,,the ,,idea ,,of ,,god ,,in ,,early    
,,religions  by  ,f4 ,b4 ,,jevons1      
,,litt4,d4  ,professor of ,philosophy in
 the ,university of ,durham             
,cambridge3 at the ,university ,press   
#aiac  ,first ,edition1 #aiaj ,reprinted
 #aiaa1 #aiac        ,with the exception
 of the coat of arms at the foot1 the   
design on the title page is a           
reproduction of one used by       the   
earliest known ,cambridge printer1 ,john
 ,siberch1 #aeba     ,,preface   ,in    
,the ,varieties of ,religious           
,experience the late ,professor ,william
 ,james has said 7p4 #dfe73 ',the       
religious phenomenon1 studied as an     
inner fact1 and apart from              
ecclesiastical or theological           
complications1 has shown itself to      
consist everywhere1 and at all its      
stages1 in the consciousness which      
individuals have of an intercourse      
between themselves and higher powers    
with which they feel themselves to be   
related4 ,this intercourse is realised  

at the time as being both active and    
mutual4' ,the book now before the reader
 deals with the religious phenomenon1   
studied as an inner fact1 in the earlier
 stages of religion4 ,by 'the ,idea of  
,god' may be meant either the           
consciousness which individuals have of 
higher powers1 with which they feel     
themselves to be related1 or the words  
in which they1 or others1 seek to       
express that consciousness4 ,those words
 may be an expression1 that is to say an
 interpretation or a misinterpretation1 
of that consciousness4 ,but the words   
are not the consciousness3 the feeling1 
without which the consciousness does not
 exist1 may be absent when the words are
 spoken or heard4 ,it is however through
 the words that we have to approach the 
feeling and the consciousness of others1
 and to determine whether and how far   
the feeling and the consciousness so    
approached are similar in all           
individuals everywhere and at all       
stages4                                 

,f4 ,b4 ,,jevons4    ,,hatfield ,,hall1 
,,durham4       ,october1 #aiaj         
,,contents                              
,,page       ,,bibliography             
ix    ,i4 ,,introduction                
#a   ,,ii4 ,,the ,,idea ,,of ,,god ,,in 
,,mythology                             
#cj  ,,iii4 ,,the ,,idea ,,of ,,god ,,in
 ,,worship                              
#fj   ,,iv4 ,,the ,,idea ,,of ,,god ,,in
 ,,prayer                               
#ajc    ,v4 ,,the ,,idea ,,and ,,being  
,,of ,,god                              
#aeb       ,,index                      
#afg     ,,bibliography     ,allen1     
,grant4 ,the ,evolution of the ,idea of 
,god4 ,london1 #ahig4    ,anthropology  
and the ,classics4 ,oxford1 #aijh4      
,bastian1 ,a4 ,volks- und               
,menschenkunde4 ,berlin1 #ahhh4         
,bousset1 ,w4 ,what is ,religion8       
7,english ,translation74 ,london1 #aijg4
    ,crawley1 ,a4,e4 ,the ,idea of the  
,soul4 ,london1 #aiji4    ,fossey1 ,c4  
,la ,magie ,assyrienne4 ,paris1 #aijb4  

,frazer1 ,j4,g4 ,early ,history of the  
,kingship4 ,london1 #ahie4    ---- ,the 
,golden ,bough4 ,london1 #aijj4    ---- 
,psyche's ,task4 ,london1 #aiji4        
,gardner1 ,p4 ,modernity and the        
,churches4 ,london1 #aiji4    ,hobhouse1
 ,l4,t4 ,morals in ,evolution4 ,london1 
#aijf4    ,hoeffding1 ,h4 ,the          
,philosophy of ,religion 7,english      
,translation74     ,london1 #aijf4      
,hollis1 ,a4,c4 ,the ,masai4 ,oxford1   
#aije4    ---- ,the ,nandi4 ,oxford1    
#aiji4    ,james1 ,w4 ,the ,varieties of
 ,religious ,experience4 ,london1 #aijb4
    ,jastrow1 ,m4 ,jun4 ,study of       
,religion4 ,london1 #aija4    ,jevons1  
,f4,b4 ,introduction to the ,history of 
,religion4 ,london1     #ahif4    ----  
,religion in ,evolution4 ,london1 #aijf4
    ---- ,study of ,comparative         
,religion4 ,london1 #aijh4    ,lang1 ,a4
 ,magic and ,religion4 ,london1 #aija4  
---- ,the ,making of ,religion4 ,london1
 #ahih4    ,mackenzie1 ,w4,d4 ,the      
,final ,faith4 ,london1 #aiaj4          

,marett1 ,r4,r4 ,the ,threshold of      
,religion4 ,london1 #aiji4    ,mitchell1
 ,h4,b4 ,talks on ,religion4 ,london1   
#aijh4    ,nassau1 ,r4,h4 ,fetichism in 
,west ,africa4 ,london1 #aijd4          
,parker1 ,k4,l4 ,the ,euahlayi ,tribe4  
,london1 #aije4    ,saussaye1 ,p4,d4,c4 
de la4 ,religionsgeschichte4 ,freiburg  
i4 ,b41 #ahhi4    ,schaarschmidt1 ,c4   
,die ,religion4 ,leipzig1 #aijg4        
,thompson1 ,r4,c4 ,semitic ,magic4      
,london1 #aijh4    ,tisdall ,w4 ,st ,c4 
,comparative ,religion4 ,london1 #aiji4 
,transactions of the ,third             
,international ,congress of the ,history
 of     ,religions4 ,oxford1 #aijh4     
,tylor1 ,e4,b4 ,primitive ,culture4     
,london1 #ahgc4    ,westermarck1 ,e4    
,origin and ,development of ,moral      
,ideas4 ,london1     #aijf4    ,wundt1  
,w4 ,voelkerpsychologie4 ,leipzig1      
#aijd-f4     ,i  ,,introduction   ,every
 child that is born is born of a        
community and into a community1 which   
existed before his birth and will       

continue to exist after his death4 ,he  
learns to speak the language which the  
community spoke before he was born1 and 
which the community will continue to    
speak after he has gone4 ,in learning   
the language he acquires not only words 
but ideas2 and the words and ideas he   
acquires1 the thoughts he thinks and the
 words in which he utters them1 are     
those of the community from which he    
learnt them1 which taught them before he
 was born and will go on teaching them  
after he is dead4 ,he not only learns to
 speak the words and think the ideas1 to
 reproduce the mode of thought1 as he   
does the form of speech1 of the         
circumambient community3 he is taught   
and learns to act as those around him   
do--as the community has done and will  
tend to do4 ,the community--the narrower
 community of the family1 first1 and1   
afterwards1 the wider community to which
 the family belongs--teaches him how he 
ought to speak1 what he ought to think1 
and how he ought to act4 ,the           

consciousness of the child reproduces   
the consciousness of the community to   
which he belongs--the common            
consciousness1 which existed before him 
and will continue to exist after him4   
,the common consciousness is not only   
the source from which the individual    
gets his mode of speech1 thought and    
action1 but the court of appeal which   
decides what is fact4 ,if a question is 
raised whether the result of a          
scientific experiment is what it is     
alleged by the original maker of the    
experiment to be1 the appeal is to the  
common consciousness3 any one who       
chooses to make the experiment in the   
way described will find the result to be
 of the kind alleged2 if everyone else1 
on experiment1 finds it to be so1 it is 
established as a fact of common         
consciousness2 if no one else finds it  
to be so1 the alleged discovery is not a
 fact but an erroneous inference4  ,now1
 it is not merely with regard to        
external facts or facts apprehended     

through the senses1 that the common     
consciousness is accepted as the court  
of appeal4 ,the allegation may be that  
an emotion1 of a specified kind--alarm  
or fear1 wonder or awe--is1 in specified
 circumstances1 experienced as a fact of
 the common consciousness4 ,or a body of
 men may have a common purpose1 or a    
common idea1 as well as an emotion of1  
say1 common alarm4 ,if the purpose1 idea
 or emotion1 be common to them and      
experienced by all of them1 it is a fact
 of their common consciousness4 ,in this
 case1 as in the case of any alleged but
 disputed discovery in science1 the     
common consciousness is the court of    
appeal which decides the facts1 and     
determines whether what an individual   
thinks he has discovered in his         
consciousness is really a fact of the   
common consciousness4 ,the idea of      
powers superior to man1 the emotion of  
awe or reverence1 which goes with the   
idea1 and the purpose of communicating  
with the power in question are facts1   

not peculiar to this or that individual 
consciousness1 but facts of the common  
consciousness of all mankind4  ,the     
child up to a certain age has no        
consciousness of self3 the absence of   
self-consciousness is one of the charms 
of children4 ,the child imitates its    
elders1 who speak of him and to him by  
his name4 ,he speaks of himself in the  
third person and not in the first person
 singular1 and designates himself by his
 proper name and not by means of the    
personal pronoun ',i'2 eventually the   
child acquires the use and to some      
extent learns the meaning of the first  
personal pronoun2 that is1 if the       
language of the community to which he   
belongs has developed so far as to have 
produced such a pronoun4 ,for there was 
a period in the evolution of speech     
when1 as yet1 a first personal pronoun  
had not been evolved2 and that1         
probably1 for the simple reason that the
 idea which it denotes was as unknown to
 the community as it is to the child    

whose absence of self-consciousness is  
so pleasing4 ,for a period1 the length  
of which may have been millions of      
years1 the common consciousness1 the    
consciousness of the community1 did not 
discover or discriminate1 in language or
 in thought1 the existence of the       
individual self4  ,the importance of    
this consideration lies in its bearing  
upon the question1 in what form the idea
 of powers superior to man disclosed    
itself in the common consciousness at   
that period4 ,it is held by many        
students of the science of religion that
 fetishism preceded polytheism in the   
history of religion2 and it is undoubted
 that polytheism flourished at the      
expense of fetishism4 ,but what is      
exactly the difference between fetishism
 and polytheism8 ,no one now any longer 
holds that a fetish is regarded1 by     
believers in fetish1 as a material      
object and nothing more3 everyone       
recognises that the material object to  
which the term is applied is regarded as

 the habitation of a spiritual being4   
,the material object in question is to  
the fetish what the idol of a god is to 
a god4 ,if the material object1 through 
which1 or in which1 the fetish-spirit   
manifests itself1 bears no resemblance  
to human form1 neither do the earliest  
stocks or blocks in which gods manifest 
themselves bear any resemblance to human
 form4 ,such unshaped stocks do not of  
themselves tell us whether they are     
fetishes or gods to their worshippers4  
,the test by which the student of the   
science of religion determines the      
question is a very simple one3 it is1   
who worships the object in question8 ,if
 the object is the private property of  
some individual1 it is fetish2 if it is 
worshipped by the community as a whole1 
it1 or rather the spirit which manifests
 itself therein1 is a god of the        
community4 ,the functions of the two    
beings differ accordingly3 the god      
receives the prayers of the community   
and has power to grant them2 the fetish 

has power to grant the wishes of the    
individual who owns it4 ,the consequence
 of this difference in function is that 
as the wishes of the individual may be  
inconsistent with the welfare of other  
members of the community2 as the fetish 
may be1 and actually is1 used to procure
 injury and death to other members of   
the community2 a fetish is anti-social  
and a danger to the community1 whereas a
 god of the community is there expressly
 as a refuge and a help for the         
community4 ,the fetish fulfils the      
desires of the individual1 the self2 the
 god listens to the prayers of the      
community4  ,let us now return to that  
stage in the evolution of the community 
when1 as yet1 neither the language nor  
the thought of the community had        
discovered or discriminated the         
existence of the individual self4 ,if at
 that stage there was in the common     
consciousness any idea1 however dim or  
confused1 of powers superior to man2 if 
that idea was accompanied or coloured by

 any emotion1 whether of fear or awe or 
reverence2 if that emotion prompted     
action of any kind2 then1 such powers   
were not conceived to be fetishes1 for  
the function of a fetish is to fulfil   
the desires of an individual self2 and  
until the existence of the individual   
self is realised1 there is no function  
for a fetish to perform4  ,it may well  
be that the gradual development of      
self-consciousness1 and the slow steps  
by which language helped to bring forth 
the idea of self1 were from the first1  
and throughout1 accompanied by the      
gradual development of the idea of      
fetishism4 ,but the very development of 
the idea of a power which could fulfil  
the desires of self1 as distinguished   
from1 and often opposed to1 the         
interests of the community1 would       
stimulate the growth of the idea of a   
power whose special and particular      
function was to tend the interests of   
the community as a whole4 ,thus the idea
 of a fetish and the idea of a god could

 only persist on condition of becoming  
more and more inconsistent with1 and    
contradictory of1 one another4 ,if the  
lines followed by the two ideas started 
from the same point1 it was only to     
diverge the more1 the further they were 
pursued4 ,and the tendency of fetishism 
to disappear from the later and higher  
stages of religion is sufficient to show
 that it did not afford an adequate or  
satisfactory expression of the idea     
contained in the common consciousness of
 some power or being greater than man4  
,that idea is constantly striving1      
throughout the history of religion1 to  
find or give expression to itself2 it is
 constantly discovering that such       
expressions as it has found for itself  
do it wrong2 and it is constantly       
throwing1 or in the process of throwing1
 such expressions aside4 ,fetishism was 
thrown aside sooner than polytheism3 for
 it was an expression not only          
inadequate but contradictory to the idea
 that gave it birth4 ,the emotions of   

fear and suspicion1 with which the      
community regarded fetishes1 were       
emotions different from the awe or      
reverence with which the community      
approached its gods4  ,what practically 
provokes and stimulates the individual's
 dawning consciousness of himself1 or   
the community's consciousness of the    
individual as in a way distinct from    
itself1 is the dash between the desires1
 wishes1 interests of the one1 and the  
desires1 wishes and interests of the    
other4 ,but though the interests of the 
one are sometimes at variance with those
 of the other1 still in some cases1     
also1 the interests of the              
individual--even though they be purely  
individual interests--are not           
inconsistent with those of the          
community2 and in most cases they are   
identical with them--the individual     
promotes his own interests by serving   
those of the community1 and promotes    
those of the community by serving his   
own4 ,in a word1 the interests of the   

one are not so clearly and plainly cut  
off from those of the other1 that the   
individual can always be condemned for  
seeking to gratify his self-interests or
 his own personal desires4 ,that is     
presumably one reason why fetishism is  
so wide-spread and so long-lived in     
,western ,africa1 for instance3 though  
fetishes may be used for anti-social    
purposes1 they may be and are also used 
for purposes which if selfish are not1  
or are not felt to be1 anti-social4 ,the
 individual owner of a fetish does not  
feel that his ownership does or ought to
 cut him off from membership of the     
community4 ,and so long as such feeling 
is common1 so long an indecisive        
struggle between gods and fetishes      
continues4  ,now this same cause--the   
impossibility of condemning the         
individual for seeking to promote his   
own interests--will be found on         
examination to be operative elsewhere1  
viz4 in magic4 ,the relation of magic to
 religion is as much a matter of doubt  

and dispute as is that of fetishism to  
religion4 ,and ,i propose to treat magic
 in much the same way as ,i have treated
 fetishism4 ,the justification which ,i 
offer for so doing is to be found in the
 parallel or analogy that may be drawn  
between them4 ,the distinction which    
comes to be drawn within the common     
consciousness between the self and the  
community manifests itself obviously in 
the fact that the interests and desires 
of the individual are felt to be        
different1 and yet not to be different1 
from those of the community2 and so they
 are felt to be1 yet not to be1         
condemnable from the point of view of   
the common consciousness4 ,now1 this is 
precisely the judgment which is passed  
upon magic1 wherever it is cultivated4  
,it is condemnable1 it is viewed with   
suspicion1 fear and condemnation2 and   
yet it is also and at the same time     
viewed and practised with general       
approval4 ,it may be used on behalf of  
the community and for the good of the   

community1 and with public approval1 as 
it is when it is used to make the rain  
which the community needs4 ,it may be   
viewed with toleration1 as it is when it
 is believed to benefit an individual   
without entailing injury on the         
community4 ,but it is visited with      
condemnation1 and perhaps with          
punishment1 when it is employed for     
purposes1 such as murder1 which the     
common consciousness condemns4          
,accordingly the person who has the     
power to work the marvels comprehended  
under the name of magic is viewed with  
condemnation1 toleration or approval1   
according as he uses his power for      
purposes which the common consciousness 
condemns1 tolerates or approves4 ,the   
power which such a person exerts is     
power personal to him2 and yet it is in 
a way a power greater and other than    
himself1 for he has it not always under 
his control or command3 whether he uses 
it for the benefit of the community or  
for the injury of some individual1 he   

cannot count on its always coming off4  
,and this fact is not without its       
influence and consequences4 ,if he is   
endeavouring to use it for the injury of
 some person1 he will explain his       
failure as due to some error he has     
committed in the modus operandi1 or to  
the counter-operations of some rival4   
,but if he is endeavouring to exercise  
it for the benefit of the community1    
failure makes others doubtful whether he
 has the power to act on behalf of the  
community2 while1 on the contrary1 a    
successful issue makes it clear that he 
has the power1 and places him1 in the   
opinion both of the community and of    
himself1 in an exceptional position3 his
 power is indeed in a way personal to   
himself1 but it is also greater and     
other than himself4 ,his sense of it1   
and the community's sense of it1 is     
reinforced and augmented by the approval
 of the common consciousness1 and by the
 feeling that a power1 in harmony with  
the common consciousness and the        

community's desires1 is working in him  
and through him4 ,this power1 thus      
exercised1 of working marvels for the   
common good is obviously more closely   
analogous to that of a prophet working  
miracles1 than it is to that of the     
witch working injury or death4 ,and1 in 
the same way that ,i have already       
suggested that gods and fetishes may    
have been evolved from a prior          
indeterminate concept1 which was neither
 but might become either2 so ,i would   
now suggest that miracles are not magic1
 nor is magic miracles1 but that the two
 have been differentiated from a common 
source4 ,and if the polytheistic gods1  
which are to be found where fetishism is
 believed in1 present us with a very low
 stage in the development of the idea of
 a 'perfect personality1' so too the    
sort of miracles which are believed in1 
where the belief in magic flourishes1   
present us with a very low stage in the 
development of the idea of an almighty  
,god4 ,axe-heads that float must have   

belonged originally to such a low stage2
 and rods that turn into serpents were  
the property of the 'magicians of       
,egypt' as well as of ,aaron4  ,the     
common source1 then1 from which flows   
the power of working marvels for the    
community's good1 or of working magic in
 the interest of one individual member  
and perhaps to the injury of another1 is
 a personal power1 which in itself--that
 is to say1 apart from the intention    
with which it is used and apart from the
 consequences which ensue--is neither   
commendable nor condemnable from the    
community's point of view2 and which    
consequently can neither be condemned   
nor commended by the common             
consciousness1 until the difference     
between self and the community has      
become manifest1 and the possibility of 
a divergence between the interests of   
self or alter and those of the community
 has been realised4 ,further1 this      
power1 in whichever way it comes to be  
exercised1 marks a strong individuality2

 and may be the first1 as it is         
certainly a most striking1 manifestation
 of the fact of individuality3 it marks 
off1 at once1 the individual possessing 
such power from the rest of the         
community4 ,and the common consciousness
 is puzzled by the apparition4 ,just as 
it tolerates fetishes though it         
disapproves of them and is afraid of    
them1 so it tolerates the magician1     
though it is afraid of him and does not 
cordially approve of him1 even when he  
benefits an individual client without   
injuring the community4 ,but though the 
man of power may use1 and apparently    
most often does use1 his power1 in the  
interest of some individual and to the  
detriment of the community2 and though  
it is this condemnable use which is     
everywhere most conspicuous1 and        
probably earliest developed2 still there
 is no reason why he should not use1 and
 as a matter of fact he sometimes does  
use1 his power on behalf of the         
community to promote the food-supply of 

the community or to produce the rain    
which is desired4 ,in this case1 then1  
the individual1 having a power which    
others have not1 is not at variance with
 the community but in harmony with the  
common consciousness1 and becomes an    
organ by which it acts4 ,when1 then1 the
 belief in gods1 having the interests of
 the community at heart1 presents itself
 or develops within the common          
consciousness1 the individual who has   
the power on behalf of the community to 
make rain or increase the food supply is
 marked out by the belief of the        
community--or it may be by the          
communings of his own heart--as         
specially related to the gods4 ,hence we
 find1 in the low stages of the         
evolution of religion1 the proceedings1 
by which the man of power had made rain 
for the community or increased the      
food-supply1 either incorporated into   
the ritual of the gods1 or surviving    
traditionally as incidents in the life  
of a prophet1 e4g4 the rain-making of   

,elijah4 ,in the same way therefore as  
,i have suggested that the resemblances 
between gods and fetishes are to be     
explained by the theory that the two go 
back to a common source1 and that       
neither is developed from the other1 so 
,i suggest that the resemblances between
 the conception of prophet and that of  
magician point not to the priority of   
either to the other1 but to the         
derivation or evolution of both from a  
prior and less determinate concept4     
,just as a fetish is a material thing1  
and something more1 so a magician is a  
man and something more4 ,just as a god  
is an idol and something more1 so a     
prophet or priest is a man and something
 more4 ,the fetish is a material thing  
which manifests a power that other      
things do not exhibit2 and the magician 
is a man possessing a power which other 
men have not4 ,the difference between   
the magician and the prophet or priest  
is the same as the difference between   
the fetish and the god4 ,it is the      

difference between that which subserves 
the wishes of the individual1 which may 
be1 and often are1 anti-social1 and that
 which furthers the interests of the    
community4 ,of this difference each     
child who is born into the community    
learns from his elders3 it is part of   
the common consciousness of the         
community4 ,and it could not become a   
fact of the common consciousness until  
the existence of self became recognised 
in thought and expressed in language4   
,with that recognition of difference1 or
 possible difference1 between the       
individual and the community1 between   
the desires of the one and the welfare  
of the other1 came the recognition of a 
difference between fetish and god1      
between magician and priest4 ,the power 
exercised by either was greater than    
that of man2 but the power manifested in
 the one was exercised with a view to   
the good of the community2 in the case  
of the other1 not4 ,thus1 from the      
beginning1 gods were not merely beings  

exercising power greater than that of   
man1 but beings exercising their power  
for the good of man4 ,it is as such     
that1 from the beginning to the end1    
they have figured both in the common    
consciousness of the community1 and in  
the consciousness of every member born  
into the community4 ,they have figured  
in both2 and1 because they have figured 
both in the individual consciousness and
 the common consciousness1 they have1   
from the beginning1 been something      
present to both1 something at once      
within the individual and without4 ,but 
as the child recognises objects long    
before he becomes aware of the existence
 of himself1 so man1 in his infancy1    
sought this power or being in the       
external world long before he looked for
 it within himself4  ,it is because man 
looked for this being or power in the   
external world that he found1 or thought
 he found1 it there4 ,he looked for it  
and found it1 in the same way as to this
 day the ,african negro finds a fetish4 

,a negro found a stone and took it for  
his fetish1 as ,professor ,tylor        
relates1 as follows3--',he was once     
going out on important business1 but    
crossing the threshold he trod on this  
stone and hurt himself4 ,ha6 ha6 thought
 he1 art thou there8 ,so he took the    
stone1 and it helped him through his    
undertaking for days4' ,so too when the 
community's attention is arrested by    
something in the external world1 some   
natural phenomenon which is marvellous  
in their eyes1 their attitude of mind1  
the attitude of the common              
consciousness1 translated into words is3
 ',ha6 ha6 art thou there8' ,this       
attitude of mind is one of expectancy3  
man finds a being1 possessed of greater 
power than man's1 because he is ready to
 find it and expecting it4  ,so strong  
is this expectancy1 so ready is man to  
find this being1 superior to man1 that  
he finds it wherever he goes1 wherever  
he looks4 ,there is probably no natural 
phenomenon whatever that has not        

somewhere1 at some time1 provoked the   
question or the reflection ',art thou   
there8' ,and it is because man has taken
 upon himself to answer the question1   
and to say3 ',thou art there1 in the    
great and strong wind which rends the   
mountains2 or1 in the earthquake2 or1 in
 the fire' that polytheism has arisen4  
,perhaps1 however1 we should rather use 
the word 'polydaemonism' than           
'polytheism4' ,by a god is usually meant
 a being who has come to possess a      
proper name2 and1 probably1 a spirit is 
worshipped for some considerable time1  
before the appellative1 by which he is  
addressed1 loses its original meaning1  
and comes to be the proper name by which
 he1 and he alone1 is addressed4        
,certainly1 the stage in which spirits  
without proper names are worshipped     
seems to be more primitive than that in 
which the being worshipped is a god1    
having a proper name of his own4 ,and   
the difference between the two stages of
 polydaemonism and polytheism is not    

merely limited to the fact that the     
beings worshipped have proper names in  
the later stage1 and had none in the    
earlier4 ,a development or a difference 
in language implies a development or    
difference in thought4 ,if the being or 
spirit worshipped has come to be        
designated by a proper name1 he has lost
 much of the vagueness that             
characterises a nameless spirit1 and he 
has come to be much more definite and   
much more personal4 ,indeed1 a change   
much more sinister1 from the religious  
point of view1 is wrought1 when the     
transition from polydaemonism to        
polytheism is accomplished4  ,in the    
stage of human evolution known as       
animism1 everything which acts--or is   
supposed to act--is supposed to be1 like
 man himself1 a person4 ,but though1 in 
the animistic stage1 all powers are     
conceived by man as being persons1 they 
are not all conceived as having human   
form3 they may be animals1 and have     
animal forms2 or birds1 and have        

bird-form2 they may be trees1 clouds1   
streams1 the wind1 the earthquake or the
 fire4 ,in some1 or rather in all1 of   
these1 man has at some time found the   
being or the power1 greater than man1 of
 whom he has at all times been in quest1
 with the enquiry1 addressed to each in 
turn1 ',art thou there8' ,the form of   
the question1 the use of the personal   
pronoun1 shows that he is seeking for a 
person4 ,and students of the science of 
religion are generally agreed that man1 
throughout the history of religion1 has 
been seeking for a power or being       
superior to man and greater than he4 ,it
 is therefore a personal power and a    
personal being that man has been in     
search of1 throughout his religious     
history4 ,he has pushed his search in   
many directions--often simultaneously in
 different directions2 and1 he has      
abandoned one line of enquiry after     
another1 because he has found that it   
did not lead him whither he would be4   
,thus1 as we have seen1 he pushed       

forward1 at the same time1 in the       
direction of fetishism and of           
polytheism1 or rather of polydaemonism2 
but fetishism failed to bring him       
satisfaction1 or rather failed to       
satisfy the common consciousness1 the   
consciousness of the community1 because 
it proved on trial to subserve the      
wishes--the anti-social wishes--of the  
individual1 and not the interests of the
 community4 ,the beings or powers that  
man looked to find and which he supposed
 he found1 whether as fetishes in this  
or that object1 or as daemons in the    
sky1 the fire or the wind1 in beast or  
bird or tree1 were taken to be personal 
beings and personal powers1 bearing the 
same relation to that in which1 or      
through which1 they manifested          
themselves1 as man bears to his body4   
,they do not seem to have been conceived
 as being men1 or the souls of men which
 manifested themselves in animals or    
trees4 ,at the time when polydaemonism  
has1 as yet1 not become polytheism1 the 

personal beings1 worshipped in this or  
that external form1 have not as yet been
 anthropomorphised4 ,indeed1 the process
 which constitutes the change from      
polydaemonism to polytheism consists in 
the process1 or rather is the process1  
by which the spirits1 the personal      
beings1 worshipped in tree1 or sky1 or  
cloud1 or wind1 or fire came gradually  
to be anthropomorphised--to be invested 
with human parts and passions and to be 
addressed like human beings with proper 
names4 ,but when anthropomorphic        
polytheism is thus pushed to its extreme
 logical conclusions1 its tendency is to
 collapse in the same way1 and for the  
same reasons1 as fetishism1 before it1  
had collapsed4 ,what man had been in    
search of1 from the beginning1 and was  
still in search of1 was some personal   
being or power1 higher than and superior
 to man4 ,what anthropomorphic          
polytheism presented him with1 in the   
upshot1 was with beings1 not superior1  
but1 in some or many cases1 undeniably  

