen,
and yet there was a time, and that quite recent, when a different
sentiment prevailed. I have just referred[346] to the declaration in
the Treaty of Paris, which thought to inaugurate a new era by bringing
all causes of conflict in Europe to a settlement of arbitration. But
let no one be discouraged or cease to believe in the possibility of
such a consummation because of the result. There never was a stronger
instance of the intellect of the world vainly striving to create an
international code and system for itself which was to be distinct
from the law of nations; for at the same moment that the diplomatists
who were collected in Paris set to work upon their tower, which was
to erect itself above the waters of any future inundation, they one
and all agreed to demolish, and as a first step to pull down, the
cornerstone from the temple of the past. How this was brought about
will best be told in an extract from the Count de Montalembert's "Pie
IX. et la France en 1849 et 1859," p. 10:--

  "Let us go back to the origin of the evil, ... it dates back more
  especially from the Congress of Paris in 1856, from that diplomatic
  reunion which, after having solemnly declared that none of the
  contracting powers _had the right to interfere either collectively
  or individually in the relations of a sovereign with his subjects_
  (Protocol of 18th March), after having proclaimed the principle
  of the absolute independence of the sovereigns, for the benefit
  of the Turkish Sultan against his Christian subjects, thought it
  within its competency, in its protocol of the 8th of April, and
  in the absence of any representative of the august accused, to
  proclaim that the situation of the Pontifical States was 'abnormal'
  and 'irregular.' This accusation developed and exaggerated at the
  Tribune, and elsewhere by Lord Palmerston and Count Cavour, was
  equally formulated under the Presidency and upon the initiative of
  the Minister of Foreign Affairs in France, and it is consequently
  France which must bear the principal responsibility before the
  Church and Europe. We can recall the grief and surprise which this
  strange proceeding created in the Catholic world."

 [346] _Vide_ note 19, p. 403.

Thus was the game set rolling; and the policy thus indicated was
pursued with the eager and unrelenting pertinacity of some, and with
the tacit approval of the rest of the co-signatories.

The war declared by France against Austria, which was the precipitating
cause of the storm which broke upon the Papal States, can, it is true,
only be regarded as evidence of the conspiracy--inasmuch as it was
declared by one of the conspirators at the instigation of another,
whose ultimate aim was the seizure of the States of the Church and
of the other independent Italian sovereignties to the profit of
Piedmont. So soon as the victory of the French arms was decided, the
Emperor's proclamation from Milan appeared, inciting the populations to
insurrection. All then followed in sequence--the revolt of the Romagnas
four days after the Milan manifesto, their annexation along with the
other independent states of Central Italy by Piedmont, this annexation
being effected with the connivance, if not the consent, of France, and
for which payment was eventually made in the cession of Nice and Savoy
(all this being in contravention of the treaties of Villafranca and
Zurich). But what mattered the contravention of treaties in comparison
with the scenes which followed? The programme of the congress, or, if
that is denied, the programme of two (if not three, for it is difficult
to acquit Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell of participation by
consent) of the powers who had entered into the conspiracy against
European order, and these, at that time, the powers in the highest
state of military efficiency, was to be carried out _per fas et
nefas_. Naples and the patrimony of St Peter had to be secured, and
as they morally presented no vulnerable side, they were seized by the
hand of the marauder in defiance of "all law, human and divine."[347]
Garibaldi's descent on Sicily, effected under the cover of the English
navy, was simply a brusque and flagrant act of piracy, for which no
plea of justification has ever been set up. The usurpation of the Papal
States, though not less ruthlessly accomplished in the end, was carried
through with more regard to form in its preliminary stages; yet at
the last the diplomatic mask was torn off, and the invasion was made
without any pretext or justification known to the law of nations, and
without even a declaration of war.

 [347] These were the words which the Marquis of Bath had the courage
       to use in the House of Lords when everybody else was joining
       in a ludicrous "dirge of homage" to Cavour. I wish to put this
       protest, as well as the similar protests of the Marquis of
       Normanby and the Earl of Donoughmore on record, as there may
       come a time when England will be glad to recur to them.

Here, again, the Imperial diplomacy and Italian intrigue went hand in
hand. Lamoriciere, in reliance upon the honour of France, had made _all
his dispositions against Garibaldi_, and had received a letter from
the French ambassador as late as the 7th September (bearing the same
date as the so-called ultimatum of Cavour, although the Piedmontese
troops had crossed the frontier before it was delivered), which I shall
here reproduce, seeing that it is not on record in the _Annuaire des
Deux Mondes_ (1860)--"I inform you by the Emperor's orders that the
Piedmontese _will not_ enter the Roman States, and that 20,000 French
are about to occupy the different places of those states. Make, then,
all your dispositions against Garibaldi.--Le Duc de Grammont."[348]
(This letter was dated September 7, 1860, the battle of Castelgidardo
was fought on the 18th September 1860.) It is needless to add that no
reinforcements from France appeared, and that the assurance served
no other purpose than to mislead, and to throw Lamoriciere off his
guard. Indeed, in spite of various protestations and the subsequent
withdrawal of the French ambassador from Turin, the Catholic world
settled down into the belief, not only that the Emperor of the French
had never had the intention of sending troops to the rescue, but that
the whole scheme of the invasion had been deliberately devised at the
ominous interview which took place on the 28th of August previous,
between the Emperor, Farini, and General Cialdini. It was even said
that the words used by the Emperor on the occasion transpired, "frappez
fort et frappez vite,"--a terse and striking phrase, which will fitly
perpetuate in the human memory the most flagrant violation of the law
of nations which history affords.[349]

 [348] _Vide_ "Current Events," in _Rambler_, 1860.

 [349] "Does the faith of treaties, the right of treaties, still
       exist? Look at what has happened in Europe during the
       last twenty years. The treaties made with the Church were
       the first violated; they have declared that a 'concordat'
       is nothing more than a law of the State, which the State
       can alter at will--in other words, that, unlike all other
       contracts, conventions of this nature, inviolable for one
       of the parties, can be broken by the other at its pleasure;
       kings have thus put the Church outside the law of nations.
       But, in consequence, they have excluded themselves. When the
       most sacred of all treaties were thus trampled upon, how would
       they have the others respected? They have even written, or
       caused to be written, on a solemn occasion ('Napoleon III. et
       L'Italie, 1859') that treaties no longer bind when the general
       sentiment declares against them; in other terms, when they
       displease us. At this epoch, in 1859, we were disputing with
       Austria a possession which all treaties had guaranteed to her,
       and the neutral signatories of these treaties did not protest.
       Victorious over Austria, we have in our turn made a treaty
       with her; and this treaty was violated when scarcely signed;
       and neither we nor the rest of Europe protested. Later on, the
       dissensions between Germany and Denmark ended in a treaty,
       which the rest of Europe guaranteed; but soon Germany broke
       this treaty by force of arms, and Europe did not say a word. I
       omit here the convention of September, ... the treaty of 1856.
       On all these occasions the indifference of third parties has
       come to the aid of the cupidity of the aggressors; and the
       moral sense has been so far wanting in the Cabinets that they
       have assisted and applauded acts of brigandage for the love of
       the art, and without even thinking that the brigand, when he
       grew strong, would fall on the morrow on themselves. Will you
       find in European history twelve years so fruitful in pledges
       and perjuries?"

All this was done with the undisguised satisfaction of several
veteran English statesmen, who were, moreover, directly or indirectly
represented at the same congress which sought to bind the European
powers to call in the arbitration of a friendly power, in case of
disagreement, before making an appeal to arms.

Now there is no reason why this rule, good in itself, and congruous
to the spirit and maxims of the law of nations, should not have been
embodied as a fundamental article in the code; for the law of nations
is not a dead-letter, but, like everything that is of tradition, easily
lending itself to adaptation and development according to the changing
circumstances of the world.

Can we be surprised that this principle, good and according to reason,
but which nevertheless presupposes certain sentiments in the world in
correspondence with it, should in the actual circumstances have been
barren of results? Is it wonderful that it should have miscarried
in the hands of men who were parties to the invasion, without even
the form of a declaration of war, of the State predestined by divine
Providence to be the cornerstone of Christendom? Would it have been
befitting that this beneficent arrangement should have been destined
to be the work of men who, either by participation or as accessories
after the fact, had set their hands to a deed which shocked every
principle of morality, and made the very notion of public law in Europe
ridiculous?

The early commencements of this policy cannot be studied at a more
appropriate moment than now, when we are witnessing its _denouement_.

What has been the result to France of its Italian policy? To Austria?
To England? To Europe?

Has any power prospered that had a hand in setting the ball rolling,
or, for that matter, any power that had the responsibility of staying
the parricidal hand, and held back? If Austria, the first victim, had
firmly and strenuously resisted the early instigations of evil, would
she ever, according to human calculations, have had to fight at Magenta
and Solferino? and, in another way, was there not something dramatic
in the sudden reverse and displacement of Count Buol, who had been
the Austrian representative at the Congress, immediately after he had
hurled the fatal _ultimatum_? The retort will be triumphant. Did not
France, the great culprit of all, who both cast its own responsibility
to the winds and sowed the hurricane, conquer at Solferino? Truly
she did; but _respice finem_, or rather, we may say, we have lived
to see the end. Did not Solferino, after some ten years of delusive
prosperity, lead up to Sedan? Of England I do not wish to say more than
that since that date she has unaccountably fallen in the esteem of men;
has, in her turn, met with injustice, and no longer maintains the same
relative position which she held during the fifty years preceding the
Congress.

Everything, in fine, since that date, seems to have gone in favour of
that European power which remained in the background, and which, if
it did no good act at the Congress, at least had the worldly wisdom
to fold its arms and refrain from sacrilege. Yes, Prussia has had
her victory; but by all accounts there never was a victory which has
made a nation so sad and mournful, and which was greeted with fewer
manifestations of joy. It was peace rather than victory which was
welcomed home. Here, too, we seem to see the subtle and nicely-measured
retaliation. Again, was there no significance in the unlooked-for
disasters at Forbach and Woerth, occurring coincidently with the final
abandonment of Rome by France?

These are things which strike the eye, but which are difficult of
demonstration, and it would appear a hopeless errand to convince a
generation which has witnessed the burning of Paris, if not without
emotion, at any rate without serious reflection, and, in spite
of manifest prediction, has refused to see in it "the finger of
retribution and the hand of God."

And yet belief in this retribution of heaven is at the foundation of
the law of nations. Previously to the astounding experiences of the
recent war, during those years so fruitful "in pledges and perjuries,"
it was a common phrase, and most frequently used with reference to
France, that war was no longer an affair of divine Providence, but that
Providence was always on the side of the big battalions.

With one word as to the significance of this phrase, which is
tantamount to a negation of the law of nations, I shall conclude.

