Introduction to the History of Religions Part 9

+339+. The development of the custom appears most plainly in _Egypt_.[626] The identification of the king with Horus (apparently the ancient patron deity of Egypt) runs through the history down to the Persian conquest: he is called "Horus" or "Golden Horus," and sometimes (as, for example, Mentuhotep IV) "heir of Horus," or is said to sit on the throne of Horus, and has a "Horus name," the affirmation of his divine character; even the monotheistic reformer Amenhotep IV is called "Golden Horus." At the same time he is styled the "son" of this or that deity--Re, Min, Amon, Amon-Re, Osiris--according to the particular patron adopted by him; the liberal interpretation of such filial relation is ill.u.s.trated by the t.i.tle "son of the G.o.ds of the Northland"

given to one monarch. The king is "the good G.o.d"; at death he flies to heaven (so, for instance, Totmose III, of the eighteenth dynasty).

+340+. The official honorific character of divine t.i.tles appears as early as the fifteenth century, when Queen Hatshepsut is officially declared to be the daughter of Amon. By such an official procedure Alexander, though not akin to any Egyptian royal house, was declared to be the son of Amon; Ptolemy Philadelphus became the son of the sun-G.o.d, and his wife Arsinoe was made a G.o.ddess by a solemn ceremony. Possibly the recognition of the divine t.i.tle, in educated Egyptian circles, as a conventional form began at a relatively early time--the easy way in which a man was made a G.o.d may have been felt in such circles to be incompatible with real divinity. Nevertheless the cult of the divinized king was practiced seriously. In some cases the living monarch had his temple and retinue of priests, and divine honors were paid him.[627]

+341+. The case was different in the _Semitic treatment of kings_ styled divine. The custom of so regarding them is found only in early Babylonia. The evidence that they were held to be divine consists in the fact that the determinative for divinity (Sumerian _dingir_, Semitic _an_) is prefixed to their names in the inscriptions.[628] It appears that the determinative occurs at times during a period of about a thousand years (ca. 3000-2000 B.C.--the chronology is uncertain), and is then dropped. The data do not explain the reasons for this change of custom; a natural suggestion is that there came a time when the conception of the deity forbade an ascription of divinity to human beings. However this may be, the nominal divinization of kings seems not to have had any effect on the cultus. As far as the known evidence goes, the king seems never to have been approached with divine worship.[629]

+342+. It may be doubted whether the Babylonian usage can properly be called Semitic. As such a custom is found nowhere else in the Semitic area, and as the early Babylonian Semites borrowed much from the non-Semitic Sumerians (they borrowed their system of writing and some literary material), it is conceivable that they adopted this practice from them. There is, to be sure, no proof, except from the inscriptions, that the practice was Sumerian; but, as it is found in some Asiatic non-Semitic lands,[630] there is the possibility that it existed among the Sumerians, of whose history, however, we unfortunately know little.

It is to be noted that the cessation of the practice appears to be synchronous with the establishment of the first great Semitic dynasty at Babylon.

+343+. No ascription of divinity to men is found among the _Hebrews_.

The Elohim-beings (called "sons of G.o.d" in the English translation of the Bible) are G.o.ds. The code forbids men to curse G.o.d (not "judges")[631]--judges are not called "G.o.ds." There is nothing going to show that the old Hebrew kings were looked on as divine. Frazer's hypothesis that the king was identified with the G.o.d Adonis[632] is not supported by the statements of the Old Testament; the t.i.tle 'my lord'

(_adoni_) given him is simply the ordinary expression of respect and courtesy. He is "the anointed of Yahweh," as many ancient official persons (kings and priests) were inducted into office by the pouring of oil on their heads, but, as a mouthpiece and representative of the deity, he is inferior to the prophet; at best, flattery, such as that of the woman of Tekoa, might liken him to an angel.[633] The epithet _el gibbor_ (English Bible, "mighty G.o.d"), applied to a Jewish prince, must probably be rendered 'mighty hero.'[634] The t.i.tle 'G.o.ds' has been supposed to be given to men (judges) a couple of times in the Psalter,[635] but the reference there seems to be to Greek deities regarded as acting as judges.

+344+. The ascription of divinity to human beings is lacking in _Arabia_ also and among Semitic Moslems generally. The Ismailic and Babist dogmas of the incarnation of G.o.d in certain men are of Aryan (Indian) origin.