inferior to man4 ,as such they could not
 thenceforth be worshipped4 ,in ,europe 
their worship was overthrown by         
,christianity4 ,but1 on reflection1 it  
seems clear not only that1 as such1 they
 could not thenceforth be worshipped2   
but that1 as such1 they never had been  
worshipped4 ,in the consciousness of the
 community1 the object of worship had   
always been1 from the beginning1 some   
personal being superior to man4 ,the    
apostle of ,christianity might          
justifiably speak to polytheists of the 
,god 'whom ye ignorantly worship4' ,it  
is true1 and it is important to notice1 
that the sacrifices and the rites and   
ceremonies1 which together made up the  
service of worship1 had been consciously
 and intentionally rendered to deities  
represented in human form2 and1 in this 
sense1 anthropomorphic deities had been 
worshipped4 ,but1 if worship is         
something other than sacrifice and rite 
and ceremony1 then the object of        
worship--the personal being1 greater    

than man--presented to the common       
consciousness1 is something other than  
the anthropomorphic being1 inferior in  
much to man1 of whom poets speak in     
mythology and whom artists represent in 
bodily shape4  ,just as fetishism       
developed and persisted1 because it did 
contain1 though it perverted1 one       
element of religious truth--the         
accessibility of the power worshipped to
 the worshipper--so too                 
anthropomorphism1 notwithstanding the   
consequences to which1 in mythology1 it 
led1 did contain1 or rather1 was based  
on1 one element of truth1 viz4 that the 
divine is personal1 as well as the      
human4 ,its error was to set up1 as     
divine personalities1 a number of       
reproductions or reflections of human   
personality4 ,it leads to the           
conclusion1 as a necessary consequence1 
that the divine personality is but a    
shadow of the human personality1        
enlarged and projected1 so to speak1    
upon the clouds1 but always betraying1  

in some way or other1 the fact that it  
is but the shadow1 magnified or         
distorted1 of man4 ,it excludes the     
possibility that the divine personality1
 present to the common consciousness as 
the object of worship1 may be no        
reproduction of the human personality1  
but a reality to which the human        
personality has the power of            
approximating4 ,be this as it may1 we   
are justified in saying1 indeed we are  
compelled to recognise1 that in         
mythology1 all the world over1 we see a 
process of reflection at work1 by which 
the beings1 originally apprehended as   
superior to man1 come first to be       
anthropomorphised1 that is to be        
apprehended as having the parts and     
passions of men1 and then1 consequently1
 to be seen to be no better than men4   
,this discovery it is which in the long 
run proves fatal to anthropomorphism4   
,we have seen1 above1 the reason why    
fetishism becomes eventually distasteful
 to the common consciousness3 the       

beings1 superior to man1 which are      
worshipped by the community1 are        
worshipped as having the interests of   
the community in their charge1 and as   
having the good of the community at     
heart2 whereas a fetish is sought and   
found by the individual1 to advance his 
private interests1 even to the cost and 
loss of other individuals and of the    
community at large4 ,thus1 from the     
earliest period at which beings1        
superior to man1 are differentiated into
 gods and fetishes1 gods are accepted by
 the common consciousness as beings who 
maintain the good of the community and  
punish those who infringe it2 while     
fetishes become beings who assist       
individual members to infringe the      
customary morality of the tribe4 ,thus1 
from the first1 the beings1 of whom the 
community is conscious as superior to   
man1 are beings1 having in charge1      
first1 the customary morality of the    
tribe2 and1 afterwards1 the conscious   
morality of the community4  ,this       

conception1 it was1 of the gods1 as     
guardians of morality and of the common 
good1 that condemned fetishism2 and this
 conception it was1 which was to prove  
eventually the condemnation of          
polytheism4 ,a multitude of beings--even
 though they be divine beings--means a  
multitude1 that is a diversity1 of      
ideas4 ,diversity of ideas1 difference  
of opinion1 is what is implied by every 
mythology which tells of disputes and   
wars between the gods4 ,every god1 who  
thus disputed and fought with other     
gods1 must have felt that he had right  
on his side1 or else have fought for the
 sake of fighting4 ,consequently the    
gods of polytheism are either destitute 
of morality1 or divided in opinion as to
 what is right4 ,in neither case1       
therefore1 are the gods1 of whom        
mythology tells1 the beings1 superior to
 man1 who1 from the beginning1 were     
present in the common consciousness to  
be worshipped4 ,from the outset1 the    
object of the community's worship had   

been conceived as a moral power4 ,if1   
then1 the many gods of polytheism were  
either destitute or disregardful of     
morality1 they could not be the moral   
power of which the common consciousness 
had been dimly aware3 that moral power1 
that moral personality1 must be other   
than they4 ,as the moral consciousness  
of the community discriminated fetishes 
from gods and tended to rule out        
fetishes from the sphere of religion2 so
 too1 eventually1 the moral             
consciousness of the community came to  
be offended by the incompatibility      
between the moral ideal and the         
conception of a multitude of gods at    
variance with each other4 ,if the common
 consciousness was slow in coming to    
recognise the unity of the ,godhead--and
 it was slower in some people than in   
others--the unity was logically implied1
 from the beginning1 in the conception  
of a personal power1 greater and higher 
than man1 and having the good of the    
community at heart4 ,the history of     

religion is1 in effect1 from one point  
of view1 the story of the process by    
which this conception1 however dim1     
blurred or vague1 at first1 tends to    
become clarified and self-consistent4   
,that1 however1 is not the only point of
 view from which the history of religion
 can1 or ought to be1 regarded4 ,so long
 as we look at it from that point of    
view1 we shall be in danger of seeing   
nothing in the history of religion but  
an intellectual process1 and nothing in 
religion itself but a mental conception4
 ,there is1 however1 another element in 
religion1 as is generally recognised2   
and that an emotional element1 as is    
usually admitted4 ,what however is the  
nature of that emotion1 is a question on
 which there has always been diversity  
of opinion4 ,the beings1 who figured in 
the common consciousness as gods1 were  
apprehended by the common consciousness 
as powers superior to man2 and certainly
 as powers capable of inflicting        
suffering on the community4 ,as such1   

then1 they must have been approached    
with an emotion of the nature of        
reverence1 awe or fear4 ,the important1 
the determining1 fact1 however1 is that 
they were approached4 ,the emotion1     
therefore1 which prompted the community 
to approach them1 is at any rate        
distinguishable from the mere fright    
which would have kept the community as  
far away from these powers as possible4 
,the emotion which prompted approach    
could not have been fear1 pure and      
simple4 ,it must have been more in the  
nature of awe or reverence2 both of     
which feelings are clearly              
distinguishable from fear4 ,thus1 we may
 fear disease or disgrace2 but the fear 
we feel carries with it neither awe nor 
reverence4 ,again1 awe is an inhibitive 
feeling1 it is a feeling which--as in   
the case of the awe-struck              
person--rather prevents than promotes   
action or movement4 ,and the determining
 fact about the religious emotion is    
that it was the emotion with which the  

community approached its gods4 ,that    
emotion is now1 and probably always was1
 reverential in character4 ,the         
occasion1 on which a community          
approaches its gods1 often is1 and      
doubtless often was1 a time when        
misfortune had befallen the community4  
,the misfortune was viewed as a         
visitation of the god's wrath upon his  
community2 and fear--that 'fear of the  
,lord1 which is the beginning of        
wisdom'--doubtless played a large part  
in the complex emotion which stirred the
 community1 not to run away but to      
approach the god for the purpose of     
appeasing his wrath4 ,in the complexity 
of an emotion which led to action of    
this kind1 we must recognise not merely 
fear but some trust and confidence--so  
much1 at least1 as prevented the person 
who experienced it from running away    
simply4 ,the emotion is not too complex 
for man1 in however primitive a stage of
 development3 it is not more complex    
than that which brings a dog to his     

master1 though it knows it is going to  
be thrashed4  ,that some trust and      
confidence is indispensable in the      
complex feeling with which a community  
approaches its gods1 for the purpose of 
appeasing their wrath--still more1 for  
beseeching favours from them--seems     
indisputable4 ,but we must not          
exaggerate it4 ,wherever there are gods 
at all1 they are regarded by the        
community as beings who can be          
approached3 so much confidence1 at      
least1 is placed in them by the         
community that believes in them4 ,even  
if they are offended and wrathful1 the  
community is confident that they can be 
appeased3 the community places so much  
trust in them4 ,indeed its trust goes   
even further3 it is sure that they do   
not take offence without reasonable     
grounds4 ,if they display wrath against 
the community and send calamity upon it1
 it is1 and in the opinion of the       
community1 can only be1 because some    
member of the community has done that   

which he should not have done4 ,the gods
 may be1 on occasion1 wrathful2 but they
 are just4 ,they are from the beginning 
moral beings--according to such standard
 of morality as the community           
possesses--and it is breaches of the    
tribe's customary morality that their   
wrath is directed against4 ,they are1   
from the beginning1 and for long        
afterwards in the history of religion1  
strict to mark what is amiss1 and1 in   
that sense1 they are jealous gods4 ,and 
this aspect of the ,godhead it is which 
fills the larger part of the field of   
religious consciousness1 not only in the
 case of peoples who have failed to     
recognise the unity of the ,godhead1 but
 even in the case of a people like the  
,jews1 who did recognise it4 ,the other 
aspect of the ,godhead1 as the ,god1 not
 merely of mercy and forgiveness1 but of
 love1 was an aspect fully revealed in  
,christianity alone1 of all the         
religions in the world4  ,but the love  
,god displays to all his children1 to   

the prodigal son as well as to others1  
is not a mere attribute assigned to     
,him4 ,it is not a mere quality with    
which one religion may invest ,him1 and 
of which another religion1 with equal   
right1 may divest ,him4 ,the idea of    
,god does not consist merely of         
attributes and qualities1 so that1 if   
you strip off all the attributes and    
qualities1 nothing is left1 and the idea
 is shown to be without content1 meaning
 or reality4  ,the ,godhead has been1 in
 the common consciousness1 from the     
beginning1 a being1 a personal being1   
greater than man2 and it is as such that
 ,he has manifested ,himself in the     
common consciousness1 from the beginning
 until the present day4 ,to this        
personality1 as to others1 attributes   
and qualities may be falsely ascribed1  
which are inconsistent with one another 
and are none of ,his4 ,some of the      
attributes thus falsely ascribed may be 
discovered1 in the course of the history
 of religion1 to have been falsely      

ascribed2 and they will then be set     
aside4 ,thus1 fetishism ascribed1 or    
sought to ascribe1 to the ,godhead1 the 
quality of willingness to promote even  
the anti-social desires of the owner of 
the fetish4 ,and fetishism exfoliated1  
or peeled off from the religious        
organism4 ,anthropomorphism1 which      
ascribed to the divine personality the  
parts and passions of man1 along with a 
power greater than man's to violate     
morality1 is gradually dropped1 as its  
inconsistency with the idea of ,god     
comes gradually to be recognised and    
loathed4 ,so too with polytheism3 a     
pantheon which is divided against itself
 cannot stand4 ,thus1 fetishism1        
anthropomorphism and polytheism ascribe 
qualities to the ,godhead1 which are    
shown to be attributes assigned to the  
,godhead and imposed upon it from       
without1 for eventually they are found  
by experience to be incompatible with   
the idea of ,god as it is revealed in   
the common consciousness4  ,on the other

 hand1 the process of the history of    
religion1 the process of the            
manifestation or revelation of the      
,godhead1 does not proceed solely by    
this negative method1 or method of      
exclusion4 ,if an attribute1 such as    
that of human form1 or of complicity in 
anti-social purposes1 is ascribed1 by   
anthropomorphism or fetishism1 to the   
divine personality1 and is eventually   
felt by the common consciousness to be  
incompatible with the idea of ,god1 the 
result is not merely that the attribute 
in question drops off1 and leaves the   
idea of the divine personality exactly  
where it was1 and what it was1 before   
the attribute had been foisted on it4   
,the incompatibility of the quality1    
falsely ascribed or assigned1           
becomes--if1 and when1 it does          
become--manifest and intolerable1 just  
in proportion as the idea of ,god1 which
 has always been present1 however       
vaguely and ill-defined1 in the common  
consciousness1 comes to manifest itself 

more definitely4 ,the attribution1 to   
the divine personality1 of qualities1   
which are eventually found incompatible 
with it1 may prove the occasion of the  
more precise and definite manifestation2
 we may say that action implies         
reaction1 and so false ideas provoke    
true ones1 but the false ideas do not   
create the new ones4 ,the false ideas   
may stimulate closer attention to the   
actual facts of the common consciousness
 and thus may stimulate the formation of
 truer ideas about them1 by leading to a
 concentration of attention upon the    
actual facts4 ,but it is from this      
closer attention1 this concentration of 
attention1 that the newer and truer     
knowledge comes1 and not from the false 
ideas4 ,what we speak of1 from one point
 of view1 as closer attention to the    
facts of the common consciousness1 may1 
from another point of view1 be spoken of
 as an increasing manifestation1 or a   
clearer revelation1 of the divine       
personality1 revealed or manifested to  

the common consciousness4 ,those are two
 views1 or two points of view1 of one   
and the same process4 ,but whichever    
view we take of it1 the process does not
 proceed solely by the negative method  
of exclusion3 it is a process which     
results in the unfolding and disclosure1
 not merely of what is in the common    
consciousness1 at any given moment1 but 
of what is implied in the divine        
personality revealed to the common      
consciousness4 ,if we choose to speak of
 this unfolding or disclosure as        
evolution1 the process1 which the       
history of religion undertakes to set   
forth1 will be the evolution of the idea
 of ,god4 ,but1 in that case1 the       
process which we designate by the name  
of evolution1 will be a process of      
disclosure and revelation4 ,disclosure  
implies that there is something to      
disclose2 revelation1 that there is     
something to be revealed to the common  
consciousness--the presence of the      
,godhead1 of divine personality4        

,,ii  ,,the ,,idea ,,of ,,god ,,in      
,,mythology   ,the idea of ,god is to be
 found1 it will be generally admitted1  
not only in monotheistic religions1 but 
in polytheistic religions also2 and1 as 
polytheisms have developed out of       
polydaemonism1 that is to say1 as the   
personal beings or powers of            
polydaemonism have1 in course of time1  
come to possess proper names and a      
personal history1 some idea of divine   
personality must be admitted to be      
present in polydaemonism as well as in  
polytheism2 and1 in the same way1 some  
idea of a personality greater than human
 may be taken to lie at the back of both
 polydaemonism and fetishism4  ,if we   
wish to understand what ideas are in a  
man's mind1 we may infer them from the  
words that he speaks and from the way in
 which he acts4 ,the most natural and   
the most obvious course is to start from
 what he says4 ,and that is the course  
which was followed by students of the   
history of religion1 when they desired  

to ascertain what idea exactly man has  
had of his gods4 ,they had recourse1 for
 the information they wanted1 to        
mythology4 ,later on1 indeed1 they      
proceeded to enquire into what man did1 
into the ritual which he observed in    
approaching his gods2 and1 in the next  
chapter1 we will follow them in that    
enquiry4 ,but in this chapter we have to
 ask what light mythology throws upon   
the idea man has had of his gods4       
,before doing so1 however1 we cannot but
 notice that mythology and polytheism go
 together4 ,fetishism does not produce  
any mythology4 ,doubtless1 the owner of 
a fetish which acts knows and can tell  
of the wonderful things it has done4    
,but those anecdotes do not get taken up
 into the common stock of knowledge2 nor
 are they handed down by the common     
consciousness to all succeeding         
generations of the community4           
,mythology1 like language1 is the work1 
and is a possession1 of the common      
consciousness4  ,polydaemonism1 like    

fetishism1 does not produce mythology2  
but1 for a different reason4 ,the beings
 worshipped in the period of            
polydaemonism are beings who have not   
yet come to possess personal names1 and 
consequently cannot well have a personal
 history attached to them4 ,the         
difficulty is not indeed an absolute    
impossibility4 ,tales can be told1 and  
at a certain stage in the history of    
fiction1 especially in the pre-historic 
stage1 tales are told1 in which the hero
 has no proper name3 the period is 'once
 upon a time1' and the hero is 'a man'  
simpliciter4 ,but myths are not told    
about 'a god' simpliciter4 ,in mythology
 the hero of the myth is not 'a god1' in
 the sense of any god you like1 but this
 particular1 specified god4 ,and the    
reason is clear4 ,in fiction the artist 
creates the hero as well as the tale2   
and the primitive teller of tales did   
not find it always necessary to invent a
 name for the hero he created4 ,the hero
 could1 and did1 get along for some time

 without any proper name4 ,but with     
mythology the case is different4 ,the   
personal being1 superior to man1 of whom
 the myth is told1 is not the creation  
of the teller of the tale3 he is a being
 known by the community to exist4 ,he   
cannot therefore1 when he is the hero of
 a myth1 be described as 'a god--any god
 you like4' ,nor is the myth a tale     
which could be told of any god whatever3
 if a myth is a tale1 at any rate it is 
a tale which can be told of none other  
god but this4 ,indeed1 a myth is not a  
tale3 it is an incident--or string of   
incidents--in the personal history of a 
particular person1 or being1 superior to
 man4  ,it is then as polydaemonism     
passes into polytheism1 as the beings of
 the one come to acquire personal names 
and personal history1 and so to become  
the gods of the other1 that mythology   
arises4 ,it is under polytheism that    
mythology reaches its most luxuriant    
growth2 and when polytheism disappears1 
mythology tends to disappear with it4   

,thus1 the light which mythology may be 
expected to throw on the idea of ,god is
 one1 which1 however it may illumine the
 polytheistic idea of ,god1 will not be 
found to shine far beyond the area of   
polytheism4  ,myths then are narratives1
 in which the doings of some god or gods
 are related4 ,and those gods existed in
 the belief of the community1 before    
tales were told1 or could be told1 about
 them4 ,myths therefore are the outcome 
of reflection--of reflection about the  
gods and their relations to one another1
 or to men1 or to the world4 ,mythology 
is not the source of man's belief of the
 gods4 ,man did not begin by telling    
tales about beings whom he knew to be   
the creations of his own imagination1   
and then gradually fall into the error  
of supposing them to be1 after all1 not 
creatures of his own imagination but    
real beings4 ,mythology is not even the 
source of man's belief in a plurality of
 gods3 man found gods everywhere1 in    
every external object or phenomenon1    

because he was looking for ,god         
everywhere1 and to every object1 in     
turn1 he addressed the question1 ',art  
thou there8' ,mythology was not the     
source of polytheism4 ,polytheism was   
the source of mythology4 ,myths preserve
 to us the reflections which men have   
made about their gods2 and reflection1  
on any subject1 cannot take place until 
the thing is there to be reflected upon4
 ,the result of prolonged reflection may
 be1 indeed must be1 to modify the ideas
 from which we started1 for the         
better--or1 it may be1 for the worse4   
,but1 even so1 the result of reflection 
is not to create the ideas from which it
 started4  ,from this point of view1 it 
becomes impossible to accept the theory1
 put forward by ,max ,mueller1 that     
mythology is due to 'disease of         
language4' ,according to his theory1    
simple statements were made of such     
ordinary1 natural processes as those of 
the rising1 or the setting1 of the sun4 
,then1 by disease of language1 the      

meaning of the words or epithets1 by    
which the sun or the dawn were1 at the  
beginning1 designated or described1     
passed out of mind4 ,the epithets then  
came to be regarded as proper names2 and
 so the people1 amongst which these     
simple statements were originally made1 
found itself eventually in possession of
 a number of tales told of persons      
possessing proper names and doing       
marvellous things4 ,thus1 ,max          
,mueller's theory not only accounted for
 the origin of tales told about the     
gods3 it also explained the origin of   
the gods1 about whom the tales were     
told4 ,it is a theory of the origin1 not
 merely of mythology1 but also of       
polytheism4  ,thus1 even on ,max        
,mueller's theory1 mythology is the     
outcome of reflection--of reflection    
upon the doings and behaviour of the    
sun1 the clouds1 wind1 fire etc4 ,but1  
on his theory1 the sun1 moon etc41 were 
not1 at first1 regarded as persons1 at  
all3 it was merely owing to 'disease of 

language' that they came to be so       
regarded4 ,only if we make this original
 assumption1 can we accept the          
conclusions deduced from it2 and no     
student now accepts the assumption3 it  
is one which is forbidden by the        
well-established facts of animism4 ,sun1
 moon1 wind and fire1 everything that   
acts1 or is supposed to act1 is regarded
 by early man as animated by personal   
power4 ,if1 therefore1 the external     
objects1 to which man turned with his   
question1 ',art thou there8' were       
regarded by him1 from the beginning1 as 
animated by personal power1 the theory  
that they were not so regarded falls to 
the ground2 and1 consequently1 we cannot
 accept it as accounting for the origin 
of polytheism4  ,doubtless1 during the  
time of its vogue1 ,max ,mueller's      
theory was accepted precisely because it
 did profess to account for the origin  
of polytheism1 and because it denied    
polytheism any religious value or       
meaning whatever4 ,on the theory1       

polytheism did not originate from any   
religious sentiment whatever1 but from a
 disease of language4 ,and this was a   
view which naturally commended itself to
 those who were ready to say and believe
 that polytheism is not religion at all4
 ,but the consequences of saying this   
are such as to make any science of      
religion1 or indeed any history of      
religion1 impossible4 ,where the idea of
 ,god is to be found1 there some        
religion exists2 and to say that1 in    
polytheism1 no idea of ,god can be      
found1 is out of the question4 ,if then 
polytheism is a stage in the history of 
religious belief1 we have to consider it
 in relation to the other stages of     
religious belief1 which preceded or     
followed it4 ,we have to relate the idea
 of ,god1 as it appeared in polytheism1 
with the idea as it appeared in other   
stages of belief4 ,in order to do this1 
we must first discover what the         
polytheistic idea of ,god is2 and for   
that purpose we must turn1 at any rate  

at first1 to the myths which embody the 
reflections of polytheists upon the     
attributes and actions of the ,godhead1 
or of those beings1 superior to man1    
whose existence was accepted by the     
common consciousness4 ,it may be that   
the reflections upon the idea of ,god1  
which are embodied in mythology1 have so
 tended to degrade the idea of ,god1    
that religious advance upon the lines of
 polytheism became impossible1 just as  
the conception of ,god as a being who   
would promote the anti-social wishes of 
an individual1 rendered religious       
advance upon the lines of fetishism     
impossible4 ,in that case1 religion     
would forsake the line of polytheism1 as
 it had previously abandoned that of    
fetishism4  ,a certain presumption that 
myths tend to the degradation of        
religion is created by the mere use of  
the term 'mythology4' ,it has come to be
 a dyslogistic term1 partly because all 
myths are lies1 but still more because  
some of them are ignoble lies4 ,it      

becomes necessary1 therefore1 to remind 
ourselves that1 though we see them to be
 untrue1 they were not regarded as      
untrue by those who believed in them2   
and that many of them were not ignoble4 
,aeschylus and ,sophocles are witnesses1
 not to be disbelieved1 on these points4
 ,in their writings we have the         
reflections of polytheists upon the     
actions and attributes of the gods4 ,but
 the reflections made by ,aeschylus and 
,sophocles1 and their treatment of the  
myths1 must be distinguished from the   
myths1 which they found to hand1 just as
 the very different treatment and       
reflection1 which the myths received    
from ,euripides1 must be distinguished  
from them4 ,in both cases1 the          
treatment1 which the myths met with from
 the tragedians1 is to be distinguished 
from the myths1 as they were current    
among the community before and after the
 plays were performed4 ,the writings of 
the tragedians show what might be made  
of the myths by great poets4 ,they do   

not show what the myths were in the     
common consciousness that made them4    
,and the history of mythology after the 
time of the three great tragedians makes
 it clear enough that even so noble a   
writer as ,aeschylus could not impart to
 mythology any direction other than that
 determined for it by the conditions    
under which it originated1 developed and
 ran its course4  ,mythology is the work
 and the product of the common          
consciousness4 ,the generation existing 
at any time receives it from preceding  
generations2 civilised generations from 
barbarous1 and barbarous generations    
from their savage predecessors4 ,if it  
grows in the process of transmission1   
and so reflects to some extent the      
changes which take place in the common  
consciousness1 it changes but little in 
character4 ,the common consciousness    
itself changes with exceeding slowness2 
it retains what it has received with a  
conservatism like that of children's    
minds2 and1 what it adds must1 from the 

nature of the case1 be modelled on that 
which it has received1 and be of a piece
 with it4 ,but1 though the common       
consciousness changes but slowly1 it    
does change3 with the change from       
savagery to civilisation there goes     
moral development4 ,some of the myths1  
which are re-told from one generation to
 another1 may be capable of becoming    
civilised and moralised in proportion as
 do those who tell them2 but some are   
not4 ,these latter are incidents in the 
personal history of the gods1 which1 if 
told at all1 can only be told1 as they  
had been told from the beginning1 in all
 their repulsiveness4 ,they survive1 in 
virtue of the tenacity and conservatism 
of the common consciousness2 and1 as    
survivals1 they testify to the moral    
development which has taken place in the
 very community which conserves them4   
,by them the eye of modern science      
measures the development and the        
difference between the stage of society 
which originally produced them and the  

stage which begins to be troubled by    
them4 ,they are valuable for the        
purposes of modern science because they 
are evidence of the continuity with     
which the later stages have developed   
from the earlier2 and1 also1 because    
they are the first outward indications  
of the discovery which was eventually to
 be made1 of the difference between     
mythology and religion--a difference    
which existed from the beginning of     
mythology1 and all through its growth1  
though it existed in the sphere of      
feeling long before it found expression 
for itself in words4  ,the course of    
history has shown1 as a matter of fact1 
that these repulsive and disgusting     
myths could not be rooted out without   
uprooting the whole system of mythology4
 ,but the course of history has also    
shown that religion could continue to   
exist after the destruction of          
mythology1 as it had done before its    
birth4 ,but1 of this the generations to 
whom myths had been transmitted and for 

whom mythology was the accepted belief1 
could not be aware4 ,in their eyes the  
attempt to discredit some myths appeared
 to involve--as it did really           
involve--the overthrow of the whole     
system of mythology4 ,if they           
thought--as they undoubtedly did        
think--that the destruction of mythology
 was the same thing as the destruction  
of religion1 their error was one of a   
class of errors into which the human    
mind is at no time exempt from falling4 
,and they had this further excuse1 that 
the destruction of mythology did        
logically and necessarily imply the     
destruction of polytheism4 ,polytheism  
and mythology were complementary parts  
of their idea of the ,godhead4          
,demonstrations therefore of the        
inconsistency and immorality involved in
 their idea were purely negative and    
destructive2 and they were1 accordingly1
 unavailing until a higher idea of the  
unity of the ,godhead was forthcoming4  
,until that time1 polytheism and        

mythology struggled on4 ,they were      
burdened1 and1 as time went on1 they    
were overburdened1 with the weight of   
the repulsive myths which could not be  
denied and disowned1 but could only be  
thrust out of sight as far1 and as long1
 as possible4 ,these myths1 however     
offensive they became in the long run to
 the conscience of the community1 were1 
in their origin1 narratives which were  
not offensive to the common             
consciousness1 for the simple reason    
that they were the work of the common   
consciousness1 approved by it and       
transmitted for ages under the seal of  
its approval4 ,if they were not         
offensive to the common consciousness at
 the time when they originated1 and only
 became so later1 the reason is that the
 morality of the community was less     
developed at the time of their origin   
than it came to be subsequently4 ,if    
they became offensive1 it was because   
the morality of the community tended to 
advance1 while they remained what they  