It may certainly happen, that in a contest one party may be consciously
hypocrite, whilst the other is conscious of its rectitude; but
presumedly, and until the contrary is manifested, both parties must
be supposed to believe themselves in the right, and to run the tilt
like knights in the mediæval tournament. Nevertheless, as Dr Johnson
said, there are arguments for a "plenum" and for a "vacuum," but one
conclusion only can be true; and in some way in every conflict, which
is true and which is just is known only to the inscrutable judgment
of the Most High. We do not know all the secrets of courts, neither
could we exactly determine the point if we had before us all the
deliberations of councils, it is sufficient for us to know that victory
is not always on the side of the big battalions, as witness, _inter
alia_, Marathon, Morgarten, Bannockburn, Lepanto, Mentana. Will any
Englishman maintain the proposition that victory is always on the side
of the big battalions? Then, beginning with Cressy and Poictiers, and
following Marlborough through the fields of Blenheim, Ramilies, and
Malplaquet, and the Duke of Wellington through the Peninsular War, we
must renounce that which gives "the _éclat_ to all our victories."
Doubtless, then, the quality of troops will in some instances weigh
far more than numbers. You allow it? We now introduce an element of
great uncertainty, and about which there will always be much dispute,
and moreover it will always be a matter concerning which religion
and morality will have much to say. It is no longer an affair of big
battalions, it is no longer reduced to a matter of calculation, on
which side the victory is to be. Let me further remark, that whilst
there is one set of writers who will be ready to say that Providence is
on the side of the big battalions, there is another set of writers, and
these the men who are more conversant with the details, who will with
great acuteness undertake to prove to you that it is so much an affair
of Providence that in each case the victory was scarcely a victory,
and only such because some casualty on the other side intervened to
convert what would otherwise have been a victory into a defeat. It is
unfortunately true that this latter class of historians and strategists
do not, as a rule, trace in the turn of events the retribution of
Providence. Still, the presumption will always be that victory favours
the righteous cause, although it may be only _pro hac vice_, and
ultimate success may not crown the career of the victorious nation,
because its virtues may not have merited more than a signal and single
success;--or it may even be that its merits may be of a kind such as
to gain it a reward which transcends the rewards of earthly victory;
or, again, the career of victory must be explained and measured by the
depths of the final catastrophe and discomfiture.

In any case, it is a great thing for a nation to have won a victory
in a rightful cause. The reward of virtue remains and gladdens the
heart in the day of disaster and distress. Whatever may chance to us,
there will always lie in store for us the consolation of reading the
history of the battle of Waterloo; not, let us say, as the victory of
one nation over another nation, but as the great and final triumph of
a righteous over an unrighteous cause, gained by England. It is, thank
God! impossible alike for the conqueror and the revolutionary multitude
to destroy the Past.




                                 INDEX.

  Aboriginal races, their mysterious origin, 35.

  Acton, Lord, 251.

  Adam, supposed identity with Prometheus and Hercules, 42, 180;
    with Fohi, 64, 232;
    meaning of the word, 134;
    correspondence of, with Chaldæan god, Ana, 189.

  Adams, Mr Arthur, 348.

  Adaptability of law of nations, 410.

  Adonis and Venus, myths of, 396, 397.

  Adrastus, the legend of, 179.

  Æneid, the, of Virgil quoted, 212.

  Æschylus, the "Supplicants" of, quoted, 131.

  Africa, commemorative ceremonies of Deluge, 248, 250;
    Captain Burton's account of, 251;
    compared with Catlin's narrative, 254-260.
    _See also_ Deluge, Commemorative Festivals.

  Africanus, 95.

  Age of Bronze, the, 334, 335;
    commencement of, 336.

  Age, the Golden, 323;
    theory of and commencement, 323;
    tradition of, 328.

  Age, the Iron, 129.

  Agnatic relationship, 357, 358, 360.

  Algonquins, the, 152.

  Allies, Mr, on divergence between religion and philosophy, 108.

  America, the Mozca Indians of, 70;
    diluvian traditions in, 242;
    the "O-kee-pa" of the Mandans, 245, 246;
    Catlin's account of ceremonies, 254-262;
    the Peruvian deity, 186;
    Peruvian worship, 304.
    _See also_ Deluge, Commemorative Festivals.

  America, the discovery of, a proof of tradition, 324.

  American continent, source of peoples of, 263-266.

  American Indians, the legend of Michabo among the, 152, 153;
    tradition of fire among, 320.

  Amida or Adima, the Japanese god, 65.

  Amphictyonic Council and League, 361-365.

  Ana, a Chaldæan god, 187;
    traditional identity of with Adam, 189;
    a reduplication of Enu or Enoch, 192.

  Ancestors, worship of, 161, 205.

  Ancient society, the unit of, 339.

  Andamans, the, 308, 313.

  Andriossy's hypothesis regarding overflow of the Nile, 68.

  Anthisteries, the, 226.

  Antiquity of man, 91.

  Apollo, 241.

  Apotheosis of Nimrod, 160.

  Arab and Iroquois, exceptional instances of human progress, 33.

  Arba-Lisun, the, or Four Tongues, 184.

  Arbitration instead of war, 380.

  Areopagus, a cosmopolitic, 383.

  Argos, feast of the deluge at, 243.

  Argyll, Duke of, on tradition, 120, 123;
    on capability of savage races, 314.

  Arrival and conflict of different races in India, 35-38.

  Aryan nations in India, their struggle with the Santals, 36;
    their dialect, 36;
    Mr Tylor on, 41;
    one of the primitive races, 43;
    probable identity with Japhetic race, 43;
    their colour, 84;
    their mythology, 168.

  Ash, the, tradition regarding, 175, 176.

  Assemblies of Greece, the, 369.

  Assyrian history, corroboration of, 289.

  Assyrian mythology, 182;
    deities of, 183;
    Il or Ra, 185;
    L'Abbe Gainet on, 187;
    Ana, 187;
    Bil or Enu, 190;
    Hea or Hoa, 194;
    Nebo, 206.

  Asteropoeus, 252.

  Astral religion, 163.

  Astronomical cycle of China, 61.

  Athens, the Hydrophoria at, 244.

  Atlantis, the, of Plato an embodiment of tradition, 367.

  Autochthones, or earth-born, 131.

  Avocations of primitive life--hunter, husbandman, and shepherd, 33.


  Babylonian chronology, 57, 58;
    Hales on, 57.

  Bacchus, connection of, with Saturnalia, 214;
    reduplications of, 215, 216.

  Baldr, the legend of, localised and individualised, 171;
    in the Scandinavian Edda, 172;
    paralleled with an account of the Fall, 172.

  Ballad, Welsh, quoted, 253.

  Basis of international law, 11.

  Basis of theory of Golden Age, 323.

  Baskets of water, the, parallel accounts of by Burton and Catlin, 256.

  Bastian, M.A., on human progress, 75.

  Bath, the Marquis of, 408.

  Bel Nipru or Nimrod, 191.

  Belligerent Rights, 376, 377.

  Belus, the god, 133;
    identity of with Nimrod, 159.

  Bentham, on International Law, 3, 5;
    his peculiar crotchet, "utility," 6;
    on public opinion, 7;
    the "greatest happiness" principle, 13;
    criticism on Blackstone's views of primitive life, 54.

  Benthamism tested by Darwinism, 17.

  Berosus' account of Hoa, 327.

  Bertrand, M., legend concerning the man-bull, 203.

  "Bhilsa Tope," the, 252.

  Bifrons, a name applied to several gods, 220.

  Big battalions, 412, 413.

  Big canoe, the, parallel accounts of, by Burton and Catlin, 255;
    correspondence of to the canopied boat of Egyptians, 273.

  Bil or Enu, a Chaldæan deity, 190.

  Blackness of complexion, the result of the curse of Canaan, 79;
    associated with evil, 79;
    traditions regarding, 81, 82;
    a mark of inferiority, 84;
    how used by satirists, 85;
    operation as a curse, 89, 90.

  Blackstone on primitive life and a state of nature, 54.

  Boat, philology of the word, 196.

  Bochica, 325.

  Bolabola, declaration of war at, 388, 389.

  Bonzies, the, 270.

  Book of Genesis, the, 120.

  Book of Sothis, 95.

  Bougainville on divinities of the Tahitians, 315.

  Boulanger, M., quoted, 118;
    on diluvian tradition, 242, 243, 247, 262;
    on the Golden Age, 328, 329.

  Brace, Mr, his "Ethnology," quoted, 27, 37, 267.

  "Breach of etiquette," a, consequences of, 403;
    the ostensible pretext of Franco-German war, 404.

  Brigham Young and the Mormons, 18.

  _British Medical Journal_ on explosive bullets, 400.

  Bronze Age, the, 293, 334, 335;
    its commencement, 336.

  Bryant, Mr J., xi.;
    on creation of man, 133, 136;
    on the symbol of the bull, 203;
    on Dionusus, 215;
    on Noah and Janus, 219;
    his derivation of Juno and Venus, 392;
    on the dove, 395.

  Buddhist legend, 136.

  Buffaloes, Feast of the, 260.

  "Bull-dance," the, 254;
    parallel accounts of, by Burton and Catlin, 254.

  Bunsen, Baron, 37;
    on Chinese and Egyptian chronology, 58-62, 73;
    on Egyptian chronicles, 94-96;
    on tradition of creation, 132;
    on the Kabiri, 198;
    on Arya, 335.

  Burial customs among Mandans and Formosans, 268.

  Burial, mode of, common to several savage nations, 308.

  Burton, Capt. Richard, on Fetish, 80;
    on Dahome customs, 250;
    the bull-dance, 254;
    the big canoe, 255;
    the baskets of water, 256;
    the gourds or calabashes, 257;
    the "aged white man," 258, 259;
    customs at Whydat, 262.

  Burton, J. Hill, 3.


  Cadmus and alphabetic writing, 221.

  Caduceatores, the, 390.

  Cain, tradition in Tonga connected with, 82.

  Calmet on "Sem," or Shem, 207;
    on Saturn, 210.

  Canaan. _See_ Chanaan.

  Canada, Col. Macdonell's service in, xxiii., xxiv.

  Canaanite race, the correspondence between and aboriginal tribes
         in India, 39, 48;
    literal fulfilment of prophecy regarding, 40, 41, 83, 85.

  Canopied boat, the, of the Egyptians, 273.

  Carver, Mr, on Indian wars, 28;
    the Indian mode of declaration of war, 399, 401;
    Indian flags of truce, 405.

  Cashmir, tradition of Deluge in, 68;
    commemorative festival in, 69.

  Catholicism and Christianity, identity of, 113.

  Catlin, Mr G., on traditions of Creation among the Indians, 134, 138;
    of Deluge, 223;
    the "O-kee-pa," 245;
    the big canoe, 255;
    the baskets of water, 256;
    the gourds or calabashes used by the Indians, 257;
    the "first man," 258, 259;
    the "evil spirit," 260;
    water ceremonies, 262;
    on the pheasant, 266;
    description of a "whale ashore" at Vancouver's Island, 317;
    on the cranial development of the Flathead and Crow Indians, 318.

  Caverley's Theocritus quoted, 217.

  Centre of tradition, the, 339.

  Ceremony at Gorbio, 307.

  Chaldæa, early inhabitants of, 184.

  Chaldæan Pantheon, deities of the, 183.

  Chaldæan system of chronology, 57;
    religion, 163.

  Champagny, M. F. de, 404, 409.

  Chanaan, or Canaan, the curse of, 79;
    tradition of this curse among the Sioux Indians, 81;
    in Tonga, 82.

  Chandordy, Count, 405.

  Chaos in the Phoenician cosmogony, 174;
    the commencement of all things, 174-177.

  Chateaugay, xxviii.

  China, certain and uncertain history of, 58, 59;
    astronomical cycle of, 61;
    aboriginal tribes, 133;
    belief in, as to creation of man, 134.

  Chinese chronology, 58-65;
    confusion in, 65.

  Chinese tradition of first and second heaven, 328.

  Chin-nong, 240.

  Chippeways and Natchez tribes, institution of perpetual
       fire among, 320.

  Choctaw Indians, tradition regarding creation of man, 134.

  Christian doctrine, the foundation of, 142.

  Chronicles of Egypt, 93.

  Chronology, Egyptian, Palmer on, 92-104;
    the Sothic cycle, 96-100;
    various systems of, 101.

  Chronology, from the point of view of science, 72;
    Bunsen's views, 73;
    Lyell's, 73;
    Sir John Lubbock's, 73-75;
    Hales on, 85.

  Chronology, from the point of view of tradition, 55;
    historical testimony and evidence in favour of Scriptural, 55;
    Indian, 56;
    Babylonian, 57;
    Hales, Rev. W., on, 57;
    Chinese, 58-65.

  Chronos, Saturn as, 218.