+345+. The _Chinese_ conception of the all-pervading and absolute power of the Universe naturally invests the emperor with divinity.[636] All human beings are supposed to possess some portion of the divine essence, but he alone, as head and representative of the nation, possesses it in full measure. He is theoretically perfect in thought, word, and deed, and is ent.i.tled not only to the reverence and obedience of his subjects, but also to their religious homage. Larger acquaintance with other peoples has doubtless led educated Chinese to regard him as only one among several great kings in the world, but for the people at large he is still practically a G.o.d. Other living men also are worshiped as divine.

+346+. The _j.a.panese_ formal divinization of the emperor appears to have begun with the establishment of the monarchy (in the sixth or seventh century of our era), but, like the Chinese, goes back to the crude conception of early times. It has been generally accepted seriously by the people, but has not received philosophical formulation. It is now practically given up by the educated cla.s.ses, and will probably soon vanish completely.[637]

+347+. Among the _Greeks_ and the _Romans_ the belief in the divinity of living men and women was of a vague character. In Homer the epithet _dios_ when applied to human beings (individuals or peoples) means little more, if any more, than 'of exalted character' (except in the case of mythical heroes, like Achilles, who were of actual divine parentage). At a later time such divinization was sometimes treated jestingly. If Plutarch may be accepted as authority,[638] Alexander did not take his own G.o.dhead seriously, did not believe in it, but allowed it merely for its effect on others. It was little more than a farce when the Syrian-Greek Antiochus II, for services rendered to a city, was called "Theos" by the grateful citizens;[639] it was the baldest flattery when Herod's oration[640] was greeted by a tumultuous a.s.sembly as the "voice of a G.o.d." Augustus, though he allowed temples and altars to be consecrated to him in the provinces, did not permit it in Rome, being, apparently, ashamed of such procedures.[641] The most infamous of the early emperors, Caligula, received divine honors in his lifetime by his own decree.[642] Apart from these particular cases, however, the general conception of the possibility of a man's being divine had a notable effect on the religious development in the Roman Empire.[643]

The custom, for example, of burning incense before the Emperor's statue (which faithful Christians refused to do), while it strengthened the idea of the presence of the divine in human life, doubtless debased it.

+348+. Deification of living men is not found in the great national religions of _India_ and _Persia_. Mazdaism, like Hebraism, kept the human distinctly apart from the divine: Ahura Mazda is virtually absolute, and Zoroaster and the succeeding prophets, including the savior caoshyanc, are men chosen and appointed by him.[644] Vedism developed the nature-G.o.ds, and in Brahmanism the goal of the worshiper was union with the divine, but not independent divinity; the muni by ascetic observances might attain a power equal or superior to that of the G.o.ds and feared by them,[645] but he remained (like the old magician) a powerful man and did not receive divine worship.[646] In recent times the followers of the Brahma-Samaj leader Sen are said to have worshiped him as a G.o.d[647]--apparently an isolated phenomenon, the origin of which is not clear. Buddha was purely human to himself and his contemporaries. The ascription of divinity to the Tibetan Grand Lamas is a product of the transformation of Buddhism under the influence of a crude non-Aryan population that retained the old conception of the essential ident.i.ty of nature of men and G.o.ds.

+349+. When chiefs and kings are divinized, offerings are usually made to them as to other G.o.ds; their cult becomes a part of the polytheistic system. But it is rare that they displace the old local deities or equal them in influence. Their worship pa.s.ses with the pa.s.sing of polytheism.

THE CULT OF THE DEAD

+350+. In the history of religion the veneration of the dead, as is remarked above, is more widely diffused and more effective than that of the living. We may distinguish between the cult of known historical persons after death (which is closely related to that of living men), the deification of mythical ancestors, and the worship of ghosts.

+351+. _Historical persons._ In simple communities commanding personalities that have impressed the imagination of the people by proofs of power and by conferring benefits on communities may not unnaturally receive divine honors after death. Lyall reports a case of this sort in recent times: the French officer Raymond in Hyderabad is said to have been worshiped as a G.o.d.[648] Other cases are reported as occuring in Samoa and in India.[649] Rivers mentions traditions among the Todas of Southern India which, he thinks, may vouch for the worship of G.o.ds who were originally men, but implicit reliance cannot be placed on such traditions.[650] Two apparently definite instances of deification are given by Ellis,[651] both of cruel kings (one dethroned in 1818), to whom temples with complete rituals are dedicated; but the deification in one of these cases (and probably in the other) was a deliberate act of political leaders, and not a product of spontaneous popular feeling. Two other local G.o.ds mentioned by Ellis were, according to the tradition, two men who began the trade that made Whydah the chief port of the west coast of Africa; but here also the tradition is not perfectly trustworthy.