had always been4  ,it may1 perhaps1 be  
asked1 why the morality of the community
 should tend to change1 and the myths of
 the community should not8 ,the reason  
seems to be that myths are learned by   
the child in the nursery1 and morality  
is learned by the man in the world4 ,the
 family is a smaller community than the 
village community1 the city1 or the     
state2 and the smaller the community1   
the more tenacious it is of its customs 
and traditions4 ,the toys of ,athenian  
children1 which have been discovered1   
are1 all1 the toys which children       
continue to use to this day4 ,in the    
,iliad children built sand-castles on   
the sea-shore as they do now2 and the   
little child tugged at its mother's     
dress then as now4 ,children then as now
 would insist that the tales told to    
them should always be told exactly as   
they were first told4 ,of the           
discrepancy between the morality        
exhibited by the heroes of nursery-tales
 and that practised by the grown-up     

world the child has no knowledge1 for   
the sufficient reason that he is not as 
yet one of the grown-up world4 ,when he 
enters the grown-up world1 he may learn 
the difference2 but he can only enter   
the grown-up world1 if there is one for 
him to enter2 and1 in the childhood of  
man1 there is none which he can enter1  
for the adults themselves1 though of    
larger growth1 are children still in    
mind4 ,custom and tradition rule the    
adult community then as absolutely as   
they rule the child community4 ,in      
course of time1 the adult community may 
break the bonds of custom and tradition2
 but the community which consists of    
children treasures them and hands them  
on4 ,within the tribe1 thenceforth1     
there are two communities1 that of the  
adults and that of the children4 ,the   
one community is as continuous with     
itself as the other2 but the children's 
community is highly conservative of what
 it has received and of what it hands   
on--and that for the simple reason that 

children will be children still4 ,it is 
this homogeneity of the children's      
community which enables it to preserve  
its customs1 traditions and beliefs4    
,and as long as the community of adults 
is homogeneous1 it also departs but     
little from the customs1 traditions and 
beliefs1 which it has inherited from the
 same source as the children's community
 has inherited them4 ,the two           
communities1 the children's and the     
adults'1 originate and develop within   
the larger community of the tribe4 ,they
 differentiate1 at first1 with exceeding
 slowness2 the children's community     
changes more slowly even than the       
adults'--its weapons continue to be the 
bow and arrow1 long after adults have   
discarded them2 and the bull-roarer     
continues sacred in its eyes to a period
 when the adult community has not only  
discarded its use but forgotten its     
meaning4 ,in its tales and myths it may 
preserve the memory of a stage of       
morality which the adult community has  

outgrown1 and has left behind as far it 
has left behind the bull-roarer or the  
bow and arrow4 ,and the stage of        
morality1 of which it preserves the     
memory1 is one from which the adult     
community in past time emerged4 ,having 
emerged1 indeed1 it found itself1       
eventually1 when made to look back1     
compelled to condemn that which it      
looked back upon4  ,what1 then1 were    
these myths1 with which the moralised   
community might find itself confronted8 
,they were tales which originated in the
 mind of the community when it was yet  
immature4 ,they preserve to us the      
reflections of the immature mind about  
the gods and what they did4 ,and it is  
because the minds1 which made these     
reflections1 were immature1 that the    
myths which embodied or expressed these 
reflections1 were such as might be      
accepted by immature minds1 but were    
eventually found intolerable by more    
mature minds4 ,it may1 perhaps1 be      
said--and it may be said with           

justice--that the reflections even of   
the immature mind are not all1 of       
necessity1 erroneous1 for it is from    
them that the whole of modern knowledge 
has been evolved or developed1 just as  
the steam-plough may be traced back to  
the primitive digging-stick3 reflection 
upon anything may lead to better        
knowledge of the thing1 as well as to   
false notions about it4 ,but the        
nations1 which have outgrown mythology1 
have cast it aside because in the long  
run they became convinced that the      
notions it embodied were false notions4 
,and they reached that conclusion on    
this point in the same way and for the  
same reason as they reached the same    
conclusion in other matters2 for there  
is only one way4 ,there is only one way 
and one test by which it is possible to 
determine whether the inferences we have
 drawn about a thing are true or false1 
and that is the test of experience4     
,that alone can settle the question     
whether the thing actually does or does 

not act in the way1 or display the      
qualities alleged4 ,if it proves in our 
experience to act in the way1 or to     
display the qualities1 which our        
reflection led us to surmise1 then our  
conception of the thing is both         
corrected and enlarged1 that is to say1 
the thing proves to be both more and    
other than it was at first supposed to  
be4 ,if experience shows that it is not 
what we surmised1 does not act in the   
way or display the qualities our        
reflection led us to expect1 then1 as   
the conclusions we reached are wrong1   
our reflections were on a wrong line1   
and must have started from a false      
conception or an imperfect idea of the  
thing4  ,it is collision of this kind   
between the conclusions of mythology and
 the idea of the gods1 as the guardians 
of morality1 that rouses suspicion in a 
community1 still polytheistic1 first    
that the conclusions embodied in        
mythology are on a wrong line1 and next 
that they must have started from a false

 conception or imperfect idea of the    
,godhead4 ,by its fruits is the error   
found to be error--by the immorality    
which it ascribes to the very gods whose
 function it is to guard morality4      
,mythology is the process of reflection 
which leads to conclusions eventually   
discarded as false1 demonstrably false  
to anyone who compared them with the    
idea of the ,godhead which he had in his
 own soul4 ,mythology worked out the    
consequences of the assumption that it  
is to the external world we must look   
for the divine personality of whose     
presence in the common consciousness1   
the community has at all times1 been1   
even though dimly1 aware4 ,doubts as to 
the truth of myths were first aroused by
 the inconsistency between the myths    
told and the justice and morality which 
had been from the beginning the very    
essence of divine personality4 ,the     
doubts arose in the minds and hearts of 
individual thinkers2 and1 if those      
individuals had been the only members of

 the community who conceived justice and
 morality to be essential qualities of  
the divine personality1 then it would   
have been necessary for such thinkers   
first to convert the community to that  
view4 ,now1 one of the consequences of  
the prevalence of mythology is that the 
community1 amongst whom it flourishes1  
comes to be1 if not doubtful1 then at   
times forgetful1 of the fact that the   
gods of the community are moral beings  
and the guardians of morality4 ,that    
fact had to be dismissed from attention1
 for the time being1 whenever certain   
myths were related4 ,and1 the more      
frequently a fact is dismissed from     
attention1 the less likely it is to     
reappear on the surface of              
consciousness4 ,thus1 the larger the    
part played by mythology in the field of
 the common consciousness1 the greater  
its tendency to drive out from attention
 those moral qualities which were of the
 essence of divine personality4 ,but1   
however large the part played by        

mythology1 and however great its        
tendency to obliterate the moral        
qualities of the gods1 it rarely1 if    
indeed ever1 entirely obliterates them  
from the field of the common            
consciousness4 ,consequently1 the       
individual thinkers1 who become         
painfully aware of the contrast and     
opposition between the morality1 which  
is essential to a divine personality1   
and the immorality ascribed to the gods 
in some myths1 have not to deal with a  
community which denies that the gods    
have any morality whatever1 but with a  
community which is ready to admit the   
morality of the gods1 whenever its      
attention is called thereto4 ,thus1     
though it may be that it is in this or  
that individual that the inconsistency  
between the moral qualities1 which      
belong to the gods1 and the immoral     
actions which mythology ascribes to the 
gods1 first manifests itself1 to his    
distress and disturbance1 still what has
 happened in his case happens in the    

case of some1 and may happen in the case
 of all1 other members of the community4
 ,the inconsistency then comes to exist 
not merely for the individual but for   
the common consciousness4  ,it was the  
immorality of mythology which first drew
 the attention of believers in          
polytheism to the inconsistency between 
the goodness1 which was felt to be of   
the essence of the divine nature1 and   
the vileness1 which was imputed to them 
in some myths2 but it is the            
irrationality and absurdity of mythology
 that seems1 to the modern mind1 to be  
its most uniform characteristic4 ,so    
long as the only mythology that was     
studied was the mythology of            
,indo-,european peoples1 it was assumed1
 without question1 that the myths could 
not really be1 or originally have been1 
irrational and absurd3 they must        
conceal1 under their seeming absurdity  
and outwardly irrational appearance1    
some truth4 ,they must have had1        
originally1 some esoteric meaning4 ,they

 must have conveyed--allegorically1     
indeed--some profound truths1 known or  
revealed to sages of old1 which it was  
the business of modern students to      
re-discover in mythology4 ,and          
accordingly profound truths--scientific1
 cosmographic1 astronomical1            
geographical1 philosophic or            
religious--were discovered4 ,there was  
no knowledge which the early ancestors  
of the human race were not supposed to  
have possessed1 and their descendants to
 have forgotten4  ,but1 when it came to 
be discovered1 and accepted1 that the   
ancestors of the ,indo-,european peoples
 had once been savages1 and that        
savages1 all the world over1 possessed  
myths1 it became impossible to maintain 
that such savages possessed in their    
mythologies treasures of truth either   
scientific or religious4 ,myths have no 
esoteric meaning4 ,obviously we must    
take them to be what we find them to be 
amongst present-day savages1 that is1   
absurd and irrational stories1 with no  

secret meaning behind them4 ,yet it is  
difficult1 indeed impossible1 to accept 
this as the last word on the subject4   
,the stories are rejected by us1 because
 they are patently absurd and           
irrational4 ,but the savage does not    
reject them3 he accepts them4 ,and he   
could not accept and believe them1 if   
he1 as well as we1 found them irrational
 and absurd4 ,in a word1 it is the same 
with the irrationality as it is with the
 immorality of mythology3 myths are the 
work and the product of the common      
consciousness4 ,as such1 myths cannot be
 viewed as irrational by the common     
consciousness in which they originated1 
and by which they were accepted and     
transmitted1 any more than they were    
regarded as immoral4  ,obviously1 the   
common consciousness which produces     
mythology cannot pronounce the myths1   
when it produces them1 and accepts them1
 absurd4 ,on the contrary1 they are     
rational1 in its eyes1 and according to 
its level of understanding1 however     

absurd the growth of knowledge may      
eventually show them to be4 ,myths1     
then1 in their origin1 are told and     
heard1 narrated and accepted1 as        
rational and intelligible4 ,as narrated1
 they are narratives3 can we say that   
they are anything more8 or are they     
tales told simply for the pleasure of   
telling8 ,tales of this latter kind1    
pure fiction1 are to be found wherever  
man is4 ,but1 we have already seen some 
points in which myths differ from tales 
of this kind3 in fiction the artist     
creates his hero1 but in myths the being
 superior to man1 of whom the story is  
told is not the creation of the teller  
of the tale2 he is a being known to the 
community to exist4 ,another point of   
difference is that a myth belongs to the
 god of whom it is told and cannot      
properly be told of any other god4      
,these are two respects in which the    
imagination is limited1 two points on   
which1 in the case of myths1 the        
creative imagination is1 so to speak1   

nailed down4 ,is it subject to any      
further restriction in the case of      
myths8 ,granted that an adventure1 when 
once it has been set down to one god1   
may not be set down to another1 is the  
creative imagination free1 in the case  
of mythology1 as it is in the case of   
pure fiction1 to invent the incidents   
and adventures1 which eventually--in a  
lexicon of mythology--go to make up the 
biography of the god8 ,the freedom1 it  
appears1 is of a strictly limited       
character4  ,it is an induction1 as wide
 as the world--being based on           
mythologies from all parts of the       
world--that myths are aetiological1 that
 their purpose is to give the reason of 
things1 to explain the origin of fire1  
agriculture1 civilisation1 the world--of
 anything1 in fact1 that to the savage  
seems to require explanation4 ,in the   
animistic period1 man found gods        
everywhere because everywhere he was    
looking for gods4 ,to every object that 
arrested his attention1 in the external 

world1 he put1 or might put1 the        
question1 ',art thou there8' ,every     
happening that arrested the attention of
 a whole community1 and provoked from   
the common consciousness the            
affirmation1 ',thou art there1' was1 by 
that affirmation1 accepted as the doing 
of a god4 ,but neither at this stage1   
nor for long after1 is there any myth4  
,the being1 whose presence is thus      
affirmed1 has at first no name3 his     
personality is of the faintest1 his     
individuality1 the vaguest4 ,mythology  
does not begin until the question is    
put1 ',why has the god done this thing8'
 ,a myth consists1 or originally        
consisted1 of the reason which was found
 and adopted by the common consciousness
 as the reason why the god did what he  
did do4 ,it is in this sense that myths 
are aetiological4 ,the imagination which
 produces them is1 in a sense1 a        
'scientific imagination4' ,it works     
within limits4 ,the data on which it    
works are that this thing was done1 or  

is done1 by this god2 and the problem   
set to the mythological imagination is1 
',why did he1 or does he1 do it8' ,the  
stories which were invented to answer   
this question constituted mythology2 and
 the fact that myths were invented for  
the purpose of answering this question  
distinguishes them from stories in the  
invention of which the imagination was  
not subject to restriction1 was not tied
 down to this god and to this action of 
his1 and was not limited to the sole    
task of imagining an answer to the      
question1 ',why did he do it8' ,all     
myths are narratives1 but not all       
narratives are myths4 ,some narratives  
have men alone for their heroes4 ,they  
are imaginative but not mythological4   
,some narratives are about gods and what
 they did4 ,their purpose is to explain 
why the gods did what they did do1 and  
those narratives are mythological4  ,it 
may1 perhaps1 seem that the imagination 
of early man would from the first be set
 to work to invent myths in answer to   

the question1 ',why did the god do this 
thing8' ,but1 as a matter of fact1 man  
can get on for a long time without      
mythology4 ,a striking instance of this 
is afforded by the di indigites of      
,italy4 ,over everything man did1 or    
suffered1 from his birth to his death1  
one of these gods or goddesses presided4
 ,the ,deus ,vagitanus opened the lips  
of the new-born infant when it uttered  
its first cry2 the ,dea ,ossipago made  
the growing child's bones stout and     
strong2 the ,deus ,locutius made it     
speak clearly2 the goddess ,viriplaca   
restored harmony between husband and    
wife who had quarrelled2 the ,dea       
,orbona closed a man's eyes at death4   
,these di indigites had shrines and     
received sacrifices4 ,they were         
distinguished into gods and goddesses4  
,their names were proper names1 though  
they are but words descriptive of the   
function which the deity performed or   
presided over4 ,yet though these di     
indigites are gods1 personal gods1 to   

whom prayer and sacrifice are offered1  
they have no mythology attached to them2
 no myths are told about them4  ,the    
fact thus forced on our notice by the di
 indigites of ,rome should be enough to 
warn us that mythology does not of      
necessity spring up1 as an immediate    
consequence of the worship of the gods4 
,it may even suggest a reason why       
mythology must be a secondary1 rather   
than a primary consequence of worship4  
,the ,romans were practical1 and so are 
savages3 if they asked the question1    
',why did this god do this thing8' they 
asked it in no spirit of speculation but
 for a practical1 common-sense reason3  
because they did not want this thing    
done again4 ,and they offered sacrifices
 to the god or goddess1 with that end in
 view4 ,the things with regard to which 
the savage community first asks the     
question1 ',why did the god do it8' are 
things disastrous to the                
community--plague or famine4 ,the answer
 to the question is really implied by   

the terms in which the question is      
stated3 the community1 or some member of
 the community has transgressed2 he must
 be discovered and punished4 ,so long   
and so far as the question is thus put  
and thus answered1 there is little room 
for mythology to grow in4 ,and it did   
not grow round the di indigites in      
,italy1 or round corresponding deities  
in other countries4  ,but the question1 
',why did the god do it8' is            
susceptible1 on reflection1 of another  
kind of answer4 ,and from minds of a    
more reflective cast than the ,roman1 it
 received answer in the form of         
mythology1 of aetiological myths4       
,mythology is the work of reflection3 it
 is when the community has time and     
inclination to reflect upon its gods and
 their doings that mythology arises in  
the common consciousness4 ,for          
everything which happens to him1 early  
man has one explanation1 if the thing is
 such as seems to him to require        
explanation1 and the explanation is that

 this thing is the doing of some god4   
,if the thing that arrests attention is 
some disaster1 which calls for remedy1  
the community approaches the god with   
prayer and sacrifice2 its object is     
practical1 not speculative2 and no myth 
arises4 ,but if the thing that arrests  
attention is not one which calls for    
action1 on the part of the community1   
but one which stimulates curiosity and  
provokes reflection1 then the reflective
 answer to the question1 why has this   
thing been done by whatever god that did
 it1 is a myth4  ,thus the mood1 or     
state of mind1 in which mythology       
originates is clearly different from    
that in which the community approaches  
its offended gods for the purpose of    
appeasing them4 ,the purpose in the     
latter case is atonement and            
reconciliation4 ,the state of mind in   
the former case is one of enquiry4 ,the 
emotion1 of mingled fear and hope1 which
 constitutes the one state of mind1 is  
clearly different from the spirit of    

enquiry which characterises and         
constitutes the other state of mind4    
,the one mood is undeniably religious2  
the other1 not so4 ,in the one mood1 the
 community feels itself to be in the    
presence of its gods2 in the other it is
 reflecting and enquiring about them4   
,in the one case the community appears  
before its god2 in the other it is      
reflectively using its idea of god1 for 
the purpose of explaining things that   
call for explanation4 ,but the idea of  
,god1 when used in this way1 for the    
purpose of explaining things by means of
 myths1 is modified by the use it is put
 to4 ,it is not merely that everything  
which happens is explained1 if it       
requires explanation1 as the doing of   
some god2 but the motives which early   
man ascribed1 in his mythological       
moments1 to the gods--motives which only
 undeveloped man could have ascribed to 
them--became part of the idea of ,god on
 which mythology worked and with which  
myths had to do4 ,the idea of god thus  

gradually developed in polytheistic     
myths1 the accumulated reflections of   
savage1 barbarous and semi-barbarous    
ancestors1 tends eventually to provoke  
reaction4 ,but why8 ,not merely because 
the myths are immoral and irrational4   
,but because of the essential impiety of
 imputing immoral and irrational acts to
 the divine personality4 ,plainly1 then1
 those thinkers and writers who were    
painfully impressed by such impiety1 who
 were acutely conscious that divine     
personality was irreconcilable with     
immorality and irrationality1 had some  
other idea of ,god than the             
mythological4 ,we may go further3 we may
 safely say that the average man would  
not have been perturbed1 as he was1 by  
,socrates1 for instance1 had he1 also1  
not found within him some other idea of 
,god than the mythological4 ,and we can 
understand1 to some extent1 how this    
should be1 if we call to mind that1     
though mythology grows and luxuriates1  
still the worship of the gods goes on4  

,that is to say1 the community1 through 
it all1 continues to approach its gods1 
for the purpose1 and with the emotion of
 mingled fear and hope1 with which it   
had always come into the presence of its
 gods4 ,it is the irreconcilability of  
the mood of emotion1 which is           
essentially religious1 with the         
mythological mode of reflective thought1
 which is not1 that tends to bring about
 the religious reaction against         
mythology4 ,it is not however until the 
divergence between religion and         
mythology has become considerable that  
the irreconcilability becomes manifest4 
,and it is in the experience of some    
individual1 and not in the common       
consciousness1 that this                
irreconcilability is first discovered4  
,that discovery it is which makes the   
discoverer realise that it is not merely
 when he comes before the presence of   
his gods in their temples1 but that1    
whenever his heart rises on the tide of 
mingled fear1 hope and thanksgiving1 he 

comes into the presence of his ,god4    
,having sought for the divine           
personality in all the external objects 
of the world around him in the end he   
learns1 what was the truth from the     
beginning1--that it is in his heart he  
has access to his ,god4  ,the belief in 
gods does not of necessity result in a  
mythology4 ,the instance of the di      
indigites of ,italy is there to show    
that it is no inevitable result4 ,but   
mythology1 wherever it is found1 is of  
itself sufficient proof that gods are1  
or have been1 believed in2 it is the    
outcome of reflection and enquiry about 
the gods1 whom the community approaches1
 with mingled feelings of hope and fear1
 and worships with sacrifice and prayer4
 ,now1 a mythology1 or perhaps we should
 rather say fragments of a mythology1   
may continue to exist as survivals1 long
 after belief in the gods1 of whom the  
myths were originally told1 has changed1
 or even passed away entirely4 ,such    
traces of gods dethroned are to be found

 in the folk-lore of most ,christian    
peoples4 ,indeed1 not only are traces of
 bygone mythology to be found in        
,christendom2 but rites and customs1    
which once formed part of the worship of
 now forgotten gods2 or it may be that  
only the names of the gods survive      
unrecognised1 as in the names of the    
days of the week4 ,the existence of such
 survivals in ,europe is known2 their   
history has been traced2 their origin is
 undoubted4 ,when1 then1 in other       
quarters of the globe than ,europe1     
amongst peoples which are as old as any 
,european people1 though they have no   
recorded history1 we find fragments of  
mythology1 or of ritual1 or mere names  
of gods1 without the myths and the      
ritual which attach elsewhere to gods1  
the presumption is that here too we have
 to deal with survivals of a system of  
worship and mythology1 which once       
existed1 and has now gone to pieces1    
leaving but these pieces of wreckage    
behind4 ,thus1 amongst the ,australian  

black-fellows we find myths about gods  
who now receive no worship4 ,but they   
never could have become gods unless they
 had been worshipped at some time2 they 
could not have acquired the proper1     
personal names by which they are        
designated in these surviving myths1 if 
they had not been worshipped long enough
 for the words which designate them to  
become proper names1 i4e4 names denoting
 no other person than the one designated
 by them4 ,amongst other backward       
peoples of the earth we find the names  
of gods surviving1 not only with no     
worship but no myths attached to them2  
and the inference plainly is that1 as   
they are still remembered to be gods1   
they once were objects of worship       
certainly1 and probably once were       
subjects of mythology4 ,and if1 of a    
bygone religious system all that remains
 is in one place some fragments of      
mythology1 and in another nothing but   
the mere names of the gods1 then it is  
nothing astonishing if elsewhere all    

that we find is some fragment of        
worship1 some rite1 which continues to  
be practised1 for its own sake1 even    
though all memory of the gods in whose  
worship it originated has disappeared   
from the common consciousness--a        
disappearance which would be the easier 
if the gods worshipped had acquired no  
names1 or names as little personal as   
those of the di indigites4 ,ritual of   
this kind1 not associated with the names
 of any gods1 is found amongst the      
,australian tribes1 and may be the      
wreckage of a system gone to pieces4    
,here1 too1 there is opportunity again1 
for the same error as that into which   
students of mythology once fell before1 
when they found1 or thought they found1 
in mythology1 profound truths1 known or 
revealed to sages of old4 ,the survivals
 mentioned in the last paragraph may be 
interpreted as survivals of a prior     
monotheism or a primitive revelation4   
,but if they are survivals1 at all1 then
 they are survivals from a period when  

the ancestors of the present-day        
,africans or ,australian black-fellows  
were in an earlier stage of social      
development--in an earlier stage even of
 linguistic development and of the      
thought which develops with             
language--than their descendants are    
now4 ,even in that earlier stage of     
development1 however1 man sought for    
,god4 ,if he thought1 mistakenly1 to    
find ,him in this or that external      
object1 he was not wrong in the         
conviction that underlay his search--the
 conviction that ,god is at no time afar
 off from any one of us4     ,,iii      
,,the ,,idea ,,of ,,god ,,in ,,worship  
,we have found mythology of but little  
use in our search after the idea of     
,god2 and the reason1 as we have        
suggested1 is that myth-making is a     
reflective process1 a process in which  
the mind reflects upon the idea1 and    
therefore a process which cannot be set 
up unless the idea is already present1  
or1 rather we should say1 has already   

been presented4 ,when it has been       
presented1 it can become food for       
reflection1 but not until then4 ,if then
 we wish to discover where and when it  
is thus immediately presented1 let us   
look for it in worship4 ,if it is given 
primarily in the moment of worship1 it  
may be reproduced in a secondary stage  
as a matter for reflection4 ,now1 in    
worship--provided that it be experienced
 as a reality1 and not performed as a   
conventionality--the community's purpose
 is to approach its ,god3 let us come   
before the ,lord and enter ,his courts  
with praise1 are words which represent  
fairly the thought and feeling which1 on
 ordinary occasions1 the man who goes to
 worship--really--experiences1 whether  
he be polytheist or monotheist4 ,i have 
spoken of 'the moment of worship1' but  
worship is1 of course1 a habit3 if it is
 not a habit1 it ceases to be at all1 in
 any effective sense4 ,and it is a habit
 of the community1 of the common        
consciousness1 which is continuous      

through the ages1 even though it slowly 
changes2 and which1 as continuous1 is   
conservative and tenacious4 ,even when  
it has become monotheistic1 it may      
continue to speak of the one ,god as 'a 
great god above all other gods1' in     
terms which are survivals of an earlier 
stage of belief4 ,such expressions are  
like the clouds which1 though they are  
lifting1 still linger round the mountain
 top3 they are part of the vapour which 
had previously obscured from view the   
reality which was there1 and cannot be  
shaken at any time4  ,worship may       
include words spoken1 hymns of praise   
and prayer2 but it includes also things 
done1 acts performed1 ritual4 ,it is    
these acts that are the facts from which
 we have now to start1 in order to infer
 what we can from them as to the idea of
 ,god which prompted them4 ,there is an 
infinite diversity in these facts of    
ritual1 just as the gods of polytheism  
are infinite in number and kind4 ,but if
 there is diversity1 there is also      

unity4 ,greatly as the gods of          
polytheism differ from one another1 they
 are at least beings worshipped--and    
worshipped by the community4 ,greatly as
 rituals vary in their detail1 they are 
all ritual3 all are worship1 and1 all1  
the worship rendered by the community to
 its gods4 ,and there can be no doubt as
 to their object or the purpose with    
which the community practises them3 that
 purpose is1 at least1 to bring the     
community into the presence of its      
,lord4 ,we may safely say that there can
 be no worship unless there is a        
community worshipping and a being which 
is worshipped4 ,nor can there be any    
doubt as to the relation existing       
between the two4 ,the community bow down
 and worship3 that is the attitude of   
the congregation4 ,nor can there be any 
doubt as to the relation which the god  
bears1 in the common consciousness1 to  
his worshippers3 he is bound to them by 
special ties--from him they expect the  
help which they have received in ages   

past4 ,they have faith in him--else they
 would not worship him--faith that he   
will be what he has been in the past1 a 
very help in time of trouble4 ,the mere 
fact that they seek to come before him  
is a confession of the faith that is in 
them1 the faith that they are in the    
presence of their ,god and have access  
to ,him4 ,however primitive1 that is    
rudimentary1 the worship may be2 however
 low in the scale of development the    
worshippers may be2 however dim their   
idea of ,god and however confused and   
contradictory the reflections they may  
make about ,him1 it is in that faith    
that they worship4 ,so much is implied  
by worship--by the mere fact that the   
worshippers are gathered together for   
worship4 ,if we are to find any clue    
which may give us uniform guidance      
through the infinite variety in the     
details of the innumerable rituals that 
are1 or have been1 followed in the      
world1 we must look to find it in the   
purpose for which the worshippers gather

 together4 ,but1 if we wish to be guided
 by objective facts rather than by      
hasty1 a priori assumptions1 we must    
begin by consulting the facts3 we must  
enquire whether the details of the      
different rituals present nothing but   
diversity1 or whether there is any      
respect in which they show likeness or  
uniformity4 ,there is one point in which
 they resemble one another2 and1 what is
 more1 that point is the leading feature
 in all of them2 they all centre round  
sacrifice4 ,it is with sacrifice1 or by 
means of sacrifice1 that their gods are 
approached by all men1 beginning even   
with the jungle-dwellers of ,chota      
,nagpur1 who sacrifice fowls and offer  
victims1 for the purpose of conciliating
 the powers that send jungle-fever and  
murrain4 ,the sacrificial rite is the   
occasion on which1 and a means by which1
 the worshipper is brought into that    
closer relation with his god1 which he  
would not seek1 if he did not--for      
whatever reason--desire it4 ,as bearing 