  Cicero, on International Law, 10;
    "De Legibus" quoted, 368;
    the "Offices," 375.

  Civilisation, a state of, the primitive condition of man, 284.

  Civilisation, principles and teaching of, 339.

  Civilisation, progress of man to, 329, 331.

  Cognation and agnation among the Romans, 357, 358.

  Coincidences of the Bible with Sanchoniathon, 130.

  Coleridge, H. N., on oral transmission of tradition, 122.

  Coleridge, Rev. Henry J., 224;
    on conflicting elements of heathenism, 344.

  College, the Fecial, 373.

  Colour in man, persistency of, 77.

  Coloured cloth and feathers, emblematic of peace and war, 388-392, 398.

  Commemorative Festivals. _See_ Festivals, Commemorative.

  Comity of nations, restriction of the 379.

  Communal marriage, 51, 52.

  Commune, the, 110.

  Communistic schemes, 109.

  Comte and the Comtists, 112.

  Conflicting elements of heathenism, 344.

  Confusion of tongues, Hesiod on the, 334.

  Confusion of tradition of Enoch with Xisuthrus and Noah, 326.

  Conscience, Mr Darwin on, 2, 12;
    its subjective existence, 12;
    outward expression, 13.

  Constituent Assembly, the, of 1789, Montalembert on, 113.

  Cook, Capt., on customs at Huaheine, 271, 272;
    quoted, 298;
    on declaration of war at Bolabola, 388, 389.

  Copan, the peaceable people of, 29.

  Cosmogony, Roman ideas of the, 23.

  Cosmopolitic Areopagus, a, 383.

  Cox, Rev. G. W., xiv.;
    on mythology, 158, 165, 168;
    on myths of Venus and Adonis, 396, 397.

  Cranial development of Flathead and Crow Indians, 318.

  Creation of man, tradition of among Red Indians, 133;
    Max Müller on, 133.

  Creation, the, Mexican tradition of, 152, 153;
    Slavonian account of, 154.

  Creoles, the persistency of colour in, 77.

  Cunningham, Major, the "Bhilsa Tope," 252.

  Curse of Canaan, the, 79;
    traditions of, 81-85, 217.

  Customs of the Samoides, 28;
    at Huaheine, 271.

  Cycle, astronomical, of China, 61;
    the Sothic, 96, 98-100.


  Dagon, the god of the Philistines, 200;
    the Fish-man, 219;
    Mr Layard on, 238.

  Dahome, the "So-sin" customs of, 250, 251, 254-262;
    precedence of women in, 259.

  Dancing an Indian ceremonial, 302, 303.

  D'Anselme, Vicomte, on philology of Noah and boat, 196.

  Darkness, associated with the Serpent, 173;
    the parent of light, 174-177.

  Darwinism, Benthamism tested by, 17.

  Darwin on Conscience, 2, 12;
    and the utilitarians, 15-17.

  Davies, Rev. E., xi., 253.

  Day and night, used as symbols, 84.

  Declaration of war, the, 386;
    accompanied by religious formalities, 386, 387;
    method of, at Bolabola, 388, 389;
    at St Julian, 389;
    symbols used at, 389-392;
    Plutarch on, 397;
    traditionary modes of, 398-400;
    importance attached to forms of, 402;
    consequences of the violation of forms of, 406-411.

  Deities of the Chaldæan Pantheon, 183.

  "De Legibus" quoted, 10, 133.

  De Quincey, quoted, 383.

  Deluge of Deucalion, the, 224, 225, 229.

  Deluge of Ogyges, the, 229;
    anterior to that of Deucalion, 230;
    its date, 231.

  Deluge, the--traditions of, localised in China, 65-67;
    commemorative monument of, 67;
    traditions of, in Egypt, 67;
    in Cashmir, 68;
    among Sioux Indians, 81;
    among Tartar tribes, 135;
    L'Abbé Gainet on, 137;
    Phrygian legend of, 193;
    Phoenician legend of, localised, 198;
    Santal legend of, 199;
    Etruscan monument commemorative of, 204;
    connection of Saturn with, 210-212;
    of Ogyges and Deucalion, 222;
    traditions of, among Indian tribes, 223;
    Sanscrit story of, 224;
    its date, 231;
    traditions of, among Greeks, 230-235;
    Frederick Schlegel on, 233, 234;
    traditions of, in Africa and America, 242;
    Boulanger on, 242, 243;
    commemorative festivals of, 243-246, 252-262, 275-282;
    the dove and rainbow of, 393, 396.
    _See also_ Noah.

  "Democracy in America," Tocqueville's, 8.

  Demonolatry, 146.

  "De Rerum Natura" quoted, 334.

  Deucalion, 222;
    Mr Grote on traditions of, 224, 225;
    Max Müller on legend of, 226;
    Mr Kenrick on, 230-232, 241;
    connected with Hydrophoria at Athens, 244.

  Devil, the, belief in among savages 302.

  Devil-worship, 141.

  Diana, the temple of, 364.

  Diffusion of Hamitic races, 41.

  Dike and dikaspoloi, 347.

  Diluvian tradition.
    _See_ Noah, Deluge.

  Diluvian traditions in Africa and America, 242-282.
    _See_ Deluge. Festivals (commemorative).

  Diogenes Laertius' scheme of chronology, 101.

  Dionusus, identified with Noah, 215;
    the first king of India, 220, 221.

  Dionysia, 249.

  Discovery of America, the, a proof of tradition, 324.

  Dispersion, the, 329, 336; rise of government under, 342.

  Disraeli, Mr, on sceptical effects of discoveries of science, xvi., xvii.

  Distribution of races, 89.

  Divergence between religion and philosophy, 108.

  Divinities of the Tahitians, 315.

  Divinity attaching to forms, 402, 403.

  Dixon, Hepworth, his conversation with Brigham Young, 18;
    his views of human progress, 32.

  Donoughmore, Earl of, 408.

  Dove, the bird of Venus, 392;
    traditions of, 394-396.

  Duc de Grammont, the, 404.

  Dyaks and Javanese, contrast in colour, 81.

  Dyans, 170.

  Dyer, Dr, on the Sabines, 352;
    the temple of Diana, 364.

  Dynasties of Egypt, 97, 98, 102, 103.

  Dynasty of the Popes, 381, 382.


  Eastern Islanders, tradition among the, 200.

  Egg, the mundane, tradition of, 306;
    an emblem of the Creation, 307;
    the Mahabarata account of, 308.

  Egypt, chronology of, 92;
    its Chronicles, 93;
    dynasties of, 97;
    commemorative festival of the Deluge in, 249.

  Egyptian chronology, Palmer on, 92-104.

  Egyptians, the, canopied boat of, 273;
    Jewish rites and ceremonies borrowed from, 274.

  Ellis's "Polynesian Researches" quoted, 265;
    on Tahitian relics, 312.

  Endogamy, 45-47, 50.

  English socialists, 110.

  Enoch, result of his disappearance regarding Nimrod, 160;
    embodied traditionally in Chaldæan gods Ana and Enu, 192.

  Enu or Bil, a Chaldæan deity, 190;
    a reduplication of Enoch, 192.

  _Epi_metheus (afterthought) and _Pro_metheus (forethought), 180.

  Epochs of prehistoric archæology, 287, 288.

  Equality of the sexes, 109.

  Eratosthenes, 95;
    scheme of chronology of, 103.

  Eros and Iris, 394.

  Eschylus, the "Supplicants" quoted, 398.

  Esquimaux, the, 311.

  Ethnological difficulties, 89-91.

  Etruscan monument commemorative of the Deluge, 204.

  Etymologies--of _man_, 134, 227, 228;
    _Noah_, 196;
    _boat_, 196;
    _river_, 253;
    _horse_, 253, 255;
    _plough_, 255;
    names of metals, 290;
    _fire_, 321;
    _plough_, 335.

  Euridike and Orpheus, 173.

  European league, a general, 381, 382.

  European radicalism, 110.

  Eusebius' testimony to value of tradition, 120.

  Evil associated with blackness, 79.

  Evil Spirit, the, in Mandan ceremonies, 260.

  "Excursion," the, of Wordsworth quoted, 145.

  Exogamy, 45-47.


  Falconer's "Palæontological Mem.," 139.

  Fall, the, Lenormant on, 128.

  Family, the, 26;
    tendency to dispersion of, 27;
    gradual consolidation and expansion into tribes and then to
         states, 30, 31;
    the unit of ancient society, 339.

  Family tradition, confusion of, 116.

  Fatimala, the, 40.

  Feast of the Buffaloes, the, 260.

  Feathers, coloured, emblematic of peace and war, 389-392.

  Fecial College, the, 373;
    correspondence of, with Herald's College, 374.

  Federal union between Romans and Latins, 355.

  Feegees, the, religion among, 301;
    their characteristics and civilisation, 313.

  Fergusson, Adam, on the Six Nations, 365.

  Festivals, commemorative, of the Deluge, 66;
    in Cashmir, 69;
    among various nations, 243;
    the Hydrophoria at Athens, 244;
    the "O-kee-pa," 245;
    the Panathenæa, 248;
    the Dionysia, 249;
    in Egypt, 249;
    among the Mandan Indians, 250;
    the "So-sin" customs of Dahome, 250, 251;
    at Sanchi, 252;
    the "Bull-dance," 254;
    the "big canoe," 255;
    the baskets of water, 256;
    the gourds and calabashes, 257;
    the "first man," 258, 259;
    among the Santals, 262;
    among the Japanese, 268, 269;
    at Huaheine, 271;
    among the Egyptians, 273;
    among the Patagonians, 275-279;
    Pongol Festival of Southern India compared with Mandan and Dahoman
         ceremonies, 275-282.
    _See_ Deluge.

  Fetish, 80.

  Feuds and wars, origin of, 27-29.

  Fire, unknown to various ancient nations, 128, 129;
    knowledge of among savages, 318-320;
    Polynesian etymology of the word, 321.

  "First man," the, in Mandan ceremonies, 258, 259, 263.

  Fish-god, the, of Berosus, 202.

  "Fish, history of the," 197.

  Flag, the white, a symbol of peace, 391.

  Flags of truce, Carver and Count Chandordy parallelised, 405.

  Flathead and Crow Indians, the heads of, 318.

  Flint, use of, among ancient nations, 297.

  Fohi the great, 63;
    identified with Adam, 64, 232.

  Formation of States, 342, 343.

  Formosans, burial customs among the, 268.

  Foundation of law of nations, 412.

  Foundation of Christian doctrine, the, 142.

  Foundation of Roman law, 352-360.

  Four Races, the, or Kiprat-Arbat, 184.

  France against Austria, consequences of the war of, 407-409.

  Franco-German war, the, its ostensible pretext, 404;
    its abnormal character, 404;
    origin of traced to Congress of 1856, 406.

  Fresquet, De, on declaration of war, 386, 387.

  Fuegians, religion among the, 303, 304;
    the lowest race of savages, 313.

  Fulfilment of prophecy regarding Chanaan, 40, 41.


  Gainet, L'Abbé, on diluvian tradition, 137;
    on mythology, 159;
    on Chaldæan monotheism, 187;
    translation of the "History of the Fish," 197;
    on Deucalion, 228;
    on Mandan traditions, 272.

  Genesis, the Book of, 120;
    relation of traditions to, 127, 128, 130.

  Geological speculations, 233.

  "Gesta Romanorum," tale from the, 179.

  Gibbon, on the use of letters, 120;
    his "Decline and Fall," quoted, 120, 361.

  Gladstone, W. E., his "Juventus Mundi," 114;
    on the mythology of Homer, 162;
    on tradition, 182, 183;
    on impersonation of good and evil, 310;
    the key to the Homeric system, 332;
    the progress of Greek morality, 349;
    the Homeric age, 375.

  Gnostic sect, a curious, 154.