+352+. Egyptian kings were regularly deified after death, being identified with Osiris; their cult, though not equal in sanct.i.ty to that of the G.o.ds proper, was still prominent and important.[652] It is probably to be regarded as a revision and magnification of the cult of the dead kin, combined with the desire to honor great representative men. No such custom is known to have existed among Semitic peoples, by whom a sharp distinction was made between the divine and the human. In India it was chiefly the ascetic sages that were religiously eminent, and in the prevailing pantheistic system these (as is remarked above), absorbing the divine essence, sometimes became as powerful as G.o.ds, but pa.s.sed after death into the cosmic All, and remained human. The Mazdean faith, like the Israelite, made it impossible to accept a deceased man as a G.o.d.

+353+. Examples of the occasional divinization of deceased men in the h.e.l.lenic world are given below.[653] In Rome the custom arose at a comparatively late period, and it was the work not of spontaneous Roman thought but of political philosophy.[654] The deification of the Roman emperors after death had its ground in the reconstruction of Roman life undertaken by Augustus. He recognized a principle of unification in the resuscitation of the old national religion, in which the people believed, whether he himself did or not. Religion in Rome was largely an affair of the state; the leaders of the public religion were great state officials. Augustus was made pontifex maximus, and it was only one step farther to elevate the chief magistrate to the rank of a G.o.d. The good sense of the time generally forbade the bestowment of this honor during the imperator's lifetime, but an apotheosis was in accord with the veneration paid to the manes and with the exalted position of the Emperor as absolute lord of the Western world.[655] Popular feeling appears to have accepted this divinization without question and in sincerity; educated circles accepted it as an act of political policy.

The elevation of Julius Caesar and Augustus to the rank of G.o.ds established the rule, and deceased emperors received divine honors up to the triumph of Christianity.[656]

+354+. In China, Confucius was deified as the special exponent of the state religion and the authoritative teacher of the principles of social and political life. His religious cult is practiced by the government (officially) and by the ma.s.ses of the people; how far it is sincerely accepted by the educated cla.s.ses is uncertain. In China and in j.a.pan the G.o.ds of war are said to be historical persons deified.

+355+. The divinization of the Calif Ali by some Shiah sects was the product of religious fanaticism under the guidance of Aryan conceptions of the incarnation of the divine.[657]

+356+. _Mythical ancestors._ Mythical ancestors are usually eponymous; the tendency in all ancient peoples was to refer their names and origins to single persons. Such an eponym was the product of imagination, a genealogical myth (h.e.l.len, Ion, Dorus, Jacob, Israel), and was revered, but was not always the object of a religious cult; such cults do not appear among the Semites[658] or in the native Roman rites. Nor does the custom seem to have originated in the earliest periods; it was rather a creation of quasi-scientific reflection, the demand for definite historical organization, and it appears first in relatively late literary monuments.[659]

+357+. Still later arose the worship of these ancestral founders. In Greece shrines were erected by various cities to their supposed founders, and where, as in Athens, the tribes had their eponyms, these received divine worship, though they never attained equal rank with the G.o.ds proper. From Greece this cult was brought into Italy. It was probably under Greek influence, and at a relatively late time, that Romulus was created, made the immediate founder of Rome, and took his place among the objects of worship;[660] on the other hand, aeneas (a Greek importation), though he was accepted as original founder, never received divine worship, doubtless because Romulus (nearer in name to the city Roma) already held the position of divine patron. The cult of eponyms tended naturally to coalesce with that of divine 'heroes'[661]--the two figures were alike in character, differing mainly in function, and eponyms were styled 'heroes.'[662]