on the idea of ,god1 the spiritual      
import1 and the practical importance1 of
 the sacrificial rite is that he who    
partakes in it can only partake of it so
 far as he recognises that ,god is no   
private idea of his own1 existing only  
in his notion1 but is objectively real4 
,the jungle-dweller of ,chota ,nagpur   
may have no name for the being to whom1 
at the appointed season and in the      
appointed place1 he sacrifices fowls2   
but1 as we have seen1 the gods only come
 to have proper1 personal names in slow 
course of time4 ,he may be incapable of 
giving any account1 comprehensible to   
the civilised enquirer1 of the idea     
which he has of the being to whom he    
offers sacrifice3 more accomplished     
theologians than he have failed to      
define ,god4 ,but of the reality of the 
being whom he seeks to approach he has  
no doubt4 ,it is not the case that the  
reality of that being1 by whomsoever    
worshipped1 is an assumption which must 
be made1 or a hypothesis that must be   

postulated1 for the sake of providing a 
logical justification of worship4 ,the  
simple fact is that the religious       
consciousness is the consciousness of   
,god as real1 just as the common        
consciousness is the consciousness of   
things as real4 ,to represent the       
reality of either as something that is  
not experienced but inferred is to say  
that we have no experience of reality1  
and therefore have no real grounds for  
inference4 ,we find it preferable to    
hold that we have immediate             
consciousness of the real1 to some      
extent1 and that by inference we may be 
brought1 to a larger extent1 into       
immediate consciousness of the real4    
,of the reality of ,him1 whom even the  
jungle-dweller of ,chota ,nagpur seeks  
to approach1 it is only possible to     
doubt on grounds which seek to deny the 
ultimate validity of the common         
consciousness on any point4 ,with the   
inferences which men have drawn about   
that reality1 and the ideas those       

inferences have led to1 the case is     
different4 ,what exactly those ideas    
are1 or have been1 we have1 more or     
less1 to guess at1 from such facts as   
the science of religion furnishes4 ,one 
such set of facts is comprised under the
 term1 worship2 and of that set the     
leading fact everywhere is the rite of  
sacrifice4 ,by means of it we may       
reasonably expect to penetrate to some  
of the ideas which the worshippers had  
of the gods whom they worshipped4       
,unfortunately1 however1 there is       
considerable difference of opinion1     
between students of the science of      
religion1 as to the idea which underlies
 sacrifice4  ,one fact from which we may
 start is that it is with sacrifice that
 the community draws near to the god it 
wishes to approach4 ,the outward1       
physical fact1 the visible set of       
actions1 is that the body of worshippers
 proceed1 with their oblation1 to the   
place in which the god manifests himself
 and is to be found4 ,the inference     

which follows is that1 corresponding to 
this series of outward actions1 there is
 an internal conviction in the hearts   
and minds of the worshippers3 they would
 not go to the place1 unless they felt  
that1 in so doing1 they were drawing    
near to their god4  ,in thus drawing    
near1 both physically and spiritually1  
they take with them something material4 
,and this they would not do1 unless     
taking the material thing expressed1 in 
some way1 their mental attitude1 or     
rather their religious attitude4 ,the   
attitude thus expressed must be part of1
 or implied by1 the desire to approach  
the god both physically and spiritually4
 ,the fact that they carry with them    
some material thing1 expresses in       
gesture-language--such as is used by    
explorers towards natives whose speech  
is unknown to them--the desire that     
actuates them4 ,and thus much may be    
safely inferred1 viz4 that the desire   
is1 at any rate1 to prepossess          
favourably the person approached4  ,thus

 man approaches1 bearing with him       
something intended to please the god    
that he draws near4 ,but though that is 
part of his intention1 it is not the    
whole4 ,his desire is that the god shall
 be pleased not merely with the offering
 but with him4 ,what he brings--his     
oblation--is but a means to that end4   
,why he wishes the god to be pleased    
with him1 we shall have to enquire      
hereafter4 ,thus far1 however1 we see   
that that is the wish and is the purpose
 intimated by the fact that he brings   
something material with him4  ,it seems 
clear also that the something material1 
with which the community draws near to  
its god1 need only be something which is
 conceived to be pleasing to the god4   
,all that is necessary is that it should
 express1 or symbolise1 the feeling with
 which the community draws near4 ,so    
long as it does this1 its function is   
discharged4 ,what it is of importance to
 notice1 and what is apt to be          
forgotten1 is the feeling which         

underlies the outward act1 and without  
which the action1 the rite1 would not be
 performed4 ,the feeling is the desire  
of the worshipper to commend himself4   
,if we take this point of view1 then the
 distinction1 which is sometimes drawn  
between offerings and sacrifice1 need   
not mislead us4 ,the distinction is that
 the term 'sacrifice' is to be used only
 of that which is consumed1 or          
destroyed1 in the service2 while the    
term 'offering' is to be used only of   
what is not destroyed4 ,and the reason  
for drawing1 or seeking to draw1 the    
distinction1 seems to be that the       
destruction1 or consumption1 of the     
material thing1 in the service1 is      
required to prove that the offering is  
accepted4 ,but1 though this proof may   
have come1 in some cases1 to be         
expected1 as showing that the community 
was right in believing that the offering
 would be acceptable2 the fact remains  
that the worshippers would not start out
 with the offering in their hands1      

unless they thought1 to begin with1 that
 it was acceptable4 ,they would not draw
 near to the god1 with an offering about
 the acceptability of which they were in
 doubt4 ,anything therefore which they  
conceived to be acceptable would suffice
 to indicate their desire to please1 and
 would serve to commend them4 ,and the  
desire to do that which is pleasing to  
their god is there from the beginning1  
as the condition on which alone they can
 enter his presence4 ,neglect of this   
fact may lead us to limit unduly the    
potentialities contained in the rite of 
sacrifice1 from the beginning4  ,the    
rite did1 undoubtedly1 in the long      
course of time1 come in some communities
 to be regarded and practised in a      
spirit little better than commercial4   
,sacrifices came to be regarded as      
gifts1 or presents1 made to the god1 on 
the understanding that do ut des4       
,commerce itself1 when analysed1 is     
nothing but the application of the      
principle of giving to get4 ,all that is

 necessary1 in order to reduce religion 
to commercial principles1 is that the   
payment of vows made should be          
contingent on the delivery of the goods 
stipulated for2 that the thing offered  
should be regarded as payment2 that the 
god's favour should be considered       
capable of being bought4 ,it is however 
in communities which have some aptitude 
for commerce and have developed it1 that
 religion is thus interpreted and       
practised4 ,if we go back to the period 
in the history of a race when commerce  
is as yet unknown1 we reach a state of  
things when the possibility of thus     
commercialising worship was1 as yet1    
undeveloped4 ,at that early period1 as  
in all periods1 of the history of       
religion1 the desire of the worshippers 
was to be pleasing1 and to do that which
 was pleasing1 to him whom they         
worshipped2 and the offerings they took 
with them when they approached his      
presence were intended to be the outward
 and visible sign of their desire4 ,but 

in some1 or even in many1 cases1 they   
came eventually to rely on the sign or  
symbol rather than on the desire which  
it signified2 and that is a danger which
 constantly dogs all ritual4 ,attention 
is concentrated rather on the rite than 
on the spiritual process1 which         
underlies it1 and of which the rite is  
but the expression2 and then it becomes 
possible to give a false interpretation 
to the meaning of the rite4  ,in the    
case of the offerings1 which are made in
 the earliest stages of the history of  
religion1 the false interpretation1     
which comes in some cases to be put upon
 them by those who make the offerings1  
has been adopted by some students of the
 history of religion1 as the true       
explanation1 the real meaning and the   
original purpose of offerings and       
sacrifice4 ,this theory--the            
,gift-theory of sacrifice--requires us  
to believe that religion could be       
commercialised before commerce was      
known2 that religion consists1 or       

originally consisted1 not in doing that 
which is pleasing in the sight of ,god1 
but in bribing the gods2 that the       
relatively late misinterpretation is the
 original and true meaning of the rite2 
in a word1 that there was no religion in
 the earliest manifestation of religion4
 ,but it is precisely this last         
contention which is fatal to the        
,gift-theory4 ,not only is it a         
self-contradiction in terms1 but it     
denies the very possibility of religious
 evolution4 ,evolution is a process and 
a continuous process3 there is an       
unbroken continuity between the earliest
 and the latest of its stages4 ,if there
 was no religion whatever in the        
earliest stages1 neither can there be   
any in the latest4 ,and that is why     
those who hold religion to be an        
absurdity are apt to adopt the          
,gift-theory3 the ,gift-theory implies a
 degrading absurdity from the beginning 
to the end of the evolutionary          
process--an unbroken continuity of      

absurdity4 ,on the other hand1 we may   
hold by the plain truth that there must 
have been religion in the earliest      
manifestations of religion1 and that    
bribing a god is not1 in our sense of   
the word1 religious4 ,in that case1 we  
shall also hold that the offerings which
 have always been part of the earliest  
religious ritual were intended as the   
outward and visible sign or symbol of   
the community's desire to do that which 
was pleasing to their god2 and that it  
is only in the course of time1 and as   
the consequence of misinterpretation1   
that the offerings come to be regarded  
as gifts made for the purpose of bribing
 the gods or of purchasing what they    
have to bestow4 ,thus1 just as1 in the  
evolution of religion1 fetishism was    
differentiated from polytheism1 and was 
cast aside--where it was cast aside--as 
incompatible with the demands of the    
religious sentiment1 so too the making  
of gifts to the gods1 for the purpose of
 purchasing their favour1 came to be    

differentiated from the service which   
,god requires4  ,the endeavour to       
explain the history and purpose of      
sacrifice by means of the ,gift-theory  
alone has the further disadvantage that 
it requires us to close our eyes to     
other features of the sacrificial rite1 
for1 if we turn to them1 we shall find  
it impossible to regard the ,gift-theory
 as affording a complete and exhaustive 
account of all that there was in the    
rite from the beginning4 ,indeed1 so    
important are these other features1     
that1 as we have seen1 some students    
would maintain that the only rite which 
can be properly termed sacrificial is   
one which presents these features4 ,from
 this point of view1 the term sacrifice 
can only be used of something that is   
consumed or destroyed in the service2   
while the term offering is restricted to
 things which are not destroyed4 ,but1  
from this point of view1 we must hold   
that sacrifices1 to be sacrifices in the
 specific must not merely be destroyed  

or consumed1 for then anything that     
could be destroyed by fire would be     
capable of becoming a burnt-offering2   
and the burning would simply prove that 
the offering was acceptable--a proof    
which may in some cases have been       
required to make assurance doubly sure1 
but which was really superfluous1       
inasmuch as no one who desires his      
offering to be accepted will make an    
offering which he thinks to be          
unacceptable4 ,sacrifices1 to be        
sacrifices in the specific sense thus   
put upon the word1 we must hold to be   
things which by their very nature are   
marked out to be consumed3 they must be 
articles of food4 ,but even with this   
qualification1 sacrifices are not       
satisfactorily distinguished from       
offerings1 for a food-offering is an    
offering1 and discharges the function of
 a sacrifice1 provided that it is       
offered4 ,that it should actually be    
consumed is neither universally nor     
necessarily required4 ,that it is often 

consumed in the service is a fact which 
brings us to a new and different feature
 of the sacrificial rite4 ,let us then  
consider it4  ,thus far1 looking at the 
rite on its outward side1 from the point
 of view of the spectator1 we have seen 
that the worshippers1 carrying with them
 something material1 draw near to the   
place where the god manifests himself4  
,from this series of actions and        
gestures1 we have inferred the belief of
 the worshippers to be that they are    
drawing near to their god both          
physically and spiritually4 ,we have    
inferred that the material oblation is  
intended by the worshippers as the      
outward and visible sign of their wish  
to commend themselves to the god4 ,we   
have now to notice what has been implied
 throughout1 that the worshippers do not
 draw near to the god without a reason1 
or seek to commend themselves to him    
without a purpose4 ,and if we consult   
the facts once more1 we shall find that 
the occasions1 on which the god is thus 

approached1 are generally occasions of  
distress1 experienced or apprehended4   
,the feelings with which the community  
draws near are compounded of the fear1  
occasioned by the distress or danger1   
and the hope and confidence that it will
 be removed or averted by the step which
 they are taking4 ,part of their idea of
 the god is that he can and will remove 
the present1 or avert the coming1       
calamity2 otherwise they would not seek 
to approach him4 ,but part also of their
 idea is that they have done something  
to provoke him1 otherwise calamity would
 not have come upon them4 ,thus1 when   
the worshippers seek to come into the   
presence of their god1 they are seeking 
him with the feeling that he is         
estranged from them1 and they approach  
him with something in their hands to    
symbolise their desire to please him1   
and to restore the relation which       
ordinarily subsists between a god and   
his worshippers4 ,having deposited the  
offering they bring1 and having         

proffered the petition they came to     
make1 they retire satisfied that all now
 is well4 ,the rite is now in all its   
essential features complete4 ,but though
 complete1 as an organism in the early  
stages of its history may be complete1  
it has1 like the organism1 the power of 
growth2 and it grows4  ,the conviction  
with which the community ends the rite  
is the joyful conviction that the       
trouble is over-past4 ,the joy which the
 community feels often expresses itself 
in feast and song2 and where the        
offerings are1 as they most commonly    
are1 food-offerings or animal-sacrifice1
 the feast may come to be regarded as   
one at which the god himself is present 
and of which he partakes along with his 
worshippers4 ,the joy1 which expresses  
itself in feast and song1 may1 however1 
not make itself felt until the prayer of
 the community has been fulfilled and   
the calamity has passed away2 and then  
the feast comes to be of the nature of a
 joyful thank-offering4 ,but it is      

probably only in one or other of these  
two cases that the offering comes to be 
consumed in the service of feast and    
song4 ,and although the rite may and    
does grow in this way1 still this       
development of it--'eating with the     
god'--is rather potentially than        
actually present in the earliest form of
 the rite4  ,from this point of view1   
sacrificial meals or feasts are not part
 of the ritual of approach3 they belong 
to the termination of the ceremony4     
,they mark the fact of reconciliation2  
they are an expression of the conviction
 that friendly relations are restored4  
,the sacrificial meal then is           
accordingly not a means by which        
reconciliation is effected1 but the     
outward expression of the conviction    
that the end has been attained2 and1 as 
expressing1 it has the force of         
confirming1 the conviction4 ,where the  
sacrificial rite grows to comprehend a  
sacrificial feast or meal1 there the    
food-offering or sacrifice is consumed  

in the service4 ,but the rite does not  
always develop thus2 and even without   
this development it discharges its      
proper function4 ,before this           
development1 it is on occasions of      
distress that the god is approached by  
the community1 in the conviction that   
the community has offended1 and with the
 object of purging the community and    
removing the distress1 of appeasing the 
god and restoring good relations4 ,yet  
even at this stage the object of the    
community is to be at one with its      
god--at-one-ment and communion so far   
are sought4 ,there is implied the faith 
that he1 the community's god1 cannot    
possibly be for ever alienated and will 
not utterly forsake them1 even though he
 be estranged for the time4 ,doubtless  
the feast1 which in some cases came to  
crown the sacrificial rite1 may1 where  
it was practised amongst peoples who    
believed that persons partaking of      
common food became united by a common   
bond1 have come to be regarded as       

constituting a fresh bond and a more    
intimate communion between the god and  
his worshippers who alike partook of the
 sacrificial meal4 ,but this belief is  
probably far from being1 or having been1
 universal2 and it is unnecessary to    
assume that this belief must have       
existed1 wherever we find the           
accomplishment of the sacrificial rite  
accompanied by rejoicing4 ,the          
performance of the sacrificial rite is  
prompted by the desire to restore the   
normal relation between the community   
and its god4 ,it is carried out in the  
conviction that the god is willing to   
return to the normal relation2 when it  
has been performed1 the community is    
relieved and rejoices1 whether the      
rejoicing does or does not take form in 
a feast2 and the essence of the         
rejoicing is the conviction that all now
 is well1 a conviction which arises from
 the performance of the sacrificial rite
 and not from the meal which may or may 
not follow it4  ,where the institution  

of the sacrificial feast did grow up1   
the natural tendency would be for it to 
become the most important feature in the
 whole rite4 ,the original and the      
fundamental purpose of the rite was to  
reconcile the god and his worshippers   
and to make them at one3 the feast1     
therefore1 which marked the             
accomplishment of the very purpose of   
the rite1 would come to be regarded as  
the object of the rite4 ,in that1       
however1 there is nothing more than the 
shifting forward of the centre of       
religious interest from the sacrifice to
 the feast3 there is nothing in it to   
change the character or conception of   
the feast4 ,yet1 in the case of some    
peoples1 its character and conception   
did change in a remarkable way4 ,in the 
case of some peoples1 we find that the  
feast is not an occasion of 'eating with
 the god' but what has been crudely     
called 'eating the god4' ,this          
conception existed1 as is generally     
agreed1 beyond the possibility of doubt1

 in ,mexico amongst the ,aztecs1 and    
perhaps--though not beyond the          
possibility of doubt--elsewhere4  ,the  
,aztecs were a barbarous or             
semi-civilised people1 with a long      
history behind them4 ,the circumstances 
under which the belief and practice in  
question existed and had grown up       
amongst them are clear enough4 ,the     
,aztecs worshipped deities1 and amongst 
those deities were plants and           
vegetables1 such as maize4 ,it was1 of  
course1 not any one individual specimen 
that they worshipped3 it was the spirit1
 the maize-mother1 who manifested       
herself in every maize-plant1 but was   
not identical with any one4 ,at the same
 time1 though they worshipped the       
spirit1 or species1 they grew and       
cultivated the individual plants1 as    
furnishing them with food4 ,thus they   
were in the position of eating as food  
the plant1 the body1 in which was       
manifested the spirit whom they         
worshipped4 ,in this there was an       

outward resemblance to the ,christian   
rite of communion1 which could not fail 
to attract the attention of the ,spanish
 priests at the time of the conquest of 
,mexico1 but which has probably been    
unconsciously magnified by them4 ,they  
naturally interpreted the ,aztec        
ceremony in terms of ,christianity1 and 
the spirit of the translation probably  
differs accordingly from the spirit of  
the original4  ,we have now to consider 
the new phase of the                    
sacrificial--indeed1 in this connection1
 we may say the sacramental--rite which 
was found in ,mexico1 and to indicate   
the manner in which it probably         
originated4 ,the offerings earliest made
 to the gods were not necessarily1 but  
were probably1 food-offerings1 animal or
 vegetable2 and as we are not in a      
position to affirm that there was any   
restriction upon the kind of food       
offered1 it seems advisable to assume   
that any kind of food might be offered  
to any kind of god4 ,the intention of   

offerings seems to be to indicate merely
 that the worshippers desire to be      
pleasing in the sight of the god whom   
they wish to approach4 ,at this1 the    
simplest and earliest stage of the rite1
 the sacrificial feast has not yet come 
into existence3 it is enough if the food
 is offered to the god2 it is not       
necessary that it should be eaten1 or   
that any portion of it should be eaten1 
by the community4 ,there is evidence    
enough to warrant us in believing that  
generally there was an aversion to      
eating the god's portion4 ,if the       
worshippers ate any portion1 they       
certainly would not eat and did not eat1
 until after the god had done so4 ,at   
this stage in the development of the    
rite1 the offerings are occasional1 and 
are not made at stated1 recurring1      
seasons4 ,the reason for believing this 
is that it is on occasions of alarm and 
distress that the community seeks to    
draw near its god4 ,but though it is in 
alarm that the community draws nigh1 it 

draws nigh in confidence that the god   
can be appeased and is willing to be    
appeased4 ,it is part of the community's
 idea of its god that he has the power  
to punish2 that he does not exercise his
 power without reason2 and that1 as he  
is powerful1 so also he is just to his  
worshippers1 and merciful4  ,but though 
occasional offerings1 and sacrifices    
made in trouble to gods who are         
conceived to be a very help in time of  
trouble1 continue to be made1 until a   
relatively late period in the history of
 religion1 we also find that there are  
recurring sacrifices1 annually made4 ,at
 these annual ceremonies1 the offerings 
are food-offerings4 ,where the          
food-offerings are offerings of         
vegetable food1 they are made at harvest
 time4 ,they are made on the occasion of
 harvest2 and that they should be so    
made is probably no accident or         
fortuitous coincidence4 ,at the         
regularly recurring season of harvest1  
the community adheres to the custom1    

already formed1 of not partaking of the 
food which it offers to its god1 until a
 portion has been offered to the god4   
,the custom1 like other customs1 tends  
to become obligatory3 the worshippers1  
that is to say the community1 may not   
eat1 until the offering has been made   
and accepted4 ,then1 indeed1 the        
worshippers may eat1 solemnly1 in the   
presence of their god4 ,the eating      
becomes a solemn feast of thanksgiving4 
,the god1 after whom they eat1 and to   
whom they render thanks1 becomes the god
 who gives them to eat4 ,what is thus   
true of edible plants--whether wild or  
domesticated--may also hold true to some
 extent of animal life1 where anything  
like a 'close time' comes to be         
observed4  ,as sacrificial ceremonies   
come to be1 thus1 annually recurring    
rites1 a corresponding development takes
 place in the community's idea of its   
god4 ,so long as the sacrificial        
ceremony was an irregularly recurring   
rite1 the performance of which was      

prompted by the occurrence1 or the      
threat1 of disaster1 so long it was the 
wrath of the god which filled the       
fore-ground1 so to speak1 of the        
religious consciousness2 though behind  
it lay the conviction of his justice and
 his mercy4 ,but when the ceremony      
becomes one of annual worship1 a        
regularly recurring occasion on which   
the worshippers recognise that it is the
 god1 to whom the first-fruits belong1  
who gives the worshippers the harvest1  
then the community's idea of its god is 
correspondingly developed4 ,the occasion
 of the sacrificial rite is no longer   
one of alarm and distress2 it is no     
longer the wrath of the god1 but his    
goodness as the giver of good gifts1    
that tends to emerge in the fore-ground 
of the religious consciousness4 ,harvest
 rites tend to become feasts of         
thanksgiving and thank-offerings2 and   
so1 by contrast with these joyous       
festivals1 the occasional sacrifices1   
which continue to be offered in times of

 distress1 tend to assume1 more and     
more1 the character of sin-offerings or 
guilt-offerings4  ,we have1 however1 now
 to notice a consequence which ensues   
upon the community's custom of not      
eating until after the first-fruits have
 been offered to the god4 ,not only is a
 habit or custom hard to break1 simply  
because it is a habit2 but1 when the    
habit is the habit of a whole community1
 the individual who presumes to violate 
it is visited by the disapproval and the
 condemnation of the whole community4   
,when then the custom has established   
itself of abstaining from eating1 until 
the first-fruits have been offered to   
the god1 any violation of the custom is 
condemned by the community as a whole4  
,the consequence of this is that the    
fruit or the animal tends to be regarded
 by the community as sacred to the god1 
and not to be meddled with until after  
the first-fruits have been offered to   
him4 ,the plant or animal becomes sacred
 to the god because the community has   

offered it to him1 and intends to offer 
it to him1 and does offer it to him     
annually4 ,now it is not a necessary and
 inevitable consequence that an animal  
or plant1 which has come to be sacred1  
should become divine4 ,but where we find
 divine animals or animal gods--divine  
corn or corn-goddesses--we are entitled 
to consider this as one way in which    
they may have come to be regarded as    
divine1 because sacred1 and as deities1 
because divine4 ,when we find the divine
 plant or animal constituting the       
sacrifice1 and furnishing forth the     
sacrificial meal1 there is a possibility
 that it was in this way and by this    
process that the plant or animal came to
 be1 first1 sacred1 then divine1 and    
finally the deity1 to whom it was       
offered4 ,in many cases1 certainly1 this
 last stage was never reached4 ,and we  
may conjecture a reason why it was not  
reached4 ,whether it could be reached   
would depend largely on the degree of   
individuality1 which the god1 to whom   

the offering was made1 had reached4 ,a  
god who possesses a proper1 personal    
name1 must have a long history behind   
him1 for a personal name is an epithet  
the meaning of which comes in course of 
time to be forgotten4 ,if its meaning   
has come to be entirely forgotten1 the  
god is thereby shown not only to have a 
long history behind him but to have     
acquired a high degree of individuality 
and personality1 which will not be      
altered or modified by the offerings    
which are made to him4 ,where1 however1 
the being or power worshipped is1 as    
with the jungle-dwellers of ,chota      
,nagpur1 still nameless1 his personality
 and individuality must be of the       
vaguest2 and1 in that case1 there is the
 probability that the plant or animal   
offered to him may become sacred to him2
 and1 having become sacred1 may become  
divine4 ,the animal or plant may become 
that in which the nameless being        
manifests himself4 ,the corn or maize is
 offered to the nameless deity2 the     

deity is the being to whom the corn or  
maize is habitually offered2 and then   
becomes the corn-deity or maize-deity1  
the mother of the maize or the          
corn-goddess4  ,like the di indigites of
 ,italy1 these vegetation-goddesses are 
addressed by names which1 though        
performing the function of personal     
names and enabling the worshippers to   
make appeals to the deities personally1 
are still of perfectly transparent      
meaning4 ,both present to us that stage 
in the evolution of a deity1 in which as
 yet the meaning of his name still      
survives2 in which his name has not yet 
become a fully personal name2 and in    
which he has not yet attained to full   
personality and complete individuality4 
,this want of complete individuality can
 hardly be dissociated from another fact
 which goes with it4 ,that fact is that 
the deity is to be found in any plant of
 the species sacred to him1 or in any   
animal of the species sacred to him1 but
 is not supposed to be found only in the

 particular plant or animal which is    
offered on one particular occasion4 ,if 
the corn-goddess is present1 or         
manifests herself1 in one particular    
sheaf of corn1 at her harvest festival  
this year1 still she did manifest       
herself last year1 and will manifest    
herself next year1 in another4 ,the     
deity1 that is to say1 is the species2  
and the species1 and no individual      
specimen thereof1 is the deity4 ,that is
 the reason which prevents1 or tends to 
prevent1 deities of this kind from      
attaining complete individuality4  ,this
 want of complete individuality and of  
full personality it is which            
characterises totems4 ,the totem1 also1 
is a being who1 if he manifests himself 
in this particular animal1 which is     
slain1 has also manifested himself and  
will manifest himself in other animals  
of the same species3 but he is not      
identical with any particular individual
 specimen4 ,not only is the             
individuality of the totem thus         

incomplete1 but in many instances the   
name of the species has not begun to    
change into a proper personal name for  
the totem1 as ',ceres' or               
',chicomecoatl' or ',xilonen' have      
changed into proper names of personal   
deities4 ,whether we are or are not to  
regard the totem as a god1 at any rate1 
viewed as a being in the process of     
acquiring individuality1 he seems to be 
acquiring it in the same way1 and by the
 same process1 as corn-goddesses and    
maize-mothers acquired theirs1 and to   
present to our eyes a stage of growth   
through which these vegetation-deities  
themselves have passed4 ,they also at   
one time had not yet acquired the       
personal names by which they afterwards 
came to be addressed4 ,they were1 though
 nameless1 the beings present in any and
 every sheaf of corn or maize1 though   
not cabined and confined to any one     
sheaf or any number of sheaves4 ,and    
these beings have it in them to         
become--for they did become--deities4   