  Goguet, M., on origin of laws, 121;
    human progress, 128;
    kinship, 129;
    Janus, 219.

  Golden Age, the, and Noah, 323;
    basis of the theory, 323;
    its commencement, 323;
    under Saturn, 325;
    tradition of, 328;
    Boulanger on, 328, 329;
    Sir Henry Maine on, 351.

  Gorbio, curious ceremony at, 307.

  Gould, Mr Baring, xvi.;
    on "Origin and Development of Religious Belief," 140;
    summary of his views, 141;
    his views opposed to tradition, 142;
    partial recognition of the value of revelation, 147;
    on monotheism, 150;
    on the Samoyed superstitions, 155.

  Gourds and calabashes, the, used in Dahoman and Mandan festivals, 257.

  Govat, Charles E., his description of the Pongol festivals, 275-282.

  Governments, rise of, after Dispersion, 342.

  Gradual progress of religion among primitive peoples, 143, 144, 148, 154.

  Great Hare or Rabbit, tradition of the, 152, 153.

  Greatest happiness principle, the, 13, 16.

  Grecian mythology, 164-170.

  Grecian traditions of the Deluge, 230-235.

  Greek and Latin Leagues, 367.

  Greenwood's, Col. G., "Rain and Rivers," quoted, 233, 234.

  Grote, Mr, 30, 42; on importance of myths, 117;
    on Deucalion, 224.

  Grotesque belief of the Hindoos as to support of the Earth, 138.

  Guanches, religion of the, 305.

  Guinea, religious festival in, 303.

  Guinnard, M., his narrative of Patagonian ceremonies, 275-279.


  Hales, Rev. W., on chronology, 57, 85, 90.

  Ham, identified with Hoang-ti, 64;
    prosperity of, 85;
    tradition of his blackness of complexion, 86;
    Sir J. G. Wilkinson on, 86;
    Bacchus identified with, 215.

  Hamitic races, diffusion of the, 41;
    apostasy of, 160.

  Hea or Hoa, a Chaldæan deity, 194;
    the inventor of cuneiform writing, 195.

  Heathenism, conflicting elements of, 344.

  Heavens, First and Second, Chinese tradition of, 328.

  Helps, Mr, on worship of Peruvians, 304;
    his traditions of Peru compared with classical and oriental
         traditions, 325-327.

  Hercules or Herakles, supposed identity with Adam, 42;
    confusion of traditions regarding, 158, 180.

  Herodotus quoted, 33, 68.

  Hero-worship an early form of idolatry, 160, 161;
    among the Chaldæans a source of deification, 188, 190, 191.

  Hesiod and the Iron Age, 129;
    on the confusion of tongues, 334.

  Hetairism, 53.

  Heterogeneity, 46.

  Hieroglyphic of the Dove, 395.

  Hindoo laws of war, 400.

  Hindoos, curious belief as to the world's support, 138.

  "Historicus" (in _Times_) on International law, 384.

  "History of the Fish," 197.

  History of Western civilisation, Dr Newman on, 338-340.

  Hoa or Hea, 194.

  Hoa, account of, by Berosus, 327.

  Hoang-ti, 60, 63;
    identified with Shem or Ham, 64;
    with Noah, 65.

  _Home and Foreign Review_ on Belligerent Rights at Sea, 376, 377.

  Homeric Age, the, 375.

  Homer's Iliad quoted, 347.

  Hooker, Dr, on the beliefs of the Lepchas, 305;
    on the Khasias, 306;
    on the conduct of war, 400.

  Horrors of war, limitations to, 400.

  Horse, etymology of the word, 253, 255.

  Houacouvou, director of evil spirits, Patagonian festival in
       honour of, 277.

  Huaheine, customs at, 271.

  Human race, tradition of the, 105-153.

  Human society founded upon a contract, 21.

  Hunter, Mr, on Indian traditions, 29;
    on primitive life in India, 34, 36;
    on Aryan colour, 84;
    on Santal customs, 247, 262.

  Husenbeth, Very Rev. Dr, xv.

  Huxley's definition of Positivism, 113.

  Hydrophoria, the, at Athens, 244.

  Hyksos or Shepherds, dynasty of, 102.


  Identification of Noah with Saturn, 325.

  Identity of Christianity and Catholicism, 113.

  Il or Ra, the Chaldæan deity, 183;
    account of, by Rawlinson, 185.

  Iliad, the, quoted, 347.

  _Illustrated London News_ on Japanese religious festivals, 268;
    on ceremony at Gorbio, 307.

  Impersonation of good and evil, Mr Gladstone on, 310.

  Indian ceremonials, Washington Irving on, 302.

  Indian chronology, 56.

  Indian mode of declaration of war, 399, 401.

  Indian tribes, close resemblance of one to another, 77.

  Indian wars, their causes, 28, 29.

  Indians, Red, tradition regarding creation of man, 133;
    of the earth, by Michabo, 152, 153;
    ordeals and tortures, 247.

  Indians, traditions among Mozca, 70.

  Indo-Germanic races identified with descendants of Japheth, 42.

  Influence of Stoics on Roman law, 372.

  Inheritance through females, 52.

  Interfusion of ancestral and solar worship, 205.

  International Law, the _Tablet_ on, 3;
    Bentham on, 3, 5, 6;
    its origin and growth, 4;
    an unwritten law, 4;
    De Tocqueville on, 8;
    _Pall Mall Gazette_ on, 9, 11;
    Cicero on, 10;
    an "organised constraint," 10;
    analogy with law of honour, 11;
    original idea at its basis, 11;
    relation to utilitarianism, 14, 15;
    the _jus feciale_, 373;
    "Historicus" on, 384.

  International Society, the, 110.

  Invention of writing, 123.

  Inventiveness of savage races, Sir J. Lubbock on, 310.

  Ionian federation, the, 364.

  Iris and Eros, 394.

  Iron Age, the, 129.

  Iroquois, traditions regarding creation of man, 135.

  Irving, Washington, on Indian ceremonials, 302.


  Jacob, 151.

  James, W., xxiii.

  Janus, 217;
    derivation of January, 218;
    a double-headed god, 219, 220;
    identified with Noah, 326.

  Japan, commemorative festival of the Deluge in, 268, 269.

  Japanese legend of the bull and the egg, 257.

  Japetus, identity of with Japheth, 43.

  Japheth, fulfilment of prophecy regarding the race of, 41;
    their prosperity, 41;
    identity with Indo-Germanic races, 42.

  Javan, son of Japheth, identified with Yavana, 43.

  Javanese and Dyaks, contrast in colour, 81.

  Jenkins, Captain, xxvii.

  Jewish monotheism, 149.

  Jewish rites and ceremonies borrowed from Egyptians, 272-274.

  Juno and Venus, derivation of names of, 392.

  _Jus Feciale_, the, 373.

  _Jus Gentium_, the, 351, 353, 373.


  Kabiri, the, 197;
    Bunsen on, 198.

  Kant's scheme of a universal society, 383.

  Kenrick, Mr, on Manu, 228;
    the tradition of Deucalion, 230-232.

  Khasias, the, superstitions of the, 306.

  King, Captain, quoted, 265;
    on Sandwich Islanders, 315.

  Kinship through females, 46, 47, 51;
    Goguet on, 129.

  Kiprat-Arbat, the, or Four Races, 184.

  Klaproth, on Sanscrit history, 68;
    on the curse of Canaan, 83.

  Kronos, or Noah, 136.


  Lacordaire, L'Abbé, 4;
    on tradition, 105-107.

  Laertius', Diogenes, scheme of chronology, 101.

  Lamech, the story of, embodied in various traditions, 178, 179.

  Lapland tradition, a, 296.

  "Last Rambles," the, of Catlin, quoted, 134.

  Latin League, the, 355.

  Law connected with religion, 368.

  Law, International. _See_ International Law.

  Law of honour, the, 11.

  Law of Nations, the, an unwritten law, 4;
    Sir Henry Maine on the, 338;
    common to all nations, 345;
    testimony to in the Manx Thing, 347;
    ancient codes of, 350;
    the _jus gentium_, 351;
    origin of the phrase, 352, 353;
    the Amphictyonic Council, 361;
    primary objects of, 367;
    common source, 371;
    discussed on the basis of usage, 378;
    the _lex legum_ of mankind, 385;
    a modern transgression of, 405;
    the seizure of Papal States a flagrant violation of, 407-409;
    adaptability of, 410;
    foundation of, 412.
    _See_ International Law.

  Law of Nature, the, 20;
    question whether there is or is not a, 20;
    different solutions of this question, 20;
    Sir G. C. Lewis on, 22;
    Sir H. Maine on, 22, 25;
    what the Roman meant by it, 23;
    among the ancients, 23;
    a social compact, 23, 24;
    tradition of, 350;
    origin of the phrase, 352, 353.

  Law, unwritten, 369;
    Ozanam on, 370, 371.

  Laws, the first, of all nations, 121.

  Layard, Mr, on the man-fish, 238.

  League of the Ten Kings, 367.

  Legend of the tortoise, 138, 139;
    of Michabo, 152, 153;
    of the bull and the egg, 257.

  Legends of OEdipus and Perseus, 178.

  Legists of different nationalities, their agreement accounted for, 385.

  Lenormant, on Noe, 88;
    on the Fall, 128.

  Lepchas, the, curious legend of, 224;
    religion among the, 305, 307.

  Letters, the use of, a distinction between a civilised and savage
       people, 120.

  Levitical worship, the ceremonial borrowed from Egypt, 272, 273.

  Lewis, Sir G. C, on Law of Nature, 22, 24, 380.

  Light and darkness, as symbols, 84.

  Limitations to horrors of war, 400.

  Local tradition, persistency of, 117.

  Lower Egypt, dynasties of, 103.

  Lowest races of savages, the, 313.

  Lubbock, Sir John, on primitive marriage, 51;
    on the antiquity of man, 91;
    on _water_-worship, 252;
    on tradition, 283;
    his theory opposed to that of De Maistre, 287;
    division of pre-historic archæology, 287,288;
    untrustworthiness of tradition for evidence of history, 294;
    on religion among savage races, 299, 300, 308;
    his suppositions regarding inventiveness of savage races, 310-314;
    views supported by Duke of Argyll, 314;
    description of a "whale ashore" in Australia, 316;
    on the knowledge of fire, 318-321.

  Lucas, Mr Edward, xv.

  Lucretius' "De Rerum Natura" quoted, 334.

  Lyell, Sir C., xiii.;
    on human progress, 73, 123.


  Macaulay, Lord, on Benthamism, 13, 15;
    the dynasty of the Popes, 381, 382.

  Macdonell, Col. George, xii.;
    memoir of, xix.;
    parentage, xx.;
    an admirer of the Stuarts, xxi.;
    results of a letter to the War Secretary, xxii.;
    raises a regiment of Macdonells, xxiii.;
    service in Canada, xxiv.;
    the taking of Ogdensburg, xxv.-xxix.

  M'Lennan, Mr, on primitive marriage, 44;
    on marriage customs, 47, 125.

  Macrobius, on Janus Bifrons, 218.

  Maine, Sir Henry, xv.;
    on the law of nature, 22, 25;
    on the law of nations, 338;
    the unit of ancient society, 341;
    notions of primitive antiquity, 343;
    on ancient codes, 350;
    the _jus gentium_, 351;
    origin of name of law of nations, of nature, &c., 352, 353;
    the foundation of Roman law, 357, 358;
    his distinction between _jus gentium_ and _jus feciale_, 373.

  Maistre, Count Joseph de, his theory regarding the early races
         of man, 78;
    his view of tradition, 283-286;
    on the pontifical power, 381.

  Malays, traditions among the, 136.

  Malthus, Mr, theories regarding over-population, 17.

  "Man," Max Müller on derivation of the word, 134;
    its etymology, 227, 228.