+358+. The inverse process, the reduction of divine beings to simple human proportions, has gone on in early cults and in early attempts at historical construction to a not inconsiderable degree. Thus, to take a relatively late example, by Saxo Grammaticus and in the Heimskringla (both of the thirteenth century) the G.o.d Odin is made into a human king and the history of his exploits is given in detail.[663] It is, however, especially in the treatment of the old divine heroes, originally true G.o.ds, that the process of dedivinization appears. These figures, because of their local character and for other reasons, entered into peculiarly close relations with human societies, of which they thus tended to become const.i.tuent parts, and the same feeling that gave the G.o.ds human shapes converted the heroes into mere men, who are generally reconstructers of society. Examples of this sort of anthropomorphizing are found in myths all over the world: the Babylonian Gilgamesh; the "mighty men" of Genesis vi, 4, originally demiG.o.ds, the progeny of human mothers and of the Elohim-beings (the Bene Elohim, 'sons of the G.o.ds,'

members, that is, of the divine circle); Heracles and Hercules; the Scandinavian (apparently general Teutonic) Valkyrs, Nornas, and Swan-maidens.[664]

+359+. The Sicilian Euhemeros (of the latter part of the fourth century B.C.), after extensive travels to great places of worship, formulated the theory that all the G.o.ds were deified men. Some grounds for his theory he doubtless had, for, according to ancient opinion, G.o.ds might and did die, and their places of burial were sometimes pointed out (the grave of Zeus, for instance, in Crete). How far this view had been held before the time of Euhemeros is uncertain, but he gave it vogue, and it is called, after him, Euhemerism.[665] In recent times it has been revived in part by Herbert Spencer and Allen, who derive all G.o.ds from ghosts.[666] Similar to it is the rationalizing of myths, which has met with favor at various times.

+360+. _The dead kin._ Apart from the special cases mentioned above, the dead have been the objects of particular care in all parts of the world.

Some of the observances connected with them might perhaps, in themselves considered, be ascribed to natural affection. It cannot be denied that savages have some love of kindred, and this feeling, in conjunction with the ideas concerning the future state, might lead the survivors to do such things as it was believed would secure the comfort of the deceased--decent burial in accordance with tribal customs, and provision of food and attendants and other necessaries. But, while the existence and influence of natural human kindliness need not be denied, observation of savage life favors the conclusion that the greater part of the early usages connected with the dead have their origin in the desire to conciliate them, to avert their displeasure and gain their aid, and thus come to const.i.tute a cult of the dead that runs through all phases of civilization.[667]

+361+. Such usages must be very ancient, for they are found in the lowest tribes, and appear to be based on the earliest known conceptions of the nature of departed souls.[668] These latter are held to have all the ordinary affections of the living, but to be endowed with extraordinary powers: they have their likes and dislikes, their kindliness, jealousy, anger, revengefulness, all on the lower moral grade of undeveloped life; they are, in many regards, not subject to the ordinary limitations of the living--they are invisible, move swiftly from place to place through obstacles impervious to the living, enter their bodies, produce sickness and death, aid or destroy crops. On the other hand, they need food and other necessities of ordinary life, and for these things are dependent on the living. Hence the desirableness of securing their good will by showing them respect and supplying their needs, or else of somehow getting rid of them.

+362+. There are, then, two sorts of ghosts, or, more precisely, two sorts of ghostly activity--the friendly and the unfriendly--and corresponding to these are the emotions of love and fear which they call forth. On account of paucity of data it is difficult to say which of these emotions is the commoner among savages; probably the feeling is a mixed one, compounded of fear and friendliness.[669] In general it is evident that with the better organization of family life a gentler feeling for the dead was called forth; but it is probable that in the least-developed communities fear of the mysterious departed was the prevailing emotion.

+363+. Though the accessible evidence does not enable us to determine with certainty the motives of all savage customs connected with the dead, there are some distinctions that may be made with fair probability. To supply the dead with food and cooking-utensils may very well be, as is remarked above, the impulse of affection, and even where slaves and wives are slain that their ghosts may minister to the ghost of the master and husband, this may not go beyond pious solicitude for the comfort of the deceased. But the mourning-usages common with savages are too violent to be merely the expression of love; the loud cries and the wounding of the person are meant more probably to a.s.sure the deceased of the high regard in which he is held;[670] in some cases, as among the Central Australians, men gash themselves so severely as to come near producing death.[671] These excessive demonstrations are softened as general culture increases, and finally dwindle to an apparatus of hired mourners. A similar explanation holds of the restriction of food, the seclusion of the widow or the widower, and the rule against mentioning the name of the deceased: abstinence and silence are marks of respect.