,the process by which and the period at 
which they may have become deities we   
have already suggested3 the period is   
the stage at which offerings1 originally
 made at irregular times of distress1   
become annual offerings1 made at the    
time of harvest2 the process is the     
process by which what is customary      
becomes obligatory4 ,the offerings at   
harvest time1 from customary1 become    
obligatory4 ,that which is offered1 is  
thereby sacred2 the very intention to   
offer it1 this year in the same way as  
it was offered last year1 suffices to   
make it sacred1 before it is offered4   
,thus1 the whole species1 whether plant 
or animal1 becomes sacred1 to the deity 
to whom it is offered3 it is his4 ,and  
if he be as vague and shadowy as the    
power or being to whom the              
jungle-dwellers of ,chota ,nagpur make  
their offerings at stated seasons1 then 
he may be looked for and found in the   
plant or animal species which is his4   
,the harvest is his alone1 until the    

first-fruits are offered4 ,he makes the 
plants to grow3 if they fail1 it is to  
him the community prays4 ,if they       
thrive1 it is because he is1 though not 
identical with them1 yet in a way       
present in them1 and is not to be       
distinguished from the being who not    
only manifests himself in every         
individual plant or animal of the       
species1 though not identical with any  
one1 but is called by the name of the   
species4  ,whether we are to see in     
totems1 as they occur in ,australia1    
beings in the stage through which       
vegetation deities presumably passed1   
before they became corn-goddesses and   
mothers of the maize1 is a question1 the
 answer to which depends upon our       
interpretation of the ceremonies in     
which they figure4 ,it is difficult1 at 
least1 to dissociate those ceremonies   
from the ritual of first-fruits4 ,the   
community may not eat of the animal or  
plant1 at the appropriate season1 until 
the head-man has solemnly and sparingly 

partaken of it4 ,about the solemnity of 
the ceremonial and the reverence of     
those who perform it1 there is no doubt4
 ,but1 whereas in the ritual of         
first-fruits elsewhere1 the first-fruits
 are1 beyond possibility of doubt or    
mistake1 offered to a god1 a personal   
god1 having a proper name1 in ,australia
 there is no satisfactory evidence to   
show that the offerings are supposed1 by
 those who make them1 to be made to any 
god2 or that the totem-spirit1 if it is 
distinguished from the totem-species1 is
 regarded as a god4 ,there has          
accordingly been a tendency on the part 
of students of the science of religion  
to deny to totemism any place in the    
evolution of religion1 and even to      
regard the ,australian black-fellows as 
exemplifying1 within the region of our  
observation1 a pre-religious period in  
the process of human evolution4 ,this   
latter view may safely be dismissed as  
untenable1 whether we do or do not      
believe totemism to have a religious    

side4 ,there is sufficient mythology1   
still existing amongst the ,australian  
tribes1 to show that the belief in gods 
survives amongst them1 even though1 as  
seems to be the case1 no worship now    
attaches to the gods1 with personal     
names1 who figure in the myths4 ,that   
myths survive1 when worship has ceased2 
and that the names of gods linger on1   
even when myths are no longer told of   
them1 are features to be seen in the    
decay of religious systems1 all the     
world over1 and not in ,australia alone4
 ,the fact that these features are to be
 found in ,australia points to a        
consideration which hitherto has        
generally been overlooked1 or not       
sufficiently weighed4 ,it is that in    
,australia we are in the midst of       
general religious decay1 and are not    
witnessing the birth of religion nor in 
the presence of a pre-religious period4 
,from this point of view1 the worship of
 the gods1 who figure in the myths1 has 
ceased1 but their names live on4 ,and   

from this point of view1 the names of   
the beings worshipped1 in the totemistic
 first-fruits ceremonies1 have          
disappeared1 though the ceremonies are  
elaborate1 solemn1 reverent1 complicated
 and prolonged2 and religion has been   
swallowed up in ritual4  ,even amongst  
the ,aztecs1 who had reached a stage of 
social development1 barbarous or        
semi-civilised1 far beyond anything     
attained by the ,australian tribes1 the 
degree of personality and individuality 
reached by the vegetation deities was   
not such that those deities had strictly
 proper names3 the deity of the maize   
was still only 'the maize-mother4'      
,amongst the ,australians1 who are so   
far below the level reached in ,mexico1 
the beings worshipped at the            
first-fruits ceremonies may well have   
been as nameless as the beings          
worshipped by the jungle-dwellers of    
,chota ,nagpur4 ,around these nameless  
beings1 a ritual1 simple in its origin1 
but luxuriant in its growth1 has        

developed1 overshadowing and obscuring  
them from our view1 so that we1 and     
perhaps the worshippers1 cannot see the 
god for the ritual4  ,in ,mexico the    
vegetation-goddesses struggled for      
existence amongst a crowd of more       
developed deities1 just as in ,italy the
 di indigites competed1 at a            
disadvantage1 with the great gods of the
 state4 ,in ,australia the greater gods 
of the myths seem to have given way     
before--or to--the spread of totemism4  
,where gods are worshipped for the      
benefits expected from them1 beings who 
have in charge the food-supply of the   
community will be worshipped not only   
annually at the season of the           
first-fruits1 but with greater zeal and 
more continuous devotion than can be    
displayed towards the older gods who are
 worshipped only at irregular periods4  
,not only does the existence of         
mythology in ,australia indicate that   
the gods who figure in the myths were   
once worshipped1 though worship now no  

longer is rendered to them2 but the     
totemistic ceremonies by their very     
nature show that they are a later       
development of the sacrificial rite4    
,the simplest form of the rite is that  
in which the community draw near to     
their god1 bearing with them offerings1 
acceptable to the god3 it is at a later 
stage in the development of the rite    
that the offerings1 having been accepted
 by the god1 are consumed by the        
community1 as is the case with the totem
 animals and plants4 ,at its earliest   
stage1 again1 the rite is performed1 at 
irregular periods1 on occasions of      
distress3 it is only at a more advanced 
stage that the rite is performed at     
fixed1 annual periods1 as in ,australia4
 ,and this change of periodicity is     
plainly connected with the growth of the
 conviction that the annual first-fruits
 belong to the gods--a conviction       
springing from the belief that they are 
annually accepted by the god1 a belief  
which in its turn implies a prior belief

 that they are acceptable4 ,in other    
words1 the centre of religious interest 
at first lies in approaching the god1   
that is in the desire to restore the    
normal state of relations1 which        
calamity shows to have been disturbed4  
,but in the end1 religious interest is  
concentrated on1 and expressed by1 the  
feast which terminates the ceremony and 
marks the fact that the reconciliation  
is effected4 ,what is at first accepted 
by the god at the feast comes to be     
regarded as belonging to him and sacred 
to him3 the worshippers may not touch it
 until a portion of it1 the             
first-fruits1 has been accepted by him4 
,thus the rite which indicates and marks
 his acceptance becomes more than ever  
the centre of religious interest4 ,the  
rite may thus become of more importance 
than the god1 as in ,australia seems to 
be the case2 for the performance of the 
rite is indispensable if the community  
is to be admitted to eat of the harvest4
 ,when this point of view has been      

reached1 when the performance of the    
rite is the indispensable thing1 the    
rite tends to be regarded as magical4   
,if this is what has happened in the    
case of the ,australian rite1 it is but 
what tends to happen1 wherever ritual   
flourishes at the expense of religion4  
,if it were necessary to assume that    
only amongst the ,australian            
black-fellows1 and never elsewhere1 did 
a rite1 originally religious1 tend to   
become magical1 then it would be a      
priori unlikely1 in the extreme1 that   
this happened in ,australia4 ,but       
inasmuch as this tendency is innate in  
ritual1 it is rather likely that in     
,australia the tendency has run its     
course1 as it has done elsewhere1 in    
,india1 for example1 where1 also1 the   
sacrificial rite has become magical4    
,whether a rite1 originally religious1  
will become assimilated to magic1       
depends very much on the extent to which
 the community believes in magic4 ,the  
more the community believes in magic1   

the more ready it will be to put a      
magical interpretation on its religious 
rites4 ,but the fact that1 in the lower 
communities1 religion is always in      
danger of sinking into magic1 does not  
prove that religion springs from magic  
and is but one kind of magic4 ,that     
view1 once held by some students1 is now
 generally abandoned4 ,it amounts simply
 to saying once more that in the        
earliest manifestations of religion     
there was no religion1 and that religion
 is now1 what it was in the             
beginning--nothing but magic4 ,if that  
position is abandoned1 then religious   
rites are1 in their very nature1 and    
from their very origin1 different from  
magical rites4 ,religious rites are1    
first1 rites of approach1 whereby the   
community draws nigh to its god2 and1   
afterwards1 rites of sacramental meals  
whereby the community celebrates its    
reconciliation and enjoys communion with
 its god4 ,those meals are typically    
cases of 'eating with the god1'         

celebrated on the occasion of           
first-fruits1 and based on the          
conviction1 which has slowly grown up1  
that 'the earth is the ,lord's1 and the 
fulness thereof4' ,meals1 such as were  
found in ,mexico1 and have left their   
traces in ,australia1 in which the fruit
 or the animal that was offered had come
 to be regarded as standing in the same 
relation to the god as an individual    
does to the species1 are meals having   
the same origin as those in which the   
community eats with its god1 but        
following a different line of evolution4
  ,the object of the sacrificial rite is
 first to restore and then to maintain  
good relations between the community and
 its god4 ,pushed to its logical        
conclusion1 or rather perhaps we should 
say1 pushed back to the premisses       
required for its logical demonstration1 
the very idea of renewing or restoring  
relations implies an original           
understanding between the community and 
its god2 and implies that it is the     

community's departure from this         
understanding which has involved it in  
the disaster1 from which it desires to  
escape1 and to secure escape from which1
 it approaches its god1 with desire to  
renew and restore the normal relations4 
,the idea that if intelligent beings do 
something customarily1 they must do so  
because once they entered into a        
contract1 compact or covenant to do so1 
is one which in ,plato's time manifested
 itself in the theory of a social       
compact1 to account for the existence of
 morality1 and which in ,japan was      
recorded in the tenth century ,a4,d4 as 
accounting for the fact that certain    
sacrifices were offered to the gods4    
,thus in the fourth ritual of 'the ,way 
of the ,gods'--that is ,shinto--it is   
explained that the ,spirits of the      
,storm took the ,japanese to be their   
people1 and the people of ,japan took   
the ,spirits of the ,storm to be gods of
 theirs4 ,in pursuance of that covenant1
 the spirits on their part undertook to 

be ,gods of the ,winds and to ripen and 
bless the harvest1 while the people on  
their part undertook to found a temple  
to their new gods2 and that is why the  
people are now worshipping them4 ,it    
was1 according to the account given in  
the fourth ritual1 the gods themselves  
who dictated the conditions on which    
they were willing to take the ,japanese 
to be their people1 and fixed the terms 
of the covenant4 ,so too in the account 
given in the sixth chapter of ,exodus1  
it was ,jehovah himself who dictated to 
,moses the terms of the covenant which  
he was willing to make with the children
 of ,israel3 ',i will take you to me for
 a people1 and ,i will be to you a      
,god4' ,in ,japan it was to the         
,emperor1 as high priest1 that the terms
 of the covenant were dictated1 in      
consequence of which the temple was     
built and the worship instituted4  ,the 
train of thought is quite clear and     
logically consistent4 ,if the gods of   
the ,winds were to be trusted--as they  

were unquestionably trusted--it must be 
because they had made a covenant with   
the people1 and would be faithful to it1
 if the people were4 ,the direct        
statement1 in plain1 intelligible words1
 in the fourth ritual1 that a covenant  
of this kind had actually been entered  
into1 was but a statement of what is    
implied by the very idea1 and in the    
very act1 of offering sacrifices4 ,and  
sacrifices had of course been offered in
 ,japan long before the tenth century3  
they were offered1 and long had been    
offered annually to the gods of the     
,harvest4 ,probably they had been       
offered to the gods of the ,storms long 
before they were offered to the gods of 
the ,winds2 and the procedure narrated  
in the fourth ritual records the        
transformation of the occasional and    
irregular sacrifices1 made to the winds 
when they threatened the harvest with   
damage1 into annual sacrifices1 made    
every year as a matter of course4 ,thus1
 we have an example of the way in which 

the older sacrifices1 made originally   
only in times of disaster1 come to be   
assimilated to the more recent          
sacrifices1 which from their nature and 
origin1 are offered regularly every     
year4 ,not only is there a natural      
tendency in man to assimilate things    
which admit of assimilation and can be  
brought under one rule2 but also it is  
advisable to avert calamity rather than 
to wait for it1 and1 when it has        
happened1 to do something4 ,it would    
therefore be desirable from this point  
of view to render regular worship to    
deities who can send disaster2 and thus 
to induce them to abstain from sending  
it4  ,in the fourth ,shinto ritual the  
gods of the ,winds are represented as   
initiating the contract and prescribing 
its terms4 ,but in the first ritual1    
which is concerned with the worship of  
the gods of the ,harvest1 it is the     
community which is represented as taking
 the first step1 and as undertaking     
that1 if the gods grant an abundant     

harvest1 the people will1 through their 
high priest1 the ,emperor1 make a       
thank-offering1 in the shape of         
first-fruits1 to the gods of the        
,harvest4 ,this is1 of course1 no more  
an historical account of the way in     
which the gods of the ,harvest actually 
came to be worshipped1 than is the      
account which the fourth ,shinto ritual 
gives of the way the gods of the ,winds 
came to be worshipped4 ,in both cases   
the worship existed1 and sacrifices had 
been made1 as a matter of custom1 long  
before any need was felt to explain the 
origin of the custom4 ,as soon as the   
need was felt1 the explanation was      
forthcoming3 if the community had made  
these sacrifices1 for as long back as   
the memory of man could run1 and if the 
gods had granted good harvests in       
consequence1 it must have been in       
consequence of an agreement entered into
 by both parties2 and therefore a       
covenant had been established between   
them1 on some past occasion1 which soon 

became historical4  ,this history of the
 origin and meaning of sacrifice has an 
obvious affinity with the gift-theory of
 sacrifice4 ,both in the gift-theory and
 the covenant-theory1 the terms of the  
transaction are that so much blessing   
shall be forthcoming for so much        
service1 or so much sacrifice for so    
much blessing4 ,the point of view is    
commercial2 the obligation is legal2 if 
the terms are strictly kept on the one  
part1 then they are strictly binding on 
the other4 ,the covenant-theory1 like   
the gift-theory1 is eventually          
discovered by spiritual experience1 if  
pushed far enough1 to be a false        
interpretation of the relations existing
 between god and man4 ,being an         
interpretation1 it is an outcome of     
reflection--of reflection upon the fact 
that1 in the time of trouble1 man turns 
to his gods1 and that1 in returning to  
them1 he escapes from his trouble4 ,on  
that fact all systems of worship are    
based1 from that fact all systems of    

worship start4 ,if1 as is the case1 they
 start in different directions and      
diverge from one another1 it is because 
men1 in the process of reflecting upon  
that fact1 come to put different        
interpretations upon it4 ,and so far as 
they eventually come to feel that any   
interpretation is a misinterpretation1  
they do so because they find that it is 
not1 as they had been taught to believe1
 a correct interpretation but a         
misinterpretation of the fact3 there is 
found in the experience of returning to 
,god1 something with which the          
misinterpretation is irreconcilable2    
and1 when the misinterpretation is      
dispersed1 like a vapour1 the vision of 
,god1 the idea of ,god1 shines forth the
 more brightly4 ,one such               
misinterpretation is the reflection that
 the favour of the gods can be bought by
 gifts4 ,another is the reflection that 
the gods sell their favours1 on the     
terms of a covenant agreed upon between 
them and man4 ,another is that that     

which is offered is sacred1 and that    
that which is sacred is divine--that the
 god is himself the offering which is   
made to him4  ,in all systems of worship
 man not only turns to his gods but does
 so in the conviction that he is        
returning1 or trying to return1 to      
them--trying to return to them1 because 
they have been estranged1 and access to 
them is therefore difficult4            
,accordingly1 he draws near to them1    
bearing in his hands something intended 
to express his desire to return to them4
 ,the material1 external symbol of his  
desire--the oblation1 offering or       
sacrifice which he brings with him      
because it expresses his desire--is that
 on which at first his attention        
centres4 ,and because his attention     
centres on it1 the rite of sacrifice1   
the outward ceremony1 develops in ways  
already described4 ,the object of the   
rite is to procure access to the god2   
and the greater the extent to which     
attention is concentrated on the right  

way of performing the external acts and 
the outward ceremony1 the less attention
 is bestowed upon the inward purpose    
which accompanies the outward actions1  
and for the sake of which those external
 actions are performed4 ,as the object  
of the rite is to procure access1 it    
seems to follow that the proper         
performance of the rite will ensure the 
access desired4 ,the reason why access  
is sought1 at all1 is the               
belief--arising on occasions when       
calamity visits the community--that the 
god has been estranged1 and the faith   
that he may yet become reconciled to his
 worshippers4 ,the reason why his wrath 
descends1 in the shape of calamities1   
upon the community1 is that the         
community1 in the person of one of its  
members1 has offended the god1 by       
breaking the custom of the community in 
some way4 ,for this reason--in this     
belief and faith--access is sought1 by  
means of the sacrificial rite2 and the  
purpose of the rite is assumed to be    

realised by the performance of the      
ceremonies1 in which the outward rite   
consists4 ,the meaning and the value of 
the outward ceremonies consists in the  
desire for reconciliation which         
expresses itself in the acts performed2 
and the mere performance of the acts    
tends of itself to relieve the desire4  
,that is why the covenant-theory of     
sacrifice gains acceptance3 it          
represents--it is an official           
representation--that performance of the 
sacrificial ceremony is all that is     
required1 by the terms of the agreement1
 to obtain reconciliation and to effect 
atonement4 ,but the representation is   
found to be a misrepresentation3 the    
desire for reconciliation and atonement 
is not to be satisfied by outward       
ceremonies1 but by hearkening and       
obedience4 ',to obey is better than     
sacrifice and to hearken than the fat of
 rams4' ,sacrifice remains the outward  
rite1 but it is pronounced to have value
 only so far as it is an expression of  

the spirit of obedience4 ,oblations are 
vain unless the person who offers them  
is changed in heart1 unless there is an 
inward1 spiritual process1 of which the 
external ceremony is an expression4     
,though this was an interpretation of   
the meaning of the sacrificial rite     
which was incompatible with the         
covenant-theory and which was eventually
 fatal to it1 it was at once a return to
 the original object of the rite and a  
disclosure of its meaning4 ,some such   
internal1 spiritual process is implied  
by sacrifice from the beginning1 for it 
is a plain impossibility to suppose that
 in the beginning it consisted of mere  
external actions which had absolutely no
 meaning whatever1 for those who        
performed them2 and it is equally       
impossible to maintain that such meaning
 as they had was not a religious        
meaning4 ,the history of religion is the
 history of the process by which the    
import of that meaning rises to the     
surface of clear consciousness1 and is  

gradually revealed4 ,beneath the        
ceremony and the outward rite there was 
always a moral and religious            
process--moral because it was the       
community of fellow-worshippers who     
offered the sacrifice1 on occasions of a
 breach of the custom1 that is of the   
customary morality1 of the tribe2       
religious because it was to their god   
that they offered it4 ,the very purpose 
with which the community offered it was 
to purge itself of the offence committed
 by one of its members4 ,the condition  
precedent1 on which alone sacrifice     
could be offered1 was that the offence  
was repented of4 ,from the beginning    
sacrifice implied repentance and was    
impossible without it4 ,but it sufficed 
if the community repented and punished  
the transgressor3 his repentance however
 was not necessary--all that was        
necessary was his punishment4  ,the     
re-interpretation of the sacrificial    
rite by the prophets of ,israel was that
 until there was hearkening and         

obedience there could be nothing but an 
outward performance of the rite4 ,the   
revelation made by ,christ was that     
every man may take part in the supreme  
act of worship1 if he has first become  
reconciled to his brother1 if he has    
first repented his own offences1 from   
love for ,god and his fellow-man4 ,the  
old covenant made the favour of ,god    
conditional on the receipt of           
sacrificial offerings4 ,the new covenant
 removes that limit1 and all others1    
from ,god's love to his children3 it is 
infinite love4 ,it is not conditional or
 limited2 conditional on man's loving   
,god1 or limited to those who love ,him4
 ,otherwise the new covenant would be of
 the same nature as the old4 ,but love  
asks for love2 the greater love for the 
greater love2 infinite love for the     
greatest man is capable of4 ,and it is  
hard for a man to resist love2          
impossible indeed in the end3 all men   
come under and into the new covenant1 in
 which there is infinite love on the one

 side1 and love that may grow infinitely
 on the other4 ,if it is to grow1       
however1 it is in a new life that it    
must grow3 a life of sacrifice1 a life  
in which he who comes under the new     
covenant is himself the offering and the
 'lively sacrifice4'  ,the worshipper's 
idea of ,god necessarily determines the 
spirit in which he worships4 ,the idea  
of ,god as a ,god of love is different  
from the idea of ,him as a ,god of      
justice1 who justly requires hearkening 
and obedience4 ,the idea of ,god as a   
,god who demands obedience and is not to
 be put off with vain oblations is      
different from that of a ,god to whom1  
by the terms of a covenant1 offerings   
are to be made in return for benefits   
received4 ,but each and all of these    
ideas imply the existence1 in the       
individual consciousness1 and in the    
common consciousness1 of the desire to  
draw near to ,god1 and of the need of   
drawing nigh4 ,wherever that need and   
that desire are felt1 there religion is2

 and the need and the desire are part of
 the common consciousness of mankind4   
,from the beginning they have always    
expressed or symbolised themselves in   
outward acts or rites4 ,the experience  
of the human race is testimony that     
rites are indispensable1 in the same way
 and for the same reason that language  
is indispensable to thought4 ,thought   
would not develop were there no speech1 
whereby thought could be sharpened on   
thought4 ,nor has religion ever1        
anywhere1 developed without rites4      
,they1 like language1 are the work of   
the community1 collectively2 and they   
are a mode of expression which is1 like 
language1 intelligible to the community1
 because the community expresses itself 
in this way1 and because each member of 
the community finds that other members  
have thoughts like his1 and the same    
desire to draw near to a ,being whose   
existence they doubt not1 however       
vaguely they conceive ,him1 or however  
contradictorily they interpret ,his     

being4 ,but1 if language is             
indispensable to thought1 and a means   
whereby we become conscious of each     
other's thought1 language is not        
thought4 ,nor are rites1 and outward    
acts1 religion--indispensable though    
they be to it4 ,they are an expression  
of it4 ,they must be an inadequate      
expression2 and they are always liable  
to misinterpretation1 even by some of   
those who perform them4 ,the history of 
religion contains the record of the     
misinterpretations of the rite of       
sacrifice4 ,but it also records the     
progressive correction of those         
misinterpretations1 and the process     
whereby the meaning implicit in the rite
 from the beginning has been made       
manifest in the end4  ,the need and the 
desire to draw nigh to the god of the   
community are felt in the earliest of   
ages on occasions when calamity befalls 
the community4 ,the calamity is         
interpreted as sent by the god2 and the 
god is conceived to have been provoked  

by an offence of which some member of   
the community had been guilty4 ,we may  
say1 therefore1 that from the beginning 
there has been present in the common    
consciousness a sense of sin and the    
desire to make atonement4               
,psychologically it seems clear that at 
the present day1 in the case of the     
individual1 personal religion first     
manifests itself usually in the         
consciousness of sin4 ,and what is true 
in the psychology of the individual may 
be expected within limits to hold true  
in the psychology of the common         
consciousness4 ,but though we may say   
that1 in the beginning1 it was by the   
occurrence of public calamity that the  
community became conscious that sin had 
been committed1 still it is also true to
 say that the community felt that it was
 by some one of its members1 rather than
 by the community1 that the offence had 
been committed1 for which the community 
was responsible4 ,it was the            
responsibility1 rather than the offence1

 which was prominent in the common      
consciousness--as indeed tends to be the
 case with the individual also4 ,but the
 fact that the offence had been         
committed1 not by the community1 but by 
some one member of the community1       
doubtless helped to give the community  
the confidence without which its        
attitude towards the offended power     
would have been simply one of fear4 ,had
 the feeling been one of fear1 pure and 
unmixed1 the movement of the community  
could not have been towards the offended
 being4 ,but religion manifests itself  
from the beginning in the action of     
drawing near to the god4 ,the fact that 
the offence was the deed of some one    
member1 and not of the community as a   
whole1 doubtless helped to give the     
community the confidence1 without which 
its attitude towards the offended power 
would have been simply one of fear4 ,but
 it also tended necessarily to make     
religion an affair of the community     
rather than a personal need3 sin had    

indeed been committed1 but not by those 
who drew near to the god for the purpose
 of making the atonement4 ,they were not
 the offenders4 ,the community admitted 
its responsibility1 indeed1 but it found
 one of its members guilty4  ,we may1   
therefore1 fairly say that personal     
religion had at this time scarcely begun
 to emerge4 ,and the reason why this was
 so is quite clear3 it is that in the   
infancy of the race1 as in the infancy  
of the individual1 personal             
self-consciousness is as yet            
undeveloped4 ,and it is only as personal
 self-consciousness develops that       
personal religion becomes possible4 ,we 
must not however from this infer that   
personal religion is a necessary1 or1 at
 any rate1 an immediate consequence of  
the development of self-consciousness4  
,in ancient ,greece one                 
manifestation--and in the religious     
domain the first manifestation--of the  
individual's consciousness of himself   
was the growth of 'mysteries4'          