  Man and the monkey, traditions connecting the, 136.

  Man-bull, the, traditions of, 203.

  Manco-Capac, 240;
    the lawgiver of Peru, 325;
    identity of with Quetzalcohuatl, 326.

  Mandan Indians, traditions among the, 134, 138;
    tradition of the Deluge, 191;
    commemorative festivals among, 250, 254-262;
    the Evil Spirit of, 200;
    source and origin of, 263-266;
    mode of burial of, 268;
    art of fortifying their towns, 314.

  Manetho, 94;
    system of chronology of, 95, 96.

  Man-fish, Mr Layard on the, 238.

  Manning, Dr. _See_ Westminster.

  Manning, W. Oke, 14, 384.

  Man's progress, from a savage to a civilised state, 32;
    exceptional cases of the Arab and Iroquois, 33;
    Lyell's views of, 73;
    Lubbock's views, 73, 75;
    Bastian's views, 75.

  Manx Thing, the, 347.

  Maritime Alps, local ceremony in the, 307.

  Marriage, primitive, 44, 125;
    customs, 47;
    communal, 51, 52.

  Maupertuis', M., account of a Lapland tradition, 296.

  Meaco, ceremony in the temple of, at Japan, 269.

  Meaning of the word Adam, 134.

  Melia, Very Rev. Dr P., xv.

  Memoir of Colonel Macdonell, xix-xxix.

  Memphis, 67.

  Menes, the first king of Egypt, 67;
    early legend regarding, 192;
    the first who put laws in writing, 295.

  Menu, Ordinances of, 40, 49.

  Metallic weapons of ancient races, 290, 293.

  Metallurgy of the ancients, Mr Vaux on the, 292.

  Mexico, the States of, 366.

  Mexicans, traditions among the, regarding creation of man, 133;
    of the earth, 153.

  Michabo, the legend of, among the American Indians, 152, 153.

  Mill, Mr J. S., quoted, 32;
    on the status of women, 109.

  Mistletoe, the legend of the, 172, 176.

  Mivart, Mr St George, xv.

  Modes of settlement into communities, 31.

  Monkey and man, traditions connecting the, 136.

  Monogamy, 124.

  Monotheism, Jewish, 149;
    Semitic, 170;
    Chaldæan, 187.

  Mosaic law, origin of, 359.

  Montagu, Lord Robert, M.P., xvi.

  Montalembert, De la, 4, 113;
    on results of Congress of Paris, in 1856, 406.

  Montesquieu, 384, 385.

  Montfauçon on Bacchus, 215;
    the declaration of war, 387.

  Mormons, the, 18.

  Mosaic authorship of Pentateuch, evidence of, 359.

  Mozca Indians, the, 70;
    tradition of Bochica among, 325.

  Müller, Mr Max, on Aryan dialects, 36;
    on Comparative Philology, 116;
    on derivation of the word _man_, 134, 228;
    nature-worship, 143;
    mythology, 165, 167-170;
    on legend of Deucalion, 226;
    "Comparative Philology" quoted, 393.

  Mundane egg, the, 306, 307.

  Myrmidon, 240.

  Mysterious origin of aboriginal races, 35.

  Mythological tradition among the Eastern Islanders, 200.

  Mythology, 157;
    source and origin of, 159-164;
    solar, 166;
    Rev. G. W. Cox on, 168;
    Max Müller on, 167-170;
    complications and confusion in, 171-181;
    Assyrian, _see_ Assyrian mythology.

  Myths connecting man with the monkey, 136.

  Myths, their importance, 117.


  Natchez tribes, institution of perpetual fire among, 320.

  Nations, law of. _See_ International Law, Law of Nations.

  Natural right, 5.

  Nature, law of. _See_ Law of Nature.

  Nature-worship, 143, 163, 173.

  Nazarians, the, a curious Gnostic sect, 154.

  Nebo, a Chaldæan deity, 206;
    resemblance of, to Shem, 207.

  Necessities of the pastoral life, 27.

  Negro, the, persistency of colour in, 77;
    subserviency of, 80.

  _Ner_, _soss_, and _sar_, Chaldæan periods of time, 57.

  Nergal identified with Mars, 164.

  Newman, Dr, 310, 323;
    on history of Western civilisation, 338-340.

  New Zealanders, curious tradition among, 139;
    their degeneration and retrogression, 321, 322.

  Nicolas, Mon. A., 107.

  Niebühr, quoted, 364.

  Nillson, Professor, on the Stone Age, 290, 292;
    quoted, 297.

  Nimrod, a powerful chieftain, 88;
    in the Chaldæan mythology, 158;
    identity with Belus, 159;
    his apotheosis confounded with Enoch's disappearance, 160.

  Nin or Ninip, the true fish-god, 200;
    identification with Noah, 202;
    emblem of, in Assyria, 203;
    note of Rawlinson on, 205.

  Noah (or Noe), identified with Shin-nong, 64, 232;
    with Oannes, 139;
    confusion of traditions regarding, 158;
    traditions of, among the Chaldæans, 183;
    philology of the name, 196;
    warlike epithets applied to, 202;
    correspondence of Nin to, 202;
    Nebo a counterpart of, 206;
    identifications of (with Xisuthrus) 208,
                       (with Saturn) 210-212,
                       (with Bacchus) 215,
                       (with Janus) 217, 326,
                       (with Ogyges and Deucalion) 222;
    the depositary of tradition and channel of law, 236;
    summary of evidence regarding traditional identifications, 236-241;
    and the Golden Age, 323;
    proofs of identity with Saturn, 325;
    associations of dove and rainbow with, 393, 396. _See_ also Deluge,
         Festivals, commemorative.

  Nomadic life, 27.

  Normandy, the Marquis of, 408.

  Notions of primitive antiquity, 343.

  "Num," the deity of Samoides, 155.


  Oannes, the mysterious fish, 199;
    the god of science and knowledge, 201.

  Oceanus, Saturn identified as, 217.

  OEdipus, legend of, 178;
    identified with Lamech, 178;
    corruption of the legend in the "Gesta Romanorum," 179.

  "Offices," the, of Cicero quoted, 373.

  Ogdensburg, the taking of, xxvii.

  Ogier, M. Pegot, on the worship of the Guanches, 305.

  Ogilby's "Japan," quoted, 268, 269.

  Ogyges and Deucalion, traditional connection of, with Deluge, 222.

  "O-kee-pa," the, a religious ceremony of Mandans, 245, 246.

  Old Chronicle of Egypt, the, 93;
    analysis of, 97.

  Opischeschaht Indians, ceremonies among the, 268.

  "Oracula Sybillina," the, quoted, 188, 195, 236, 237.

  Oral transmission of tradition, 121, 122;
    H. N. Coleridge on, 122.

  _Orbis terrarum_, the, 338, 339;
    nucleus of, 344.

  Ordeals among the Indians, 247.

  Ordinances of Menu, 40, 49.

  Oriental religions, Cardinal Wiseman on the, 154.

  "Origin and Development of Religious Belief," Mr Baring Gould
       on, 140-153.

  Origin and growth of International law, 4.

  "Origin of Laws," Goguet's, quoted, 128.

  Origin of Mosaic law, 359.

  Orpheus and Euridike, 173.

  "Orvar Odd's saga," 296, 297.

  Osiris, the judge of the soul, 189, 240.

  Over-population, Malthus' views regarding, 17.

  Ox Temple of Meaco, ceremony in the, 269.

  Ozanam, on Laws, 370, 371.


  Pachacamac, the Peruvian deity, 186, 304, 305.

  Pagan view of the social compact, 23.

  _Pall Mall Gazette_, the, on the Darwinian theory of conscience, 2, 12;
    on laws, 9, 11;
    on utilitarianism, 14, 18;
    on European radicalism, 110;
    on the custom of the Manx Thing, 347.

  Palmer, Mr William, on Egyptian chronology, 92-104, 159;
    on Osiris, 189.

  Panathenæa, the, 248.

  Pantheon, the, of the Egyptians, 159;
    of the Chaldæans, 163.

  Papacy, the, head of a general European league, 381, 382.

  Papal States, seizure of the, 407-409.

  Paralleled traditions, 254-262;
    customs, 268;
    festivals, 275-282, 325-327.

  Parlementaires, 405.

  Pastoral life, necessities of, 27.

  Pastoret's History, quoted, on Amphictyonic Council, 363, 364, 369.

  Patagonians, religious festivals among the, 275-279.

  Peace and war, symbols of, 388-392.

  Peacock, the, symbol of the rainbow, 388-392.

  Pelasgians, the, 361.

  Pelasgus, 240.

  Pentateuch, the Rev. W. Smith's work on, quoted, 272, 273, 359.

  Pentheus, the fate of, 217.

  Peopling of American Continent, how accomplished, 263-266.

  Persistency of colour in African races and others, 77.

  Perseus, legend of, 178.

  Persians, ancient tradition of the, 128.

  Peru, the deity of, 186.

  Peruvians, worship of the, 304;
    Garcilasso de la Vega on, 305.

  Pheasant, the, relation of, to the Mandans, 266.

  Philology, comparative, 116.

  Philosophy alone is not religion, 145.

  Phoenician tradition of Deluge, 211;
    cosmogonies, 132, 159.

  Phoroneus, the father of mankind, 90, 239.

  Phrygian legend of the Deluge, 193.

  Pinkerton's account of religion of the Samoides, 155.

  Plato, tradition of condition of families recorded by, 30, 332;
    his Atlantis, an embodiment of tradition, 367.

  Plough, etymology of the word, 255, 335.

  Plumtre's Æschylus, 390.

  Plutarch's "Numa," quoted, 397.

  Polyandry, regulated and rude, 48, 49.

  Polygamy, 125.

  "Polynesian Researches," quoted, 265.

  Polytheism and monotheism, 149-151.

  Pongol festival of Southern India, 275-282.

  Pontifical power, the, 381.

  Poole, Mr, 76.

  Pope, the, centre of a European league, 382.

  Pope's Odyssey quoted, 389.

  Poseidon, 240.

  Positivism, Huxley's definition of, 113.

  Posterity of Ham, the, 87, 88.

  Precedence of women in Dahome, 259.

  Pottery, the art of, an evidence of progress, 73, 311.

  Pre-historic Archæology divided into four epochs, 287, 288.

  Prayer and Punishment, expressed by same word by Latins, 286.

  Prescott's "History of Mexico" quoted, 309, 366.

  Prevost, Sir G., xxv., xxvi.

  Primary objects of Law of Nations, 367.

  Primitive condition of mankind, traditions regarding, from
       Sanchoniathon, 126, 284.

  Primitive life, 26;
    the family, 26;
    society and government, 26;
    necessities of pastoral, 27;
    origin of feuds and wars, 27-29;
    tendency to dispersion, 27;
    gradual consolidation, 30, 31;
    Mr J. S. Mill on, 32;
    progress from a savage to a civilised state, 32;
    the Arab and Iroquois exceptional instances, 33;
    distinctive avocations of hunter, husbandman, and shepherd, 33;
    in India, Mr Hunter on, 34, 36;
    exogamous tribes, 46;
    polyandrous families, 48;
    marriage, 49-51;
    views of Blackstone on, 54.

  Primitive marriage, Mr M'Lennan's theory of, 44;
    Sir John Lubbock on, 51.

  Primitive races, 43.

  Prophecy of St Malachy, 380.

  Progress of man to civilisation, 329, 331.

  Prometheus, supposed identity with Adam, 42;
    confusion of traditions regarding, 158, 180.

  Promiscuity, 47, 125.

  Pu-an-ku, the primeval man, 63.

  Public opinion, 6, 7.

  Purification and punishment, association of, 286.

  Pythagoras, 233.


  Quapaws, tradition of the, 29.

  Quetzalcohuatl, identity of with Manco Capac, 326.