+364+. Funeral feasts also testify respect:[672] they appear to be extensions of the practice of providing food for the dead, feasts in which the mourners, from motives of thriftiness, take part; the ghost consumes only the invisible soul of the food, and it is proper that what is left should furnish refreshment for the living.[673] The funeral festivities are sometimes protracted, and become occasions of enjoyment to the circle of kinsfolk, in some cases at a ruinous expense to the family of the deceased, as is true now sometimes of Irish and other wakes. The honor of the family is involved, and this fact, together with the natural desire for pleasure, has contributed to the development of the custom in savage as well as in civilized life. In general the solemnity of the various ceremonies and other usages testifies to a profound conviction of the necessity of keeping on good terms with the dead.[674]

+365+. The reports of savage customs show a certain number of cases in which the benevolent and the malevolent activities of the dead are equally prominent: so, for example, among the Australian Kurnai,[675]

the New Zealanders,[676] the Melanesian peoples,[677] the Vezimbas of Madagascar,[678] the Zulus,[679] the E?e-speaking tribes on the west coast of Africa.[680] It is probable that the list might be greatly extended by exact observation. When we find two peoples, dwelling near together and of the same grade of general culture, credited the one with fear, the other with friendly feeling toward the dead, it seems likely that different sets of usages have met the eyes of the observers; a certain amount of accident must color such reports.

+366+. It is natural to suppose that fear of ghosts is commoner among less-developed peoples, kindly feeling more usual in higher communities; and when civilized peoples are taken into account this sort of progression is obvious. But the reports of savages show such a mixture of customs that it is difficult to see any line of progress. Dread of ghosts is certified in Central Australia and North Queensland, in Tonga (Polynesia), Central Africa, Central Asia, among the North American Chippewas, Navahos, and Southwest Oregon Indians, and the South American Araucanians; friendly feeling is found in Tasmania, Western Africa, South Africa, California, and among the Iroquois and the Zuni Indians.[681] In such lists there is no clear sign of a division according to general culture.

+367+. Friendly relations with the dead do not in themselves necessarily involve worship, but a more or less definite _cult of ghosts_ is found in various parts of the world. They are, or were, regarded as tutelary spirits in Tasmania, Ashanti, and Dahomi (where shrines are dedicated to them), and by the Zuni Indians; prayers are addressed to them in Samoa and the Hawaiian Islands (where there is a definite family worship), in Yoruba, by the Banyas and the Zulus, by the Ossetes, the Veddahs of Ceylon, and the North American Dakotas; offerings are made to them--sometimes to influential persons, chiefs, and others, as in the Gilbert Islands, in parts of Melanesia, in Borneo, and by the Cakchiquels of Central America--sometimes to all the dead, as in the Solomon Islands, the New Hebrides, Fiji, Torres Straits, and by the Zulus, the Veddahs of Ceylon, the Kolarians of Bengal, and the Ossetes.[682]

+368+. These lists include peoples of very different grades of culture; the inference suggested is that the cult of the dead is of very early origin--its basis is the same among all communities that practice it, though the particular ceremonies of worship vary.

+369+. Besides forms of actual worship there are several usages that involve religious veneration of the dead. Graves are regarded as asylums by the Kafirs (graves of chiefs)[683] and in Tonga.[684] The Bedawin of Arabia held (in pre-Islamic times), and still hold, graves sacred;[685]

they sometimes become shrines, and oaths are sworn by them. The custom of swearing by the dead is widespread. In their character of powerful spirits they are agents in processes of magic and divination. Parts of dead bodies are used as charms. The skull especially is revered as an oracle.[686]

+370+. Among the lower tribes, savage and half-civilized, it is chiefly those who have died recently that are worshiped. A Zulu explained to Callaway that his people forgot those who died long ago--they were supposed to be not helpful--and hope of gain has always been the basis of worship. Among the Kafirs of the Hindu Kush it is the custom to erect an effigy to the memory of every adult one year after his decease.