,individuals voluntarily entered these  
associations3 they were not born into   
them as they were into the state and the
 state-worship4 ,and they entered them  
for the sake of individual purification 
and in the hope of personal immortality4
 ,the desire for salvation1 for         
individual salvation1 is manifest4 ,but 
it was in rites and ceremonies that the 
mystae put their trust1 and in the fact 
that they were initiated that they found
 their confidence--so long as they could
 keep it4 ,the traditional conviction of
 the efficacy of ritual was unshaken3   
and1 so long as men believed in the     
efficacy of rites1 the question1 ',what 
shall ,i do to be saved8' admitted of no
 permanently satisfactory answer4 ,the  
only answer that has been found         
permanently satisfying to the personal  
need of religion is one which goes      
beyond rites and ceremonies3 it is that 
a man shall love his neighbour and his  
,god4  ,but in thus becoming personal1  
religion involved man's fellow-men as   

much as himself4 ,in becoming personal  
thus1 religion became1 thereby1 more    
than ever before1 the relation of the   
community to its ,god4 ,the relation    
however is no longer that the community 
admits the transgressions of some one of
 its members3 it prays for the          
forgiveness of 'our trespasses'2 and    
though it prays for each of its members1
 still it is the community that prays   
and worships and comes before its ,god1 
as it has done from the beginning of the
 history of religion4 ,it is with rites 
of worship that the community1 at any   
period in the history of religion1 draws
 nigh to its god2 for its inward purpose
 cannot but reveal itself in some       
outward manifestation4 ,indeed it seeks 
to manifest itself as naturally and as  
necessarily as thought found expression 
for itself in the languages it has      
created2 and1 though the re-action of   
forms of worship upon religion sometimes
 results1 like the re-action of language
 upon thought1 in misleading confusion1 

still1 for the most part1 language does 
serve to express more or less           
clearly--indeed we may say more and more
 clearly--that which we have it in us to
 utter4  ,as there are more forms of    
speech than one1 so there are more forms
 of religion than one2 and as the       
language of savages who can count no    
higher than three is inadequate for the 
purposes of the higher mathematics1 so  
the religion of man in the lower stages 
of his development is inadequate1       
compared with that of the higher stages4
 ,nevertheless the civilised man can    
come to understand the savage's form of 
speech2 and it would be strange to say  
that the savage's form of speech1 or    
that his form of religion1 is           
unintelligible nonsense4 ,behind the    
varieties of speech and of religion     
there is that in the spirit of man which
 is seeking to express itself and which 
is intelligible to all1 because it is in
 all4 ,though few of us understand any  
but civilised languages1 we feel no     

difficulty in believing that savage     
languages not merely are intelligible   
but must have sprung from the same      
source as our own1 though far inferior  
to it for every purpose that language is
 employed to subserve4 ,the many        
different forms of religion are all     
attempts--successful in as many very    
various degrees as language itself--to  
give expression to the idea of ,god4    
,,iv  ,,the ,,idea ,,of ,,god ,,in      
,,prayer   ,the question may perhaps be 
raised1 whether it is necessary for us  
to travel beyond worship1 in order to   
discover what was1 in early religions1  
or is now1 the idea of ,god1 as it      
presents itself to the worshipper4 ,the 
answer to the question will depend      
partly on what we consider the essence  
of religion to be4 ,if we take the view1
 which is held by some writers of       
authority on the history of religion1   
that the essence of religion is         
adoration1 then indeed we neither need  
nor can travel further1 for we shall    

hold that worship is adoration1 and     
adoration1 worship4  ,to exclude        
adoration1 to say that adoration does   
not1 or should not1 form any part of    
worship1 seems alike contrary to the    
very meaning of the word 'worship' and  
to be at variance with a large and      
important body of the facts recorded in 
the history of religion4 ,the courts of 
a god are customarily entered with the  
praise which is the outward expression  
of the feeling of adoration with which  
the worshippers spiritually gaze upon   
the might and majesty of the god whom   
they approach4 ,he is to them a great   
god1 above all other gods4 ,even to     
polytheists1 the god who is worshipped  
at the moment1 is1 at that moment1 one  
than whom there is no one1 and nought1  
greater1 quo nihil maius4 ,a god who    
should not be worshipped thus--a god who
 was not the object of adoration--would 
not be worthy of the name1 and would    
hardly be called a god4 ,so strongly is 
this felt that even writers who incline 

to regard religion as an illusion1      
define gods as beings conceived to be   
superior to man4 ,the degree of respect1
 rising to adoration1 will vary directly
 with the degree of superiority         
attributed to them2 but not even in the 
case of a fetish1 so long as it is      
worshipped1 is the respect1 which is the
 germ of adoration1 wholly wanting4     
,even in the case of gods1 on whom1 on  
occasion1 insult is put1 it is precisely
 in moments when their superiority is in
 doubt that the worship of adoration is 
momentarily wanting4 ,worship without   
adoration is worship only in name1 or   
rather is no worship at all4 ,only with 
adoration can worship begin3 'hallowed  
be ,thy name' expresses the emotion with
 which all worship begins1 even where   
the emotion has not yet found the words 
in which to express itself4 ,it is      
because the emotion is there1 pent up   
and seeking escape1 that it can travel  
along the words1 and make them something
 more than a succession of syllables and

 sounds4  ,if then it is on the wings of
 adoration that the soul has at all     
times striven to rise to heaven to find 
its ,god1 even though it flutters but a 
little height and soon falls again to   
the ground1 then we must admit that from
 the beginning there has been a mystical
 element1 or a tendency to mysticism1 in
 religion4 ,in the lowest1 and probably 
in the earliest1 stages of the evolution
 of religion1 this tendency is most     
manifest in individual members of the   
community1 who are subject to           
'possession1' ecstasy1 trance and       
visions1 and are believed1 both by      
themselves and others1 to be in especial
 communion with their god4 ,this is the 
earliest manifestation of the fact that 
religion1 besides being a social act and
 a matter in which the community is     
concerned1 is also one which may        
profoundly affect the individual soul4  
,but in these cases it is the           
exceptional soul which is alone         
affected--the seer of visions1 the      

prophet4 ,and it is not necessarily in  
connection with the ordinary worship1 or
 customary sacrifice1 that such         
instances of mystic communion with the  
gods are manifested4 ,for the           
development of the mystical tendency of 
worship and sacrifice1 we must look1 not
 to the lowest1 or to the earliest1     
stages of religious evolution1 but to a 
later stage in the evolution of the     
sacrificial meal4 ,it is where1 as in   
ancient ,mexico1 the plant1 or animal1  
which furnishes forth the sacrificial   
meal1 is in some way regarded as1 or    
identified with1 the body of the deity  
worshipped1 that the rite of sacrifice  
is tinged with mysticism and that all   
partakers of the meal1 and not some     
exceptional individuals1 are felt to be 
brought into some mystic communion with 
the god whom they adore4  ,in these     
cases1 adoration is worship2 and worship
 is adoration--and little more4 ,judging
 them by their fruits1 we cannot say    
that the ,mexican rites1 or even the    

,greek mysteries1 encourage us to       
believe that adoration is all that is   
required to make worship what the heart 
of man divines that it should be4       
,doubtless1 this is due in part to the  
fact that the idea of ,god was so       
imperfectly disclosed to the polytheists
 of ,mexico and ,greece4 ,let us not    
therefore use ,greece and ,mexico as    
examples for the disparagement of       
mysticism or for the depreciation of    
man's tendency to seek communion with   
the ,highest4 ,let us rather appeal at  
once to the reason which makes          
mysticism1 of itself1 inadequate to     
satisfy all the needs of man4 ,the      
reason simply is that man is not merely 
a contemplative but an active being4 ,if
 action were alien to his nature1 then  
man might be satisfied to gaze1 and     
merely gaze1 on ,god4 ,but man is active
 and not merely contemplative4 ,we must 
therefore either hold that religion1    
being in its essence adoration and      
nothing more1 has no function to        

perform1 or sphere to fill1 in the      
practical life of man2 or else1 if we   
hold that it does1 or should1 affect the
 practice of his life1 we must admit    
that1 though religion implies adoration 
always1 it cannot properly be fulfilled 
in quietism1 but must bear its fruit in 
what man does1 or in the way he does it4
 ,the being or beings whom man worships 
are1 indeed1 the object of adoration1 an
 object quo nihil maius2 but they are   
something more4 ,to them are addressed  
man's prayers4  ,it is vain to pretend  
that prayer1 even the simple petition   
for our daily bread1 is not religious4  
,it may perhaps be argued that prayer is
 not essential to religion2 that it has 
not always formed part of religion2 and 
that it is incompatible with that       
acquiescence in the will of ,god1 and   
that perfect adoration of ,god1 which is
 religion in its purest and most perfect
 sense4 ,whether there is in fact any   
incompatibility between the petition for
 deliverance from evil1 and the         

aspiration that ,god's will may be done 
on earth1 is a question on which we need
 not enter here4 ,but the statement that
 prayer has not always formed part of   
religion is one which it should be      
possible to bring to the test of fact4  
,in the literature of the science of    
religion1 the prayers of the lower races
 of mankind have not been recorded to   
any great extent by those who have had  
the best opportunities of becoming      
acquainted with them1 if and so far as  
they actually exist4 ,this is probably  
due in part to their seeming too obvious
 and too trivial to deserve being put on
 record4 ,it may possibly in some cases 
be due to the reticence the savage      
observes towards the white man1 on      
matters too sacred to be revealed4 ,the 
error of omission1 so far as it can be  
remedied henceforth1 will probably be   
repaired1 now that savage beliefs are   
coming to be examined and recorded on   
the spot by scientific students in the  
interests of science4 ,and the reticence

 of the savage promises to avail him but
 little3 the comparative method has     
thrown a flood of light on his most     
sacred mysteries4  ,there may however be
 another reason why the prayers of the  
lower races have not been recorded to   
any great extent3 they may not have been
 recorded for the simple reason that    
they may not have been uttered4 ,the    
nature and the occasion of the rite with
 which the god is approached may be such
 as to make words superfluous3 the      
purpose of the ceremony may find        
adequate expression in the acts         
performed1 and may require no words to  
make it clear4 ,if a community          
approaches its god with sacrifice or    
offering1 in time of sore distress1 it  
approaches him with full conviction that
 he understands the circumstances and   
the purpose of their coming4 ,words of  
dedication--'this to thee' is a formula 
actually in use--may be necessary1 but  
nothing more4 ,indeed1 the ,australian  
tribes1 in rites analogous to           

harvest-offerings1 use no spoken words  
at all4 ,we cannot1 however1 imagine    
that the rites are1 or in their origin  
were1 absolutely without meaning or     
purpose4 ,we must interpret them on the 
analogy of similar rites elsewhere1 the 
purpose of which is expressed not       
merely1 as in ,australia1 by            
gesture-language1 but is reinforced by  
the spoken word4 ,indeed1 we may1       
perhaps1 go even further1 and believe   
that as gesture-language was earlier    
than speech1 so the earliest rites were 
conducted wholly by means of ritual acts
 or gestures2 and that it was only in   
course of time1 and as a consequence of 
the development of language1 that verbal
 formulae came to be used to give fuller
 expression to the emotions which       
prompted the rites4  ,if then we had    
merely to account for cases in which    
prayer does not happen to have been     
recorded as a constituent part of the   
rite of worship1 we should not be       
warranted in inferring that prayer was  

really absent4 ,the presumption would   
rather be that either the records are   
faulty1 or that prayer1 even though not 
uttered in word1 yet played its part4   
,the ground for the presumption is found
 in the nature of the occasions on which
 the gods are approached in the lower   
stages of religion4 ,those occasions are
 either exceptional or regularly        
recurring4 ,the exceptional occasions   
are those on which the community is     
threatened1 or afflicted1 with calamity2
 and on such occasions1 whether spoken  
words of prayer happen to have been     
recorded by our informants1 or not1 it  
is beyond doubt that the purpose of the 
community is to escape the calamity1 and
 that the attitude of mind in which the 
god is approached is one of supplication
 or prayer4 ,the regularly recurring    
occasions are those of seed-time and    
harvest1 or first-fruits4 ,the          
ceremonies at seed-time obviously admit 
of the presumption1 even if there be no 
spoken prayers to prove it1 that they   

too have a petitionary purpose2 while   
the recorded instances of the prayers   
put up at harvest time1 and on the      
occasion of the offering of             
first-fruits1 suffice to show that      
thanksgiving is made along with prayers 
for continued prosperity4  ,it is       
however not merely on the ground of the 
absence of recorded prayers that it is  
maintained that there was a stage in the
 evolution of religion when prayer was  
unpractised and unknown4 ,it is the     
presence and the use of spells which is 
supposed to show that there may have    
been a time when prayer was as yet      
unknown1 and that the process of        
development was a progress from spell to
 prayer4 ,on this theory1 spells1 in the
 course of time1 and in accordance with 
their own law of growth1 become prayers4
 ,the nature and operation of this law1 
it may be difficult or impossible now   
for us to observe4 ,the process took    
place in the night of time and is       
therefore not open to our observation4  

,but that the process1 by which the one 
becomes the other1 is a possible        
process1 is perhaps shown by the fact   
that we can witness for ourselves prayer
 reverting or casting back to spell4    
,wherever prayers become 'vain          
repetitions1' it is obvious that they   
are conceived to act in the same way as 
the savage believes spells to act3 the  
mere utterance of the formula has the   
same magical power1 as making the sign  
of the cross1 to avert supernatural     
danger4 ,if prayers thus cast back to   
spells1 it may reasonably be presumed   
that it is because prayer is in its     
origin but spell4 ,it is because oxygen 
and hydrogen1 combined1 produce water1  
that water can be resolved into oxygen  
and hydrogen4  ,this theory1 when       
examined1 seems to imply that spell and 
prayer1 so far from being different and 
incompatible things1 are one and the    
same thing3 seen from one point of view1
 and in one set of surroundings1 it is  
spell2 seen from another point of view1 

and in other surroundings1 it is prayer4
 ,the point of view and the             
circumstances may change1 but the thing 
itself remains the same always4 ,what   
then is the thing itself1 which1 whether
 it presents itself as prayer or as     
spell1 still always remains the same8   
,it is1 and can only be1 desire4 ,in    
spell and prayer alike the common1      
operative element present is desire4    
,desire may issue in spell or prayer2   
but were there no desires1 there would  
be neither prayer nor spell4 ,that we   
may admit4 ,but1 then1 we may1 or rather
 must go further3 if there were no      
desire1 neither would there be any      
action1 whatever1 performed by man4     
,men's actions1 however1 differ         
endlessly from one another4 ,they differ
 partly because men's desires1          
themselves1 differ2 and partly because  
the means they adopt to satisfy them    
differ also4 ,it would be vain to say   
that different means cannot be adopted  
for attaining one and the same end4     

,equally vain would it be to say that   
the various means may not differ from   
one another1 to the point of            
incompatibility4 ,if then we regard     
prayer and spell as alike means which   
have been employed by man for the       
purpose of realising his desires1 we are
 yet at liberty to maintain that prayer 
and spell are different and             
incompatible4  ,that there is a         
difference between prayer and spell--a  
difference at any rate great enough to  
allow the two words to be used in       
contradistinction to one another--is    
clear enough4 ,the cardinal distinction 
between the two is also clear3 a spell  
takes effect in virtue of the power     
resident in the formula itself or in the
 person who utters it2 while a prayer is
 an appeal to a personal power1 or to a 
power personal enough to be able to     
listen to the appeal1 and to understand 
it1 and to grant it1 if so it seems     
good4 ,that this difference obtains     
between prayer and spell will not be    

denied by any student of the science of 
religion4 ,but if this difference is    
admitted1 as admitted it must be1 it is 
plain that prayer and spell are terms   
which apply to two different moods or   
states of mind4 ,desire is implied by   
each alike3 were there no desire1 there 
would be neither prayer nor spell4 ,but1
 whereas prayer is an appeal to some one
 who has the power to grant one's       
desire1 spell is the exercise of power  
which one possesses oneself1 or has at  
one's command4  ,that the two moods are 
different1 and are incompatible with one
 another1 is clear upon the face of it3 
to beg for a thing as a mercy or a gift 
is quite different from commanding that 
the thing be done4 ,the whole attitude  
of mind assumed in the one case is      
different from that assumed in the      
other4 ,it is possible1 indeed1 to pass 
from the one attitude to the other4 ,but
 it is impossible to say that the one   
attitude is the other4 ,it is correct to
 say that the one attitude may follow   

the other4 ,but it is to be misled by   
language to say that the one attitude   
becomes the other4 ,it is possible for  
one and the same man to fluctuate       
between the two attitudes1 to alternate 
between them--possible1 though          
inconsistent4 ,the child1 or even that  
larger child1 the man1 may beg and      
scold1 almost in the same breath4 ,the  
savage1 as is well known1 will treat his
 fetish in the same inconsequential way4
 ,that it is inconsequential is a fact2 
but it is a fact which1 if learned1 is  
but very slowly learned4 ,the process by
 which it is learned is part of the     
evolution of religion2 and it is a      
process in the course of which the idea 
of ,god tends to disengage itself from  
the confusion of thought and the        
confusion of feeling1 in which it is at 
first enshrouded4  ,we1 indeed1 at the  
present day1 may see1 or at any rate    
feel1 the difference between magic and  
religion1 between spell and prayer4 ,and
 we may imagine that the difference1    

because real1 has always been seen or   
felt1 as we see and feel it4 ,but1 if we
 so imagine1 we are mistaken4 ,the      
difference was not felt so strongly1 or 
seen so definitely1 as to make it       
impossible to ascribe magic to ,moses1  
or rain-making to ,elijah4 ,in still    
earlier ages1 the difference was still  
more blurred4 ,the two things were not  
discriminated as we now discriminate    
them3 they were not felt then1 as they  
are felt now to be inconsistent and     
incompatible4 ,it was the likeness      
between the two that filled the field of
 mental vision1 originally4 ,whether a  
man makes a petition or a command1 the  
fact is that he wants something2 and1   
with his attention centred on that fact1
 he may be but little aware1 as the     
child is little1 if at all1 aware1 that 
he passes1 or is guilty of unreasonable 
inconsistency in passing1 from the one  
mood to the other1 and back again4 ,it  
is in the course of time and as a       
consequence of mental growth that he    

becomes aware of the difference between 
the two moods4  ,if we insist on        
maintaining that1 because spell and     
prayer are essentially different1 men   
have at all times been fully conscious  
of the difference1 we make it           
fundamentally impossible to explain the 
growth of religion1 or to admit that it 
can have any growth4 ,just as1 on the   
argument advanced in our first chapter1 
gods and fetishes have gradually been   
differentiated from some conception1    
prior to them1 and indeterminate2 just  
as magician and priest1 eventually      
distinguished1 were originally          
undistinguished1 for a man of power was 
potentially both and might become       
either2 so spell and prayer have come to
 be differentiated1 to be recognised as 
different and fundamentally             
antagonistic1 though originally the two 
categories were confused4  ,the theory  
that spell preceded prayer and became   
prayer1 or that magic developed into    
religion1 finds as little support in the

 facts afforded by the science of       
religion1 as the converse theory of a   
primitive revelation and a paradisaical 
state in which religion alone was known4
 ,for what is found in one stage of     
evolution the capacity must have existed
 in earlier stages2 and if both prayer  
and spell1 both magic and religion1 are 
found1 the capacity for both must have  
pre-existed4 ,and instead of seeking to 
deny either1 in the interests of a      
pre-conceived theory1 we must recognise 
both potentialities1 in the interest of 
truth4  ,just as man spoke1 for         
countless thousands of years1 before he 
had any idea of the principles on which 
he spoke1 of the laws of speech or of   
the grammar of his language2 just as he 
reasoned1 long before he made the       
reasoning process matter of reflection1 
and reduced it to the laws of logic2 so 
from the beginning he was religious     
though he had no more idea that there   
were principles of religion1 than that  
there were principles of grammar or laws

 of correct thought4 ',first principles 
of every kind have their influence1 and 
indeed operate largely and powerfully1  
long before they come to the surface of 
human thought and are articulately      
expounded' 7,ferrier3 ,institute of     
,metaphysics1 p4 #ac74  ,but this is not
 to say that primitive man argued1 or   
thought1 with never an error1 or spoke  
with never a mistake1 until by some     
catastrophe he was expelled from some   
paradise of grammarians and logicians4  
,though correct reasoning was logical   
before the time of ,aristotle1 and      
correct speech grammatical before the   
time of ,dionysius ,thrax2 there was    
before1 as there has been since1 plenty 
both of bad logic and bad grammar4 ,but 
that is very different from saying that1
 in the beginning1 all reasoning was    
unsound1 or all speech ungrammatical4   
,to say so1 would be as unmeaning and as
 absurd as to say that primitive man's  
every action was immoral1 and his       
habitual state one of pure1 unmitigated 

wickedness4 ,if the assumption of a     
primitive paradise is unworkable1       
neither will the assumption of a        
primitive inferno act1 whether it is for
 the evolution of the grammar of        
language or morality1 or of logic or    
religion1 that we wish to account4 ,it  
is to ask too much1 to ask us to believe
 that in the beginning there was only   
wrong-doing and no right1 only error and
 no correctness of thought or speech1   
only spell and no prayer4 ,and if both  
have been always1 as they are now1      
present1 there must also always have    
been a tendency in that which has       
prevailed to conquer4 ,we may say that1 
in the process of evolution1 man becomes
 aware of differences to which at first 
he gave but little attention2 and1 so   
far as he becomes conscious of them1 he 
sets aside what is illogical1 immoral1  
or irreligious1 because he is satisfied 
it is illogical1 immoral1 or            
irreligious1 and for no other reason4   
,the theory that spell preceded prayer  

in the evolution of religion proceeds   
upon a misconception of the process of  
evolution4 ,at one time it was assumed  
and accepted without question that the  
vegetable and animal kingdoms1 and all  
their various species1 were successive  
stages of one process of evolution2 and 
that the process proceeded on one line  
and one alone4 ,on the analogy of the   
evolution of living beings1 as thus     
understood1 all that remained1 when the 
theory of evolution came to be applied  
to the various forms of thought and     
feeling1 was to arrange them also in one
 line2 and that1 it was assumed1 would  
be the line which the evolution of      
religion had followed4 ,on this         
assumption1 either magic must be prior  
to religion1 or religion prior to magic2
 and1 on the principle that priority    
must be assigned to the less worthy1 it 
followed that magic must have preceded  
religion4  ,it will scarcely be disputed
 that it was on the analogy of what was 
believed to be the course of evolution1 

in the case of vegetable and animal     
life1 that the first attempts to frame a
 theory of the evolution of religion    
proceeded1 with the result that gods    
were assumed to have been evolved out of
 fetishes1 religion out of magic1 and   
prayer out of spell4 ,to disprove this1 
it is not necessary to reject the theory
 of evolution1 or to maintain that      
evolution in religion proceeds on lines 
wholly different from those it follows  
elsewhere4 ,all that is necessary is to 
understand the theory of the evolution  
of the forms of life1 as that theory is 
held by naturalists now2 and to         
understand the lines which the evolution
 of life is now held to have followed4  
,the process of evolution is no longer  
held to have followed one line alone1 or
 to have described but one single       
trajectory like that of a cannon-ball   
fired from a cannon4 ,the process of    
evolution is1 and has been from the     
beginning1 dispersive4 ,to borrow ,m4   
,bergson's simile1 the process of       

evolution is not like that of a         
cannon-ball which followed one line1 but
 like that of a shell1 which burst into 
fragments the moment it was fired off2  
and these fragments being1 as it were1  
themselves shells1 in their turn burst  
into other fragments1 themselves in     
their turn destined to burst1 and so on 
throughout the whole process4 ,the very 
lines1 on which the process of evolution
 has moved1 show the process to be      
dispersive4 ,if we represent the line by
 which man has risen from the simplest  
forms of life or protoplasm by an       
upright line2 and the line by which the 
lowest forms of life1 such as some of   
the foraminifera1 have continued on     
their low level1 by a horizontal line   
starting from the bottom of the upright 
line1 then we have two lines forming a  
right angle4 ,one represents the line of
 man's evolution1 the other that of the 
foraminifera4 ,between these two lines  
you may insert as many other lines as   
necessary4 ,that line which is most     

nearly upright will represent the       
evolution of the highest form of        
vertebrate1 except man2 the next1 the   
next highest2 and so on till you come to
 the lines representing the             
invertebrates2 and so on till you come  
to the lines which are getting nearer   
and nearer to the horizontal4 ,thus you 
will have a whole sheaf of lines1 all   
radiating indeed from one common point1 
but all nevertheless dispersing in      
different directions4  ,the rush of     
life1 the elan de la vie1 is thus       
dispersive2 and if we are to interpret  
the evolution of mental on the analogy  
of physical life1 we shall find1 ,m4    
,bergson says1 nothing in the latter    
which compels us to assume either that  
intelligence is developed instinct1 or  
that instinct is degraded intelligence4 
,if that be so1 then1 we may say1       
neither is there anything to warrant us 
in assuming either that religion is     
developed magic1 or magic degraded      
religion4 ,spell is not degraded prayer1

 nor is prayer a superior form of spell3
 neither does become or can become the  
other1 though man may oscillate1 with   
great rapidity1 between the two1 and for
 long may continue so to oscillate4 ,the
 two moods were from the beginning      
different1 though man for long did not  
clearly discriminate between the two4   
,the dispersive force of evolution      
however tends to separate them more and 
more widely1 until eventually           
oscillation ceases1 if it does not      
become impossible4  ,the dispersive     
force of evolution manifests itself in  
the power of discrimination whereby man 
becomes aware of differences to which1  
in the first confusion of thought1 he   
paid little attention2 and ultimately   
may become conscious of the first       
principles of reason1 morality or       
religion1 as normative principles1 in   
accordance with which he feels that he  
should act1 though he has not always    
acted1 and does not always act in       
accordance with them4 ,in the beginning 

there is confusion of feeling and       
confusion of thought both as to the     
quarter to which prayer is addressed and
 as to the nature of the petitions which
 should be proffered4 ,but we should be 
mistaken1 if from the confusion we were 
to infer that there was no principle    
underlying the confusion4 ,we should be 
mistaken1 were we to say that prayer1 if
 addressed to polytheistic gods1 is not 
prayer2 or that prayer1 if addressed to 
a fetish1 is not prayer4 ,in both cases1
 the being to whom prayer is offered is 
misconceived and misrepresented by      
polytheism and fetishism2 and the       
misconception is due to want of         
discrimination and spiritual insight4   
,but failure to observe is no proof     
either that the power of observation is 
wanting or that there is nothing to be  
observed4 ,the being to whom prayer is  
offered may be very different from the  
conception which the person praying has 
of him1 and may yet be real4            
,petitions1 then1 put up to polytheistic

 gods1 or even to fetishes1 may still be
 prayers4 ,but petitions may be put up1 
not only to polytheistic gods1 or to    
fetishes1 but even to the one god of the
 monotheist1 which never should be put  
up4 ',of thy goodness1 slay mine        
enemies1' is1 in form1 prayer3 it is a  
desire1 a petition to a god1 implying   
recognition of the superiority of the   
divine power1 implying adoration even4  
,but eventually it comes to be condemned
 as an impossible prayer3 spiritually it
 is a contradiction in terms4 ,if       
however we say that it is not1 and never
 was1 prayer2 and that only by confusion
 of thought was it ever considered so1  
we may be told that1 as a simple matter 
of actual fact1 it is an actual prayer  
that was actually put up4 ,that it ought
 not--from the point of view of a later 
stage in the development of religion--to
 have been put up1 may be admitted2 but 
that it was a prayer actually put up1   
cannot be denied4 ,to this the reply    
seems to be that it is with prayer as it

 is with argument3 a fallacy is a       
fallacy1 just as much before it is      
detected as afterwards4 ,the fact that  
it is not detected does not make it a   
sound argument2 still less does it prove
 either that there are now no principles
 of correct reasoning or that there were
 none then2 it only shows that there    
was1 on this point1 confusion of        
thought4 ,so too we may admit--we have  
no choice but to admit--that there are  
spiritual fallacies1 as well as         
fallacies of logic4 ,of such are the    
petitions which are in form prayers1    
just as logical fallacies are1 in form1 
arguments4 ,they may be addressed to the
 being worshipped1 as fallacies are     
addressed to the reason2 and eventually 
their fallacious nature may become      
evident even to the reason of man4 ,but 
it is only by the evolution of prayer1  
that is by the disclosure of its true   
nature1 that petitions of the kind in   
question come to be recognised and      
condemned as spiritual fallacies4 ,the  

petitioner who puts up such petitions is
 indeed unconscious of his error1 but he
 errs1 for all that1 just as the person 
who uses a fallacious argument may be   
himself the victim of his fallacy3 but  
he errs none the less because he is     
deceived himself4 ,there are normative  
principles of prayer as well as the     
normative principles of thought2 and    
both operate 'long before they come to  
the surface of human thought and are    
articulately expounded4' ,it is in      
thinking that the normative principles  
of thought emerge4 ,but it is by no     
means the case that they come to the    
surface of every man's thought4 ,so too 
it is in prayer that the normative      
principles of prayer emerge2 yet men    
require teaching how to pray4 ,some     
petitions are permissible1 some not4    
,if then there are normative principles 
of prayer1 just as there are of action1 
thought and speech2 if there are        
petitions which are not permissible1 and
 which are not and never can be prayers1

 though by a spiritual fallacy1         
analogous to logical fallacies1 they may
 be thought to be prayers1 what is it   
that decides the nature of an admissible
 petition8 ,it seems to be the          
conception of the being to whom the     
petition is addressed4 ,thus it is that 
prayer throws light on the idea of ,god4
 ,from the prayers offered we can infer 
the nature of the idea4 ,the confusion  
of admissible and inadmissible petitions
 points to confused apprehension of the 
idea of ,god4 ,it is not merely         
imperfect apprehension but confused     
apprehension4 ,in polytheism the        
confusion betrays itself1 because it    
leads to collision with the principles  
of morality3 of the gods who make war   
upon one another1 each must be supposed 
to hold himself in the right2 therefore 
either some gods do not know what is    
right1 or there is no right to be known 
even by the gods4 ,from this confusion  
the only mode of escape1 which is       
satisfactory both to religion and to    

morality1 is to recognise that the unity
 of morality and the unity of the       
godhead mutually imply one another4 ,but
 so long as a plurality of gods1 with a 
shifting standard of morality1 is       
believed in1 the distinction between    
admissible and inadmissible petitions   
cannot be firmly or correctly drawn4  ,a
 tribal god is petitioned to slay the   
tribe's enemies1 because he is conceived
 as the god of the tribe and not the god
 of its enemies4 ,if the declaration1   
that ',i am thy servant1' is affirmed   
with emphasis on the first personal     
pronoun1 so as to imply that others are 
no servants of thine1 the implication is
 that thy servants' enemies are thy     
enemies2 whereas if there is1 for all   
men1 one ,god only1 then all men are his
 servants1 and not one person1 or one   
tribe1 alone4 ,the conception of ,god as
 the god of one tribe alone is an       
imperfect and confused apprehension of  
the idea of ,god4 ,but it is less so    
than is the conception of a god as      