  Quincey, De, 136;
    on Kant's scheme of a universal society, 383.


  Rabbit, the Great, tradition of, 152, 153.

  Races, primitive, 43.

  Radicalism, European, 110.

  Radien, the deity of Scandinavian mythology, 186.

  "Rain and Rivers," the, of Col. G. Greenwood, quoted, 233, 234.

  Rainbow, the symbol of peace, 392;
    tradition of the, 393-395.

  Ra or Il, the Chaldæan deity, 183;
    account of, by Rawlinson, 185.

  Ravana, 50.

  Rawlinson, Professor, xvi., 25, 30;
    on Babylonian chronology, 57, 58;
    on good and evil personifications, 83;
    identification of Nergal with Mars, 164;
    on deities of Chaldæan Pantheon, 183, 185, 190, 194;
    on Nin or Ninip, 205;
    on Noah, 239;
    corroboration of Assyrian history, 289;
    the use of metals, 293.

  Reduplication and confusion of deities, 190.

  Reduplications--of Yao and Hoang-ti, 65;
    of Enoch, 192;
    of Bacchus, 215, 216.

  Relics of Scriptural tradition in Greece, 182.

  Religion and philosophy, divergence between, 108.

  Religion of the Samoides, 155;
    among savage races, 299;
    the Tonpinambas of Brazil, 301;
    the Feegees, 301;
    among Indians, 302, 303;
    in Guinea, 303;
    among the Fuegians, 303, 304;
    among Peruvians, 304, 305;
    among Lepchas and Limboos, 305;
    among the Khasias, 306;
    among Andamans, 308;
    among Tahitians, 314, 315;
    among Sandwich Islanders, 315;
    in Vancouver's Island, 317.

  Religion, gradual progress of, among primitive peoples, 143, 144,
       148, 154.

  "Religion the representation of a philosophic idea," 141.

  Religious formalities on declaration of war, 386.

  Restriction of the comity of nations, 379.

  Revelation, primitive, 146, 147.

  Rites, Levitical, borrowed from the Egyptians, 272, 273.

  River, etymology of the word, 253.

  Rock, the Very Rev. Dr, 387.

  Roman Church, the _Spectator_ on, 110.

  Roman law, 351-353;
    influence of Stoics on, 372.

  Roman ideas of the cosmogony, 23.

  Romans and Latins, political union of the, 355.

  Rude and regulated polyandry, 48, 49.

  Ryley, Mr E., on Belligerent Rights, 376, 377.


  Sabines, the, 352.

  Sacrifices in the Temple of Neptune, 368.

  Sacrificial weapons, 293.

  St Julian, scene at, 389.

  St Malachy, ancient prophecy of, 380.

  Saluberry, General De, xxvii.

  Samoans, the, 313.

  Samoides, customs of the, 28;
    their religion, 155, 156.

  Samoyed traditions of Creation, 154, 155.

  Sanchi, commemorative festival of Deluge at, 252.

  Sanchoniathon, traditions from, 126;
    relation of, to Genesis, 127, 128, 130;
    on diluvian tradition, 211.

  Sandwich Islanders, religion among the, 315.

  Sanscrit literature, 56;
    etymology of the word _plough_, 335.

  Sanscrit story of the Deluge, 224.

  Santals, the, 35;
    struggle with the Aryans for the mastery, 36;
    traditions of, 223;
    customs of, 262.

  Satirists, use of blackness of complexion by, 85.

  _Saturday Review_, the, on Mr Gladstone's "Juventus Mundi," 114;
    on Indian traditions, 228.

  Saturnalia, the, 214.

  Saturn, identified as Nin, 201;
    traditional connection of, with Deluge, 210-212;
    reference to as Oceanus, 217;
    the inventor of agriculture, 325.

  Savage belief in the devil, 302.

  Savage races, vestiges of religion among, 299, 300.

  Scandinavian Edda, story of Baldrin, 172;
    quoted, 175.

  Scandinavian mythology, the deity of, 186.

  Sceptical effect of discoveries in science, xvi., xvii.

  Scheme of a universal society, Kant's, 383.

  Schemes, communistic, 110.

  Schlegel on tradition, 124;
    on Chaldæan mythology, 188;
    on Indian traditions, 199;
    on diluvian tradition, 233, 234.

  Scriptural chronology, historical testimony and evidence in
       favour of, 55.

  Scriptural tradition, relics of in Greece, 182.

  Scripture and tradition, 119.

  Scythians, the, 33.

  Seebohm, Mr F., xv.

  Semitic monotheism, 170.

  Serpent, the, associated with darkness, 173.

  Servitude in marriage, the law of, 109.

  Sethites and Cainites, 188.

  Shakergal, the feast of roses in Cashmir, 69.

  Shem, resemblance of Nebo to, 207.

  Shepherds, dynasty of the, 102.

  Shin-nong, the divine husbandman, 63;
    identified with Noah, 64, 232.

  Siethas, the, worshipped by the Lapps, 155.

  Sioux Indians, tradition among the, regarding blackness of
       complexion, 81;
    of creation of man, 134.

  Six Nations, tribes of the, 365.

  Slavonian account of the Creation, 154.

  Smith, Rev. Dr, on the Pentateuch, 272, 273;
    origin of Mosaic law, 359.

  Social compact, the, Pagan view of, 23.

  Socialists, English, 110.

  Society and government, elementary constituent of, 26.

  Society, human, founded upon a contract, 21.

  Solar and ancestral worship, interfusion of, 205.

  Solar mythology, 166, 172.

  "So-sin," the, commemorative festival in Dahome, 250, 254.

  _Soss_, _sar_, and _ner_, Chaldean periods of time, 57.

  Sothic cycle, the, 96, 98-100.

  Sothis, Book of, 95.

  Southern India, Pongol festival of, 275-282.

  "Spanish Conquest of America," the, of Helps, quoted, 304, 325-327.

  _Spectator_, the, on the Roman Church, 110.

  Spencer, Dr, 274.

  State of nature, a, 331-333.

  States, formation of, 342-343.

  Stephens' "Central America" quoted, 29.

  Stevens, Mr E. T., 269, 296.

  Stoics, the, their influence on Roman law, 372.

  Stone Age, the, untenable hypothesis of, 289;
    Professor Nillson on, 290, 292, 297;
    evidence in favour of, 296, 297;
    mode of burial in, 308, 309.

  Stripes of coloured cloth, emblematic, 388.

  "Struggle for existence," the, 16.

  Subjective existence of conscience, 12.

  Sudra, the, 40.

  Sun-worship, 154-156, 163.

  Superstitions of the Khasias, 306.

  "Supplicants," the, of Æschylus quoted, 131.

  Symbols of peace and war, 388-392.

  Syncellus, 94, 95, 97;
    quoted, 199.


  _Tablet, The_, quoted, 2;
    on Arbitration instead of War, 380;
    on position of the Papacy, 382.

  Tahitians, the, tools of, 290;
    religion and civilisation of, 314, 315.

  Tamanacs, tradition of the, 229.

  Tangaloa, the Tonga god, 82.

  Tartar tribes, tradition of Deluge among, 135.

  Tasman's "Voyage of Discovery" quoted, 298, 299.

  Tasmanians, knowledge of fire among the, 319.

  Taurus, 204.

  Taylor, Rev. Richard, on the New Zealanders, 321, 322.

  Temple of Diana, the, 364.

  Temple of Neptune, sacrifices in the, 368.

  Tendency of tradition to uncertainty and distortion, 115, 116;
    to reduplication, 209.

  Ten Kings, League of the, 367.

  Themis and Themistes, 346, 348, 349.

  Three stages of progress with man, 32.

  _Times, The_, quoted, 245, 380;
    on Franco-German war, 403.

  Tlascala, the republic of, 366, 367.

  Tlascopan, the kingdom of, 366.

  Tocqueville, De, on international law, 8.

  Tohil, the fire-god, 319.

  Tonga, tradition in, regarding blackness of complexion, 82.

  Tongusy, the religion of the, 156.

  Tonpinambas, the, of Brazil, 301.

  Topan, the idol, 269.

  Tortoise, curious belief regarding the, 138, 139.

  Tortures among the Indians, 247.

  "Totems and Totemism," 125.

  Tradition--among Mozca Indians, 70;
    of the human race, 105;
    Père Lacordaire on, 105-107;
    common origin of, 108;
    antagonism of religion to, 109;
    tendency of, to uncertainty and distortion, 115, 116;
    confusion of family tradition, 116;
    persistency of local, 117;
    unity of Scripture with, 119;
    Duke of Argyll on, 120;
    testimony of Eusebius to value of, 120;
    oral transmission, the main channel of, 122;
    Schlegel on, 124;
    Sanchoniathon on, 126;
    concordance and divergence in, 130;
    truth and persistence of, 131;
    of the creation of man, 131-137;
    intellectual strictures upon, 139;
    opposition of Baring Gould's views, 142;
    relics of scriptural, in Greece, 182;
    of the man-bull, 203;
    of the Deluge among American Indians, 223;
    among Santals and Lepchas, 224;
    the _Saturday Review_ on Indian, 228;
    Sir John Lubbock on, 283;
    De Maistre's view, 283-286;
    untrustworthiness and uncertainty of, according to Lubbock, 294;
    a Lapland, 296;
    capacity of savages for transmission of, 297-299;
    evidences of, in religion of savage nations, 301-306;
    of the mundane egg, 306-308;
    of fire, 319, 320;
    the discovery of America a proof of, 324;
    of Bochica among Mozca Indians, 325;
    Peruvian, compared with classical and oriental, 325-327;
    transfusion and intermixture of, 327, 328;
    of Golden Age, 328;
    of first and second heavens among Chinese, 328;
    of age of primitive equality, 332;
    coincidence of science with, 334;
    the centre of, 339;
    preservation of, under patriarchal governments, 343;
    of a law common to all nations, 345;
    of a law of nature, 350;
    the Atlantis of Plato an embodiment of, 367;
    of law connecting religion, 368;
    of the rainbow, 393-395;
    of the dove, 393-396;
    of modes of declaration of war, 398.
    _See_ also Deluge, Festivals, Noah.

  Traditions connecting man with the monkey, 136.

  Traditions, paralleled and compared, of diluvian customs, 254-262,
       268.

  Transition from Stone to Bronze Age, 293.

  Treaties, the violation of, 409, 410.

  Treaty of Paris, the, 403.

  Tressan, L'Abbe, on mythology, 208.

  Tribes of the Malay peninsula, 136;
    of the Six Nations, 365.

  Triptolemus, the inventor of the plough, 216.

  Truth and persistence of tradition, 131.

  Turanian race, their migrations, 37.

  Turditani, the, 240.

  Tylor, Mr E. B., xiv., 41;
    on myths connecting man with the monkey, 136;
    on Animism, 300.


  Union of Romans and Latins, the, 355.

  Universal society, scheme of a, 383.

  Unwritten laws, 369.

  Usage the basis of law of nations, 378.

  Untenable hypothesis of a Stone Age, 289.

  Urquhart, Mr D., 386.

  Utilitarianism and international law, 14, 15.

  "Utility," Bentham's peculiar crotchet, 6;
    the basis of his juridical system, 12.


  Vaivaswata, 197.

  Valdegamas, Marquis de, 112.

  Vancouver's Island, scene on, 317.

  Vaux, Mr, on metallurgy of the ancients, 292.

  Vega, Garcilasso de la, on Peruvian religion, 305.

  Venus, 396;
    myths of, 396, 397.

  Vestiges of religion among savage races, 299, 300.

  Vigne, Mr G. G., 64, 69.

  Violation of treaties, the, 409, 410.

  Virgil, lines of, on Saturn, 137;
    his Æneid quoted, 211;
    the Eclogues, 327.

  Virtue and vice personified as white and black in the Zendavesta, 83.