Women, as well as men, are thus honored, and may be put on an equality with men by being given a throne to sit on. No worship is offered to these images, but it is believed that their presence brings prosperity; bad weather is ascribed to their removal. There are solemn dances in honor of the ill.u.s.trious dead and sacrifices are offered to them.[687]

+371+. The worship of the dead in the great civilized communities, though more elaborate and refined than the savage cult, is in substance identical with it. The Egyptians provided the departed soul with food and honored the dead man with laudatory notices of his earthly life; the royal ancestor of a king, it was believed, might act as mediator between him and the G.o.ds.[688] The Babylonians, while they lamented the departure of men to the gloomy existence in the Underworld, recognized the quasi-divine power of the dead and addressed prayer to them.[689]

The Hebrews offered food to the dead, had funeral feasts, and consulted ghosts who were regarded as divine.[690] The Hindu "fathers," though kept distinct from the G.o.ds, were yet conceived of as possessing G.o.dlike powers and were worshiped as G.o.ds.[691] The Persian "forefathers"

(_fravashis_), particularly the manes of eminent pious men, were held to be bestowers of all the blessings of life; offerings were made and prayers addressed to them.[692]

+372+. Early notices of a cult of the dead among the Greeks are scanty.

There was the usual kindly provision of food, arms, and other necessaries for them.[693] Odysseus in Hades pours out a libation (honey, wine, water, to which meal is added) to all the dead, addresses vows and prayers to them, and promises to offer to them a barren heifer on his return to Ithaca, and a black sheep separately to Teiresias.[694]

From the sixth century onward the references in the literature show that the worship of the dead (including children) was then general (and of course it must have begun much earlier). The offerings made to them were both vegetable and animal; the sacrificed animal was slaughtered in the same way as in the sacrifices to chthonic deities--the dead were, in fact, regarded as underground deities.[695] The flesh of the animals offered was not eaten by the worshipers.

+373+. Among the dead thus honored is to be included one cla.s.s of heroes. A Greek "hero" was sometimes an eminent man, sometimes such a man divinized, sometimes an old G.o.d reduced to human dimensions, reckoned in some cases to belong to the circle of the G.o.ds proper.[696]

Such personages might be worshiped as G.o.ds, with the sacrifices appropriate to the G.o.ds, or as departed men, with the sacrifices that custom fixed for the dead. The hero-cult included many men of note recently deceased, like Brasidas and those that fell at Marathon.[697]

+374+. The cults just mentioned dealt with the departed as friendly souls, the protectors of the family, the clan, or the state. The state cult of the dead was elaborate and solemn. The Greek citizen was surrounded by a host of the eminent dead who kept him in touch with the past and offered him ideals of life.[698] Another att.i.tude toward the dead is indicated by the great apotropaic spring festival, the Anthesteria of Athens, the object of which was to rid the city of the ghosts that then wandered about.[699] This double att.i.tude is precisely that of the savage tribes referred to above. The same difference of feeling appears in the Roman cults: the _manes_ are the friendly or doubtful souls of dead ancestors; the Parentalia is a festival in honor of the dead kin; in the Lemuria, on the other hand, the father of the family performs a ceremony at midnight intended to rid the house of ghosts.[700]

+375+. Among modern peoples it is the Chinese that have organized the worship of the dead in the completest way; it is for them the most important part of the popular religion.[701] Similar veneration of ancestors exists in j.a.pan.[702]

+376+. The venerated dead stood apart, as a rule, from the nature-spirits and the G.o.ds, but these different cla.s.ses sometimes coalesced, as has been remarked above, in popular usage. The powers and functions of the dead were not essentially different from those of the divinities proper, particularly in the simpler stages of society. They were able to bestow all the blessings and to inflict all the misfortunes of life. In process of time the advance of knowledge relegated them to a subordinate place, but they long retained a considerable importance as friends of families and states, as disseminators of disease, and as predictors of human fortunes.

+377+. In the exercise of these functions they were often not to be distinguished from the higher and lower deities. King Saul, on the eve of a great battle, having failed to get an answer from the national deity by the ordinary legitimate methods, had recourse to necromancy and obtained from the ghost of Samuel the information that Yahweh had refused to give.[703] The Greek _keres_ and the wandering ghosts of West Africa do exactly what is ascribed to the malefic spirits of Babylonia.[704] Examples of such ident.i.ty of function between the various superhuman Powers are found all over the world.

+378+. This fact does not show that these Powers have the same origin.

The savage accepts agents in human life wherever he can find them--in beings inhabiting mountains, rocks, trees, caves, springs, and in the souls of departed men. Doubtless he thinks of the forms of these various actors as being all of the same sort, a sublimated manlike body; but he keeps them in different categories, and in the course of time the tendency is for ghosts and spirits to sink out of sight and for the G.o.ds to absorb all extrahuman activities.