belonging to one individual owner1 as a 
fetish does4 ,to a fetish the           
distinctive1 though not the only1 prayer
 offered1 precisely is ',slay mine      
enemies'2 and therein it is that lies   
the difference between a fetish and a   
god of the community4 ,the difference is
 the same in kind as that between a     
tribal god and the ,god of all mankind4 
,the fetish and the tribal god are both 
inadequate ideas of ,god2 and the       
inadequacy implies confusion--the       
confusion of conceiving that the god is 
there only to subserve the desires and  
to do the will of the individual        
worshipper or body of worshippers4      
,escape from this confusion is to some  
extent secured by the fact that prayers 
to the community's god are offered by   
the community aloud1 in public and as   
part of the public worship2 and1        
consequently1 with the object of        
securing the fulfilment of the desires  
of the community as a community4 ,the   
blessing on the community is1 at this   

stage1 the only blessing in which the   
individual can properly share1 and the  
only one for which he can pray to the   
god of the community4 ,thus the nature  
of the petitions1 and the quarter to    
which permissible petitions can be      
addressed1 are determined by the fact   
that prayer is an office undertaken by  
the community as a community4 ,if the   
desires which an individual entertains  
are such as would be repudiated by the  
community1 because injurious to the     
community1 they cannot be preferred1 in 
the presence of the community1 to the   
god of the community2 and thus          
permissible petitions begin to be       
differentiated from those which are     
impermissible--a normative principle of 
prayer emerges1 and the idea of ,god    
begins to take more definite form1 or to
 emerge somewhat from the mist which at 
first enveloped it4  ,but though        
permissible petitions be distinguished  
from petitions which are impermissible1 
it by no means follows that             

impermissible petitions cease to be put 
up4 ,what actually happens is that since
 the community does not1 and cannot1    
allow petitions1 conceived to be        
injurious to itself1 to be put up to its
 god1 they are put up privately to a    
fetish2 or1 to put the matter more      
correctly1 a being or power not         
identified with the welfare of the      
community is sought in such cases2 and  
the being so found is known to the      
science of religion as a fetish4 ,but   
though a fetish differs from a god1     
inasmuch as the fetish will1 and a god  
will not1 injure a member of the tribe1 
the distinction is not clear-cut4 ,there
 are things which both alike may be     
prayed to do3 both may be besought to do
 good to the individual who addresses   
them4 ,to this protective mimicry the   
fetish owes in part its power of        
survival4 ,for the same reason spell and
 magic contrive to continue their       
existence side by side with religion and
 prayer4 ,what conduces to this result  

is that at first the god of the         
community is conceived as listening to  
the prayers of the community rather than
 of the individual3 from the beginning  
it is part of the idea of ,god that ,he 
cares for all ,his worshippers alike4   
,this conviction1 to be carried out to  
its full consequences1 both logical and 
spiritual1 requires that each individual
 worshipper should forget himself1      
should renounce his particular          
inclinations1 should abandon himself and
 long to do not his own will but that of
 ,god4 ,but before self can be          
consciously abandoned1 the consciousness
 of self must be realised4 ,before      
self-will can be surrendered1 its       
existence must be realised4 ,and        
self-consciousness1 the recognition of  
the existence of the will and the       
reality of the self1 comes relatively   
late both in the history of the         
community and in the personal history of
 the individual4 ,at first the existence
 of the individual will and the         

individual self is not recognised by the
 community and is not provided for in   
the community's worship and prayers4 ,it
 is the community1 as a community1 and  
not as so many individual worshippers1  
offering separate prayers1 that first   
approaches the community's god4 ,the    
existence of the individual worshipper1 
as an individual is not denied1 it is   
simply unknown1 or rather not realised  
by the community4 ,but its stirrings are
 felt in the individual himself3 he is  
conscious of desires which are other    
than those of the community1 and the    
fulfilment of which forms no part of the
 community's prayers to the community's 
god4 ,his self-consciousness1 his       
consciousness of himself as contrasted  
with the community1 is fostered by the  
growth of such desires4 ,for the        
fulfilment of some of them1 those which 
are manifestly anti-social1 he must turn
 to his fetish1 or rely upon the power  
of magic4 ,even for the fulfilment of   
those of his desires which are not felt 

to be anti-social1 but which find no    
place in the prayers of the community1  
he must rely on some other power than   
that of the god of the community2 and it
 is in spells1 therefore1 that he       
continues to trust for the fulfilment of
 these innocent desires1 inasmuch as the
 prayers of the community do not include
 them4  ,the existence1 in the          
individual1 of desires1 other than those
 of the community1 wakes the individual 
to some consciousness of his individual 
existence4 ,the effort to secure the    
fulfilment of those desires increases   
still further his self-consciousness1   
for he resorts to powers which are not  
exercised solely in the interests of the
 community1 as are the powers of the    
community's god4 ,but his increasing    
self-consciousness cannot and does not  
fail to modify his character and action 
as a worshipper of the community's gods4
 ,it modifies his relation to the       
community's gods in this sense1 viz4    
that he appears before them not merely  

as a member of the community            
undistinguished from other members1 but 
as an individual conscious to some      
extent of his individuality4 ,he        
continues to take part in the worship of
 the gods1 but he comes to it conscious 
of wishes of his own which may become   
petitions to the god1 so far as they are
 not felt to be inconsistent with the   
good of the community4  ,of this stage  
we have ample evidence afforded by the  
cuneiform inscriptions of ,assyria4     
,spells employed to the hurt of any     
worshipper of the gods are spells       
against which the worshipper may        
properly appeal to the gods for         
protection4 ,a god is essentially the   
protector of his worshippers1 and he    
protects each as well as all of them4   
,each of them may therefore appeal to   
him for protection4 ,but though any one 
of them may so appeal1 it is apparently 
only in course of time that individual  
petitions of this kind come to be put up
 to the gods4 ,and the evidence of the  

cuneiform inscriptions is particularly  
interesting and instructive on the way  
in which this came about4  ,in the      
',maklu' tablets we find that the       
writers of the tablets are1 or          
anticipate that they may be1 the victims
 of spells4 ,the inscriptions themselves
 may be regarded1 and by some           
authorities are described1 as           
counter-charms or counter-spells4 ,they 
do in fact include1 though they cannot  
be said to consist of1 counter-spells4  
,their typical feature is that they     
include some such phrase as1 ',whoever  
thou art1 ,o witch1 ,i bind thy hands   
behind thee1' or ',may the magic thou   
hast made recoil upon thyself4' ,if the 
victim is being turned yellow by        
sickness1 the counter-spell is ',o      
witch1 like the circlet of this seal1   
may thy face grow yellow and green4'    
,the ceremonies with which these        
counter-spells were performed are       
indicated by the words1 and they are    
ceremonies of the same kind as those    

with which spells are performed3 they   
are symbolic actions1 that is to say1   
actions which express by gesture the    
same meaning and intention as are       
expressed by the words4 ,thus1 from the 
words3      ',as the water trickleth    
away from his body     ,so may the      
pestilence in his body trickle away1'   
it is obvious that this counter-spell   
accompanied a ceremonial rite of the    
kind indicated by the words4 ,as an     
image of the person to be bewitched was 
used by the workers of magic1 so an     
image of her 'who hath bewitched me' is 
used by the worker of the counter-spell1
 with the words3      ',may her spell be
 wrecked1 and upon her     ,and upon her
 image may it recoil4'  ,if1 now1 such  
words1 and the symbolical actions which 
are described and implied1 were all that
 these ,maklu tablets contained1 it     
might be argued that these              
counter-spells were pure pieces of      
magic4 ,the argument would not indeed be
 conclusive1 because though the         

sentences are in the optative mood1     
there would be nothing to show on what1 
or on whom1 the speaker relied for the  
fulfilment of his wish4 ,but as it      
happens1 it is characteristic of these  
,maklu tablets that they are all        
addressed to the gods by name1 e4g4     
',may the great gods remove the spell   
from my body1' or ',o flaming ,fire-god1
 mighty son of ,anu6 judge thou my case 
and grant me a decision6 ,burn up the   
sorcerers and sorceress6' ,it is the    
gods that are prayed to that the word of
 the sorceress 'shall turn back to her  
own mouth2 may the gods of might smite  
her in her magic2 may the magic which   
she has worked be crumbled like salt4'  
,thus these ,maklu petitions are not    
counter-spells1 as at first sight they  
may appear2 nor are they properly to be 
treated as being themselves spells for  
the purpose of counteracting magic4     
,they are in form and in fact prayers to
 the gods 'to undo the spell' and 'to   
force back the words' of the witch into 

her own mouth4 ,but though in the form  
in which these ,maklu petitions are     
preserved to us1 they appear as prayers 
to the gods1 and not as spells1 or      
counter-spells2 it is true1 and         
important to notice1 that1 in some      
cases1 the sentences in the optative    
mood seem quite detachable from the     
invocation of the gods4 ,those sentences
 may apparently have stood1 at one time1
 quite well by themselves1 and apart    
from any invocation of the gods2 that is
 to say1 they may originally have been  
spells or counter-spells1 and only      
subsequently have been incorporated into
 prayers addressed to the gods4  ,let us
 then assume that this was the case with
 some of these ,maklu petitions1 and let
 us consider what is implied when we    
make the assumption4 ,what is implied is
 that there are some wishes1 for        
instance those embodied in these ,maklu 
petitions1 which may be realised by     
means of spells1 or may quite           
appropriately be preferred to the gods  

of the community4 ,such are wishes for  
the well-being of the individual        
worshipper and for the defeat of        
evil-doers who would do or are doing him
 wrong4 ,when it is recognised that     
individuals--as well as the             
community--may come with their plaints  
before the gods of the community1 the   
functions of those gods become enlarged1
 for they are extended to include the   
protection of individual members of the 
community1 as well as the protection of 
the community1 as such2 and the         
functions of the community's gods are   
thus extended and enlarged1 because the 
members of the community have become1 in
 some degree1 individuals conscious of  
their individuality4 ,the importance1   
for the science of religion1 of this    
development of self-consciousness is    
that the consciousness of self must be  
realised before self can consciously be 
abandoned1 that is before self-will can 
be consciously surrendered4  ,as is     
shown by the ,maklu petitions1 there may

 come1 in the course of the evolution of
 religion1 a stage in which it is       
recognised that the individual          
worshipper may petition the gods for    
deliverance from the evil which afflicts
 them4 ,and the petitions used appear in
 some cases1 as we have seen1 to have   
been adopted into the ritual of the     
gods1 word for word as they were found  
already in existence4 ,if then they     
were1 both in the words in which they   
were expressed1 and in the purpose which
 they sought to achieve1 such that they 
could be taken up1 as they were and     
without change1 into the ritual of the  
community's gods1 it would seem that1   
even before they were so taken up1 they 
could not have been wholly1 if at all1  
alien to the spirit of religion4 ,what  
marks them as religious1 in the         
cuneiform inscriptions1 is their        
context3 it shows that the power1 relied
 on for the accomplishment of the       
desires expressed in these petitions1   
was the power of the gods4 ,remove the  

context1 and it becomes a matter of     
ambiguity1 whether the wish is supposed1
 by those who utter it1 to depend for   
its realisation on some power1 possessed
 and exercised by those who express the 
wish1 or whether it is supposed to      
depend on the good will of some being   
vaguely conceived1 and not addressed by 
name4 ,but if eventually the wish1 and  
the words in which it was expressed1 are
 taken up into the worship of the gods1 
there seems a balance of probability    
that the wish was from the beginning    
rather in the nature of religion than of
 magic1 rather a petition than a        
command2 though the categories were not 
at first discriminated1 and there was at
 first no clear vision of the quarter   
from which fulfilment of the wish was   
hoped for4  ,from this point of view1   
optative sentences1 sentences which     
express the wishes of him who pronounces
 them1 may1 in the beginning1 well have 
been ambiguous1 because there was1 in   
the minds of those who uttered them1 no 

clear conception of the quarter to which
 they were addressed3 the idea of ,god  
may have been vague to the extreme of   
vagueness4 ,some of these optative      
sentences however1 were such that the   
community as a whole could join in them2
 and they were potentially1 and became  
actually1 prayers to the god of the     
community4 ,the being to whom the       
community1 as a whole1 could pray1 was  
thereby displayed as the god of the     
community4 ,the idea of ,god became1 so 
far1 somewhat less vague1 somewhat more 
sharply defined4 ,optative sentences1   
however1 in which the community could   
not join1 in which no one but the person
 who framed them could take part1 could 
not be addressed to the god of the      
community4 ,the idea of ,god thus was   
defined negatively3 there were wishes   
which could not be communicated to      
him--those which were repugnant to the  
well-being of the community4  ,the      
prayers of savages1 that is of the men  
who are probably still nearest to the   

circumstances and condition of primitive
 man1 furnish the material from which we
 can best infer what was the idea of    
,god which was present in their         
consciousness at those moments when it  
was most vividly present to them4 ,in   
view of the infinite number and variety 
of the forms of religion and religious  
belief1 nothing would seem1 a priori1   
more reasonable than to expect an       
equally infinite number of various and  
contradictory ideas4 ,especially should 
this seem a reasonable expectation to   
those who consider the idea of ,god to  
be fundamentally1 and of its very       
nature1 impossible and untenable4 ,and  
so long as we look at the attempts which
 have been made1 by means of reflection 
upon the idea1 to body it forth1 we have
 the evidence of all the mythologies to 
show the infinite variety of            
monstrosities1 which reflection on the  
idea has been capable of producing4 ,if 
then we stop there1 our a priori        
expectation of savage and irrational    

inconsistency is fulfilled to abundance 
and to loathsome excess4 ,but to stop   
there is to stop short1 and to accept   
the speculations of the savage when he  
is reflecting on his experience1 instead
 of pushing forward to discover for     
ourselves1 if we may1 what his          
experience actually was4 ,to discover   
that1 we cannot be content to pause for 
ever on his reflections4 ,we must push  
back to the moment of his experience1   
that is to the moments when he is in the
 presence of his gods and is addressing 
them4 ,those are the moments in which he
 prays and in which he has no doubt that
 he is in communion with his gods4 ,it  
is1 then1 from his prayers that we must 
seek to infer what idea he has of the   
gods to whom he prays4  ,when1 however1 
we take his prayers as the evidence from
 which to infer his idea of ,god1       
instead of the luxuriant overgrowth of  
speculative mythology1 we find          
everywhere a bare simplicity1 and       
everywhere substantial identity4 ,if    

this is contrary to our expectation and 
at first seems strange1 let us bear in  
mind that the science of morals offers a
 parallel1 in this respect1 to the      
science of religion4 ,at one time it    
was1 unconsciously but none the less    
decidedly1 assumed that savages had a   
multiplicity of irrational and          
disgusting customs but no morals4 ,the  
idea that there could be a substantial  
identity between the moral rules of     
different savage races1 and even between
 their moral rules and ours1 was an idea
 that simply was not entertained4       
,nevertheless1 it was a fact1 though    
unnoticed2 and now it is a fact which1  
thanks to ,dr ,westermarck1 is placed   
beyond dispute4 ',when1' he says1 'we   
examine the moral rules of uncivilised  
races we find that they in a very large 
measure resemble those prevalent among  
nations of culture4' ,the human spirit  
throughout the process of its evolution 
is1 in truth1 one2 the underlying unity 
which manifests itself throughout the   

evolution of morality is to be found    
also in the evolution of religion2 and  
it is from the prayers of man that we   
can infer it4  ,the first and           
fundamental article of belief implied by
 the offering of prayers is that the    
being to whom they are offered--however 
vaguely he may be conceived--is believed
 to be accessible to man4 ,man's cry can
 reach ,him4 ,not only does it reach    
,him but1 it is believed1 ,he will      
listen to it2 and it is of ,his very    
nature that ,he is disposed to listen   
favourably to it4 ,but1 though ,he will 
listen1 it is only to prayers offered in
 the right spirit that ,he will listen4 
,the earliest prayers offered are in all
 probability those which the community  
sends up in time of trouble2 and they   
must be offered in the spirit of        
repentance4 ,it is with the conviction  
that they have offended that the        
community first turns to the being      
worshipped1 by whom they hope to be     
delivered from the evil which is upon   

them1 and by whom they pray to be       
forgiven4  ,next1 the offering of prayer
 implies the belief that the being      
addressed1 not merely understands the   
prayers offered1 but has the power to   
grant them4 ,as having not only the     
power1 but also the will so to do1 he is
 approached not only with fear but also 
with hope4 ,no approach would or could  
be made1 if nothing could be hoped from 
it2 and nothing could be hoped1 unless  
the being approached were believed to   
have the power to grant the prayer4 ,the
 very fact that approach is made shows  
that the being is at the moment believed
 to be one with whom it rests to grant  
or refuse the supplication1 one than    
whom no other is1 in this respect at    
least1 more powerful1 quo nihil maius4  
,but prayers offered in time of trouble1
 though they be1 or if they be1 the     
earliest1 are not the only prayers that 
are offered by early man4 ,man's wishes 
are not1 and never were1 limited3 escape
 from calamity is not1 and never has    

been1 the only thing for which man is   
capable of wishing4 ,it certainly is not
 the only thing for which he has been   
capable of praying4 ,even early man     
wishes for material blessings3 the      
kindly fruits of the earth and his daily
 food are things for which he not only  
works but also prays4 ,the negro on the 
,gold ,coast prays for his daily rice   
and yams1 the ,zulu for cattle and for  
corn1 the ,samoan for abundant food1 the
 ,finno-,ugrian for rain to make his    
crops grow2 the ,peruvian prayed for    
health and prosperity4 ,and when man has
 attained his wish1 when his prayers    
have been granted1 he does not always   
forget to render thanks to the god who  
listened to his prayer4 ',thank you1    
gods'2 says the ,basuto1 'give us bread 
to-morrow also4'  ,whether the prayer be
 for food1 or for deliverance from      
calamity1 the natural tendency is for   
gratitude and thanks to follow1 when the
 prayer has been fulfilled2 and the     
mental attitude1 or mood of feeling1 is 

then no longer one of hope or fear1 but 
of thankfulness and praise4 ,it is in   
its essence1 potentially and1 to varying
 degrees1 actually1 the mood of         
veneration and adoration4      ',my lips
 shall praise thee1     ,so will ,i     
bless thee while ,i live3     ,i will   
lift up my hands in thy name1     ,and  
my mouth shall praise thee with joyful  
lips4'  ,from the prayers that are      
offered in early1 if not primitive1     
religions we may draw with safety some  
conclusions as to the idea1 which the   
worshippers had before their minds1 of  
the being to whom they believed they had
 access in prayer4 ,he was a being      
accessible in prayer2 and he had it in  
his power1 and1 if properly approached1 
in his will1 to deliver the community   
from material and external evils4 ,the  
spirit in which he was to be properly   
approached was one of confession and    
repentance of offences committed against
 him3 the calamities which fell upon the
 community were conceived to have fallen

 justly4 ,he was not conceived to be    
offended without a cause4 ,doubtless the
 causes of offence1 like the punishments
 with which they were visited1 were     
external and visible1 in the sense that 
they could be discovered and made plain 
to all who were concerned to recognise  
them4 ,the offences were actions which  
not only provoked the wrath of the god1 
but were condemned by the community4    
,they included offences which were      
purely formal and external2 and1 in the 
case of some peoples1 the number of such
 offences probably increased rather than
 diminished as time went on4 ,the ,surpu
 tablets of the cuneiform inscriptions1 
which are directed towards the removal  
of the mamit1 the ban or taboo1         
consequent upon such offences1 are an   
example of this4 ,adultery1 murder and  
theft are included amongst the offences1
 but the tablets include hundreds of    
other offences1 which are purely        
ceremonial1 and which probably took a   
long time to reach the luxuriant growth 

they have attained in the tablets4 ,for 
ceremonial offences a ceremonial        
purification was felt to suffice4 ,but  
there were others which1 as the         
,babylonian ,penitential ,psalms        
testify1 were felt to go deeper and to  
be sins1 personal sins of the worshipper
 against his ,god4 ,the penitent        
exclaims3      ',lord1 my sins are many1
 great are my misdeeds4'  ,the spirit1  
in which he approaches his ,god1 is     
expressed in the words3      ',i thy    
servant1 full of sighs1 call upon thee4 
,like the doves do ,i moan1 ,i am       
o'ercome with sighing1     ,with        
lamentation and groaning my spirit is   
downcast4'  ,his prayer is that his     
trespasses may be forgiven3      ',rend 
my sins1 like a garment6     ,my ,god1  
my sins are unto seven times seven4     
,forgive my iniquities4'  ,and his hope 
is in ,god3      ',oh1 ,lord1 thy       
servant1 cast him not away1     ,the    
sins which ,i have committed1 transform 
by thy grace6'  ,the attitude of mind1  

the relation in which the worshipper    
finds himself to stand towards his ,god1
 is the same as that revealed in the    
,psalm of ,david3      ',wash me        
throughly from mine iniquity1     ,and  
cleanse me from my sin4     ,for ,i     
acknowledge my transgressions3     ,and 
my sin is ever before me4     ,against  
thee1 thee only1 have ,i sinned4        
,cast me not away from thy presence4'   
,the earliest prayers offered by any    
community probably were1 as we have     
already seen1 those which were sent up  
in time of trouble and inspired by the  
conviction that the community's god had 
been justly offended4 ,the psalms1 from 
which quotations have just been given1  
show the same idea of ,god1 conceived to
 have been justly offended by the       
transgressions of his servants4 ,the    
difference between them is that1 in the 
later prayers1 the individual           
self-consciousness has come to realise  
that the individual as well as the      
community exists2 that the individual1  

as well as the community1 is guilty of  
trespasses2 and that the individual1 as 
well as the community1 needs            
forgiveness4 ,that is to say1 the idea  
of ,god has taken more definite shape3  
,god has been revealed to the individual
 worshipper to be ',my ,god'2 the       
worshipper to be ',thy servant'2 and    
what is feared is not merely that the   
worshipper should be excluded from the  
community1 but that he should be cast   
away from communion with ,god4 ,the     
communion1 aspired to1 is however still 
such communion as may exist between a   
servant and his master4  ,material and  
external blessings1 further1 are1       
together with deliverance from material 
and external evil1 still the principal  
subjects of prayer in the ,psalms both  
of the ,old ,testament and of the       
cuneiform inscriptions2 and1 so far as  
this is the case1 the worshipper's      
prayer is that his individual will may  
be done1 and it is because he has       
received material and external          

blessings1 because his will has been    
done1 that his joyful lips praise and   
bless the ,lord4 ,that is to say1 the   
idea of ,god1 implied by such prayer and
 praise1 is that ,he is a being who may 
help man to the fulfilment of man's     
desires and to the realisation of man's 
will4 ,the assumption required to       
justify this conception is that in man1 
man's will alone is operative1 and never
 ,god's4 ,this assumption has its       
analogy in the fact1 already noticed1   
that in the beginning the individual is 
not self-conscious1 or aware of the     
individuality of his own existence4     
,when the individual's                  
self-consciousness is thus but little1  
if at all1 manifested1 it is the        
community1 as a community1 which        
approaches its god and is felt to be    
responsible for the transgressions which
 have offended him4 ,as                 
self-consciousness comes to manifest    
itself1 more and more1 the sense of     
personal transgression and individual   

responsibility becomes more and more    
strong4 ,if now we suppose that at this 
point the evolution1 or unfolding1 of   
the self ceases1 and that the whole of  
its contents is now revealed1 we shall  
hold that1 in man1 man's will alone can 
operate1 and never ,god's4 ,it is indeed
 at this point that non-,christian      
religions stop1 if they get so far4 ,the
 idea of ,god as a being whose will is  
to be done1 and not man's1 is a         
distinctively ,christian idea4  ,the    
petition1 which1 as far as the science  
of religion enables us to judge1 was the
 first petition made by man1 was for    
deliverance from evil4 ,the next1 in    
historical order1 was for forgiveness of
 sins2 and1 then1 when society had come 
to be settled on an agricultural basis  
and dependent on the harvest1 prayer was
 offered for daily bread4 ,in the       
,lord's ,prayer1 the order of these     
petitions is exactly reversed4 ,a fresh 
basis1 or premiss1 for them1 is         
supplied4 ,they are still petitions     

proper to put forward1 if put forward in
 the consciousness of a fact1 hitherto  
not revealed--that man may do not his   
own will but the will of ,our ,father1  
who is in heaven4  ,prayer is thus1 at  
the end1 what it was at the beginning1  
the prayer of a community4 ,but whereas 
at the beginning the community was the  
narrow and exclusive community of the   
family or tribe1 at the end it is a     
community which may include all mankind4
 ,thus1 the idea of ,god has increased  
in its extension4 ,in its intension1 so 
to speak1 it has deepened3 ,god is      
disclosed not as the master and king of 
his subjects and servants1 but as the   
,father in heaven of his children on    
earth4 ,it has however not merely       
deepened1 it has been transformed1 or   
rather it is to be approached in a      
different mood1 and therefore is        
revealed in a new aspect3 whereas in the
 beginning the body of worshippers1     
whether it approached its god with      
prayer for deliverance from calamities  

or for material blessings1 approached   
him in order that their desires might be
 fulfilled2 in the end the worshipper is
 taught that approach is possible only  
on renunciation of his own desires and  
on acceptance of ,god's will4 ,the      
centre of religion is transposed3 it is 
no longer man and his desires round     
which religion is to revolve4 ,the will 
of ,god is to be the centre1 to which   
man is no longer to gravitate           
unconsciously but to which he is        
deliberately to determine himself4 ,as  
in the solar system the force of gravity
 is but one1 so in the spiritual system 
that which holds all spiritual beings   
together is the love which proceeds from
 ,god to his creatures and may          
increasingly proceed from them to ,him4 
,it is the substitution of the love of  
,god for the desires of man which makes 
the new heaven and the new earth4  ,from
 the point of view of evolution the     
important fact is that this new aspect  
of the idea of ,god is not something    

merely superposed upon the old3 if it   
were simply superposed1 it would not be 
evolved4 ,neither is the disclosure1 to 
the soul1 of ,god as love1 evolved from 
the conception of ,him as the being from
 whom men may seek the fulfilment of    
their desires4 ,to interpret the process
 of religious evolution in this way     
would be to misinterpret it1 in exactly 
the same way as if we were to suppose   
that1 only when the evolution of        
vegetable life had been carried out to  
the full in all its forms1 did the      
evolution of animal life begin4 ,animals
 are not vegetables carried to a rather 
higher stage of evolution1 any more than
 vegetables are animals which have      
relapsed to a lower stage4 ,if then we  
are to apply the theory of evolution to 
spiritual life1 as well as to bodily    
life1 we must apply it in the same way4 
,we must regard the various forms1 in   
the one case as in the other1 as        
following different lines1 and tending  
in different directions from a common   

centre1 rather than as different and    
successive sections of one and the same 
line4 ,spell no more becomes prayer than
 vegetables become animals4 ,impelled by
 the force of calamity to look in one   
direction--that of deliverance from     
pestilence or famine--early man saw1 in 
the idea of ,god1 a refuge in time of   
trouble4 ,moved at a later time by the  
feeling of gratitude1 man found in the  
idea of ,god an object of veneration2   
and then interpreted his relation as    
that of a servant to his lord4          
,whichever way this interpretation was  
pushed--whether to mean that the servant
 was to do things pleasing to his lord1 
in order to gain the fulfilment of his  
own desires2 or to imply that his       
transgressions stood ever between him   
and his offended master--further advance
 in that direction was impossible4 ,a   
new direction1 and therefore a fresh    
point of departure1 was necessary4 ,it  
was forthcoming in the ,christian idea  
of ,god as the heavenly ,father4 ,that  