  Voltaire, the intellect of, 113.

  Voltairean prejudices against primitive records, 25.

  Vul, the son of Ana, 193.


  Wallace, Mr, 81;
    on man, 91.

  Wallis, Captain, 291, 389.

  Wallis, Mr J. E., 2.

  War and peace, symbols of, 388-392.

  War, the Declaration of, 386. _See_ Declaration of War.

  Warburton, E., on oral transmission of past events among the
       Indians, 121.

  Waring, Mr J. B., 308.

  Warlike epithets applied to Noah, 202.

  Water, etymology of the word, 253.

  Weapons of metal among ancient races, 290, 293.

  Weld, Rev. A., xiv.

  Weld, F. A., Governor of Western Australia, 297.

  Welsh ballad quoted, 253.

  Westminster, Archbishop of, xv.

  "Whale ashore," a, contrasted descriptions of, by Catlin and Sir John
       Lubbock, 316, 317.

  Whately, Archbishop, 283.

  White and black personifications of vice and virtue in the
       Zendavesta, 83.

  White flag, the, a symbol of peace, 391.

  Wilkinson, Sir J. G., on Ham, 86;
    his "Ancient Egyptians" quoted, 335.

  Wilson's "Archæologia of Scotland" quoted, 289, 293.

  Wiseman, Cardinal, 39;
    on the distribution of man, 82;
    the unity of Scripture with tradition, 119;
    the Oriental religions, 154;
    conformity of grammatical forms, 189;
    Jewish rites and ceremonies, 274;
    the growth of nations, 331.

  Wordsworth's "Excursion" quoted, 145.

  Women, their status, 109;
    precedence of, in Dahome, 259.

  Worship, mode of, among the Peruvians, 304.

  Worship of ancestors, 161, 205.

  Writing, its invention, 123;
    cuneiform, 195;
    Greece indebted to Cadmus for, 221.


  Xisuthrus, attempted identification of with Noah, 208.


  Yao or Yu, 65;
    erection of monument by, commemorative of the Deluge, 67.

  Yavana identified with Javan, son of Japheth, 43.

  Yokohama, religious festivals at, 268.


  Zendavesta, the, 83.

  Zeus, 169-171.


                   PRINTED BY BALLANTYNE AND COMPANY

                          EDINBURGH AND LONDON




                       BURNS, OATES & CO.'S LIST.


 =Narratives of Remarkable Conversions=; containing Mrs.
 Seton, Hermann Cohen, David Richard, Alphonse Ratisbonne,
 Comte Laferronays, &c. Cloth, 2_s._ 6_d._


 =Tales of the French Revolution.= Fcp., cloth, 3_s._
 This interesting volume contains eight Historical Tales,
 illustrating the Faith and Heroism of Clergy and Laity in
 those troubled times.


 =Christian Schools and Scholars.= By the Author of the
 "Three Chancellors," "Knights of St. John," &c. Two vols.
 8vo, 30_s._; cash, 25_s._ This important and interesting
 work should be in every library.


 =Life of St. Ignatius.= By Father BARTOLI, S.J. 2 vols.
 14_s._


 =Life of Blessed Charles Spinola=, S.J. By Father
 BROCKAERT, S.J. 6_s._


 =The Path which led a Protestant= Lawyer to the Catholic
 Church. By P. H. BURNETT. 8vo. 8_s._ 6_d._


 =Balmez' Fundamental Philosophy.= By BROWNSON. 2 vols.
 16_s._


 =Irish Homes and Irish Hearts.= By FANNY TAYLOR, Author of
 "Eastern Hospitals," "Tyborne," &c. Handsome cloth, 6_s._


 WORKS BY FATHERS OF THE SOCIETY OF JESUS.

 =Reply to Dr. Pusey's "Eirenicon."= By Rev. Father HARPER.
 8vo, 15_s._

 =Vita Vitæ nostri, Meditantibus= proposita. By the Rev. H.
 J. COLERIDGE. Cloth, 7_s._ 6_d._; calf, 10_s._ 6_d._

 =Life of Blessed Margaret Mary= Alacoque. By Rev. G.
 TICKELL. 7_s._ 6_d._

 =Sermons,= Part I. By Fathers COLERIDGE and HATHAWAY.
 2_s._--Part II. By Fathers GALLWEY and PARKINSON.
 2_s._--Part III. By Fathers PARKINSON, COLERIDGE, and
 HARPER. 2_s._

 Ditto, the Three Parts in One. Cloth, 6_s._

 =Union with Rome.= By Father CHRISTIE. 1_s._

 =The Church of St. Patrick.= By Father WATERWORTH. 2_s._
 6_d._

 =The Papacy and Schism.= By Father BOTTALLA. 2_s._ 6_d._

 =Infallibility of the Pope.= By the same. 10_s._ 6_d._

 =Reply to Renouf on Pope Honorius.= By the same. 3_s._
 6_d._

 =The Life and Letters of St.= Francis Xavier. The
 narrative and arrangement by the Rev. H. J. COLERIDGE.
 (Preparing.)


 =A'Kempis.= The following of Christ, in four books; a
 new translation, beautifully printed in royal 16mo, with
 borders round each page, and illustrative engravings
 after designs by the best German artists. Cloth, 3_s._
 6_d._; calf, 6_s._ 6_d._; morocco, 8_s._; gilt, 10_s._
 6_d._ Ditto, antique morocco, with clasp, and beautifully
 illustrated with numerous engravings, 25_s._


  =Vesper Book for the Laity.= This volume contains the
 Office of Vespers (including Compline and Benediction),
 complete for the first time for _every day in the year_,
 with the New Offices and Supplements. Roan, gilt edges,
 3_s._ 6_d._; calf, 5_s._ 6_d._; morocco, 6_s._ 6_d._;
 gilt, 7_s._ 6_d._ The same, in thin vellum, half an inch
 thick, same prices.


 =Lives of the Roman Pontiffs.= 4 vols. 4to, in half
 antique calf, 40 beautiful steel engravings, 4_l._ 4_s._;
 cloth, 2_l._ 18_s._


 =Butler's Lives of the Saints.= 4 vols. 4to, best edition,
 calf, 3_l._ 10_s._


 =Imitation of the Sacred Heart.= By Father ARNOLD, S.J.
 Calf, 8_s._; morocco, 9_s._; ditto, with flaps, 12_s._;
 illustrated with numerous engravings, antique morocco,
 gilt, with clasp, 25_s._


 =New Meditations= for every Day in the Year. By a Father
 of the Society of Jesus. New and revised edition. 2 vols.
 calf, 16_s._; morocco, 17_s._


 =Rodriguez' Christian Perfection.= 2 vols. calf, 12_s._;
 morocco, 14_s._


 =Manresa=; or Spiritual Exercises of St. Ignatius. Calf,
 6_s._ 6_d._; morocco, 7_s._ 6_d._; ditto, gilt, 8_s._ 6_d._


 =Practical Piety.= St. FRANCIS of Sales. Calf, 6_s._;
 morocco, 7_s._; ditto, gilt, 8_s._


 =Lyra Liturgica.= Calf, 7_s._ 6_d._; morocco, 9_s._;
 ditto, gilt, 10_s._


 =Spiritual Combat.= 16mo, calf, 6_s._; morocco, 7_s._;
 ditto, gilt, 8_s._


 =Formularium Sacerdotale=; containing the Form of erecting
 the Via Crucis; Blessing of Scapulars, Rosaries, &c.;
 Ritual of Admission into the Third Orders; and other forms
 useful to the Clergy. Edited by Rev. J. MORRIS. Cloth,
 2_s._ 6_d._


 =Fullerton's, Lady G.=, Life of St. Frances of Rome.
 2_s._; cheap edition, 1_s._ 8_d._--Laurentia, a Tale of
 Japan. 3_s._ 6_d._


 =Liguori= (St. Alphonso). New and improved Translation
 of the Complete Works of St. Alphonso, edited by Father
 Coffin:

 Vol. I. The Christian Virtues, and the means for obtaining
 them. Cloth elegant, 4_s._--Or, separately: (1.) The Love
 of our Lord Jesus Christ, 1_s._ 4_d._ (2.) Treatise on
 Prayer, 1_s._ 4_d._ (_In the ordinary editions a great
 part of this work is omitted._) (3.) A Christian's Rule of
 Life, 1_s._

 Vol. II. The Mysteries of the Faith--the Incarnation;
 containing Meditations and Devotions on the Birth and
 Infancy of Jesus Christ, etc.; suited for Advent and
 Christmas. 3_s._ 6_d._ Cheap edition, 2_s._

 Vol. III. The Mysteries of the Faith--the Blessed
 Sacrament. 3_s._ 6_d._ Cheap edition, 2_s._

 Vol. IV. Eternal Truths--Preparation for Death. 3_s._
 6_d._ Cheap edition, 2_s._

 Vol. V. Treatises on the Passion. Containing, "Jesus hath
 loved us," etc. 3_s._ Cheap edition, 2_s._

 St. Liguori's "JESUS HATH LOVED US," separately, _new and
 correct edition_, 9_d._ cloth.

 Visits to the B. Sacrament and to the B. V. Mary. An
 entirely new translation by the Redemptorist Fathers.
 1_s._ cloth; bound, roan, 1_s._ 6_d._; French morocco,
 2_s._ 6_d._; calf, 4_s._; morocco plain, 4_s._ 6_d._;
 morocco gilt, 5_s._ 6_d._


 =Little Flower-Garden,= or Tales for the Young. First
 Series. Price, in a packet, 2_s._; cloth, 2_s._ 6_d._
 Ellen's Dream, &c. Lucy's Pilgrimage. The Shepherd Boy.
 Requiescat in Pace. Little Adam. The Cherries, etc. The
 Rosary. No Virtue without Struggle. Little Martin. Tale of
 the Ardennes. The Two Mothers. The Two Italians.


 =Manna of the New Covenant=: Meditations for Communion. By
 the Rev. Dr. PAGANI. Cloth, neat, 2_s._ 6_d._


                          WORKS BY DR. NEWMAN.

 =The Grammar of Assent.= Cloth, 8_s._ 6_d._ _3rd Edition._

 =Verses on various Occasions=, now collected for the first
 time. Fcap. 8vo, 2nd edit., 5_s._

 =The Dream of Gerontius.= Separately, 6_d._; cloth, 1_s._

 =The Church of the Fathers.= New edition, 5_s._

 =Callista.= Fcap. 8vo, cloth, 3_s._ 6_d._

 =Loss and Gain.= Fcap. 8vo, cloth, 4_s._

 =Lectures on the Turks.= 4_s._

 =Occasional Sermons.= Fcap. 8vo, cloth, 6_s._

 =An Essay on Development.= 12_s._


 =The Life of S. Teresa=, written by herself: a new
 translation from the last Spanish Edition. To which is
 added for the first time in English THE RELATIONS, or the
 Manifestations of her Spiritual State which the Saint
 submitted to her Confessors. Translated by DAVID LEWIS. In
 a handsome volume, 8vo, cloth, 10_s._ 6_d._

     "The work is incomparable; and Mr. Lewis's rare
     faithfulness and felicity as a translator are known so
     well, that no word of ours can be necessary to make
     the volume eagerly looked for."--_Dublin Review._

     "We have in this grand book perhaps the most copious
     spiritual autobiography of a Saint, and of a
     highly-favoured Saint, that exists."--_Month._


=Life of St. Paula.= From the, French. With beautiful Frontispiece.
Small 8vo, 1_s._ 6_d._; neat cloth, 2_s._


=The Unity of the Episcopate= considered with reference to certain
Anglican Difficulties and Pretensions. By EDWARD HEALY THOMPSON, M.A.
Cloth, 4_s._

     The object of this work (a few copies of which remain
     on hand) is to show the necessary connection which
     subsists between the Papal Prerogatives and the
     Organic Unity of the Church.