idea when revealed is seen to have been 
what was postulated but never attained  
by religion in its earlier stages4 ,the 
petitions for our daily bread1 for      
forgiveness of sins1 and for delivery   
from evil1 had as their basis1 in       
pre-,christian religions1 man's desire4 
,in ,christianity those petitions are   
preferred in the conviction that the    
making of them is in accordance with    
,god's will and the granting of them in 
accordance with ,his love2 and that     
conviction is a normative principle of  
prayer4     ,v  ,,the ,,idea ,,and      
,,being ,,of ,,god   ,men thought1 spoke
 and acted for long ages before they    
began to reflect on the ways in which   
they did so2 and1 when they did begin to
 reflect1 it was long before they       
discovered the principles on which they 
thought1 spoke and acted1 or recognised 
them as the principles on which man must
 speak1 if he is to speak intelligibly2 
on which1 as laws of thought1 he must   
think1 if he is to think correctly2 and 

on which1 as laws of morality1 he must  
act1 if he is to act as he should act4  
,but though many thousands of years     
elapsed before he recognised these laws1
 they were1 all the time1 the laws on   
which he had to think1 speak and act1   
and did actually think1 speak and act1  
so far as he did so correctly4 ,when1   
then1 we speak of the evolution of      
thought1 speech and action1 we cannot   
mean that the laws of thought1 for      
instance1 were in the beginning         
different from what they are now1 and   
only gradually came to be what they are 
at present4 ,that would be just the same
 as saying that the law of gravitation  
did not operate in the way described by 
,newton until ,newton formulated the    
law4 ,the fact is that science has its  
evolution1 just as thought1 speech and  
action have4 ,man gradually and with    
much effort discovers laws of science1  
as he discovers the laws of thought1    
speech and action4 ,in neither case does
 he make the laws2 all that he does in  

either case is to come to recognise that
 they are there4 ,but the recognition is
 a process1 a slow process1 attended by 
many mistakes and set-backs4 ,and this  
slow process of the gradual recognition 
or discovery of fundamental laws1 or    
first principles1 is the process in     
which the evolution of science1 as well 
as the evolution of thought1 speech and 
action1 consists4 ,it is the process by 
which the laws that are at the bottom of
 man's thought1 speech and action1 and  
are fundamental to them1 tend to rise to
 the surface of consciousness4  ,it is  
in this same process that the evolution 
of religion consists4 ,it is the slow   
process1 the gradual recognition1 of the
 fundamental idea of religion--the idea 
of ,god--which tends to rise to the     
surface of the religious consciousness4 
,just as laws of thought1 speech and    
action are implied by the very          
conception of right thought or speech or
 action1 so the idea of ,god is implied 
by the mere conception of religion4 ,it 

is implied always2 it is implicit from  
the very beginning4 ,it is disclosed    
gradually and imperfectly4 ,the process 
of disclosure1 which is the evolution of
 the idea1 may1 in many instances1 be   
arrested at a stage of very early       
imperfection1 by causes which make      
further development in that direction   
impossible2 and then1 if further        
progress is to be made1 a fresh         
movement1 in a fresh direction must be  
made4 ,just as men do not always think  
correctly1 or act rightly1 though they  
tend1 in different degrees1 to do so2 so
 too1 in religion1 neither do they      
always move in the right direction1 even
 if they move at all4 ,they may even    
deteriorate1 at times1 in religion1 as1 
at times1 they deteriorate in morality4 
,but it is not necessary to infer from  
this undoubted fact that there are no   
principles of either morality or        
religion4 ,we are not led to deny the   
existence of the laws of logic or of    
grammar1 because they are frequently    

disregarded by ourselves and others4    
,the principles1 or rather some         
particular principle1 of morality may be
 absolutely misconceived by a community1
 at some stage of its history1 in such a
 way that actions of a certain kind are 
not condemned by it4 ,the inconsistency 
of judgment and feeling1 thus displayed1
 is not the less inconsistent because it
 is almost1 if not entirely1            
unconscious4 ,in the same way a         
community may fail to recognise a       
principle of religion1 or may           
misinterpret the idea of ,god2 still the
 fact that they misinterpret it is proof
 that they have it--if they had it not1 
they could not interpret it in different
 ways4 ,and the different               
interpretations are the different ways  
in which its evolution is carried       
forward4 ,its evolution is not in one   
continuous line1 but is radiative from  
one common centre1 and is dispersive4   
,that is the reason why the originators 
of religious movements1 and the founders

 of religions1 consider themselves to be
 restoring an old state of things1      
rather than initiating a new one2 to be 
returning to the old religion1 rather   
than starting a new religion4 ,but in   
point of fact they are not reverting to 
a bygone stage in the history of        
religion2 they are starting afresh from 
the fundamental principles of religion4 
,from the central idea of religion1 the 
idea of ,god1 they move in a direction  
different from any hitherto followed4   
,monotheism may in order of time follow 
upon polytheism1 but it is not          
polytheism under another name1 any more 
than prayer is spell under another name4
 ,it is something very different3 it is 
the negation of polytheism1 not another 
form of it4 ,it strikes at the roots of 
polytheism2 and it does so because it   
goes back not to polytheism but to that 
from which polytheism springs1 the idea 
of ,god2 and starts from it in a        
direction which leads to a very         
different manifestation of the idea of  

,god4 ,and if monotheism displaces      
polytheism1 it does so because it is    
found by experience to be the more      
faithful interpretation of that idea of 
,god which even the polytheist has in   
his soul4 ,in the same way1 and for the 
same reasons1 polytheism is not         
fetishism under another name4 ,the gods 
of a community are not the fetishes of  
individuals4 ,the difference between    
them is not a mere difference of name4  
,polytheism may1 or may not1 follow1 in 
order of time1 upon fetishism2 but      
polytheism is not merely a form of      
fetishism4 ,the two are different1 and  
largely inconsistent1 interpretations1  
or misinterpretations1 of the same      
fundamental idea of ,god4 ,they move in 
different directions1 and are felt by   
the communities in which they are found1
 to tend in the direction of very       
different ends--the one to the good of  
the community1 the other1 in its most   
characteristic manifestations1 to the   
injury of the community4 ,in fetishism  

and polytheism we see the radiative1    
dispersive1 force of evolution          
manifesting itself1 just as in          
polytheism and monotheism4 ,the         
different lines of evolution radiate in 
different directions1 but those lines1  
all point to a common centre of         
dispersion--the idea of ,god4 ,but      
fetishism1 polytheism and monotheism are
 not different and successive stages of 
one line of evolution1 following the    
same direction4 ,they are lines of      
different lengths1 moving in different  
directions1 though springing from a     
common centre--the soul of man4 ,it is  
because they have a common centre1 that 
man1 whichever line he has followed1 can
 fall back upon it and start afresh4    
,the fact that men fall victims to      
logical fallacies does not shake our    
faith in the validity of the principles 
of reason2 nor does the fact that false 
reasoning abounds the more1 the lower we
 descend in the scale of humanity1 lead 
us to believe that the principles of    

reason are invalid and non-existent     
there4 ,still less do we believe that1  
because immature minds reason often     
incorrectly1 therefore correct reasoning
 is for all men an impossibility and a  
contradiction in terms4 ,and these      
considerations apply in just the same   
way to the principles of religion and   
the idea of ,god1 as to the principles  
of reason4 ,yet we are sometimes invited
 to believe that the existence of       
religious fallacies1 or fallacious      
religions1 is of itself enough to prove 
that there is no validity in the        
principles of religion1 no reality in   
the idea of ,god2 that because the      
uncultured races of mankind are the     
victims of error in religion1 there is  
in religion no truth at all3 the        
religion of civilised mankind consists  
but of the errors of the savage         
disguised in civilised garb4 ,so far as 
this view is supposed to be the outcome 
of the study of the evolution of        
religion1 it is due probably to the     

conception of evolution from which it   
proceeds4 ,it proceeds on the assumption
 that the process of evolution exhibits 
the continuity of one and the same      
continuous line4 ,it ignores the        
radiative1 dispersive movement of       
evolution in different lines2 and       
overlooks the fact that new forms of    
religion are all re-births1             
renaissances1 and spring not from one   
another1 but from the soul of man1 in   
which is found the idea of ,god4 ,it    
further assumes not merely that there   
are errors but that there is no truth   
whatever in the lowest1 or the earliest1
 forms of religion2 and that therefore  
neither is there any truth in the       
highest4 ,but this assumption1 if       
applied to the principles of thought1   
speech or action1 would equally prove   
thought to be irrational1 speech        
unintelligible1 moral action absurd2 and
 evolution would be the process by which
 this fundamental irrationality1        
unintelligibility and absurdity was     

worked out4  ,either this is the        
conclusion1 or some means must be sought
 whereby to distinguish the evolution of
 religion from the evolution of thought1
 speech and morals1 and to show         
that--whereas in the case of the latter1
 evolution is the process in which the  
principles whereon man should think1    
speak and act1 tend to manifest         
themselves with increasing clearness--in
 the case of religion1 there is no such 
progressive revelation1 and no first    
principle1 or fundamental idea1 which   
all forms of religion seek to express4  
,but any attempt to show this is        
hopeless3 the science of religion is    
engaged throughout in ascertaining and  
comparing the ideas which the various   
races of men have had of their gods2 and
 in tracing the evolution of the idea of
 ,god4  ,the science of religion1       
however1 it may be said1 is concerned   
exclusively with the evolution1 and not 
in the least with the value or validity1
 of the idea4 ,but neither1 we must     

remember1 is it concerned to dispute its
 value or to deny its validity2 and no  
man can help drawing his own conclusions
 from the established fact that the idea
 is to be found wherever man is to be   
found4 ,if1 however1 by the idea of ,god
 we mean simply an intellectual idea1   
merely a verbal proposition1 we shall be
 in danger of drawing erroneous         
conclusions4 ,the historian of religion1
 in discussing the idea of ,god1 its    
manifestations and its evolution1 is    
bound to express himself in words1 and  
to reduce what he has to say to a series
 of verbal propositions4 ,nothing1      
therefore1 is more natural than to      
imagine that the idea of ,god is a      
verbal1 intellectual proposition2 and   
nothing is more misleading4 ,if we start
 from this misleading notion1 then1 as  
words are but words1 we may be led to   
imagine that the idea of ,god is nothing
 more or other than the words3 it is    
mere words4 ,if however this conclusion 
is1 for any reason1 displeasing to us1  

and if we stick to the premiss that the 
idea of ,god is a verbal proposition1   
then we shall naturally draw a          
distinction between the idea of ,god and
 the being of ,god2 and1 having thus    
fixed a great gulf between the idea and 
the being of ,god1 we shall be faced    
with the difficulty of crossing it4 ,we 
may then feel it to be not merely       
difficult but impossible to get         
logically to the other side of the gulf2
 that is to say1 we shall conclude that 
the being of ,god is an inference1 but  
an inference which never can be         
logically verified3 the inference may be
 a correct or an incorrect inference1   
but we cannot possibly know which it is4
 ,from the idea of ,god we can never    
logically infer ,his being4 ,since then 
no logic will carry us over the chasm we
 have fixed between the idea and the    
being of ,god1 if we are to cross it1 we
 must jump it3 we must take the leap of 
faith1 we must believe the passage      
possible1 just because it is impossible4

 ,and those who take the leap1 do land  
safely--we have their own testimony to  
that--as safely as1 in ,king ,lear1     
,gloucester leaps from the cliff of     
,dover2 and they well may      ',think  
that the clearest gods1 who make them   
honours     ,of men's impossibilities1  
have preserv'd them4'  ,but1 in         
,gloucester's case1 there was no cliff  
and no abyss2 and1 in our case1 it may  
be well to enquire whether the great    
gulf between the idea and the being of  
,god has any more reality than that down
 which ,gloucester1 precipitating1 flung
 himself4 ,the premiss1 that the idea of
 ,god is a mere verbal proposition1 may 
be a premiss as imaginary as that from  
which ,gloucester leaped4 ,if the idea  
of ,god is merely a proposition in      
words1 and if words are but words1 then 
the gulf between idea and being is real4
 ,if the being of ,god is an inference  
from the idea of ,god1 it is merely an  
inference1 and an inference of no       
logical value4 ,and the same remark     

holds equally true1 if we apply it to   
the case of any finite personal being3  
if the being of our neighbours were an  
inference from the idea we have formed  
of them1 it also would be an inference  
of no logical value4 ,but1 fortunately1 
their being does not depend on the idea 
we have formed of them3 it partially    
reveals itself to us in our idea of     
them1 and partially is obscured by it4  
,it is a fact of our experience1 or a   
fact experienced by us4 ,we interpret   
it1 and to some extent misinterpret it1 
as we do all other facts4 ,if this      
partly true1 and partly false1          
interpretation is what we mean by the   
word 'idea1' then it is the idea which  
is an inference from the being of our   
neighbour--an inference which can be    
checked by closer acquaintance--but we  
do not first have the idea of him1 and  
then wonder whether a being1            
corresponding more or less to the idea1 
exists4 ,if we had the idea of our      
fellow-beings first--before we had      

experience of them--if it were from the 
edge of the idea that we had to leap1 we
 might reasonably doubt whether to fling
 ourselves into such a logical1 or      
rather into such an illogical1 abyss4   
,but it is from their being as an       
experienced fact1 that we start2 and    
with the intention of constructing from 
it as logical an idea as lies within our
 power4 ,what is inference is not the   
being but the idea1 so far as the idea  
is thus constructed4  ,the idea1 thus   
constructed1 may be constructed         
correctly1 or incorrectly4 ,whether it  
is constructed correctly or incorrectly 
is determined by further experience4    
,what is important to notice is first   
that it is only by further experience1  
personal experience1 that we can        
determine how far the construction we   
have put upon it is or is not correct2  
and1 next1 that so far as the           
construction we have put upon it is     
correct1 that is to say is confirmed by 
actual experience1 it is thereby shown  

to be not inference--even though it was 
reached by a process of inference--but  
fact4 ,the process of inference may be  
compared to a path by which we struggle 
up the face of a cliff3 it is the path  
by which we get there1 but it is not the
 firm ground on which eventually we     
rest4 ,the path is not that which       
upholds the cliff2 nor is the inference 
that on which the being of ,god rests4  
,the being of ,god is not something     
inferred but something experienced4 ,it 
is by experience--the experience of     
ourselves or others--that we find out   
whether what by inference we were led to
 expect is really something of which we 
can--if we will--have experience4 ,and  
that which is experienced ceases1 the   
moment it is experienced1 to be         
inferential4 ,the experience is fact3   
the statement of it in words is truth4  
,but apart from the experience1 the     
words in which it is stated are but     
words2 and1 without the experience1 the 
words must remain for ever words and    

nothing more than words4  ,if then by   
the idea of ,god we mean the words1 in  
which it is 7inadequately7 stated1 and  
nothing more1 the idea of ,god is       
separated by an impassable gulf from the
 being of ,god4 ,further1 if we admit   
that the idea is1 by its very nature1   
and by the very facts of the case1      
essentially different from the being of 
,god1 then it is of little use to       
continue to maintain that the being of  
,god is a fact of human experience4 ,in 
that case1 the supposed fact of         
experience is reduced to something of   
which we neither have1 nor can have1 any
 idea1 or consciousness1 whatever4 ,it  
thereby ceases to be a fact of          
experience at all4 ,and it is precisely 
on this assumption that the being of    
,god is denied to be a fact of          
experience--the assumption that being   
and idea are separated from one another 
by an impassable gulf3 the idea we can  
be conscious of1 but of ,his being we   
can have no experience4 ,we must        

therefore ask not whether this gulf is  
impassable1 but whether it exists at    
all1 or is of the same imaginary nature 
as that to which ,gloucester was led by 
,edgar4  ,that there may be beings1 of  
whom we have no idea1 is a proposition  
which it is impossible to disprove4     
,such beings would be ex hypothesi no   
part of our experience2 and if ,god were
 such a being1 man would have no        
experience of ,him4 ,and1 having no     
experience of ,him1 man could have no   
idea of ,him4 ,but the experience man   
has1 of those beings whom he knows1 is  
an experience in which idea and being   
are given together4 ,even if in thought 
we attend to one rather than to the     
other of the two aspects1 the idea is   
still the idea of the being2 and the    
being is still the being of the idea4   
,so far from there being an impassable  
gulf between the two1 the two are       
inseparable1 in the moment of actual    
experience4 ,it is in moments of        
reflection that they appear separable   

and separate1 for the memory remains1   
when the actual experience has ceased4  
,we have then only to call the memory   
the idea1 and then the idea1 in this use
 of the word1 is as essentially         
different from that of which it is said 
to be the idea1 as the memory of a being
 or thing is from the being or thing    
itself4 ,if we put the memory into      
words1 and pronounce those words to     
another1 we communicate to him what we  
remember of our experience              
7modified--perhaps transmogrified--by   
our reflections upon it7 but we do not  
communicate the actual experience1      
simply because we cannot4 ,what we      
communicate may lead him to actual      
experience for himself2 but it is not   
itself the experience4 ,the memory may  
give rise1 in ourselves or in others to 
whom we communicate1 to expectation and 
anticipation2 and the expectation is the
 more likely to be realised1 the less   
the memory has been transmogrified by   
reflection4 ,but1 both the memory and   

the anticipation are clearly different  
from actual experience4 ,it is only when
 they are confused with one aspect of   
the actual experience--that which we    
have called the idea--that the idea is  
supposed to be detachable from the being
 of whom we have actual experience4 ,the
 idea is part of the experience2 the    
memory obviously is not4  ,if then it be
 said that the being of ,god is always  
an inference and is never anything more1
 the reply is that the being of anything
 whatever that is remembered or expected
 is1 in the moment of memory or of      
anticipation1 inferential2 but1 in the  
moment of actual experience1 it is not  
inferred--it is experienced4 ,and what  
is experienced is1 and from the         
beginning has always been1 in religions 
of the lower as well as of the higher   
culture1 at once the being and the idea 
of ,god4     ,,index   ,aaron1 #aa      
,adoration1 #ajh ff41 #abf1 #add        
,aeschylus1 #cg  ,aetiological myths1   
#ej1 #ec  ,africans1 #ei  ,allegory1 #dg

  ,animism1 #ag1 #ce1 #ej               
,anthropomorphism1 #ah ff41 #bg         
,anti-social character of fetishism1 #h1
 #ad  ,anu1 #acf  ,aristotle1 #aba      
,assyria1 #acd ff4  ,atonement1 #ed1 #ge
  ,australians1 #eg1 #eh1 #ei1 #hf-hi1  
#aac1 #aad  ,awe1 #bd  ,axe-heads1 #aa  
,aztecs1 #gg1 #gh1 #hh   ,babylonian    
psalms1 #ade  ,basutos1 #adc  ,being1   
and idea1 #afa ff4  ,bergson1 #abc1 #abe
  ,black-fellows1 #eg  ,bow1 and arrow1 
#db  ,bull-roarer1 #db                  
,burnt-offerings1 #gb   ,calamity1 #gc1 
#ig1 #ajc  ,ceres1 #hd  ,chicomecoatl1  
#hd  ,child 7the71 and the community1   
#a1 #ad  ,child 7the71 and              
self-consciousness1 #c  ,children1 their
 toys1 #da2   and tales1 #da2           
community of1 #db  ,chota ,nagpur1 #fc1 
#fd1 #fe1 #hc1 #he1 #hh  ,christ1 #ajj  
,christianity1 #ai1 #bf1 #eg1 #adh1 #aea
  ,commerce1 #fi  ,common consciousness1
 capable of emotion and purpose1 #b1 #c1
 #ad2   the source and the criterion of 
the individual's speech1 thought and    

action1 #b1 #c2   its attitude towards  
magic1 #i ff41 #ah2   and tales1 #ca2   
and mythology1 #cg1 #ch1 #dh  ,communion
 7,christian71 #gg  ,communion1 #aaj1   
#aaa1 #adg  ,corn-deities1 #hb ff4      
,counter-spells1 #acd ff4  ,covenant1   
the old and the new1 #ajj               
,covenant-theory1 #ib ff41 #ih ff4      
,cuneiform inscriptions1 #acd ff41 #adg 
,custom1 #da1 #db1 #ih   ,desire 7and   
prayer71 #aah ff4  ,desires1 of         
individual and community1 #g1 #h1 #i    
,digging-stick1 #dc  ,di indigites1     
#ea-ec1 #ef1 #eh1 #hc1 #hh  ,dionysius  
,thrax1 #aba  ,disease of language1 #cc1
 #cd  ,dog1 and master1 #be  ,do ut des1
 #fh   ,eating with the god1 #gd1 #gg1  
#ia  ,ecstasy1 #aaj  ,elijah1 #ac1 #aai 
,emotion1 #b1 #c1 #g1 #bc1 #ed1 #ee     
,emperor1 of ,japan1 #ic1 #ie           
,euripides1 #cg  ,europe1 #eg           
,evolution1 and revelation1 #bi1 #abb1  
#aej1 #aeb ff4  ,exodus1 #ic            
,expectation1 #afd  ,experience1 #dd1   
#afa ff4   ,faith1 #fb  ,fallacies1     

#abg1 #abh1 #aeg  ,fear1 #be1 #ajc      
,feast1 sacrificial1 #gd ff4  ,ferrier1 
#aba  ,fetishism1 #d-h1 #ac-ae1 #bj1    
#ba1 #bg1 #cj1 #ca1 #cf1 #abj1 #abc1    
#abf1   #abi-aca1 #aef  ,fiction1 #ca1  
#cb  ,finno-,ugrians1 #adc  ,fire-god1  
#acf  ,first-fruits1 #hj ff41 #ij1 #aae 
,folk-lore1 #eg  ,food-offerings1 #gb1  
#gh1 #hi  ,food-supply1 #ab1 #ac        
,foraminifera1 #abd  ,forms1 of speech  
and of religion1 #ajf                   
,gesture-language1 #ff1 #aad            
,gift-theory1 #fh ff41 #ie  ,gloucester1
 #afj  ,godhead1 unity of1 #bc2   a     
personal being1 #bf  ,gods1 #d-f1 #h1   
#ab1 #ad1 #af1 #ba1 #bb1 #be1 #bf1 #dd  
,gold-coast1 #adc  ,grammar1 #aba       
,gravitation1 #aec  ,greece1 #ajd1 #aaa 
,harvest-gods1 #id ff4                  
,harvest-offerings1 #aad1 #aae          
,harvest-rites1 #ha1 #he  ,hero1 of     
tales1 #cj2   of myths1 #ca  ,history of
 religion1 #bc1 #bg1 #bh1 #bi1 #cj      
,idea1 and being1 #afa ff4  ,idol1 and  
fetish1 #d1 #ac  ,iliad1 #da            

,imagination1 in tales and myths1 #di1  
#ej1 #ea  ,immorality1 of mythology1 #dg
  ,immortality1 #aje  ,individual 7the71
 #d1 #ad1 #acb ff4  ,indo-,europeans1   
#dg1 #dh  ,inference1 #afb ff4  ,israel1
 #ic1 #ajj  ,italy1 #ea1 #ef   ,japan1  
#ib ff4  ,jehovah1 #ic  ,jews1 #bf      
,king ,lear1 #aef ff4   ,language1 #aja1
 #ajb1 #ajf1 #ajg  ,law1 #aec ff4       
,locutius1 #eb  ,logic1 #aba  ,love1    
#bf1 #ajj1 #aje1 #aej   ,magic1 #h f41  
#i1 #aj1 #aa f41 #ab1 #ia1 #aaf1 #aai1  
#abj1 #abc1 #abe1 #acc ff4              
,maize-mother1 #gg1 #hh  ,maklu tablets1
 #acd ff4  ,mamit1 #ade  ,max ,mueller1 
#cc1 #cd  ,meal1 sacrificial1 #gd ff4   
,memory1 #afd  ,mexico1 #gg1 #gh1 #hh1  
#ia1 #aaj1 #aaa  ,miracles1 #aj ff4     
,monotheism1 #eh1 #fa1 #aee  ,moods1    
#aai  ,morality1 #ba1 #bb1 #be1 #bf1    
#da1 #dd-df1 #abe1 #ada ff41 #aed       
,moses1 #ic1 #aai  ,mysteries1 #ajd ff41
 #aaa  ,mysticism1 #aaj  ,myths1 #bj-bb1
 #cj ff41 #ci1 #dj1 #dc1 #dg1 #dh-eb1   
#ee-eh1 #fj   ,names1 #af1 #eb1 #eg1    

#fd1 #hb ff4  ,narratives1 and myths1   
#cc1 #dj1 #di1 #ea  ,negroes1 #ae       
,nursery-tales1 #da   ,obedience1 #ih1  
#ajj1 #aja  ,oblations1 #fe1 #ff1 #gc1  
#ig1 #ih  ,offerings1 #fg ff41 #he ff4  
,optative sentences1 #aci ff4  ,orbona1 
#eb  ,origin1 of gods and of mythology1 
#cd  ,ossipago1 #ea   ,penitential      
,psalms1 #ade1 #adg  ,personality1 #c1  
#d1 #aa1 #ag1 #bj1 #bh1 #bi1 #de1 #ed1  
#ee1 #hb1 #hc1 #hf  ,peruvians1 #adc    
,petitions1 #abf1 #abh1 #acj ff4        
,plague1 #eb  ,plato1 #ib               
,polydaemonism1 #af ff42   change to    
polytheism1 #ah1 #cj2   and mythology1  
#ca1 #cb  ,polytheism1 #d1 #g1 #af1 #ah1
 #bb1 #cj-cb1 #ce1 #cf1 #dj1 #fa1 #aee  
,possession1 #aaj  ,power1 man of1 #ab  
ff4  ,prayer1 #ajh ff4  ,priests1 #abj  
,principles1 #aba1 #abc1 #abh1 #aec ff4 
,prophet and magician1 #aj ff4          
,protoplasm1 #abd  ,psalms of ,david1   
#adf1 #adg   ,quietism1 #aab            
,rain-making1 #i1 #ab1 #ac1 #aai        
,reconciliation1 #ih  ,reflection1 #cc1 

#cf1 #ec-ef1 #fj1 #if  ,religion1 #h    
ff41 #ce1 #ci1 #ed-ef1 #ajd ff4         
,revelation1 #bi1 #eh  ,reverence1 #bd  
,ritual1 #ca1 #eg1 #fa-fc1 #aja ff41    
#aad  ,romans1 the1 #eb1 #ec            
,sacrifice1 #eb1 #fc1 #fd1 #fg ff41 #gb1
 #gc1 #gi ff41 #he1 #ig ff4  ,salvation1
 #aje  ,samoans1 #adc  ,search1 for     
,god1 #ei  ,seed-time1 #aae  ,self1 #c1 
#d1 #g1 #ajd1 #acb ff41 #acg1 #adh      
,self-renunciation1 #adi  ,shinto1 #ib  
ff4  ,sign 7of the cross71 #aaf  ,sin1  
#ajc1 #ajd1 #ade ff4  ,socrates1 #ee    
,sophocles1 #cg  ,species1 #hc ff41 #ia1
 #ib  ,speech1 #c1 #aba1 #aec ff4       
,spells1 #aae ff41 #acd ff41 #aej1 #aea 
,survivals1 #ch1 #ef1 #eg1 #eh1 #ei     
,taboo1 #ade  ,tales1 and myths1 #ca-cc1
 #di1 #ea  ,totems1 #hd ff4  ,tylor1    
,professor1 #ae   ,vagitanus1 #ea       
,vegetation-deities1 #ha ff4            
,veneration1 #aea  ,viriplaca1 #eb      
,water1 #ace  ,way of the ,gods1 #ib ff4
  ,western ,africa1 #h1 #ae  ,will1 of  
,god1 #adi ff4  ,wind1 spirits of1 #ic  

ff4  ,witches1 #acd ff4  ,worship1 #ai1 
#ee1 #eg1 #eh1 #fj-fc   ,xilonen1 #hd   
,zulus1 #adc     ,,cambridge3 ,,printed 
,,by ,,john ,,clay1 ,m4,a4 ,,at ,,the   
,,university ,,press4