=The Martyrdom of St. Cecilia=: a Drama. By ALBANY J. CHRISTIE, S.J.
With a Frontispiece after Molìtor. Cloth elegant, 5_s._


=Life of Mother Margaret, of the= Third Order of St. Dominic. _2nd
Edition_, 10_s._


=The Rivers of Damascus and= Jordan: a Causerie. By a Tertiary of the
Order of St. Dominic. Price 4_s._


=The Invitation Heeded=: Reasons for a Return to Catholic Unity. By
JAMES KENT STONE, late President of Kenyon College, Gambier, Ohio, and
of Hobart College. Cloth, 5_s._ 6_d._

     "Dr. Stone's book has a deep interest, both as a
     statement of his reasons for his return to Catholic
     Unity, and as one of the ablest, most learned, and
     satisfactory arguments for the Church that a convert
     from Anglicanism has given us.

     "As far as argument can avail anything against
     such an enemy, his book is the death-warrant of
     Anglicanism."--DR. BROWNSON in the _New York Tablet_.

 =The Hidden Life of Jesus=: a Lesson and Model to
 Christians. Translated from the French of BOUDON. Cloth,
 3_s._

 =Devotion to the Nine Choirs of= Holy Angels, and
 especially to the Angel-Guardians. Translated from the
 same. 3_s._


 =Disputationes Theologicæ= de Justitia et Jure ad Normam
 Juris Municipalis Britannici et Hibernicæ conformatæ.
 Auctore GEORGIO CROLLY, in Collegio S. Patricii apud
 Maynooth Sacræ Theologiæ Dogmaticæ et Moralis Professore.
 12mo, 7_s._ 6_d._


 =Faith and Reason.= A translation of the well-known work
 of the Abbé MARTINET, well adapted for circulation in the
 present day. 8vo, cloth, 5_s._ 6_d._


 =The New Testament Narrative=, in the Words of the
 Sacred Writers. With Notes, Chronological Tables, and
 Maps. A book for those who, as a matter of education or
 of devotion, wish to be thoroughly well acquainted with
 the Life of our Lord. What is narrated by each of His
 Evangelists is woven into a continuous and chronological
 narrative. Thus the study of the Gospels is complete and
 yet easy. Cloth, 2_s._

     "The compilers deserve great praise for the manner in
     which they have performed their task. We commend his
     little volume as well and carefully printed, and as
     furnishing its readers, moreover, with a great amount
     of useful information in the tables inserted at the
     end."--_Month._

     "It is at once clear, complete, and
     beautiful."--_Catholic Opinion._

 =The Countess of Glosswood=: a Tale of the Times of the
 Stuarts. From the French. 3_s._ 6_d._

     "The tale is well written, and the translation seems
     cleverly done."--_Month._

     "This volume is prettily got up, and we can
     strongly recommend it to all as an excellent and
     instructive little book to place in the hands of the
     young."--_Westminister Gazette._

     "An excellent translation, and a very pretty tale,
     well told."--_Catholic Opinion._

     "This is a pretty tale of a Puritan conversion in the
     time of Charles II., prettily got up, and a pleasing
     addition to our lending-libraries."--_Tablet._

     "This tale belongs to a class of which we have had
     to thank Messrs. Burns for many beautiful specimens.
     Such books, while they are delightful reading to us
     who are happily Catholics, have another important
     merit--they set forth the claims of Catholicism, and
     must do a vast deal of good among Protestants who
     casually meet with and peruse them. The book before us
     is beautifully got up, and would be an ornament to any
     table."--_Weekly Register._

 =The Agonising Heart=: Salvation of the Dying, Consolation
 of the Afflicted. By the Rev. Father BLOT, Author of "The
 Agony of Jesus." With approbation of the Bishop of Mans.
 Price 4_s._ 2 vols.


 =The Love of our Lord Jesus= Christ. Three vols. 8vo,
 31_s._ 6_d._ A translation for the first time of the
 standard work of ST. JURE.


 =The Glories of Mary.= By St. ALPHONSUS LIGUORI. Edited
 by the Rev. F. COFFIN, Provincial of the Redemptorists.
 New edition, cloth, 3_s._ 6_d._ This is the only edition
 which has the Work of the Saint entire, and in a correct
 translation.


 =The Raccolta of Indulgenced= Prayers. Translated (by
 authority) by the Rev. Father ST. JOHN. New edition,
 cloth, 3_s._ 6_d._; calf, 6_s._ Supplement to former
 editions, 6_d._--_Also, uniform_, =Sarra on Indulgences=,
 1_s._


 =Memorials of those who suffered= for the Faith in Ireland
 in the Sixteenth, Seventeenth, and Eighteenth Centuries.
 Collected from authentic and original documents by MYLES
 O'REILLY, B.A., LL.D. 8vo, cloth, 7_s._ 6_d._

     "A very valuable compendium of the martyrology
     of Ireland during the times of active Protestant
     persecution. The language of many of these original
     records is inexpressibly touching."--_Dublin Review._
     "Very interesting memories."--_Month._

 =The Doctrine of the Spiritual= Life. By Father LALLEMANT,
 S.J. New edition, 5_s._


 =A Harmony of the Gospels.= By the Rev. Father LAW, of the
 Oratory. 1_s._


 =Little Book of the Love of God.= By Count STOLBERG. With
 Life of the Author. Cloth, 2_s._

     "An admirable little treatise, perfectly adapted
     to our language and modes of thought."--BISHOP OF
     BIRMINGHAM.

 =Heroines of Charity.= Containing Popular Lives of

          Mme. de Miramion.
          Mme. de Pollalion.
          Mdlle. de Lamoignon.
          Louise de Marillac.
          Duchess de Aiguillon.
          The Sisters of Vincennes.
          Jeanne Biscot.
          Anne de Melun.
          The Little Sisters of the Poor.

 Cloth neat, 2_s._ 6_d._

            =17 & 18 Portman Street, & 63 Paternoster Row.=




                           Transcriber's Note

Footnotes in the original were numbered consecutively for each chapter.
They have been renumbered to be unique to the text. References to
notes below follow the newly numbered sequence. For those issues
which occur in footnotes, the page number refers to the page on which
the note begins.

The punctuation of many quoted passages is haphazard, with quotation
marks incorrectly or incompletely indicating the nesting thereof.
For example, Footnote 112 on p. 134 consists in part of a quotation
ending with "...the last work of the Creator." Here, the punctuation of
nested quotations is incorrect. It is not clear where the boundary
of the quote should be.

Unless the scope is very clear, no attempt has been made to correct
these lapses, and the text stands as printed. We note the following
paragraphs which remain as printed:

p. 134 n. 112  "The Chinese cosmogony...

p. 138 n. 116  "The Mandans believed...

p. 176 n. 142  In the _second_ ... fixed it at midnight."

p. 185         Ra is a god with few peculiar...

p. 191         Rawlinson says of this god...

p. 195 n. 154 _Vide_ his other epithets...

p. 216        Bachus is by some called...

p. 239        "He is said to have transmitted to mankind...

p. 254        "The chief actors in these strange scenes...

p. 258        It will be remembered...

              The opening scene in the Mandan customs...

p. 260        We shall not be surprised to learn...

p. 262        At Whydat ... white visitors.

p. 265 n. 224 "The Sandwich Islands...

p. 270        At pp. 477-78 there is perhaps...

p. 275        Mr Max Müller adds...

p. 327        "Amongst the Mexicans ... in the old world."

p. 387 n. 325 The Very Rev. Dr Rock...
              St Paul says...

p. 392 n. 333 _Vide_ also in Carver's...

This text is dense with citations, some of which seem incorrect.
For example, the reference to Genesis i. 2. on p. 234 is attributed
to "Gen. x.". No attempt was made to correct any attributions.

In note 305 on p. 364, the quoted passage from Pastoret's (ix, 170)
was corrupted, and is corrected: "On s'assembloit dans [au lien/un lieu]
sacré du Mont Mycale".

On p. 399, the name "Æschylus" appears, unaccountably as "OEschylos",
but is retained.

This text is generally followed as printed. Corrections are made
only where there are obvious printer's errors or where there
are numerous examples of a correct spelling. Where the issue appears
in quoted passages, no corrections were made. This includes foreign
language citations (French, Latin and Greek), where spelling and
accents, in particular, may not appear as expected.

In the index and advertisements, incidental inconsistencies of
punctuation are corrected without further notice.

The following table describes textual issues encountered during the
preparation of this text, and the resolution of each.

p. xxviii     occ[c]upy                           Removed.

p. 30         ethnic division.["]                 Added.

p. 61 n. 51   "Vues des Cordillères["],           Added.

p. 69 n. 56   (Sanskrit, pota = boat[)]           Added.

p. 70 n. 57   TO THE WATERS OF THE GREAT LAKE,
                 &c.["]                           Added.

p. 77 n. 63   the extent of the countries they    _sic._ Opening
                inhabit.["]                       quote missing.

p. 79         according to different [different]
              degrees                             Removed.

p. 83         a 'dark['] spirit                   Added.

p. 96         (1461 [+/×] 2) = 2922               Corrected.

p. 98         generations [  ], years             _sic._ Missing.

p. 111        acc[c]ounted                        Removed.

p  115        '_In the mountain the Lord will
              see_.[']"                           Added.

p. 109 n. 79  co[s]mopolitanism                   Added.

p. 118 n. 88  "L'Antiquite devoilée par ses
                 Usages["]                        Added.

p. 133 n. 110 M[u/ü]ller                          Corrected.

p. 135        are still living under the
                 ground.["]                       Added.

p. 195        [ ']arrow-head,'                    Added.

p. 203        'the chief of the spirits,[']       Added.

p. 205 n. 163 "Anacalypsis,['/"]                  Corrected.

p. 226        which owes it[s] origin             Added.

p. 228        mi[s]chievous                       Added.

p. 240        with two horns.["]                  Added.

p. 244        Montfau[c/ç]on                      Corrected.

p. 248 n. 209 noted also in the "Panathenæa.["]   Added.

p. 250        _kan_ (rope) 'gbe (to-day).["]      Added.

p. 252 n. 212 being the most common.["]           Added.

p. 262        which are thus described[?]         _sic._ ':'?

p. 266 n. 224 Hawaiki, [(]Sandwich Islands).      _sic._ ?

p. 267        in the branches of the trees["]     Added.

p. 267 n. 226 ["]The Indians resemble             Added.

p. 271        ["]gods Canon and Camis or Chamis;" Added.

p. 272 n. 230 divided into _four acts_["].        Added.

p. 284 n. 235 ['/"]Soirées de St Petersbourg"     Corrected.

p. 289        Lubb[u/o]ck's                       Corrected.

p. 304 n. 255 and "camac" participle of
               "camani," ["]I create."            Added.

p. 316        to [the] the reader                 Line break repetition.

p. 321 n. 265 (["]Traditions of the New
                  Zealanders")                    Added.

p. 341 n. 285 (Gen. xiii.)[]]                     _sic._ ?

p. 355 n. 294 (Niebühr, ii. ch. vi.[)]            Added.

p. 363 n. 304 ["]The oath taken by                Added.

p. 372 n. 309 ["]_L'Antiquité dévoilée par ses
               usages_                            Removed.

p. 385 n. 323 ne saurait assez reconnaître.["]    Added.

p. 387 n. 326 "_Droit Romain_,["] i. 48.          Added.

p. 390        the "caduceatores["]                Added.

p. 394 n. 334 Smith ("Myth. Dict."[)]             Added.

p. 421        Romans and [and ]Latins             Line break repetition.

p. 426        Norma[m/n]by                        Corrected.
              Go[q/g]uet's                        Corrected.





End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Tradition, by John Francis Arundell

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 47127 ***